When Simon Richardson drove into cyclist Michael Mullins at a junction in April 2026, the collision could have led to an investigation for a dangerous driving. What happened afterwards gave prosecutors a very different case to put before the jury. Mr Mullins, the headteacher of Stretford Grammar School, became trapped underneath Richardson’s car. The prosecution said Richardson knew he was there, stopped further along the route and tried to pull him free, then got back into the car and drove on. Mr Mullins was found alive but died at the scene. On 30 October 2026, a
jury at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court found Richardson guilty of his murder. Sentencing is due on 2 November. The facts are distressing, but they raise a question about the boundary between causing serious injury or death by dangerous driving and murder. How can an incident that begins as a road collision become a deliberate killing? The answer lies in what the driver did afterwards, what he knew when he did it, and whether that conduct contributed to the death.
Dangerous driving and its consequences
A driver commits an offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving if their dangerous driving kills or causes another person serious physical injury. Under
section 1 & 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the prosecution must prove that the driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to such a driver that it was dangerous. The prosecutor must also prove that death or serious injury resulted from the dangerous driving, there is no need to prove that the driver intended or foresaw that happening. We can say with a degree of confidence that had Mr Richardson stopped immediately after the crash there would have been a good chance he would have been charged with dangerous driving, possibly aggravated by death or serious injury depending on the consequences to Mr Mullins.
What makes a killing murder?
For murder, the prosecution must prove an unlawful killing and an intention to kill or cause really serious bodily harm. As the
Crown Prosecution Service explains, an intention to kill is not essential: an intention to cause really serious harm is enough. We often think of murder as a crime with a motive and it’s worth noting that the law requires intention not motive. A person might act through fear of getting in trouble – that is their motive – their intention must be to cause at least really serious injury. How then can we say that somebody driving a car who never set out to hurt anybody intentionally has formed the necessary intention for murder? The answer to that is that a jury can infer intention where death or really serious harm was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated the consequences of his actions.
What the prosecution said happened
According to the
Press Association’s report of the trial, Richardson’s passenger told the jury that following the collision with Mr Mullins she and Mr Richardson heard sounds from outside the car. Mr Richardson remarked, “he’s under the car” as he continued driving at speeds of up to 60MPH. The prosecution alleged that Richardson later stopped in a country lane and twice tried to pull Mr Mullins out. The car was then driven on, with Mr Mullins still trapped, before he was dislodged and driven over. Richardson denied murder. He said he did not realise Mr Mullins was underneath the car and denied getting out to try to free him. His account made his knowledge of what was happening a central issue for the jury to decide. On the prosecution’s account, getting out and attempting to pull Mr Mullins free was powerful evidence that Richardson knew where he was. Driving again with a living person trapped underneath provided the basis for the further inference that Richardson appreciated the virtually certain consequence that Mr Mullins would suffer devastatingly serious injuries if not death. The prosecution also relied on the way the car was driven afterwards and the fact that the majority of Mr Mullin’s injuries were caused by being dragged and crushed rather than by the initial collision.
What if the driver acted differently?
Consider a different case in which a driver hits a cyclist and drives away without knowing that the cyclist is caught underneath the car. The driver’s account would have to be tested against the physical evidence, what could be seen or heard, the vehicle’s movements and any witness accounts. If the necessary intention for murder could not be proved the driver could well still be guilty of causing serious injury or death by dangerous driving since there is no need to prove an intention to cause injury for those offences. Had Mr Richardson stopped immediately he realised the cyclist was trapped under his car and taken steps to prevent further injury then he may well have avoided a conviction for murder. An early and realistic analysis of the evidence is crucial to the proper preparation of a case involving disputed facts that go to the heart of what you knew and when you knew it. The sooner you take legal advice the better your chances of a successful outcome. If you or someone close to you is being investigated following a serious road collision, Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors can advise on the evidence, the possible charges and the next steps.
Contact us for confidential advice.
