Teen driver, 17, had only passed his test day before killing friend in crash after doing 'doughnuts' in car park
A teenager who killed his friend in a crash while doing 'doughnuts' had only just passed his driving test the day before.
Josh Atkins, 17, died after the car he was a passenger in crashed in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, back in November 2023.
A court heard Corey Owen Cooper, then also 17, had only just passed his test the day before he crashed his grandfather's Fiat Grand Punto.
The teenager had done 'doughnuts' in a car park before the crash took place, and sped between 47mph and 53mph on 20mph roads nearby.
Cooper pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and to seriously injuring another passenger at Sheffield Crown Court on Monday.
Judge Jeremy Richardson KC released Cooper on bail and he will be sentenced on November 7.
The judge said: 'It is almost - as night follows day - that you will be sent into custody. The only issue for me to determine is for how long.
'There's also the question of disqualification. In the interim, I will disqualify you from driving - that's to say you are not permitted by law to drive on public roads.
Corey Owen Cooper pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and to seriously injuring another passenger at Sheffield Crown Court (pictured) on Monday
'You are released on unconditional bail. You must not read anything into the fact I'm ordering a pre-sentence report - or the fact you are on bail.
'The likelihood is in fact almost an inevitability that you will be taken into custody. You have to prepare yourself for that.'
Prosecutor Ian West told the court Cooper only passed his driving test 24 hours previously before causing the crash on November 11, 2023.
Mr West said: 'He had driven the vehicle the day before, it belonged to his grandfather.'
Barristers representing Cooper, now aged 19, are set to submit a basis of plea over the next week, which is understood to relate to Cooper's failure to note an error message relating to the vehicle's 'faulty ABS braking system'.
Following Josh's death, the family said his organs were donated to four people.
Scores of Josh's loved ones came together at Hillsborough Park, in Sheffield, for a memorial walk last November, while raising money for charity.
Speaking at the time, Josh's auntie, Claire Chapman, said: 'It was a great afternoon, even with the rain. We all loved to see to see so many of Josh's friends turn out for him.
'I think it was a day of remembrance and reflection rather than sadness.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Bhim Kohli's teenage killer will not have his seven-year sentence extended
A teenage boy who killed elderly dog walker Bhim Kohli in a park will not have his sentence for manslaughter changed, despite a review by the Court of Appeal. Mr Kohli, 80, was punched and kicked, slapped in the face with a shoe and racially abused in an attack in Franklin Park, Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on September 1 last year, and died the next day. The 15-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years' custody in June. The Solicitor General (SG), Lucy Rigby, referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At a hearing on Wednesday, Lady Justice Macur, sitting alongside Mrs Justice Cutts and Mr Justice Murray, ruled that the boy's sentence was neither unduly lenient nor manifestly excessive. She said: 'We consider that the judge conscientiously executed the necessary sentencing exercise and conveyed his remarks to offender and co-defendant with great skill. 'We do not find that the sentence was unduly lenient.' Of the attempt to reduce the sentence, she said: 'The sentence was a very significant sentence and necessarily so. 'It is entirely warranted by the seriousness of the offence. It is unarguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive.' Paul Jarvis KC, for the SG, said that although the sentencing judge did not identify a high risk of death, he did say there was a high risk of very serious harm. He added: 'We say, if not unduly lenient, most certainly not manifestly excessive.' Balraj Bhatia KC, for the boy, told the court that Mr Kohli's frailty meant 'little or no force was required' to kill him. He said: 'Sadly, the vulnerability of the deceased's neck was such that had he spent a day on his beloved allotment and fallen accidentally, the result would have been the same.' The boy was convicted after a six-week trial in June at Leicester Crown Court, alongside a 13-year-old girl who also cannot be named. She encouraged the attack by filming parts of it while laughing, with video clips showing the balaclava-clad boy hitting Mr Kohli with a shoe. Another clip showed Mr Kohli lying on the ground motionless. The girl took a photograph of Mr Kohli on her phone the week before the alleged incident, but denied she used this to 'target' him, the trial heard. Police also recovered a video from her phone of a group of children 'confronting' an unknown man on a separate occasion, who was hit to the back of the head and called a 'Paki bastard' while she was heard laughing. The girl was sentenced to a three-year youth rehabilitation order by Mr Justice Turner, and her sentence was not referred to the Court of Appeal. Mr Kohli's children found him lying on the ground in agony, and he told his daughter he had been called a 'Paki' during the attack, the court heard during the trial. Jurors also heard the boy say in his evidence that he had a 'tussle' with Mr Kohli over his slider shoe before he slapped the elderly man with it out of 'instinct', which caused the pensioner to fall to his knees, but he denied kicking or punching him. In a letter written by the boy to a woman who had worked with him at the residential unit where he was being looked after, he wrote: 'I f****** hate what I did. I regret it so much. 'I have flashbacks of that day and it just upsets me. I kinda just needed anger etc releasing.'
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rail bosses given ‘criminal offence' warning over fare dodger prosecutions
Train company bosses have been warned by the Government they could be breaking the law if they allow unqualified staff to prosecute alleged fare dodgers. A Department for Transport memo sent to operators states it is a 'criminal offence' to let non-lawyers act as prosecutors in court cases with passengers accused of not buying the correct ticket. The use of these lay prosecutors in those circumstances is not legal, the advice warns. There have been a series of high-profile cases in which passengers faced prosecution over small amounts of money. In one example, a passenger was threatened with court action for accidentally selecting a 16-25 railcard ticket when they held a 26-30 railcard, which provides the same discount. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has written to train operators stating that 'any enforcement must be proportionate and not punish those making genuine mistakes'. She added: 'It is your responsibility to ensure that you are adequately protecting revenue in a cost effective but lawful way.' The Cabinet minister said she accepted the recommendations of regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), which included creating consistency in how passengers are treated when ticket issues arise, and ensuring passengers have clearer information about tickets. Industry body the Rail Delivery Group has estimated that fare dodging creates £350 million to £400 million in lost revenue each year. A Government source said: 'Fare evasion costs the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds a year and dents confidence in our railway, so we're dead serious about tackling it. 'But enforcement must be proportionate. We can't have operators going after an older person faced with an incomprehensible system, or a student who has made an honest mistake. 'We're asking train companies to make sure they are prosecuting fare dodgers properly the first time. 'We'll set out our full response to the ORR report in due course, and Great British Railways will simplify fares and ticketing – restoring a railway the public can be proud of again.' The Government is bringing operators into public ownership as contracts expire. GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Next Palestine Action protest aims to sign up 1,000 people
The next mass protest in support of the banned group Palestine Action will aim to be twice the size of the last, organisers have said, as they increase pressure on the government to lift its proscription. Last Saturday's protest in Parliament Square was predicated on 500 people signing up but the next one, announced on Wednesday for 6 September, is conditional on 1,000 people agreeing to take part. Defend Our Juries, the pressure group behind the protests opposing the proscription of Palestine Action, said it believed a turnout of 1,000 would be enough to get the ban lifted. A total of 532 people were arrested at Saturday's demonstration, all but 10 under section 13 of the Terrorism Act for carrying placards saying: 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' The number of people arrested for peaceful protests, their age profile – half of those arrested were 60 or older – and the strain it is putting on the criminal justice system have led many to question the ban. A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'With all the real challenges facing the country, it's crazy that the Labour government has generated a political crisis over people quietly holding cardboard signs against genocide in Parliament Square. This won't be forgotten.' After the weekend's arrests, Downing Street and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said the protesters did not know about the group's violent tendencies. In response, Defend Our Juries and the Palestine Action co-founder, Huda Ammori, pointed to intelligence assessments released in Ammori's continuing legal battle fighting proscription that they said contradicted the claims. The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), a government body based within MI5, produced a report on 7 March that said the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. A separate assessment by the Proscription Review Group (PRG) said a ban would be 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property'. Nevertheless, the JTAC and PRG recommended proscription. References to violence by Downing Street and Cooper are understood to refer to an allegation of assault against a single person associated with Palestine Action, which they deny and relates to live proceedings so cannot be discussed fully because of the risk of contempt of court. The Defend Our Juries spokesperson suggested that even if the allegation were proved that would not make the whole organisation terrorist, adding: 'When the Labour MP, Mike Amesbury, assaulted his constituent, no one suggested that that made the Labour party a terrorist organisation.' They continued: 'The public response to our protests has been overwhelming. Despite (or because of) the legal risks, the government has turned an arrest for terrorism into a badge of honour for resistance to genocide. We have been inundated with offers of support from all quarters … The protest will go ahead as long as at least 1,000 people commit to taking part. That could well be enough for the ban to be lifted. If 5,000 people show up, we're certain the ban will be gone, and with it, most likely, Yvette Cooper.' The former cabinet minister, Peter Hain, has said the UK government is 'digging itself into a hole' over Palestine Action and that fellow Labour peers and MPs were regretting voting to ban the group. Lord Hain, who opposed proscription and was a leader of the anti-apartheid movement, said equating the likes of retired magistrates and serving doctors with al-Qaida was 'absolutely wrong' and would 'end in tears for the government'.
