The sentence of a “showboating” driver who was behind the wheel of his friend’s modified car when he hit and killed another man will not be referred for being unduly lenient as it is not part of the scheme.

Kristian Rawcliffe, 26, was driving his friend’s Renault Clio when he hit his victim Sion Chaisty in Pole Lane, Darwen, at around 6pm on June 26, 2021.

Mr Chaisty's family described him as a kind, considerate, and thoughtful brother, son and best friend, who "will never get to see the world".

A jury at Preston Crown Court was told how minutes before the fatal crash, Rawcliffe drove the Renault out of a nearby pub car park and aggressively away up Pole Lane, with one witness describing him as “showboating”.

Rawcliffe reached speeds of 48mph as he sped up the hill before turning around and driving back towards the pub, approaching roadworks and signage that indicated pedestrians may be in the road.

He reached speeds of 58mph on his way back to the pub, almost twice the speed limit of the road.

Mr Chaisty, 44, ran from his garden and into the road as the speeding car approached and was thrown high into the air as it hit him, landing on the pavement next to the car park.

He was treated at the scene by paramedics and a doctor from the North West Ambulance Service, but died in hospital the next day from the injuries sustained.

CCTV footage gathered during the investigation was played to the court, along with evidence provided by the Forensic Collision Investigation Unit.

It was heard that if Rawcliffe was travelling at the speed limit, it is likely the crash would not have happened.

Rawcliffe, of Amberwood Drive, Blackburn, was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving after the jury deemed that his driving was not dangerous.

He was instead convicted of causing death by careless driving, to which he had already pleaded guilty.

Rawcliffe was sentenced to 12 months in prison and banned from driving for two-and-a-half years. He then must take an extended re-test.

Last month, a member of the public referred Rawcliffe’s sentence to the Attorney General’s Office under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, where it was due to be reviewed before consideration given to whether there were grounds to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for being unduly lenient.

However, after consideration, it was found the offence was not part of the scope of the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme and will therefore not be referred.

If it had been part of the scheme and was referred, judges at the top court in the land would have heard the case and then made a judgment; either agreeing his sentence was unduly lenient, extending/changing the sentence, disagreeing and leaving the sentence the same, or they may even have refused to hear the case at all.