Image source, Family photoByRowenna HoskinBBC Wales
- Published20 minutes ago
A Romanian van driver jailed for killing a Team GB triathlete by driving into the back of her bike has lost an appeal against being deported.
Visile Barbu, 50 was delivering furniture to a driver in Calais when he hit Rebecca Comins’ bike in June 2022.
Barbu drove straight into the back of Comins rather than move into an empty lane of the dual carriageway. He was was found guilty of causing her death by dangerous driving following a five day trial.
At the hearing in Newport, immigration judge Ian Boyes said: “The nature of the offending is important. This was not an accident. It was not a slight misjudgement. It was committed using a vehicle which should not have been on the road.”
Comins, 52, was nine minutes into a cycling time trial on the A40 near Raglan, Monmouthshire, when Barbu tried to overtake.
He said he had seen her, but did not know why he hit her, claiming he would ask himself the question for his “whole life”.
When his van was examined following the crash it was found to be unfit for the road and its load overweight which would have increased the emergency breaking distances and ability to turn the wheel, according to a vehicle examiner.
Barbu moved to Britain in 2002 to become a pub chef at Old Pandy public house and eventually owned the pub. Barbu married a Romanian woman, Maria, in 2004 and had twins, who are now adults.
He filed an appeal to stop him from being deported, and said it would be “unduly harsh for both him and his family to relocate permanently to Romania, where he said he has no home or source of income.
He said he identified closely with British culture and traditions and regarded the UK as his permanent home.
His wife Maria said she would not relocate to Romania, and would be unable to cope without her husband.
On 7 September, Boyes said as Barbu’s children were adults and do not depend on him, it would not be “unduly harsh” to remove him.
He said “the very significant public interest in deportation outweighs the appellant’s private and family life considerations.”