THE victim of a bride-to-be’s fury has hit out after she was spared jail despite driving down a motorway with her fiance clinging on to the bonnet for 3.5 miles.
Clive Gibbs was left with numerous injuries and needing counselling after Shelly Bertram snapped in a row and drove the Range Rover he bought for a wedding gift.
Now Clive has spoken out to criticise the suspended jail term she was given at Portsmouth Crown Court.
It comes after a bid to have the sentence reviewed was turned down by the Attorney General’s Office.
Writing to the office Mr Gibbs said: ‘I am disgusted with the judge’s decision against Shelly Bertram.
‘Shelly conned the judge just as she did me.
‘If I committed such a crime I’d be in prison.’
As reported, Bertram swerved, braked hard and drove on the A3M as she tried to shake off Clive Gibbs in an incident branded ‘insane’ by the judge.
Clive suffered cuts and bruises to his head, legs and arms, and at one point his feet were dragged along as she ignored his screams for her to stop.
The businesswoman, who runs a cleaning firm, flew into a rage just two weeks before their wedding after a night out when she spotted Clive, 48, smoking indoors.
As Clive tried to stop her drink-driving from their home in High Trees, Waterlooville, he jumped on the bonnet but she ‘floored it’ down to London Road and up the A3M until he jumped off at the slip road at junction 2 for Horndean.
She was ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work, banned her from driving for 18 months with an extended retest, and gave her an 18-month suspended jail term.
Mum-of-two Bertram admitted dangerous driving, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and drink-driving on the first day of her trial last month.
Clive has referred the sentence to the unduly lenient scheme run by the Attorney General, who can review sentences for certain types of offence.
But a spokeswoman said: ‘The offence for which Shelly Bertram was sentenced is not an offence to which the scheme applies. It is therefore not possible for the Law Officers to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for review.’