A motorist who deliberately ran down and killed a young cyclist after hounding him over a drugs debt has failed to convince top judges his trial was unfair.
Karl Herbert, 25, was jailed for life at Leicester Crown Court in December 2011 after he was convicted of murdering Adrian Bridgeman.
The 25-year-old was struck down by Herbert's van while trying to get away on his bike in New Parks Boulevard, Leicester.
He suffered devastating head injuries in the March 2010 collision and his parents had to give medics permission to switch off his life support machine the next day.
Herbert, of Bland Road, New Parks, was ordered to serve a minimum of 16 years behind bars before he can even apply for parole.
In the Appeal Court in London this week his legal team challenged his murder conviction, arguing that the judge misdirected the jury on the crucial issue of intent.
Lady Justice Hallett, sitting with Mr Justice Popplewell and Mr Justice Edis, said Mr Bridgeman had been "targeted" by Herbert after clocking up a drugs debt.
"The prosecution case was that Herbert and his accomplice were drug dealers to whom their victim owed money," she told the court.
Mr Bridgeman initially left the Leicester area through fear of Herbert, the court heard.
And when he returned later on he was so wracked by fear that he covered himself with a blanket when travelling by car.
He and his family were both continually "pressurised" by Herbert and his fellow gang members.
On one of his rare outings, Mr Bridgeman was spotted by Herbert on his bike, said Lady Justice Hallett.
She added: "Herbert went home to fetch his van and followed his victim for some minutes and then deliberately swerved the van onto the pavement and into the victim".
The killer, who accepted he was a drug dealer and pursuing a debt, insisted his victim's death was a "tragic accident".
However, he admitted "being involved in an unlawful act and that he was therefore guilty of manslaughter".
Rejecting his conviction challenge, Lady Justice Hallett said there had been no misdirection by the trial judge.
"The jury could have been in no doubt what the issues were they had to determine. The evidence was overwhelming and the conviction is safe", she concluded.
