# Michael Mason private prosecution



## benb (30 Nov 2015)

The Cyclists' Defence Fund are seeking donations to help them bring a private prosecution against the driver involved in the death of Michael Mason.
Details here: https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael


----------



## Spinney (30 Nov 2015)

done


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Nov 2015)

Done. But....

Will this help address the woeful performance of the investigating officers from the Met who gave not a shoot.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Nov 2015)

User13710 said:


> I don't know, but isn't there a saying about eating your elephant one bite at a time?


There is. And that is a very good point. 

But this feels to me like two elephants, one to be hunted whilst the other, more senior in the herd, wanders off to do as it will....


----------



## steveindenmark (30 Nov 2015)

What a ridiculous decision.

It now means that during the hours of darkness motorists can run over any cyclist not wearing hi viz clothing or a helmet and get away with it.

Someone should tell them that we dont have to wear helmets or viz vests.

Michael Mason was abiding by all the laws and rules of the road and his family should not have to fight for justice.


----------



## benb (1 Dec 2015)

Agreed; it's an utter travesty.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Dec 2015)

There is an old saying in the courts: "Justice delayed is justice denied."

The driver in this case, having been told no charges were to be brought, is facing a long wait with the threat of a possible trial hanging over them.

I note the appeal amount has been more than doubled, from £30K to £75K, which inevitably will mean further delay.

If there is to be a private prosecution, it should be launched sooner rather than later.


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Dec 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> There is an old saying in the courts: "Justice delayed is justice denied."
> 
> The driver in this case, having been told no charges were to be brought, is facing a long wait with the threat of a possible trial hanging over them.
> 
> ...


Whilst I am.happy to support I was concerned about the increase in fees.

Is is usual for a legal team to engage without a full understanding of the complexity of the case.

A cynic might see that, as soon as the £30k target was hit, the legal team found the case to be more complex and suddenly requiring more than twice the originally agreed fees.

Has the complexity come about as the result of the CPS actions or lack of, would you know.(trying to play devils advocate here a bit)


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Dec 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Whilst I am.happy to support I was concerned about the increase in fees.
> 
> Is is usual for a legal team to engage without a full understanding of the complexity of the case.
> 
> ...



Private criminal prosecutions are rare in this country, so it is unlikely many of the legal team will have much - if any - experience of doing them.

Feeling their way through the job makes it harder to give an accurate pre-estimation of costs.

Looks to me as if this is a non-starter without significant new evidence.

Obtaining that won't be cheap since it will involve expert investigation, rather than just comment on what's already there.

I get the impression the family QC - Martin Porter - is personally backing the prosecution, so he may not be charging full price.

But if he does charge what some QCs do, running the trial could walk away with another £10K or more.


----------



## benb (1 Dec 2015)

User said:


> This case is an indictment of the blatant disregard the Metropolitan Police has for cyclist deaths and injuries (as so often illustrated on this forum and elsewhere) and the attitude of the CPS.



To be fair, we can't criticise the CPS in this specific instance, as the case was never referred to them in the first place.


----------



## benb (1 Dec 2015)

User said:


> The CPS were asked to call the case file in but refused to do so.



Oh right. I didn't know that was a thing. Cheers.


----------



## Arrowfoot (1 Dec 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Whilst I am.happy to support I was concerned about the increase in fees.
> 
> Is is usual for a legal team to engage without a full understanding of the complexity of the case.
> 
> ...



I would have expected them to explain the reason for the increase. As it was pointed out that the amount has more than doubled.


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Dec 2015)

User said:


> The CPS were asked to call the case file in but refused to do so.


Worse I think...didn't they agree and then say they didn't


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Dec 2015)

User said:


> No - the police said they'd sent the file and then had to admit they hadn't.


Ah, thanks


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Aug 2016)

The private prosecution is now going ahead, thanks to crowdfunding via the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

From the article:

_"Gail Purcell, 58, is due to appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on September 6 to face charges of causing the death by careless driving of stand-in teacher Michael Mason, 70, in Regent Street in February 2014."_​
GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Sep 2016)

The magistrate at today's hearing has refused jurisdiction as the case was so serious he felt it should be tried at the Crown Court instead. Case adjourned now until 11 October.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...atal-collision-in-regent-street-a3343821.html


GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2016)

Calling @User !

If it goes as a private prosecution to Crown Court does it have to be a jury trial (with a jury of 12 motor-centrists)
-and-
can CPS or whoever then stop it as not being in public interest?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, CPS can take over the prosecution and stop it. But they'd be stupid to do so in this case.


Cheers boss. My take; the decision is welcome, but not unalloyed, good news.

And as to the CPS being stupid....


----------



## machew (13 Sep 2016)

User said:


> The CPS were asked to call the case file in but refused to do so.


CPS = Couldn’t Prosecute Satan/Clowns Pretending to be Solicitors/‘Can’t Prosecute, Sorry/Criminal Protection Service. Take your pick


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Sep 2016)

The CPS, in the shape of its head, Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, has a bit of a problem here.

The DPP has the responsibility to halt any private criminal prosecutions which are malicious or vexatious.

Two things have already been established in this case.

The police officer in charge - also called Mason - was correct in his view it was his decision whether to prosecute or not.

He took the decision not to prosecute, that decision has been reviewed and not altered.

If Ms Saunders allows the case to proceed, she is effectively saying one or both of the above decisions was wrong.

If the decision not to charge - despite being reviewed - is now deemed to be wrong, then Ms Saunders could exercise her power to order the CPS to take over the prosecution and run it.

The defence may well ask what's changed - other than the victim's family having raised enough money to mount their own prosecution.

New evidence may be a way forward - I'm sure the family has mentioned there may be some.

It would be reasonable for the new evidence to be tested in court, so the CPS could take over the prosecution without too much embarrassment over the original decision not to prosecute.

But for that to happen, the family will have to establish the new evidence is relevant to the case and takes it forward - something which the defence team would probably argue strongly against.

I also suspect the new evidence has already been rejected by the CPS, which is another thing the defence could use in their favour.

If all the above is sorted and we do get a trial, another question is what will the jury be told about all the legal machinations in the case?

One could say 'nothing', but the defence might reasonably argue the fact that the police and CPS originally thought the defendant did nothing illegal - and stuck with that decision under pressure - is relevant to defending the allegation she now faces.

They will certainly want to use the original collision investigation report on which the decision not to prosecute was partly based.

So there's still lots of hurdles for the family to get over.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Mar 2017)

Michael Mason's killer will go on trial next Monday (3 April) on a charge of causing death by careless driving. 

The money raised so far, £75,000, is still not likely to cover all the legal costs so if you're of a mind to help out with a few quid,
please donate here >> https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/justiceformichael


----------



## snorri (4 Apr 2017)

Trial in progress.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39481659


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Apr 2017)

Depressingly, Michael Mason's killer has been acquitted: http://road.cc/content/news/220521-breaking-news-driver-mick-mason-case-acquitted-jury


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Apr 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Depressingly, Michael Mason's killer has been acquitted: http://road.cc/content/news/220521-breaking-news-driver-mick-mason-case-acquitted-jury



It was only going to go one way, but it is still sad to have reinforced that careless/dangerous driving is acceptable.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Apr 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> It was only going to go one way, but it is still sad to have reinforced that careless/dangerous driving is acceptable.



I was hopeful but past cases have too often shown that juries will avoid convicting where a driver can't explain a fundamental and serious lapse of competency in controlling a car, probably through a sense of "_There but for the grace_...". 

It honestly beggars belief that Purcell hasn't committed an offence of at least careless driving. Maybe trials like this should exclude from the jury anyone who holds or has held a driving licence. Better still, remove the jury completely from the process.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Apr 2017)

Looking at it from the juries point of view. "The police did not even think that it was worth investigating, the CPS did not grab this with both hands and let's be honest - driving in London is hard, it is not surprising that the poor driver didn't see the cyclist". An entirely crap attitude, but worryingly understandable.


----------



## steverob (6 Apr 2017)

And the fact that the jury apparently deliberated for just 17 minutes suggests that most of them had probably already made up their minds as soon as they heard the word "cyclist".


----------



## benb (6 Apr 2017)

FFS. Run someone down from behind, with no plausible reason why the driver didn't see them, but no offence committed.


----------



## velovoice (6 Apr 2017)

User said:


> If it requires the removal of the jury, there is something wrong.


There already is something wrong.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/it-is-time-to-rethink-defendants-right.html
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/i-have-not-yet-had-my-mind-changed-on.html


----------



## keithmac (6 Apr 2017)

Beggars belief, really does..


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Apr 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> but worryingly understandable.



Sorry, I don't find it in the least understandable, predictable but not understandable.

What the jury has said with its verdict, despite the resultant death of an innocent victim, is that Gail Purcell's driving was of an acceptable standard. That's a frightening message that should cause deep concern in everyone.

A judicial system that can allow such a perverse finding is truly broken and it strengthens my conviction that such cases cannot be entrusted to a jury.


----------



## jarlrmai (8 Apr 2017)

Can the standard of a technical skill like driving be judged by a jury? Surely a driving instructor should be called as an expert witness and should indicate to the jury if based on the evidence the standard of driving was below that expected of a competent driver?


----------



## keithmac (8 Apr 2017)

Surely you'd fail your driving test if you mowed down a cyclist so would that not count as the acceptable level of driving?.


----------



## Nortones2 (8 Apr 2017)

There doesn't seem to be a explanation of the arguments used to sway the jury, but the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself) would point towards carelessness at least. Or alternatively the jury were of a preset mind.


----------



## jarlrmai (8 Apr 2017)

keithmac said:


> Surely you'd fail your driving test if you mowed down a cyclist so would that not count as the acceptable level of driving?.



Exactly.


----------



## DaveReading (9 Apr 2017)

steverob said:


> And the fact that the jury apparently deliberated for just 17 minutes suggests that most of them had probably already made up their minds as soon as they heard the word "cyclist".



That, or the prosecution made such a hash of presenting their case that there was little left for the jury to discuss.



Nortones2 said:


> There doesn't seem to be a explanation of the arguments used to sway the jury



It would indeed be interesting to hear those arguments, together with any comments that may have been made to them by the judge about the burden of proof for a careless driving charge.


----------



## oldstrath (9 Apr 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> Can the standard of a technical skill like driving be judged by a jury? Surely a driving instructor should be called as an expert witness and should indicate to the jury if based on the evidence the standard of driving was below that expected of a competent driver?


Driving examiner maybe, given the driving standard of some instructors I've seen, who mistake technical skill for safe driving.


----------



## sheddy (9 Apr 2017)

Will there be 'minutes' published from the court ?
(sorry for my ignorance)


----------



## DaveReading (9 Apr 2017)

User said:


> No, how the jury decided is supposed to be confidential to them alone.



Though there is no restriction on reporting what has been said by the lawyers, judge and witnesses in open court. It just depends on whether the media think it will sell newspapers.


----------



## DaveReading (9 Apr 2017)

User said:


> I assume that, having arranged the funding etc, that the cyclists' defence fund had people there.



Yes, I would think so. 

We probably shouldn't anticipate them telling us that their barrister turned out to be rubbish, were that to be the case.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Apr 2017)

Have they made any statement at all?


----------



## Buddfox (12 Apr 2017)

keithmac said:


> Surely you'd fail your driving test if you mowed down a cyclist so would that not count as the acceptable level of driving?.



I never thought of it like this before, but that could be used as a useful measuring stick of what is considered careless driving, if you moved cases to a magistrates court (and therefore no jury). If you injure or kill someone whilst doing anything that would constitute a major fail on the driving test, you go to jail for 12 months and have a driving ban of whatever is the maximum duration allowable in a magistrates court.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Apr 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> Have they made any statement at all?



http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-rele...ing-cyclist’s-death-sees-car-driver-acquitted



> *Private prosecution for causing cyclist’s death sees car driver acquitted*
> Gail Purcell found not guilty by Old Bailey jury for causing the death of cyclist Michael Mason by careless driving.
> Gail Purcell (58) of Colney Street, St Albans, was today (06 April) acquitted by an Old Bailey jury of causing the death of cyclist Michael Mason by careless driving.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Apr 2017)

Buddfox said:


> I never thought of it like this before, but that could be used as a useful measuring stick of what is considered careless driving, if you moved cases to a magistrates court (and therefore no jury). If you injure or kill someone whilst doing anything that would constitute a major fail on the driving test, you go to jail for 12 months and have a driving ban of whatever is the maximum duration allowable in a magistrates court.



Death by careless is an either way offence so can be tried in magistrates' or crown court.

No guarantee Fred, Edna, and Harold on your local bench would come up with the automatic guilty verdict some on here seek.

Different court, but the law is the same, so they would still have to be satisfied so they are sure the driving fell below the standard of a competent and careful driver - on the basis of the evidence.

None of us heard the evidence in this case, but there may not have been a great deal of it, other than witnesses saying the defendant's car was driving along Regent Street with all the rest.

The family spoke afterwards of having found new witnesses.

Again, we don't know what they said, but I've heard nothing along the lines of 'the driver was holding a mobile/appeared distracted by something on the passenger seat/was swerving'.

The defendant may have given evidence on her own behalf, as she is entitled to do, but doesn't have to.

A jury would be told to assess such evidence carefully, but it may be an employed woman in her late 50s came over in the witness box as an honest and respectable citizen, making the jury inclined to believe her account - whatever that was.


----------



## Dan B (12 Apr 2017)

I would be surprised if, were you to knock a cyclist off his bike while taking your driving test then say afterwards that you hadnt seen him and had no idea what had happened, you were permitted even to continue the test, let alone to pass it


----------



## jefmcg (12 Apr 2017)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could return to "driving is a privilege"? Let's say she wasn't guilty of an offence (no "mens rea" or whatever that term is). But if you can't see a legally lit cyclist on a very well lit broad stretch of road, then maybe driving just isn't for you. No crime, no "punishment", just you can't drive anymore, like blind people and epileptics. It's tough, but not as tough as being dead. 

At least if she had been distracted by a phone, there would be a clear path to not doing it again: phone in the boot for example. How can she prevent the same thing happening again if she doesn't know how it happened this time?

?Maybe when self driving cars are reasonably common, we could see this happening.


----------



## User33236 (12 Apr 2017)

Dan B said:


> I would be surprised if, were you to knock a cyclist off his bike while taking your driving test then say afterwards that you hadnt seen him and had no idea what had happened, you were permitted even to continue the test, let alone to pass it


My ex brother-in-law knocked down and, unfortunately, killed an elderly lady during his driving test. The test was obviously abandoned but, following witness testimony (including that of the examiner) was not recorder as a fail. instead it was rescheduled for a number of weeks later when he was mentally able to retake the test.

The examiners statement basically stated my ex-BIL had no chance as the lady abruptly, and unexpectedly, stepped out into traffic only a few metres ahead of him.

It all happened so suddenly ex-BIL had no recollection of exact circumstances.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2017)

One day the judge refuses to dismiss the prosecution, before the jury hear the evidence, the very next day the jury reaches a verdict?

Wow.


----------



## DaveReading (13 Apr 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> One day the judge refuses to dismiss the prosecution, before the jury hear the evidence, the very next day the jury reaches a verdict?
> 
> Wow.



Sounds fairly straightforward, what is it about that sequence of events that you find strange ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Apr 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Sounds fairly straightforward, what is it about that sequence of events that you find strange ?


Fine with the sequence, just surprised, not to say disturbed, at how quickly it was dealt with.


----------



## DaveReading (13 Apr 2017)

It's hard to see what might have occupied the court for more than the two days that the trial lasted. There can't have been many witnesses testifying, nor a huge amount of evidence to present, so we're left with just the time taken for the jury to reach their verdict, and clearly they didn't think there was much to debate.

Disappointing, yes. Surprising, not really.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Apr 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Fine with the sequence, just surprised, not to say disturbed, at how quickly it was dealt with.


I think you are comparing this to a murder trial or something. The facts are here are pretty straight forward and couldn't take more than a couple of hours to completely describe everything that happened, particularly as her (probably honest) defence was "I didn't see him" No expert witness could help, no specialists in sun angles or whatever bullshit defence has been used in these cases. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute - where it was, who was there, what happened. The only point of contest was why it happened.

If you think of a murder, you will have detailed testimony from a medical examiner, which could easily take a day. Witness statements about the actual death, witness identifying the assailant, witnesses proving motive, alibi witnesses, police description of the scene, detailed forensics, character witnesses etc etc etc.


----------



## Dan B (13 Apr 2017)

jefmcg said:


> as her (probably honest) defence was "I didn't see him"


Still hard to see how this is a defence and not an admission of liability


----------



## DaveReading (13 Apr 2017)

Dan B said:


> Still hard to see how this is a defence



In some cases it might be ("it was dark and the cyclist had no lights"), but here clearly (npi) it isn't.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Apr 2017)

Dan B said:


> Still hard to see how this is a defence and not an admission of liability


Totally.

"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and *attention* if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

She was clearly paying no attention at all.


----------



## Nortones2 (13 Apr 2017)

Or has a tendency to petit mal?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Apr 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Totally.
> 
> "A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and *attention* if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."
> 
> She was clearly paying no attention at all.


And I expect, in a case where someone lost their life, the odd ten minutes or so being spent exploring the meanings of careful and competent and attention in this context.

Instead it appears she said "I didn't see him" and the jury said "Fair enough, these things happen, there but for the grace of God... etc.."


----------



## jefmcg (13 Apr 2017)

Yes, maybe you have a point.

From their fundraising page:

_Update: November 2015

You may have noticed that we are now appealing for £75,000 rather than the original £30,000. This is because the lawyers carrying out the prosecution have increased their estimate of how much the prosecution could cost due to the complex nature of the case. We need to raise enough funds to ensure we can carry the case through to trial, hence the reason for increasing the appeal. Thank you for your understanding. 
_
That sounds like they were expecting more than a day in court.

(Honestly, this whole thing starts to read like a scam. More than 2,000 people gave £36 on average. The last posts to their web page and facebook pages were January 2016, and their last tweet was a retweet a month ago. Surely the donors deserve to know how their money was spent?)


----------



## Dan B (13 Apr 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yes, maybe you have a point.
> 
> From their fundraising page:
> 
> ...


The money is collected by the CDF, no? I'm sure they're not allowed to spend it all on sweeties and beer, at least not without it showing up in the accounts

It would be nice if they could give us some kind of breakdown of where it went/what's left over, but I think this is much more likely to be poor social media skills (at worst) than attempted fraud


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Apr 2017)

User said:


> That was basically her defence...


That and "The CPS couldn't be arsed to prosecute and the Met couldn't be arsed to recommend prosecution so, _obviously_, I'd done nothing wrong."


----------



## Poacher (13 Apr 2017)

Clearly I'm not _au fait _with the British legal system, but I _really _hope this doesn't establish some sort of precedence for the SMIDSY defence - will "I didn't see the deceased, 'cos I couldn't be bothered to look" be accepted as a "stay out of jail and don't even collect any points" defence?


----------



## jefmcg (13 Apr 2017)

Dan B said:


> The money is collected by the CDF, no? I'm sure they're not allowed to spend it all on sweeties and beer, at least not without it showing up in the accounts
> 
> It would be nice if they could give us some kind of breakdown of where it went/what's left over, but I think this is much more likely to be poor social media skills (at worst) than attempted fraud


I agree. I meant precisely what I wrote. It reads like a scam, not that it is one.


Edit : erk. Literally 20 minutes after posting this, CTC spam arrived that seems to include a link to just the article I was complaining didn't exist

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict


----------



## jefmcg (13 Apr 2017)

jefmcg said:


> http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict


It's a tough read:



> There were however some common themes. Seven of the witnesses gave evidence about seeing Mick in the air after the impact, arguably significant given that Ms Purcell didn’t.
> 
> One witness described the collision occurring more towards the driver’s side of the car, and that Mick went “over the windscreen then bounced off that side of the car”. A second said he saw Mick being hit by the car and “going up in the air and backwards – up the car, over the wing mirror, into the road”. Describing it as a substantial impact, he added that Mick was “thrown up into the air, catapulted across the bonnet, and subsequently died”.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Apr 2017)

jefmcg said:


> It's a tough read:


I wish I'd not read it. Now seething.


----------



## growingvegetables (13 Apr 2017)

One PC Brian Gamble (now retired) comes out of Dollimore's account particularly poorly.

"Not according to Gamble. There’s lots for a driver to see, cyclists are small, we all get blasé, and it’s understandable that we don’t see anything that’s not right in front of us. Even then, we might have seen it but just can’t recollect doing so. If we do see it, count to five; we’ve got that long to do something."

Please God, not the same "PC Brian Gamble (retired) from Alperton Traffic Garage, Brent who received an RTPC Commander's Commendation in recognition of his dedicated and detailed investigation of a failed-to-stop fatal collision."


----------



## Poacher (13 Apr 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> One PC Brian Gamble (now retired) comes out of Dollimore's account particularly poorly.
> 
> "Not according to Gamble. There’s lots for a driver to see, cyclists are small, we all get blasé, and it’s understandable that we don’t see anything that’s not right in front of us. Even then, we might have seen it but just can’t recollect doing so. If we do see it, count to five; we’ve got that long to do something."
> 
> Please God, not the same "PC Brian Gamble (retired) from Alperton Traffic Garage, Brent who received an RTPC Commander's Commendation in recognition of his dedicated and detailed investigation of a failed-to-stop fatal collision."


'Twould be a remarkable coincidence if there were two or more PC Brian Gamble (retired)s. I wonder whether his commendation was in recognition of the Michael Mason case, and whether he took early retirement "on grounds of ill health".


----------



## growingvegetables (13 Apr 2017)

Poacher said:


> 'Twould be a remarkable coincidence if there were two or more PC Brian Gamble (retired)s. I wonder whether his commendation was in recognition of the Michael Mason case, and whether he took early retirement "on grounds of ill health".


Shame on you! That is so cycnical!






Aye - and I'm a ******* great cynic too.


----------



## swansonj (14 Apr 2017)

According to CTC's account, PC Gamble's evidence was indeed riddled with horrendous mistaken attitudes and assumptions. Which re-emphasises the question: did CDF's barrister do enough to expose these fallacies to the jury? The CTC account could be accused of blaming absolutely everyone for the failure to convict... except CDF itself.


----------



## PaulB (14 Apr 2017)

That's kicked my day off on the worst possible foot. How can it conceivably be a 'defence' to say you didn't see the thing you hit? I recall a woman who once smashed in to my colleague's car and caused some potentially life threatening injuries to his daughter and the woman's defence - and I'm being serious here - was to make this claim, which was actually read out in court; 'I looked and he wasn't there and then he was there.' the inference being HE was in the wrong and must have been speeding! Thankfully, that was laughed out of court as the woman's defence in the Mick Mason case should have been, too. 

It makes me feel more vulnerable now if this sort of thing is happening.


----------



## oldstrath (14 Apr 2017)

According to this, the woman failed to see a cyclist even after she'd collided with him, and believed the bang she heard may have been caused by a sack of potatoes falling from the sky.

Are there many blind lunatics driving around London?


----------



## PaulB (14 Apr 2017)

To avoid further upset, do not look at the comments on this story in the Daily Heil! 

As a way to 'keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer' I do like to see what the general mood is so this being the newspaper with the highest circulation (that I'll lower myself to read), I check in from time to time to see what they're saying about cyclists and cycling-related incidents. There's nothing here you wouldn't expect.


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Apr 2017)

swansonj said:


> According to CTC's account, PC Gamble's evidence was indeed riddled with horrendous mistaken attitudes and assumptions. Which re-emphasises the question: did CDF's barrister do enough to expose these fallacies to the jury? The CTC account could be accused of blaming absolutely everyone for the failure to convict... except CDF itself.



The CTC/CDF bloke is very keen to praise their 'diligent' lawyers, but they failed, big time.

If the counsel they briefed was so hot she (if I recall) should have got properly stuck in to retired PC Crash Investigator - assuming his report was as mixed up as the CTC say.

The criminal court is an adversarial system, the CDF lost.

You can never account for juries, but the CDF should be taking some responsibility for that failure.


----------



## oldstrath (14 Apr 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> The CTC/CDF bloke is very keen to praise their 'diligent' lawyers, but they failed, big time.
> 
> If the counsel they briefed was so hot she (if I recall) should have got properly stuck in to retired PC Crash Investigator - assuming his report was as mixed up as the CTC say.
> 
> ...



All of which surely indicates that this is the wrong way to deal with issues of driver competence and licensing? Because otherwise you're happy that a woman who is impaired or inattentive enough to miss someone hitting her bonnet, and deranged enough to considered that potatoes may fall from the London sky, can continue to drive, unexamined.

Surely it is past time to treat driving as a privilege, separate licensing from criminal punishment, and take the serious stuff out of the realm of game playing lawyers and biased juries?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Apr 2017)

swansonj said:


> According to CTC's account, PC Gamble's evidence was indeed riddled with horrendous mistaken attitudes and assumptions. Which re-emphasises the question: did CDF's barrister do enough to expose these fallacies to the jury? The CTC account could be accused of blaming absolutely everyone for the failure to convict... except CDF itself.


Expert police (ret'd) witness vs nerdy sinewy cyclists?

Perception is reality.


----------



## jefmcg (14 Apr 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Expert police (ret'd) witness vs nerdy sinewy cyclists?
> 
> Perception is reality.


Yes, but the cyclists could have got experts of their own. Indeed, I would think it wouldn't be that hard to find another retired traffic cop to expertly disagree with him. I assumed that was where some of the the £70K would have gone.



growingvegetables said:


> Please God, not the same "PC Brian Gamble (retired) from Alperton Traffic Garage, Brent who received an RTPC Commander's Commendation in recognition of his dedicated and detailed investigation of a failed-to-stop fatal collision."


So you get a commendation for doing your job properly?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Apr 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yes, but the cyclists could have got experts of their own. Indeed, I would think it wouldn't be that hard to find another retired traffic cop to expertly disagree with him. I assumed that was where some of the the £70K would have gone.


possibly true. If only the Met had done their job properly in the first place eh?


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Apr 2017)

Rent-a-tame-expert is always a possibility, although not much point if he/she says the same as the expert from the other side.

Daft as it may sound, preparation of the case may have been slightly hampered by lack of funds.

As a guide, a businessman acquaintance of mine asked me to recommend a QC to act for him in a simple assault trial.

The legal bill was £37,500.

This case is more complex, and like everything, QCs probably cost more in that there London.

Incidentally, my mate was happy - the QC got him off - he would have paid almost anything to get the not guilty verdict.

One might see that as putting a price on justice, although the case wasn't up to much, and as I told him any competent criminal barrister could have successfully defended it.

For, at a guess, about a tenth of the price.


----------



## velovoice (14 Apr 2017)

oldstrath said:


> All of which surely indicates that this is the wrong way to deal with issues of driver competence and licensing? Because otherwise you're happy that a woman who is impaired or inattentive enough to miss someone hitting her bonnet, and deranged enough to considered that potatoes may fall from the London sky, can continue to drive, unexamined.
> 
> Surely it is past time to treat driving as a privilege, separate licensing from criminal punishment, and take the serious stuff out of the realm of game playing lawyers and biased juries?


Absolutely!

As eloquently argued by Martin Porter QC on his cycling blog - see my post on page 3 for links.


----------



## keithmac (14 Apr 2017)

Reading the link to the new evidence and the lack of at least a careless driving charge is just gobsmacking.

Maybe they made that much of a cock up with the investigation (or lack of) they had to decline to prosecute fist time round.

Makes even less sense now than it did to start with, frankly unbelievable..


----------



## KnackeredBike (14 Apr 2017)

oldstrath said:


> All of which surely indicates that this is the wrong way to deal with issues of driver competence and licensing? Because otherwise you're happy that a woman who is impaired or inattentive enough to miss someone hitting her bonnet, and deranged enough to considered that potatoes may fall from the London sky, can continue to drive, unexamined.
> 
> Surely it is past time to treat driving as a privilege, separate licensing from criminal punishment, and take the serious stuff out of the realm of game playing lawyers and biased juries?


We live in a world where hitting things whilst driving is almost seen as inevitable-that's-what-insurance-is-there-for type event. And if it's a cyclist then the cyclist should have been wearing hi-viz/wearing a helmet/cycling further out so I could see them/cycling in the gutter so I could pass them/not have gone straight on at that junction etc. etc.

And the worst part is almost all of us will know a cyclist who has suffered life changing injuries, and almost all of us will have had a close call ourselves. But this is a price to pay for the advantages of being able to drive the kids 800 metres to school. Sod the obesity epidemic.

Driving is about the most anti-social mainstream thing you can do, and I speak as a reluctant driver myself.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Apr 2017)

According to The Standard the jury "deliberated" for 17 minutes. I'll wager not one was a London cyclist.


----------

