Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[rliu]

Had started a separate thread as I didn't see this, but this case is legally very interesting. There are as many aggravating factors towards Alliston's guilt as there are mitigating factors.
Aggravators - illegal bike, unremorseful attitude, aggressive at the scene
Mitigators - pedestrian crossing while light is green for cyclist, riding at a fairly average speed of 18mph, pedestrian seemed to not acknowledge presence of bike prior to collision

I know we all hate victim blaming, but unfortunately these arguments are made in court and do have a sway with judges. I think it's more likely than not Alliston will be convicted and receive a significant custodial sentence, but can't help to also feel injustice that we see cases where drivers have overtaken dangerously, turned left without checking their mirrors, pulled out into the path of cyclist etc to cause death and got off with non-custodial sentences and a small fine. Surely some of that behaviour is also manslaughter? I know the hook for the prosecution here is that Alliston flagrantly rode a non road legal bike, which is a reckless and dangerous act without a tragic collision happening, but surely if a driver hits a cyclist then either fails to stop and report, or drives uninsured, that should also be seen as a reason to press for a more serious charge than just careless driving?

 

[srw]

Alliston's guilt

Isn't that a little premature? Unless I've missed something he's still on trial.

[goes and checks]

I haven't. The trial is still ongoing. Until it's concluded no-one should assume anything about his guilt or innocence.

 

[Drago]

Im happy to assume his guilt. He pretty much hung himself with his own online denials.

 

[rliu]

Isn't that a little premature? Unless I've missed something he's still on trial.

[goes and checks]

I haven't. The trial is still ongoing. Until it's concluded no-one should assume anything about his guilt or innocence.

Hang on I didn't say he was guilty, I meant hypothetical guilt. Don't just pick out one thing from a long post on a semantic issue please, I have said there are as many arguments for as there are against. This isn't a press report and we are not jurors, we don't need to be so picky about use of language.

 

[Drago]

We can have our own opinions, and no one is forced to agree.

 

[srw]

This isn't a press report

In the eyes of the law it is.

I accept that yours was (by a very long way) one of the less extreme examples in this thread, and maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but when the initial reports of the case refer specifically to posts alleged to be made on a cycling forum by the alleged perpetrator it doesn't seem terribly bright of successive posters to be using a cycling forum to speculate, often extremely wildly, about the crime, the guilt or otherwise of the accused and the appropriateness or otherwise of a hypothetical sentence while the trial is still going on.

 

[Drago]

It makes no difference. Nothing we say is evidential.

 

[srw]

It makes no difference. Nothing we say is evidential.

In which case there are no restrictions on what anyone says, and all court reporters can speculate away to their hearts' content, and no trial will ever be stopped because of prejudicial reporting.

Woohoo!

 

[Drago]

Yes.

And no.

 

[srw]

Alternatively, read the official government advice aimed at social media users....
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../Prejudice_and_social_media_-_infographic.pdf

While I'm not particularly bothered about individual numpty posters running the risk of falling foul of this advice it does seem a little unfair on our host (who can be seen as the publisher) being exposed.

 

[jefmcg]

while the trial is still going on.

While on that subject, I'm glad they changed the title of this thread to be more descriptive, but isn't naming him and stating he was the cause a little too far until he's convicted?

 

[srw]

While on that subject, I'm glad they changed the title of this thread to be more descriptive, but isn't naming him and stating he was the cause a little too far until he's convicted?

OMG. I hadn't noticed that. I certainly think so, and my reading of the Attorney General's advice would suggest that the courts would too.

 

[Shaun]

I've adjusted the thread title to include "accused of".

 

[slowmotion]

I'm not sure that Cyclechat would be quite so entertaining without the wild speculation, pitchfork and torch waving mania, and accusatory finger jabbing.

 

[slowmotion]

Each to their own

Not my own.