Michael Mason Inquest

[benb]

Spenster doesn't do links I posted the report as a file on here this morning.

So you did.
It probably doesn't count as evidence though, for some reason.

 

[Dan B]

So you did.
It probably doesn't count as evidence though, for some reason.

It's only evidence if spen666 saw it with his own eyes.

 

[CopperCyclist]

If it wasn't for the effect it'd have on aerodynamics I'd be giving serious consideration to riding everywhere with a garden rake on the back of the bike.

You're a genius.

I'm off to 'borrow' one of our stinger devices gathering dust at the station since traffic officers were sent away, and attach a rope. They already have wheels underneath which roll very well. I think I could patent it as an excellent safety device for cyclists.

Unfortunately if I do so, in six years we may see a motorist not prosecuted because the cyclist wasn't dragging a "Stringer".

 

[Lemond]

First you were saying there was no evidence. Now we haven't heard ALL the evidence. (Except that we have becuase the Met have made it public.

Make up your mind please.

And stop coming up with increasingly ludicrous hypothetical examples and stick to what is KNOWN about this case....

A driver rear-ended a well lit cyclist on a well lit street because she didn't see him and a Detective Inspector in the Met thinks that is careful and competent driving.

It shouldn't be forgotten that multiple officers will have been involved in the initial investigation, and then another set of officers will have conducted the case review, and then it looks like a chief inspector then reviewed the review. And, of course, it also shouldn't be forgotten that all of this went before the Westminster’s coroners court, where a verdict of Accident was returned. If there was something so obviously wrong based on the evidence available wouldn't the coroner have picked this up? Furthermore, if the coroner felt that the case should have been put forward to the CPS, wouldn't he or she have instructed the police to do so?

 

[spen666]

Your understanding is WRONG.
The Met Police are entirely happy that the decision not to refer the case to the CPS is the correct one as evidenced by the report of the Investigating Officer into Martin Porter's complaint.

My understanding is correct.

The fact the Met Police in this case ( I don't know about other cases) did not comply with their requirements does not mean I am wrong, it means the Met Police did not comply with their duties.

Your logic is totally flawed, the police f*cked up, a junior police officer defends theirir approach, therefore you decide the police are right! So by the same logic whenever someone denies doing something wrong, they must be correct

 

[spen666]

Oh sorry, I thought when you said evidence, you were being honest in that request, not just asking for things which agreed with you and dismissing everything else.

The officer's statement was in the article I linked. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read it.

a) the link did not appear in the post when I read it ( work filters I presume as I have read it now)
b) The link you post is to a report into a complaint about the handling of the case, it is not the evidence in relation to the original investigation. The accident investigation officer's statement is not on that link as far as I can see.

 

[Arrowfoot]

It shouldn't be forgotten that multiple officers will have been involved in the initial investigation, and then another set of officers will have conducted the case review, and then it looks like a chief inspector then reviewed the review. And, of course, it also shouldn't be forgotten that all of this went before the Westminster’s coroners court, where a verdict of Accident was returned. If there was something so obviously wrong based on the evidence available wouldn't the coroner have picked this up? Furthermore, if the coroner felt that the case should have been put forward to the CPS, wouldn't he or she have instructed the police to do so?

The concern here is that it has enough for a referral to CPS. CPS might chose to prosecute. Its a fatality, the vehicle that knocked the victim has been estblished. Its a busy road in the middle of London, the victim had lights on.

Lets assume that 30 Police Officers plus an Inspector and Chief Supt was asked to focus on this case. Based on the second paragraph, I would suggest that it will be a CPS referral. The Police are not allowed to mitigate on behalf on the driver if there is a prima facie case at hand.

 

[benb]

a) the link did not appear in the post when I read it ( work filters I presume as I have read it now)
b) The link you post is to a report into a complaint about the handling of the case, it is not the evidence in relation to the original investigation. The accident investigation officer's statement is not on that link as far as I can see.

The article has a link to the report on why the officer didn't submit the file to the CPS.
In that report were the statements by the officer about dark clothing and helmets, which you said were not evidence of the officer's bias.

 

[Lemond]

The article has a link to the report on why the officer didn't submit the file to the CPS.
In that report were the statements by the officer about dark clothing and helmets, which you said were not evidence of the officer's bias.

The document contains a list of facts in evidence, which do not appear to have been disputed by anyone. The police must gather these facts and considered them collectively - not cherrypick - and determine whether they pass the standards demanded by the full code test. This test directs the police to consider all of the the available evidence and the degree to which that evidence points to a realistic prospect that the driver will be convicted. If that realistic prospect of conviction doesn't exist, then the case must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. That is not in any way the fault of the police. It does not demonstrate bias or ineptitude on their part. Look at the evidence available and it's not hard to see how the case for the defence would proceed, and therefore how that realistic prospect of conviction just isn't there.

 

[Dan B]

The document contains a list of facts in evidence, which do not appear to have been disputed by anyone. The police must gather these facts and considered them collectively - not cherrypick

Since they don't seem to have included the fact that the driver admitted that she should have been able to see the cyclist if he was there, or that the cyclist and car were travelling in the same direction at impact (no last-minute swerve), they seem to have fallen at the first hurdle there. And unless helmets have magical car-repelling properties of which I was not aware, the fact that he was not wearing one can be no more relevant to the standard of her driving than the colour of his underwear.

 

[benb]

The document contains a list of facts in evidence, which do not appear to have been disputed by anyone. The police must gather these facts and considered them collectively - not cherrypick - and determine whether they pass the standards demanded by the full code test. This test directs the police to consider all of the the available evidence and the degree to which that evidence points to a realistic prospect that the driver will be convicted. If that realistic prospect of conviction doesn't exist, then the case must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. That is not in any way the fault of the police. It does not demonstrate bias or ineptitude on their part. Look at the evidence available and it's not hard to see how the case for the defence would proceed, and therefore how that realistic prospect of conviction just isn't there.

So just to clarify, you have no problem at all with this case not being passed to the CPS to hear the evidence at court?

 

[Lemond]

Since they don't seem to have included the fact that the driver admitted that she should have been able to see the cyclist if he was there, or that the cyclist and car were travelling in the same direction at impact (no last-minute swerve), they seem to have fallen at the first hurdle there. And unless helmets have magical car-repelling properties of which I was not aware, the fact that he was not wearing one can be no more relevant to the standard of her driving than the colour of his underwear.

How could the police include the driver's admission that she did not see Mr Mason? That admission was made in court, nine months after the incident.

There are multiple references to the direction in which Mr Mason and the car were travelling and their respective positions on the road. But what there isn't any evidence of is when, how and why Mr Mason moved over to his right. All that is known, according to witnesses, CCTV and, sadly, the impact marks on the car, is that at some point he did. It's all there in black and white.

Finally, there doesn't appear to be any value judgement made by the police as to the effectiveness or otherwise of cycling helmets. Even the coroner said that had Mr Mason been wearing a high-via jacket and /or helmet, it probably wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[Lemond]

So just to clarify, you have no problem at all with this case not being passed to the CPS to hear the evidence at court?

Having taken the time to do a little bit of reading and research, I now understand why the police couldn't charge the driver. The full code test doesn't allow them to charge the driver, based on the evidence available. If more evidence were available that would have increased the realistic prospect of conviction, I am sure that the police would have charged the driver. Unless you buy into the idea that every officer involved in this investigation is either incompetent or corrupt (and that goes for the coroner, too), I can see no reason as to why they wouldn't proceed?

 

[Dan B]

How could the police include the driver's admission that she did not see Mr Mason? That admission was made in court, nine months after the incident.

Read Martin Porter's account:

She gave evidence consistent with her accounts to the police that she did not see Mr Mason or his bicycle at any time before the collision

Her accounts to the police were presumably at the time of the accident

There are multiple references to the direction in which Mr Mason and the car were travelling and their respective positions on the road. But what there isn't any evidence of is when, how and why Mr Mason moved over to his right.

There is evidence of when, in that it was sufficently far in advance of the car driver hitting him that he was able to straighten up. I don't see why we need evidence of "how": the mechanisms available to him would have included leaning his bicycle, turning the handlebars, or hitching a short ride on a giant roc. And why is "why" anybody's business but his own?

Finally, there doesn't appear to be any value judgement made by the police as to the effectiveness or otherwise of cycling helmets.

They listed the fact he was not wearing a helmet as a reason not to put the case to the CPS. That's a value judgement

 

[Wobblers]

Actually it's a list of contentions and views - not necessarily indisputable facts.

I think the more accurate phrase would be "unqualified opinions".