Michael Mason Inquest

[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.

Apparently, when the police attend a road traffic incident it is standard practice for the officers to complete a set of forms that are structured around the content of the Highway Code. That's why whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet or hi-viz is recorded. Not because of bias, but because the Highway Code suggests both for cyclists. In exactly the same way, the police will record whether a pedestrian is wearing hi-viz if they were to be hit by a vehicle...because the Highway Code suggests such for pedestrians.

 

[Pale Rider]

It's plain stupid to suggest a copper is biased when he arrives at a road traffic collision, or any other job.

All he cares about is getting through the day unscathed, and getting through his career also in one piece so he can collect his pension.

 

[Dan B]

It's plain stupid to suggest a copper is biased when he arrives at a road traffic collision, or any other job.

All he cares about is getting through the day unscathed, and getting through his career also in one piece so he can collect his pension.

I'd like to hope that one could add "upholding the law" and "justice" to that list. Otherwise, frankly, a jobcentre employee could do the job just as well

 

[Pale Rider]

We appear to be going round in circles here. The absence of helmet and hi-viz were not dispassionately recorded, they were offered as part of the thought process to explain why the matter was not referred to the CPS.

Both - they were dispassionately recorded, just a polis filling in his forms by the look of it, and they were offered as part of the thought process.

If you are considering trying to make someone criminally responsible for the death of a cyclist, then his clothing and lights - if dark - are some of the things you could reasonably take into consideration.

There are lots of others.

The amount of weight you attach to each is the difficult - and unknown - part.

Most police forces operate by national guidelines, in my part of the world there is definitely no automatic bar on prosecuting cases in which the cyclist is not wearing hi-viz.

 

[glenn forger]

It's plain stupid to suggest a copper is biased when he arrives at a road traffic collision, or any other job.

the four thousand complaints about police handling of KSI RTCs involving cyclists include destroying evidence, waving away witnesses, ignoring witnesses and delaying paperwork.

Police prejudice against cyclists is rampant.

Aiden Forster was smashed into from behind by a 4x4 driver. The attending police officer implicitly blamed Aiden for the incident stating:“you cyclists take your lives into your own hands”. Despite a number of vehicles present at the scene, the police did not take any witness statements.The police accepted the driver’s explanation that he had been ‘dazzled by sunlight’ and therefore hadn’t seen Aiden on the hill, but the police did not analyse the sun’s position in the sky at the time of the collision to verify this claim or comment that the driver should have adjusted their speed if they could not see the road ahead of them.


In the case of the Oxford Street cyclist who was rammed and then strangled by a cabbie they arrived and arrested the cyclist. It was only when horrified witnesses came forward they dropped the case. In Eilidh Cairns case they didn't even bother to check the driver's eyesight before the family insisted. Dan Black had his back broken by an elderly driver who the cops decided not to charge.

ACPO themselves list the failures of the police in dealing with RTCs involving cyclists:

Common problems with investigations include: •

Failure to attend the crash scene;

• Assuming that an injured cyclist is likely to be at fault, based on prejudiced views of cyclists’ behaviour;

• Failure to take statements or witness contact details at the crash scene;

• Not following up victim (s),suspect (s) and witnesses for statements for several weeks, or neglecting them altogether;

• Failure to test the driver’s eyesight or for possible mobile phone use;

• Failure to gather CCTV footage;

• Failure to keep victims informed of case progress and of key decisions relating to their case, including court dates.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2014/CTC Road Justice The Role of the Police_June 2013.pdf

Police failures and prejudice are well known and often result in careless or even killer drivers escaping any sanction whatsoever.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes, we all understand all of that already. The only mystery is that the decision was taken not even to refer it to the CPS.

The answer is in the complaint report - linked to in post 288 upthread.

Put shortly, the guidelines state the police should only refer the case to the CPS if the full evidence test is passed - realistic chance of a prosecution - which, importantly, is not the same as guilt or innocence.

The copper thought the test wasn't met, so didn't refer.

There's a lot more in the document.

It's a decision the copper now probably regrets, but the coroner also recorded a finding of accidental death.

It is within the coroner's power to adjourn the inquest and order the police to reconsider.

That the coroner didn't do that, or record a different finding such as unlawful killing, indicates he also thought there's nothing more to see here.

Both decisions could be incorrect, the family certainly think so.

On one hand, they are bound to think that, but on the other they will have had access to lots more documentation and sat through all the hearings.

I don't think there's enough reliable information in the public domain for us to make a firm judgment one way or the other.

But there's no reason for the coppers not to put the case forward to the CPS for prosecution if they thought that was the correct thing to do, and there's no reason for the coroner to put it down as an accident if he thought it wasn't one.

As in all such matters, in the unlikely event all these decisions are wrong, I take cock-up over conspiracy.

 

[glenn forger]

I take cock-up over conspiracy.

You think ACPO are incorrect in referring to institutional failures in investigating cyclist KSI RTCs? All those other cases, four thousand of them, are a coincidence?

 

[Pale Rider]

Have we not established a few pages back that the charging decisions in all fatal collision cases are to be made by a the CPS?

If we did, it seems we were wrong.

Quoting from the complaint report:

DI MASON concludes his account into his review of the case by saying when making this decision he referred to the DPP’s Guidance on Charging 5th Edition: May 2013 and in particular;

• “The Police are responsible for assessing cases before referral to ensure the Full Code or Threshold Test can be met on the available evidence as appropriate to the circumstances of the case”
  

• “Police should ensure cases are only referred to a Prosecutor where there is sufficient evidence available (or capable of being obtained) to meet the full code test unless the decision requires; the assessment of complex evidence; legal issues; early investigative advice is sought”.
  

• “The Police are responsible for taking ‘no further action’ in any case that cannot meet the appropriate evidential standard, without referral to a prosecutor”.

 

[glenn forger]

And what of this bit?

Referral of Fatal Collision/Manslaughter Cases
To ensure consistency of approach, charging decisions in all fatal collision cases should be approved by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor (DCCP) or nominated senior decision maker (who will have been nominated for this role by their CCP/DCCP

That's exactly what the police claimed to have done. Then, without even bothering to contact the family, they admitted that they had done no such thing.

 

[Pale Rider]

And what of this bit?

Referral of Fatal Collision/Manslaughter Cases
To ensure consistency of approach, charging decisions in all fatal collision cases should be approved by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor (DCCP) or nominated senior decision maker (who will have been nominated for this role by their CCP/DCCP

At first blush your quoted text seems at odds with DPP charging guidelines, but it isn't.

That's the next stage of the process, the second hurdle.

If a fatal collision case reaches the CPS, the decision to charge must be approved by one of their senior men.

In the Mason case, the case fell at the first hurdle, as soon as the copper realised it didn't meet the full evidence test, he knew it was bolloxed - applying the DPP guidelines he is obliged to do.

Even had the case been referred to the CPS, there is no guarantee it would have proceeded.

When a copper puts forward a case, the decision to charge or not is made by the CPS.

@Drago and @CopperCyclist will confirm one of their great frustrations is putting forward what they believe to be a good case only for the CPS to say: "No go (to court)."

 

[glenn forger]

DI Mason made-up evidence to fit his decision. There is no evidence that a plastic hat would have prevented the death, that's why none was submitted. A plastic hat certainly would not have prevented the collision since the driver admitted not seeing the cyclist at all, with or without hat.

 

[Pale Rider]

That is one way of interpreting it.

It's also the correct one, hence the conclusion of the complaint report:


I have found the service you received met the minimum standard required, which means your complaint is not upheld in respect of the service you received.


In these circumstances there has not been a breach of the standards of professional behaviour. This means there is no case to answer for DI Nick MASON


The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 requires me to consider if the findings of any case relating to a public complaint warrants referring an officer to our Unsatisfactory Performance Process (UPP). Having reached the conclusion that I have, I do not consider that UPP is appropriate in respect of any of the officers concerned.

 

[glenn forger]

Is someone with four thousand complaints against them more or less likely to uphold complaints? The police frequently find themselves Not Guilty of all sorts of things, if you take these decisions at face value you're sadly naive.

 

[glenn forger]

http://eilidhcairns.com/eilidhs-crash/the-investigation-and-sentence/

More police prejudice and incompetence, first they denied anything was wrong with their sloppy, inadequate investigation, then they admitted it. So, the cops declaring themselves innocent of any wrongdoing would only be accepted by somebody ignorant as to their long history of cocked up investigations.

 

[Pale Rider]

I am also unable to assert there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

But looking at the best summary of the evidence we have - again from the complaint report - it's difficult to argue with DI Mason.

This evidence is likely to be pretty much what goes before a jury, should the private prosecution ever get that far.

Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt the driver was guilty of a momentary lapse of inattention?

The defence will make much of the fact there is no direct witness evidence of that, and one of the witnesses appears to be mistaken.

The waters will be further muddied by the no hi-viz, no helmet, the confusing picture painted by the 'sea of lights', and the cyclist's apparent move to the offside for reasons that cannot be determined.

Muddying the waters - creating a reasonable doubt - is all the defence has to do, they do not have to prove anything.

It seems to me a jury would be unlikely to convict on the evidence, but predicting jury decisions is notoriously difficult and I have been wrong just as many times as I have been right.

Here's the evidence summary.

DI MASON conclusions were having read all the material in the investigation and discussed the case with the SIO, DS Edwards and the other Investigating Officers he concluded that there is insufficient evidence to take any criminal action against the driver of the Nissan Juke, Ms Purcell.


DI MASON records the facts as:

• Mr Michael Mason was in collision with the Nissan Juke.
  
  
• Mr Mason died from the injuries sustained during this collision, a head injury.
  
  
• Ms Purcell was the driver of the Nissan
  
  
• There are no witnesses that describe the driver taking any action that would cause the collision.
  
  
• There are no witnesses that describe Mr Mason taking any action that would cause the collision. Initially he was at the nearside of the road and at some point he moved to the offside. No witnesses are available as to why he changed his position in the road or when he did this. He may have had to avoid an obstruction in the road or a pedestrian stepping in front of him. No one person can say for sure.
  
  
• Mr Mason was not wearing a protective helmet (cause of death given as a head injury) or any high visibility clothing, he was wearing dark clothing.
  
  
• Mr Mason was displaying lights on the bicycle but these lights could easily be lost to a drivers sight in a busy central London Road in the dark where there are numerous other lights displayed.
  
  
• The Nissan Juke car and Mr Mason’s bicycle were examined and found to have no faults that contributed to this collision.
  
  
• Ms Purcell passed all road side tests including an eyesight test in the dark, the legal requirement being to pass this test in daylight.
  
  
• There is witness evidence from Mr Suber Abdijarim which is at odds with other witnesses and the images shown on CCTV. He states that the Nissan Juke was doing over 30mph but I believe this statement to be inaccurate. I have viewed the CCTV and the Nissan Juke is travelling at the same speed as other traffic which is not excessive for the location. This fact is supported by the evidence of PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator who states that this was not a high speed collision. Mr Adijarim also states that the Nissan did not deviate or brake. Again this statement is inaccurate. It is clear from the CCTV taken from ‘Top Shop’ that the Nissan braked at the point of collision and then put on Hazard warning lights for the vehicle.
  
  
• PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator states that Mr Mason was run over by the Nissan Juke but he is unable to confirm this for sure. I do not consider this relevant. It is clear Mr Mason died from injuries sustained in the collision.
  
  
• There is no evidence available to say that Ms Purcell did a deliberate act or did anything that was negligent in relation her driving to cause this collision.
  

DI MASON states, given the available information, his opinion is there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident.