Michael Mason Inquest

[glenn forger]

If the injuries sustained by Mr Mason are not relevant to whether the driver was dangerous or careless, it surely makes the square root of sod-all difference whether he was wearing a helmet or not, because it would not have changed her driving, merely (possibly) the consequences of same. So why was it mentioned?

That's DI Mason bending over backwards to absolve the driver again. The question of whether a helmet would have made a scrap of difference wasn't even considered, the injuries weren't discussed, nothing. He just thought "head injury" so cited a helmet. Just throw that in there. Per mile traveled pedestrians are sadly at more risk than cyclists are from motor traffic, many suffer head injuries. Imagine the reaction if a policeman absolved a driver who had killed a pedestrian because the pedestrian didn't have a plastic hat on. It's blatantly bent. I dunno if the driver has friends in high places or it's just staggering incompetence from old bill. Probably the latter.

 

[Lemond]

If the injuries sustained by Mr Mason are not relevant to whether the driver was dangerous or careless, it surely makes the square root of sod-all difference whether he was wearing a helmet or not, because it would not have changed her driving, merely (possibly) the consequences of same. So why was it mentioned?

Because we are talking about two different things. Firstly there is a discussion going on about why the police make mention of the fact that Mr Mason wasn't wearing hi-viz or a helmet, which is simply due to how police incident reporting procedures are structured around the content of the Highway Code. Then there's a second discussion going on about what's considered relevant by the CPS when bringing a prosecution. Some posters have stated that the fact the Mr Mason was hit by a car and died as a result is enough to warrant a charge, especially so as the driver stated that she should have seen Mr Mason but didn't. The post you highlighted above simply shows that under the eyes of the Law, the fact that a cyclist died as a result of a collision, doesn't automatically mean that the driver is guilty of any crime.

 

[Dan B]

Because we are talking about two different things. Firstly there is a discussion going on about why the police make mention of the fact that Mr Mason wasn't wearing hi-viz or a helmet, which is simply due to how police incident reporting procedures are structured around the content of the Highway Code. Then there's a second discussion going on about what's considered relevant by the CPS when bringing a prosecution.

No, I am not talking about police incident reporting procedures. I am talking about DS Edwards rationale for believing that the case should not go to the CPS: i.e. what he (and Mason) believed the CPS would consider relevant when bringing a prosecution

In July 2014 DS Edwards states he requested that DI Nick MASON review the investigation. During this meeting he outlined his genuine belief that insufficient evidence existed that would support a charging advice file to the CPS. He states the areas which supported his rationale and that he conveyed to DI MASON were:

• Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.

 

[Pale Rider]

If the injuries sustained by Mr Mason are not relevant to whether the driver was dangerous or careless, it surely makes the square root of sod-all difference whether he was wearing a helmet or not, because it would not have changed her driving, merely (possibly) the consequences of same. So why was it mentioned?

The helmet was recorded at the scene and the copper later observed Mr Mason died of a head injury.

The case then failed because it didn't pass the full evidence test.

Had the case proceeded, the guidance you quoted is to help a crown prosecutor to decide if he should charge death by dangerous or death by careless.

It is telling him to ignore the death for that narrow purpose, but to focus on the manner of driving.

In other cases, the CPS lawyer would have had lots of other evidence about the driving to look at, high speeds, police chase, skid marks, etc etc.

It might help you see why it never reached the CPS, there is no evidence of manner of driving in this case, other than she was tootling down Regent Street within the speed limit.

 

[glenn forger]

So the police have decided to prioritise advice over rule 188?

 

[Dan B]

The helmet was recorded at the scene and the copper later observed Mr Mason died of a head injury.

The case then failed because it didn't pass the full evidence test.

Had the case proceeded, the guidance you quoted is to help a crown prosecutor to decide if he should charge death by dangerous or death by careless.

I did not quote guidance. I did not quote the recording at the scene. I quoted the reasons cited by DS Mason for believing that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the CPS. "No helmet" was apparently one of them. Why?

 

[Dan B]

It might help you see why it never reached the CPS, there is no evidence of manner of driving in this case, other than she was tootling down Regent Street within the speed limit.

... and failed to see (her admission) a cyclist directly in front of her (the accident investigator's report) until after she'd driven into him.

 

[Lemond]

... and failed to see (her admission) a cyclist directly in front of her (the accident investigator's report) until after she'd driven into him.

Directly in front of her? One eye witness, standing only a few meters away from the scene, said that she saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke. Another witness said that he saw the cyclist being hit by the wing mirror of the car and then hitting the bonnet of the car. In light of those two statements, how can you be sure that Mr Mason was ever cycling in front of the car?

 

[Pale Rider]

I did not quote guidance. I did not quote the recording at the scene. I quoted the reasons cited by DS Mason for believing that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the CPS. "No helmet" was apparently one of them. Why?

... and failed to see (her admission) a cyclist directly in front of her (the accident investigator's report) until after she'd driven into him.

You quoted DI Mason's recording of the facts.

The helmet was one, there were many others including such simple matters as date, time, location, weather, etc.

DI Mason also recorded witness statements, evidence of the collision investigation and all the rest.

Taking all this together, he decided it was a no further action case, so did not refer it to the next stage - the CPS.

Only he could tell you how much weight he put on each of the many facts and pieces of evidence.

But there is no automatic prosecution of a driver involved in a fatal accident with a cyclist.

You may think there should be, but the law at present is against you.

DI Mason knew he had to have some evidence of careless or dangerous driving, and there is none.

When these types of cases are prosecuted, the police often use the phrase: "The cyclist was there to be seen."

They will work out how many seconds the cyclist would have been in plain sight of the driver.

In this case, the investigation concluded the 'sea of lights' would have made the cyclist hard to see.

The driver, who passed a night time eyesight test (the legal requirement is day time) said she didn't see the cyclist.

DI Mason put the case down to a tragic accident.

The law still allows for that because, as I mentioned earlier, there is no automatic prosecution of the person who survives a fatal crash.

 

[Dan B]

You quoted DI Mason's recording of the facts.

I am sure that DI Mason recorded many more facts than are listed in section B of the report they produced after the complaint against him. However, the text that I have quoted appears in a bullet point list headed "the areas which supported his rationale and that he conveyed to DI MASON". Explain to me again why he would have listed it as supporting his rationale not to take the case to the CPS if he didn't regard it as relevant to his decision not to take the case to the CPS, because even your helpful double-spaced one-sentence paragraphs don't seem to make your argument less self-contradictory

 

[Pale Rider]

I am sure that DI Mason recorded many more facts than are listed in section B of the report they produced after the complaint against him. However, the text that I have quoted appears in a bullet point list headed "the areas which supported his rationale and that he conveyed to DI MASON". Explain to me again why he would have listed it as supporting his rationale not to take the case to the CPS if he didn't regard it as relevant to his decision not to take the case to the CPS, because even your helpful double-spaced one-sentence paragraphs don't seem to make your argument less self-contradictory

Strictly, this is what DS Edwards said he outlined to DI Mason:

 Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.
 An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything.
 CCTV traced corroborated how busy the area in general was, with both motorists and pedestrians.
 All witnesses traced could not describe in any detail the lead up to the collision.
 Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.
 CCTV recovered from 2 independent venues highlighted that Ms PURCELL’S vehicle was travelling at an appropriate speed. This is corroborated by the minor damage caused to the vehicle after impact.
 CCTV showed Mr MASON cycling between 1.5 to 2 metres from the kerb line. No CCTV exists depicting Mr MASON moving from his line of travel, i.e. moving out to his right. This is something he must have done in order for the collision to have taken place.
 CCTV, physical evidence and Ms PURCELL’S own account prove that she had always maintained her position in the road, adjacent to the central white line.
 We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road.

Within that is the fact cyclist Mason was not wearing a helmet.

DI Mason listened to what his sergeant told him - a lot more than the above summary - took into account whatever other evidence he had, then decided it was a 'tragic accident'.

As I said, you will have to ask DI Mason what relevance - if any - he put on any individual fact or piece of evidence, only a tiny proportion of which we have here, summarised, third hand.

 

[Wobblers]

It's a photograph Glenn. Nothing's moving. That kinda helps make them easy to spot, don't you think?

No. No it doesn't. Moving objects are easier to spot because your visual system, in common with just about every other animal, is very good at detecting movement - after all something moving is likely to be something to eat, something to avoid or something to run away from. What @glenn forger's photo does highlight, and very clearly, is just how visible someone in dark clothing is under those circumstances. In other words, the "dark clothing excuse" is demonstrably false.

 

[Wobblers]

Directly in front of her? One eye witness, standing only a few meters away from the scene, said that she saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke. Another witness said that he saw the cyclist being hit by the wing mirror of the car and then hitting the bonnet of the car. In light of those two statements, how can you be sure that Mr Mason was ever cycling in front of the car?

The forensic report of the accident investigator categorically rules all this out. Mr Mason was right in front of her. That's how we know - because the first impact was on the offside part of the front bumper.

 

[Pale Rider]

In other words, the "dark clothing excuse" is demonstrably false.

Independent witness Neil Tevithick would give you an argument:

He said: "With the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything."

 

[Wobblers]

Independent witness Neil Tevithick would give you an argument:

He said: "With the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything."

Which is his opinion. His opinion does not constitute fact. And again - why am I having to repeat myself? - the photo shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible, nor does it in any way adequately explain why she did not see him right in front of her whilst every other motorist had.