Michael Mason Inquest

[Pale Rider]

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.

His evidence, as someone who was there, carries more weight than the opinion of someone who was not.

I take his reading of the situation over yours, if the reverse were true, you were there and he was not, I would take your reading.

The CCTV evidence shows she was driving close to the centre line and did not deviate.

No CCTV or witness account exists of the impact, but it was frontal, so the investigator has drawn the reasonable conclusion the cyclist must have deviated into the path of the car.

Had the cyclist not deviated, she would presumably have passed him safely, albeit without seeing he was there.

She passed day and night eyesight tests.

The only offence she can possibly be guilty of is death by careless driving.

To be guilty, she must be guilty of both parts, she caused the death - check - and her driving was careless.

Problem, there is no evidence of careless driving - the system is we convict on evidence, nothing else.

The only evidence of her driving is she was driving steadily and carefully - she did not swerve as someone might if their attention lapsed.

As the law stands, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction, which is why DI Mason didn't take the case any further.

 

[Lemond]

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.

So a photograph of some pedestrians walking down a street shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible. And??? Does this prove whether or not Mr Mason was visible on the night in question? No, it doesn't. Does it illustrate the viewpoint of the the road ahead from the drivers point of view? No, it doesn't. Does it prove whether or not Mr Mason was clearly visible to the driver? No, it doesn't. Does it have any relevance to the incident in question. No, it doesn't.

 

[Wobblers]

His evidence, as someone who was there, carries more weight than the opinion of someone who was not.

I take his reading of the situation over yours, if the reverse were true, you were there and he was not, I would take your reading.

The CCTV evidence shows she was driving close to the centre line and did not deviate.

No CCTV or witness account exists of the impact, but it was frontal, so the investigator has drawn the reasonable conclusion the cyclist must have deviated into the path of the car.

Had the cyclist not deviated, she would presumably have passed him safely, albeit without seeing he was there.

She passed day and night eyesight tests.

The only offence she can possibly be guilty of is death by careless driving.

To be guilty, she must be guilty of both parts, she caused the death - check - and her driving was careless.

Problem, there is no evidence of careless driving - the system is we convict on evidence, nothing else.

The only evidence of her driving is she was driving steadily and carefully - she did not swerve as someone might if their attention lapsed.

As the law stands, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction, which is why DI Mason didn't take the case any further.

It is entirely your opinion that there is no evidence of careless driving. Other opinions exist - most notably that of a competent driver would have seen the cyclist directly in front of her.

Have you ever sat in a court room listening to witness testimony. I have, and it is nearly useless. In fact, you can get witnesses to say different things merely by asking them different questions. Show two groups of people photos of a minor crash, then ask one group to describe the accident, and the other to describe the "car smash" and the second group will give you a far more exaggerated description of the damage than the first. In other words, they made it up to please the interviewer - and it's entirely subconscious! You are placing far too much weight on the impressions of one witness, who in trying to explain the events, suggests that Mr Mason "was lost in a sea of lights". Were that the case, it would be reasonable to expect that this sort of accident would be extremely commonplace on all busy roads. Yet this is not true - and this simple observation shows that your witness is not credible in this matter.

 

[Wobblers]

So a photograph of some pedestrians walking down a street shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible. And??? Does this prove whether or not Mr Mason was visible on the night in question? No, it doesn't. Does it illustrate the viewpoint of the the road ahead from the drivers point of view? No, it doesn't. Does it prove whether or not Mr Mason was clearly visible to the driver? No, it doesn't. Does it have any relevance to the incident in question. No, it doesn't.

Arrant nonsense. It is objective evidence that shows your claim that someone wearing dark in exactly those circumstances is hard to spot. Not that this is particularly relevant given that Micheal Mason had working lights - or is that yet another of those inconvenient facts you've chosen to ignore?

 

[Lemond]

Arrant nonsense. It is objective evidence that shows your claim that someone wearing dark in exactly those circumstances is hard to spot. Not that this is particularly relevant given that Micheal Mason had working lights - or is that yet another of those inconvenient facts you've chosen to ignore?

The photograph shows that those particular pedestrians are visible against that particular background at that particular moment. Nothing more.

 

[Pale Rider]

All this verbose arguing seems way off the point to me. Surely the only issue is that when someone is killed like this the evidence should be heard and tested in court?

There is not enough evidence of a criminal offence for it to get that far.

She has to be guilty of careless driving - there is no evidence of that.

 

[Dan B]

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.

I don't have to ask him anything, his opinion is right there in the report. Of all the evidence he collected, he felt it appropriate to include "cyclist was not wearing a helmet" in the "tiny proportion" he cites as the rationale for not taking the case forwards. If he put no relevance on it, he would not listed it in the "things I think are relevant" list. He'd have put it in the "things I think have no relevance" list.

 

[Mugshot]

This is such a sad thread.

 

[Pale Rider]

I don't have to ask him anything, his opinion is right there in the report. Of all the evidence he collected, he felt it appropriate to include "cyclist was not wearing a helmet" in the "tiny proportion" he cites as the rationale for not taking the case forwards. If he put no relevance on it, he would not listed it in the "things I think are relevant" list. He'd have put it in the "things I think have no relevance" list.

DI Mason knows he must prove two things, she caused the death and she did so by her careless driving.

I suspect, as an experienced copper, he will have known there might be a defence argument that had Mr Mason been wearing a helmet, he might have survived the impact.

That would knack the case because, if the jury accepts the defence argument, the 'she caused the death' bit is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus he includes helmet as a factor in his decision making.

However, I reckon DI Mason thought he might be able to get over that somehow, but he then finds there is no evidence of the other thing he must prove - careless driving.

So taking all these problems with case into account, he decides to no further action it.

As you say, you don't have to ask him, but unless someone does and he gives a full answer, we will never know.

 

[Pale Rider]

The very fact that you can type those words, Pale Rider, speaks to the truth of Mugshot's observation.

The words demonstrate that criminal convictions in this country are decided on the evidence, or at least should be.

I am only pointing out, that as the law stands, those who want this driver convicted of something are facing an uphill battle.

It's not my money, but I fear the family and the Cyclists' Defence Fund are going to spend tens of thousands on a private prosecution with no real prospect of success.

A change in the law would sort it, get rid of that awkward word 'careless' in a new offence of 'causing death by driving'.

The family might be better off using the cash to campaign for that change.

 

[Lemond]

This is such a sad thread.

I quite agree. A man dies in a tragic accident and it's used as an excuse to accuse individual police officers of corruption and fabricating evidence. One poster even suggested this was a cover-up because he thought the driver might be Kate Middleton's hairdresser.

 

[glenn forger]

I quite agree. A man dies in a tragic accident and it's used as an excuse to accuse individual police officers of corruption and fabricating evidence.

It's reasonable to ask who you are accusing of saying this. When you realise nobody's said it you really ought to apologise. I think your emotions are clouding your judgement, calm down and discuss like an adult with fewer sarcastic outbursts or invented straw men.

 

[Pale Rider]

But for that to happen, the matter has to come to court.

No it doesn't.

As things stand currently, the Mason case has been decided on the evidence - or lack of it - by the police.

Lots of people are crying 'foul' about that.

Fine, but those mounting a private prosecution will still come up against the full evidence test.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the authority to stop a private prosecution if the test is not met.

It is inevitable the driver's defence team will ask the DPP to look at the private case.

But the family may unearth new evidence to convince the DPP the case should go ahead.

That would be a good result for them, because the CPS will take it over, saving the family the cost.

Private prosecutions have been more successful in other areas, such as fraud.

Often the police will accept there has been a crime and that evidence is there to be gathered, but they haven't the resources to do it.

The victim then gathers the evidence, passes the full test, and the private prosecution goes to court.

 

[Dan B]

DI Mason knows he must prove two things, she caused the death and she did so by her careless driving.

Back up a moment. I thought that the matter of whether he died or not had no bearing on whether she was driving carelessly. That's what lemond said in #311. That he died as a result of the collision isn't in contention.

 

[Mugshot]

I quite agree. A man dies in a tragic accident and it's used as an excuse to accuse individual police officers of corruption and fabricating evidence. One poster even suggested this was a cover-up because he thought the driver might be Kate Middleton's hairdresser.

A man, who was it would appear fulfilling all the criteria legally required of him to go about his business, is killed having been struck by a car. The person driving says they had not seen them, this despite clearly being able to see as they passed a test to determine if they could or not. This level of driving is then described as careful by a senior police officer. Removing cyclist or motorist bias from the equation and ignoring corruption and fabrication conspiracies, to argue that this is in any way an acceptable level of competance and should not be charged accordingly strikes me as extraordinary and terribly sad, but I suspect you knew that's what I meant.