Michael Mason Inquest

[spen666]

Didn't the driver admit that the collision occurred? Is that not evidence?

The fact that a collision has occurred does not prove any offence has occurred. It is not an offence simply to be involved in a collision

 

[Sara_H]

The driver in my hit and run was prosecuted with no witnesses, other than myself and very little forensic evidence.
What he did have was a conviction for an almost identical previous offence.

 

[spen666]

The driver in my hit and run was prosecuted with no witnesses, other than myself and very little forensic evidence.
What he did have was a conviction for an almost identical previous offence.

Sara, you have already identified 2 witnesses, yourself and whoever did the forensic work.

Without witnesses there is no evidence



You like TMN are seemingly confusing what a witness is. A witness does not have to be someone who saw the incident, the forensic investigator, the police officer who carried out a breath test procedure sometime later at the police station, the police officer who charges the suspect etc are all witnesses

 

[Arrowfoot]

People have been convicted the world over without an eye witness present. A whole of crime including murder have been committed with no witness present at the scene.

This is where forensic and circumstantial evidence comes in.

 

[spen666]

Spen being an arse as usual

Alternatively you not having a clue and spouting rubbish.

The person presenting the forensic evidence is ....yes, you've guessed it a ..witness.

So, as I said before the statement from Baroness Jones is completely without merit as without witnesses there is no admissible evidence and therefore can be no successful prosecution

I'm sorry you are not able to understand what a witness is, and am even sorrier you feel the need to show your ignorance repeatedly.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm not sure she has engaged her brain fully before making this particular point.

Without witness(es) there is no evidence against a suspect.

The Baroness was referring to eye witnesses.


GC

 

[glenn forger]

The Baroness was referring to eye witnesses.


GC

Of course she was, to the actual collision, she cites thirteen witnesses to events leading up to when in her letter.

Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission
by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has
announced that it would not be prosecuting the driver.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default...o_metropolitan_police_commissioner_030215.pdf

Making such a rudimentary error demonstrates a worrying lack of legal knowledge, this is basic stuff that an A Level law student should have mastered by now.

 

[Pale Rider]

I am not saying it does but the driver agreed that if the cyclist was there, which he was, she should have seen him. That is surely sufficient evidence to warrant putting to a court.

I have seen this happen when a lorry driver said he didn't see the cyclist.

The prosecution relied on the collision damage investigation, involving sight lines and projected timings.

The jury was told the driver - any driver - could have seen the cyclist from X metres away and would have had X seconds at 56mph to avoid the cyclist.

We also heard about the cyclist's clothing - high viz, lights and so on.

Several drivers who passed seconds beforehand gave evidence to say, obviously, they saw the cyclist and avoided him.

The phrase the police officer who presented the investigation evidence used a couple of times was: "The cyclist was there to be seen."

The lorry driver was acquitted, but the point is the police - and particularly the CPS - believed their case passed the test: prosecution was in the public interest, and there was a realistic possibility of a conviction.

 

[glenn forger]

You can remember a lot of details about that case, where did it happen?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Of course she was, to the actual collision, she cites thirteen witnesses to events leading up to when in her letter.

Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission
by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has
announced that it would not be prosecuting the driver.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default...o_metropolitan_police_commissioner_030215.pdf

Making such a rudimentary error demonstrates a worrying lack of legal knowledge, this is basic stuff that an A Level law student should have mastered by now.

I'm not sure to whom your "rudimentary error" comment is directed. Is it at @spen666 ?

Where does the bit in italics in your post originate from? I don't see it in the CTC article or in the Baroness's letter.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission
by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has
announced that it would not be prosecuting the driver.

http://uksafercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/open-season-on-cyclists-claims-green.html

 

[Pale Rider]

You can remember a lot of details about that case, where did it happen?

I'm sightly reluctant to answer this question because forger only ever seems to ask me things in a bid to catch me out.

However, I think the genuine interest from other members outweighs pointless forum point scoring.

The cyclist died on the A19 south bound, near Billingham, Cleveland.

He had joined the road about a mile or two before at the A689 Wynyard junction.

It is a national speed limit dual carriageway, but cyclists are legally allowed to use it.

Several of the witnesses who passed moments before commented they used the road often and were surprised to see a cyclist on it.

What the prosecution did not have was a witness who saw the lorry hit the cyclist.

The judicial process was long because there were two trials.

The first jury was unable to reach a verdict, so there was a second trial.

The second jury was also unable to reach a verdict.

As is usually the case, the CPS decided not to have a third go, although legally they could have done.

Thus the defendant is found not guilty on the orders of the judge.

The defendant can for ever correctly say he is not guilty of any offence, but it's not quite the same ringing endorsement of his driving as a swift not guilty verdict from the first jury would have been.

I think the case also illustrates how difficult jurors find cases involving death on the roads.

Two panels deliberated long and hard in this one, and neither were able to come up with a verdict on which at least ten of them agreed.

The following two links are accurate press reports.

Link one is a prosecution opening, the second is the final proceedings in the case when the driver was acquitted.

The brief comments from Judge Simon Bourne Arton at the end of the second report sum it all up well.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10340930.Lorry_driver_on_trial_for_killing_cyclist/

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...sh_cleared_after_jury_fails_to_reach_verdict/

 

[glenn forger]

They had similar problems with juries in apartheid South Africa, that's the problem with asking drivers whether failing to notice a cyclist was "careless".

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission
by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has
announced that it would not be prosecuting the driver.

http://uksafercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/open-season-on-cyclists-claims-green.html

Thanks for clarifying. Your post gave the impression that you were quoting from the Baroness's letter and I couldn't see her citing 13 witnesses anywhere.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

Hang on, that link's bust, those were her words, I'm sure.