Michael Mason Inquest

[glasgowcyclist]

the Metropolitan Police have now sought to justify their earlier decision not to refer the case to the CPS by reference to (amongst other immaterial matters), and I quote:

“• Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.

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

GC

 

[glenn forger]

At every stage now we have been let down by the Met police; from an insultingly soft interview of the driver, to the original decision not to prosecute despite the convincing evidence of their own expert, to this shilly-shallying over whether or not to refer the case to the CPS.

The Met allowed us to hold a vigil on the anniversary of my father's death thinking that we had had some small victory and that justice might yet be done. That now appears to be totally wrong.

None of this has been communicated to us first but played out in the media. I have heard nothing from my so-called family liaison officer since November.

This is no way to treat anyone, let alone a family dealing with the recent traumatic death of a loved one. Now, to add insult to injury, they seem to blame my dad, with his lack of high-viz and helmet, for his own death, rather than the woman who drove into him (who the police describe rather subjectively as a 'Careful and cautious driver').

It is a travesty of justice. What are the Met playing at here?

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private

 

[glenn forger]

Raymond Elsmore, 82, was struck while helping a pedestrian cross Tempest Avenue, Waterlooville, in 2012.

Lauren Paul, denies causing death by careless driving.

A crash investigator told a trial at Southampton Crown Court Mr Elsmore's high-visibility jacket would have blended in with the bright sunshine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27603938

Don't wear hi vis- it's your fault if a driver fails to notice you and kills you.

Wear hi vis- it's your fault if a driver fails to notice you and kills you.

 

[glenn forger]

In a statement, Nicola Branch from Stop Killing Cyclists, which organised Friday’s vigil, said:

Stop Killing Cyclists are horrified to learn of the awful treatment of the family of Mick Mason by the Met Police and we would recommend referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

To have been informed by a Press Release that that police would refer the case to the DPP, which although a bizarre and unconventional way of finding out, was a massive lift to the family, and now to have that hope whipped away from them equally through a Press Release, is an absolute disgrace.

The Met need to look very carefully how they deal with the family of a victim. They must be accountable for their actions.

 

[glenn forger]

Detective Inspector Nick Mason in his final review of the case and reasons for not referring this case to the CPS, stated “He [Michael Mason] was not wearing any high visibility clothing, nor was he wearing a safety helmet though his bicycle was displaying a red light at the rear and a white light on the front.”

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150319-met-adds-insult-injury-mason-case

Beyond belief. So, that lad killed in Islington was partly to blame? No stab vest, after all.

 

[glenn forger]

How many cyclists?

None, according to the Met.

 

[Origamist]

Check out the attachment: "The Investigating Officer’s Report, explaining Met's reasons for not referring Mason case to CPS" at:

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private

 

[glenn forger]

In the report on the investigation into Mr Mason's death the police make strong references to the fact that Mr Mason was not wearing a hi-vis jacket nor a helmet. Neither of these are required for cycling in London. The police appear to have made value judgements about the effectiveness of hi-vis and helmets without allowing the evidence to be examined and tested in court.

There is little definitive research on the effectiveness of hi-vis jackets in well lit urban environments. In the CCTV video of Mr Mason riding on Regent street before the crash he is immediately recognisable as a cyclist. There are bright lights on the front and back of his bike, his dark shape stands out starkly against the bright backround of one of the best lit streets in London.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Check out the attachment: "The Investigating Officer’s Report, explaining Met's reasons for not referring Mason case to CPS" at:

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private

I'm disgusted by that report.

From the outset it is clear that the DI is a victim-blaming daffodunt.

..Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident.

GC

 

[Dave Davenport]

Just made a donation to the defence fund, I really hope this gets to court and the victim blaming by the Met is shown for what it is.

 

[Drago]

The Met is a blooming foreign country. It's for them to apply the Full Code Test before approaching the CPS, not to essentially make the decision themselves.

 

[glenn forger]

https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael

 

[spen666]

This takes some following, but I believe the Met Police press office - if not others as well - is confusing the DPP with the CPS.

If a coroner is unhappy with a police investigation, the coroner can order the police to look at it again - this inevitably leads to the police getting their heads together with a senior reviewing lawyer at the CPS.

A referral to the DPP can happen after sentencing in a criminal case when the prosecution feels the sentence passed is unduly lenient.

I think you are confusing yourself


The referral in sentencing cases is to the AG - the Attorney General. The DPP is not involved in unduly lenient sentencing referrals.

The DPP is effectively responsible for the CPS

 

[spen666]

The Met is a blooming foreign country. It's for them to apply the Full Code Test before approaching the CPS, not to essentially make the decision themselves.

It is not for the Met to apply the Full Code Test at all.

The Code in the Full Code Test you refer to is the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The clue as to who applies the full Code Test is in the name

 

[Drago]

Close, but not entirely correct...

https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...ase-management/charging-and-case-preparation/

The supervisory officer authorising the case to be presented to CPS has to themselves apply it as part of the process for deciding if it is suitable. The supervisory officer applies it as a screening measure for referral, the CPS apply it for real for.charging. As an officer who spent 6 years working as a Nationally accredited AI, and a supervisory officer who has to make either threshold test (charging) or full code test (referral to CPS so they can apply the test for an actual charging decision) every day, the information in the public domain I think the Mets decision is flawed.