Michael Mason private prosecution

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Calling @User !

If it goes as a private prosecution to Crown Court does it have to be a jury trial (with a jury of 12 motor-centrists)
-and-
can CPS or whoever then stop it as not being in public interest?
 

machew

Veteran
The CPS were asked to call the case file in but refused to do so.
CPS = Couldn’t Prosecute Satan/Clowns Pretending to be Solicitors/‘Can’t Prosecute, Sorry/Criminal Protection Service. Take your pick
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
The CPS, in the shape of its head, Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, has a bit of a problem here.

The DPP has the responsibility to halt any private criminal prosecutions which are malicious or vexatious.

Two things have already been established in this case.

The police officer in charge - also called Mason - was correct in his view it was his decision whether to prosecute or not.

He took the decision not to prosecute, that decision has been reviewed and not altered.

If Ms Saunders allows the case to proceed, she is effectively saying one or both of the above decisions was wrong.

If the decision not to charge - despite being reviewed - is now deemed to be wrong, then Ms Saunders could exercise her power to order the CPS to take over the prosecution and run it.

The defence may well ask what's changed - other than the victim's family having raised enough money to mount their own prosecution.

New evidence may be a way forward - I'm sure the family has mentioned there may be some.

It would be reasonable for the new evidence to be tested in court, so the CPS could take over the prosecution without too much embarrassment over the original decision not to prosecute.

But for that to happen, the family will have to establish the new evidence is relevant to the case and takes it forward - something which the defence team would probably argue strongly against.

I also suspect the new evidence has already been rejected by the CPS, which is another thing the defence could use in their favour.

If all the above is sorted and we do get a trial, another question is what will the jury be told about all the legal machinations in the case?

One could say 'nothing', but the defence might reasonably argue the fact that the police and CPS originally thought the defendant did nothing illegal - and stuck with that decision under pressure - is relevant to defending the allegation she now faces.

They will certainly want to use the original collision investigation report on which the decision not to prosecute was partly based.

So there's still lots of hurdles for the family to get over.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands

It was only going to go one way, but it is still sad to have reinforced that careless/dangerous driving is acceptable.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
It was only going to go one way, but it is still sad to have reinforced that careless/dangerous driving is acceptable.

I was hopeful but past cases have too often shown that juries will avoid convicting where a driver can't explain a fundamental and serious lapse of competency in controlling a car, probably through a sense of "There but for the grace...".

It honestly beggars belief that Purcell hasn't committed an offence of at least careless driving. Maybe trials like this should exclude from the jury anyone who holds or has held a driving licence. Better still, remove the jury completely from the process.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
Looking at it from the juries point of view. "The police did not even think that it was worth investigating, the CPS did not grab this with both hands and let's be honest - driving in London is hard, it is not surprising that the poor driver didn't see the cyclist". An entirely crap attitude, but worryingly understandable.
 
Top Bottom