Michael Mason private prosecution

[jefmcg]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could return to "driving is a privilege"? Let's say she wasn't guilty of an offence (no "mens rea" or whatever that term is). But if you can't see a legally lit cyclist on a very well lit broad stretch of road, then maybe driving just isn't for you. No crime, no "punishment", just you can't drive anymore, like blind people and epileptics. It's tough, but not as tough as being dead.

At least if she had been distracted by a phone, there would be a clear path to not doing it again: phone in the boot for example. How can she prevent the same thing happening again if she doesn't know how it happened this time?

?Maybe when self driving cars are reasonably common, we could see this happening.

 

[User33236]

I would be surprised if, were you to knock a cyclist off his bike while taking your driving test then say afterwards that you hadnt seen him and had no idea what had happened, you were permitted even to continue the test, let alone to pass it

My ex brother-in-law knocked down and, unfortunately, killed an elderly lady during his driving test. The test was obviously abandoned but, following witness testimony (including that of the examiner) was not recorder as a fail. instead it was rescheduled for a number of weeks later when he was mentally able to retake the test.

The examiners statement basically stated my ex-BIL had no chance as the lady abruptly, and unexpectedly, stepped out into traffic only a few metres ahead of him.

It all happened so suddenly ex-BIL had no recollection of exact circumstances.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

One day the judge refuses to dismiss the prosecution, before the jury hear the evidence, the very next day the jury reaches a verdict?

Wow.

 

[DaveReading]

One day the judge refuses to dismiss the prosecution, before the jury hear the evidence, the very next day the jury reaches a verdict?

Wow.

Sounds fairly straightforward, what is it about that sequence of events that you find strange ?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Sounds fairly straightforward, what is it about that sequence of events that you find strange ?

Fine with the sequence, just surprised, not to say disturbed, at how quickly it was dealt with.

 

[DaveReading]

It's hard to see what might have occupied the court for more than the two days that the trial lasted. There can't have been many witnesses testifying, nor a huge amount of evidence to present, so we're left with just the time taken for the jury to reach their verdict, and clearly they didn't think there was much to debate.

Disappointing, yes. Surprising, not really.

 

[jefmcg]

Fine with the sequence, just surprised, not to say disturbed, at how quickly it was dealt with.

I think you are comparing this to a murder trial or something. The facts are here are pretty straight forward and couldn't take more than a couple of hours to completely describe everything that happened, particularly as her (probably honest) defence was "I didn't see him" No expert witness could help, no specialists in sun angles or whatever bullshit defence has been used in these cases. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute - where it was, who was there, what happened. The only point of contest was why it happened.

If you think of a murder, you will have detailed testimony from a medical examiner, which could easily take a day. Witness statements about the actual death, witness identifying the assailant, witnesses proving motive, alibi witnesses, police description of the scene, detailed forensics, character witnesses etc etc etc.

 

[Dan B]

as her (probably honest) defence was "I didn't see him"

Still hard to see how this is a defence and not an admission of liability

 

[DaveReading]

Still hard to see how this is a defence

In some cases it might be ("it was dark and the cyclist had no lights"), but here clearly (npi) it isn't.

 

[jefmcg]

Still hard to see how this is a defence and not an admission of liability

Totally.

"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

She was clearly paying no attention at all.

 

[Nortones2]

Or has a tendency to petit mal?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Totally.

"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

She was clearly paying no attention at all.

And I expect, in a case where someone lost their life, the odd ten minutes or so being spent exploring the meanings of careful and competent and attention in this context.

Instead it appears she said "I didn't see him" and the jury said "Fair enough, these things happen, there but for the grace of God... etc.."

 

[jefmcg]

Yes, maybe you have a point.

From their fundraising page:

Update: November 2015

You may have noticed that we are now appealing for £75,000 rather than the original £30,000. This is because the lawyers carrying out the prosecution have increased their estimate of how much the prosecution could cost due to the complex nature of the case. We need to raise enough funds to ensure we can carry the case through to trial, hence the reason for increasing the appeal. Thank you for your understanding.

That sounds like they were expecting more than a day in court.

(Honestly, this whole thing starts to read like a scam. More than 2,000 people gave £36 on average. The last posts to their web page and facebook pages were January 2016, and their last tweet was a retweet a month ago. Surely the donors deserve to know how their money was spent?)

 

[Dan B]

Yes, maybe you have a point.

From their fundraising page:

Update: November 2015

You may have noticed that we are now appealing for £75,000 rather than the original £30,000. This is because the lawyers carrying out the prosecution have increased their estimate of how much the prosecution could cost due to the complex nature of the case. We need to raise enough funds to ensure we can carry the case through to trial, hence the reason for increasing the appeal. Thank you for your understanding.

That sounds like they were expecting more than a day in court.

(Honestly, this whole thing starts to read like a scam. More than 2,000 people gave £36 on average. The last posts to their web page and facebook pages were January 2016, and their last tweet was a retweet a month ago. Surely the donors deserve to know how their money was spent?)

The money is collected by the CDF, no? I'm sure they're not allowed to spend it all on sweeties and beer, at least not without it showing up in the accounts

It would be nice if they could give us some kind of breakdown of where it went/what's left over, but I think this is much more likely to be poor social media skills (at worst) than attempted fraud

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That was basically her defence...

That and "The CPS couldn't be arsed to prosecute and the Met couldn't be arsed to recommend prosecution so, obviously, I'd done nothing wrong."