Michael Mason private prosecution

[Poacher]

Clearly I'm not au fait with the British legal system, but I really hope this doesn't establish some sort of precedence for the SMIDSY defence - will "I didn't see the deceased, 'cos I couldn't be bothered to look" be accepted as a "stay out of jail and don't even collect any points" defence?

 

[jefmcg]

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

I agree. I meant precisely what I wrote. It reads like a scam, not that it is one.


Edit : erk. Literally 20 minutes after posting this, CTC spam arrived that seems to include a link to just the article I was complaining didn't exist

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict

 

[jefmcg]

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict

It's a tough read:

There were however some common themes. Seven of the witnesses gave evidence about seeing Mick in the air after the impact, arguably significant given that Ms Purcell didn’t.

One witness described the collision occurring more towards the driver’s side of the car, and that Mick went “over the windscreen then bounced off that side of the car”. A second said he saw Mick being hit by the car and “going up in the air and backwards – up the car, over the wing mirror, into the road”. Describing it as a substantial impact, he added that Mick was “thrown up into the air, catapulted across the bonnet, and subsequently died”.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It's a tough read:

I wish I'd not read it. Now seething.

 

[growingvegetables]

One PC Brian Gamble (now retired) comes out of Dollimore's account particularly poorly.

"Not according to Gamble. There’s lots for a driver to see, cyclists are small, we all get blasé, and it’s understandable that we don’t see anything that’s not right in front of us. Even then, we might have seen it but just can’t recollect doing so. If we do see it, count to five; we’ve got that long to do something."

Please God, not the same "PC Brian Gamble (retired) from Alperton Traffic Garage, Brent who received an RTPC Commander's Commendation in recognition of his dedicated and detailed investigation of a failed-to-stop fatal collision."

 

[Poacher]

One PC Brian Gamble (now retired) comes out of Dollimore's account particularly poorly.

"Not according to Gamble. There’s lots for a driver to see, cyclists are small, we all get blasé, and it’s understandable that we don’t see anything that’s not right in front of us. Even then, we might have seen it but just can’t recollect doing so. If we do see it, count to five; we’ve got that long to do something."

Please God, not the same "PC Brian Gamble (retired) from Alperton Traffic Garage, Brent who received an RTPC Commander's Commendation in recognition of his dedicated and detailed investigation of a failed-to-stop fatal collision."

'Twould be a remarkable coincidence if there were two or more PC Brian Gamble (retired)s. I wonder whether his commendation was in recognition of the Michael Mason case, and whether he took early retirement "on grounds of ill health".

 

[growingvegetables]

'Twould be a remarkable coincidence if there were two or more PC Brian Gamble (retired)s. I wonder whether his commendation was in recognition of the Michael Mason case, and whether he took early retirement "on grounds of ill health".

Shame on you! That is so cycnical!






Aye - and I'm a ******* great cynic too.

 

[swansonj]

According to CTC's account, PC Gamble's evidence was indeed riddled with horrendous mistaken attitudes and assumptions. Which re-emphasises the question: did CDF's barrister do enough to expose these fallacies to the jury? The CTC account could be accused of blaming absolutely everyone for the failure to convict... except CDF itself.

 

[PaulB]

That's kicked my day off on the worst possible foot. How can it conceivably be a 'defence' to say you didn't see the thing you hit? I recall a woman who once smashed in to my colleague's car and caused some potentially life threatening injuries to his daughter and the woman's defence - and I'm being serious here - was to make this claim, which was actually read out in court; 'I looked and he wasn't there and then he was there.' the inference being HE was in the wrong and must have been speeding! Thankfully, that was laughed out of court as the woman's defence in the Mick Mason case should have been, too.

It makes me feel more vulnerable now if this sort of thing is happening.

 

[oldstrath]

According to this, the woman failed to see a cyclist even after she'd collided with him, and believed the bang she heard may have been caused by a sack of potatoes falling from the sky.

Are there many blind lunatics driving around London?

 

[PaulB]

To avoid further upset, do not look at the comments on this story in the Daily Heil!

As a way to 'keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer' I do like to see what the general mood is so this being the newspaper with the highest circulation (that I'll lower myself to read), I check in from time to time to see what they're saying about cyclists and cycling-related incidents. There's nothing here you wouldn't expect.

 

[Pale Rider]

According to CTC's account, PC Gamble's evidence was indeed riddled with horrendous mistaken attitudes and assumptions. Which re-emphasises the question: did CDF's barrister do enough to expose these fallacies to the jury? The CTC account could be accused of blaming absolutely everyone for the failure to convict... except CDF itself.

The CTC/CDF bloke is very keen to praise their 'diligent' lawyers, but they failed, big time.

If the counsel they briefed was so hot she (if I recall) should have got properly stuck in to retired PC Crash Investigator - assuming his report was as mixed up as the CTC say.

The criminal court is an adversarial system, the CDF lost.

You can never account for juries, but the CDF should be taking some responsibility for that failure.

 

[oldstrath]

The CTC/CDF bloke is very keen to praise their 'diligent' lawyers, but they failed, big time.

If the counsel they briefed was so hot she (if I recall) should have got properly stuck in to retired PC Crash Investigator - assuming his report was as mixed up as the CTC say.

The criminal court is an adversarial system, the CDF lost.

You can never account for juries, but the CDF should be taking some responsibility for that failure.

All of which surely indicates that this is the wrong way to deal with issues of driver competence and licensing? Because otherwise you're happy that a woman who is impaired or inattentive enough to miss someone hitting her bonnet, and deranged enough to considered that potatoes may fall from the London sky, can continue to drive, unexamined.

Surely it is past time to treat driving as a privilege, separate licensing from criminal punishment, and take the serious stuff out of the realm of game playing lawyers and biased juries?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

According to CTC's account, PC Gamble's evidence was indeed riddled with horrendous mistaken attitudes and assumptions. Which re-emphasises the question: did CDF's barrister do enough to expose these fallacies to the jury? The CTC account could be accused of blaming absolutely everyone for the failure to convict... except CDF itself.

Expert police (ret'd) witness vs nerdy sinewy cyclists?

Perception is reality.

 

[jefmcg]

Expert police (ret'd) witness vs nerdy sinewy cyclists?

Perception is reality.

Yes, but the cyclists could have got experts of their own. Indeed, I would think it wouldn't be that hard to find another retired traffic cop to expertly disagree with him. I assumed that was where some of the the £70K would have gone.

Please God, not the same "PC Brian Gamble (retired) from Alperton Traffic Garage, Brent who received an RTPC Commander's Commendation in recognition of his dedicated and detailed investigation of a failed-to-stop fatal collision."

So you get a commendation for doing your job properly?