The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”

[spen666]

I quite enjoyed jury service, and found it interesting.
But I did watch a lot of films on the laptop and read about 6 books!

Hopefully not in the court room

I've never been called for jury service yet

 

[albion]

deleted so as not to confuses.

I mixed up the two recent cases.

 

[albion]

https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael
Not just for Michael, for every single cyclist who is now more likely to be the next total failure of the justice system.

edit - note that this does not refer to this this case in question.

 

[slowmotion]

Are you not excluded as a solicitor?

Disqualifieds, ineligibles and excused etc are here....
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotl...otland.htm#h_who_is_disqualified_from_serving

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Sinden clearly lied in court, it is not physically possible for events to have taken place the way he described.

Forgive my ignorance on legal matters, but can't this be appealed? Or do we fall in to serious costs to the family if the decision is upheld? (Or either way for that matter?)

 

[Origamist]

Warning, may cause rage:

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/

How does a driver who claims not have been looking at his phone ascertain that it has 1% of battery remaining?

How does a driver who claims to be doing no more than 50mph cover approximately 1.2 miles in under 55 seconds?

How does a driver who claims to have seen a cyclist also claim not to have seen the cyclist?

How does a driver who claims to have seen the cyclist approximately 600 feet before colliding with him come to be unable to avoid a collision through apparently being unable to see him?

Why does a cyclist who is nervous about the road he is on stop in the carriageway to mount the pavement, and then—with the pavement continuing onwards—return to the road less than 300ft later?

How long does it take to type four words and (most curiously) three punctuation marks on a phone, and how long does it take to halt a car, pick up a phone, dial 999, and connect the call? And why (assuming this didn’t happen because it would have been an absolutely pivotal point in the case and presumably would have been reported, given that reports include precise timing) didn’t investigators establish minimum possible times for these things and subtract them from the 55 seconds in order to determine the maximum possible time between Sinden discarding his phone and the collision occurring?

None of these things make any sense. None of them seem to be backed up by evidence. The defence, if it genuinely is as reported, appears to be full of holes.

A further update from Bez:
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/somethings-seriously-wrong-here/#comments

 

[spen666]

Are you not excluded as a solicitor?

As regulator says

 

[Pale Rider]

Forgive my ignorance on legal matters, but can't this be appealed? Or do we fall in to serious costs to the family if the decision is upheld? (Or either way for that matter?)

Short answer is 'no', but this being the law there is a lot longer answer.

Generally a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence, there has been a not guilty verdict and that is final.

However, some 'grave crimes' can now be retried if there is 'new and compelling' evidence.

A couple of murderers have been convicted in this way.

I don't know if death by dangerous or careless driving qualifies, but I suspect it does not.

 

[Profpointy]

I rather get the impression that an awful lot of non-cyclists genuinely believe the "wobblin' about all over the place, jumping red lights, don't pay any effin' road tax type stuff" and hence are all too ready to see cyclists as a hazard to motorists, even if they themselves can drive actually adequately well, but are still inclined to give "the hard pressed motorist" the benefit of the doubt unless they're objectively drunk or whatever. Contrast this with the chap who fell asleep and crashed into a train. If he'd crashed into some cyclists it's inconceivable he'd have been as severely treated.

This attitude is re-enforced by the likes of Clarkson, references to lycra-louts crashing into grannies and all the rest. I think a daily mail journalist reported her granny had been killed by pavement cycling or two or three separate occasions. People believe this stuff. I don't think I'm over-dramatizing

 

[MontyVeda]

... if a jury are being asked to decide whether playing with a mobile phone while driving is dangerous, or even careless ....

I'm confused with this... since using a mobile phone whilst driving is an offence, surely the jury would simply have to decide whether or not the accused was using his phone whilst driving.

 

[benb]

I'm confused with this... since using a mobile phone whilst driving is an offence, surely the jury would simply have to decide whether or not the accused was using his phone whilst driving.

Driving whilst using a mobile wasn't the offence they were charged with.
Theoretically I suppose it's possible to be using a mobile phone yet still not guilty of driving without due care. That, for some bizarre reason, is what the jury believed.

 

[Tin Pot]

Is it possible for the judge to make a statement to the public in the case explaining this whole thing?

I mean, we're obviously at a disadvantage for the jurors to reach this conclusion - we must be missing something key.

 

[Origamist]

The two charges were: causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving.

The guidelines for the former, under the second of the three levels of seriousness state:

Level 2 - This is driving that creates a substantial risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:

• Gross avoidable distraction such as reading or composing a text message over a period of time...

You would imagine, given the admission of texting only seconds before the collision (which the defendant had earlier blamed on things landing on his phone) that a conviction would be more likely than not.

 

[Origamist]

Is it possible for the judge to make a statement to the public in the case explaining this whole thing?

I mean, we're obviously at a disadvantage for the jurors to reach this conclusion - we must be missing something key.

In this case, you would hope there is some missing piece of evidence that would make the decision of the jury more understandable. As it currently stands, one can only assume they accepted the "single witness suicide swerve" from the pavement.

 

[Wobblers]

Isn't that a bit extreme? I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.

Most do not cycle. In fact, I give good odds that there was not one cyclist on that jury. We already have this situation which you fear - and it's all one sided, loaded against the cyclist. If no one's there to explain what secondary position is, and why a cyclist would sensibly occupy it, is it any surprise that there would be a tendency to see this as just another self-righteous cyclist who got his just desserts? No, not by all jurors certainly - but I bet more than one did harbour exactly that thought. Just as some jurors automatically assume guilt if the accused is from a certain part of town (that was exactly what happened when I did jury service).