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

[slowmotion]

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).

There were a couple of people like that on one of the juries I was on. Fortunately there were enough stubborn people as well who were were prepared to hang out indefinitely to persuade them that they should just judge the accused on the evidence presented in court. My cases were heard in Southwark in London which has a huge pool of jurors to choose from. The likelihood of any of the jurors knowing anything about the accused was really remote. I can see that that could be problem elsewhere, and as mentioned before, social media etc is going to be a problem more recently.

 

[buggi]

The very fact he says he was not looking at the phone when he was texting, is an admission that he was texting while driving and as that carries a charge of dangerous driving how can the jury possibly not convict. As said early on, the jury have put themselves in the position of the driver because they do it themselves. I wish I'd been on that prosecution team because I would have given him his phone while he stood in the witness box and told him to reply to my message without looking at his phone. A feat that is simply impossible to do on modern day smart phones

 

[ufkacbln]

Only guessing here..

There was a question as to whether the bike had come off the pavement in front of the vehicle

If that was the case then it could have been decided by the Jury that the accident was unavoidable (phone or not) and hence the driving at the point of the collision not dangerous

 

[Origamist]

Only guessing here..

There was a question as to whether the bike had come off the pavement in front of the vehicle

If that was the case then it could have been decided by the Jury that the accident was unavoidable (phone or not) and hence the driving at the point of the collision not dangerous

Yes, the old Single Witness Suicide Swerve. In this case, the defendant only came up with the pavement story at the trial. Before that he said the cyclist swerved to avoid a drain, or that he didn't see the cyclist at all. Inconsistencies abound.

The pavement in question is very narrow, over-grown, with no dropped kerbs and muddy. There was no physical evidence that the cyclist was on the pavement (i.e. tyre marks).

Furthermore, it seems inconceivable that the jury were denied a site visit to examine the road and pavement.

 

[ufkacbln]

OT...

I had a very close shave with a liveried van in which the wing mirror clipped me at a "pinch point" when the van forced its way through. Am email complaint followed

The response was that I was unlit and swerving all over the road, and had ridden into their vehicle!

Asked for confirmation thatthis was the driver's statement and that they should get it in writing.

Then sent in the video which showed a perfect straight line, a clear shoulder check and right turn signal as I pulled into primary well in advance of the pinch point and both the road sign and their vehicle it up by my lights

3 days later I had another reply... very apologetic, the driver had been formaly interviewed, had retracted his statement and was no longer employed!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes, the old Single Witness Suicide Swerve. In this case, the defendant only came up with the pavement story at the trial. Before that he said the cyclist swerved to avoid a drain, or that he didn't see the cyclist at all. Inconsistencies abound.

The pavement in question is very narrow, over-grown, with no dropped kerbs and muddy. There was no physical evidence that the cyclist was on the pavement (i.e. tyre marks).

Furthermore, it seems inconceivable that the jury were denied a site visit to examine the road and pavement.

Precisely that.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Who says they were denied?

It's the decision of the prosecution what evidence to put forward, including whether they feel a visit to the scene would be helpful - they didn't seem to think it added anything. The defence could also request a visit if they felt it would help their case. And if the jury were that concerned, then they could ask to visit the scene.

There is no suggestion that a request to visit was made and denied.

It has been reported that a visit was proposed but discounted on cost and complexity grounds.

 

[Origamist]

Who says they were denied?

It's the decision of the prosecution what evidence to put forward, including whether they feel a visit to the scene would be helpful - they didn't seem to think it added anything. The defence could also request a visit if they felt it would help their case. And if the jury were that concerned, then they could ask to visit the scene.

There is no suggestion that a request to visit was made and denied.

From what I understand (from someone who attended the trial), was that a site visit for the jury had been agreed (requested by the prosecution), but then it never took place due to issues of cost and organization. I don't know any more than that, I'm afraid.

If anyone knows anything more about this aspect of the case, I'd be interested to know.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

It has been reported that a visit was proposed but discounted on cost and complexity grounds.

Presumably partly because it being relevant was brought in to play so late in proceedings?

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).

Would it not make sense for one of the cycling lobby groups to be hitting the CPS with the offer of expert witnesses who could stand up and explain the process of cycling safely on a UK road? Seems it wouldn't take a lot of court time and going through the basics in front of the jury could explain a lot of cyclists actions that they have no clue about when it was relevant to the case.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

From what I understand (from someone who attended the trial), was that a site visit for the jury had been agreed, but then it never took place due to issues of cost and organization. I don't know any more than that, I'm afraid.

If anyone knows anything more about this aspect of the case, I'd be interested to know.

It sounds like three or four photographs or a minute of video could have given them all they needed to know about the likelihood someone had chosen to cycle on that bit of footpath.

 

[Origamist]

It sounds like three or four photographs or a minute of video could have given them all they needed to know about the likelihood someone had chosen to cycle on that bit of footpath.

Yes, it would have been the next best thing to a site visit, but like the proposed site visit, no footage of the road/pavement was used in evidence. Instead, there were lawyerly discussions about adverbs...

 

[Pale Rider]

It is most unlikely the case was presented without a site plan and photographs.

 

[Origamist]

It is most unlikely the case was presented without a site plan and photographs.

You'd certainly hope so!

 

[Pale Rider]

It was probably decided a site visit wouldn't assist the jury over and above the information they were already being given.

Visits can be difficult to organise.

I don't know the site, but it appears to be a busy A road.

You can't have 12 jurors, lawyers and a judge wandering around playing with the traffic.

So for a visit to have any meaning, it may be a road closure would have been needed.

In a public place, there's always the risk someone - meaning no harm - may speak to one of the jurors, so there's quite a bit of shepherding to be done.

Then there's the risk someone takes a photograph - 'look what I saw today' appearing on twitbook is a big problem if it shows any of the jurors' faces.

It's easy to see why site visits are avoided unless they are absolutely necessary.

 

[albion]

It was probably decided a site visit wouldn't assist the jury over and above the information they were already being given....I don't know the site, but it appears to be a busy A road....

Far to dangerous when there is no real pavement. It was certainly not one that would ever be used by a cyclist and 100% certainly never used by anyone on a road bike !