Cyclist deliberately run down

dilemna

This case is very disturbing not least for the deliberate injury caused to the cyclist. It would appear that the CPS/police at the charging stage choose the easiest charge that they think they will gain a conviction on and that then once in court the prosecuting counsel are particularly weak. Bear in mind the defendant will have pleaded not guilty as the case went to court. The court room is adversarial the prosecution counsel have to prove the Crown's case. If you have crown advocates and barristers who are quite frankly poor or don't grasp issues properly then defendants are going to escape punishment as juries will not be persuaded by poor advocacy. The judge should have explained to the jury the subtleties between the s.18 and s.20 OAPA offence. If he didn't do this satisfactorily then there has been an error in law and there could be a re-trial. But if he has then the failure for the jury to be convinced that the defendant is guilty of the more serious charge lies with the success of the defence counsel who put sufficient doubt in the mind of the jury or the FAILURE of the crown prosecutor to present the Crown's case properly.

I too have very great difficulty understanding how deliberately driving a vehicle at some one will not result in anything other than serious injury. Operating a car is a complex business and to drive it toward a vulnerable road user requires a determined attempt as pretty much every knows collisions with cars frequently result in serious or fatal injury.

As regards the introduction of hearsay evidence no you can't and bad character you can but only :

[s.101 – Defendant’s bad character; Criminal Justice Act 2003]

- if it s relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and prosecution ; or,

- it has substantial probative value in relation to the an important matter between a defendant and co-defendant; or,

- the defendant seeks to create a false impression of good character when the contrary is true eg previous convictions or the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.

So if defendant wants it said that he is not a thief as he is honest and trust worthy if he has a previous conviction for dishonesty then the prosecution can dispute this by mentioning his previous history of dishonesty. Not a wise move really.

Anyway I feel that whilst it is hard not having the full picture ie the statements of all parties and full knowledge of the scene of collision there is still a lot that the police and CPS have to explain as to why a charge of attempted murder was not pursued and that why the s.18 OAPA offence was not prosecuted more fully given the direct intent and deliberate action of the defendant to drive straight at the defendant which would result in serious injury. The fact that there is a whole car industry, regulatory body and testing organisation NCAP trying to make vehicles safer to avoid pedestrian injuries caused from being in collision with cars tells you that injuries are often serious and fatal.

We await what sentence he will be given but s.20 carries a max of 5 years unless I am right? So he’ll get 18months as it is his first custodial sentence. He would not get a reduction as he did not initially plead guilty. Well I suppose he wouldn’t to a s.18 offence with intent which has life imprisonment tariff if I am correct? His previous convictions will have a bearing in so much as how long ago they were, their nature and whether the defendant complied with the punishment or rehabilitation. If he didn't which looks likely then the judge will be mindful of a longer custodial sentence but not much longer!

Mossrider

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Mossrider wrote:

If you've ever served on a jury you will understand what a terribly difficult thing it is to put any one in prison (even when they undoubtedly deserve it!). .....

The jury do NOT send anyone to prison.

Their role is to decide issues of fact - ie decide guilty or not.

Sending someone to prision is a sentencing matter for the judge ( or magistrate if in mags court- but no jury in mags court)

The law is clear and it is actually in most respects easier to convict someone today legally than in the past as now you can introduce hearsay evidence, bad character evidence etcthat preiously were not admissible

This I know, having served in several juries, having considered the magistracy and being married to a solicitor. I'm simply pointing out that things seem very different when in a court room to what you read in a newspaper.

On a charge like this a jury finding of guilty does effectively condemn the man to prison, even though the sentencing is by the judge. Trust me, the jury is very aware of this. The judge then decides the length of the sentence. This is a man that you have seen, not a statisitic coming to a verdict is not easy. I've found people guilty on several occasions and two of those it was clear there would be a substantial prison sentence and all the family and other ramifications that might involve and you realise that in so doing you are wrecking what little chance, what are often in reality fairly pathetic people, have (sometimes more of a burden to you than others, but it's always there, even if richly deserved).

All I'm saying is do not judge on the basis of a short article. There may be many other factors involved.

A murder charge is always going to be more difficult to push past a jury. Perhaps the CPS felt a lesser charge had more chance. After all the most improtant thing is to get a decent length of conviction.

Agree with the comments re quality of barrister. They vary between superb and "why don't they just hand over to their assisitant" You sometimes feel you have to look a little beyond the poor case put up by some barristers to understand the reality.

robmanic1

On a slight tangent, and apologies if this has been covered in amongst the "legal speak" above, will this guy lose his licence over this incident? Seems the right course of action to me and probably more effective to remove his "weapon of choice" to prevent him doing the same (or worse) again.

Always seems a bit odd to me that our justice system deems it necessary to protect the public by imposing lengthy custodial sentences for crimes such as "perverting the course of justice" or "doing an Archer" as it is sometimes known, and yet individuals such as this are likely to spend a disproportionate amount of time at her majesty's when they are clearly much more of a danger to the rest of us.

The "3 strikes" rule would certainly make sense in this case, the guy appears to be unhinged.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

This case is very disturbing not least for the deliberate injury caused to the cyclist. It would appear that the CPS/police at the charging stage choose the easiest charge that they think they will gain a conviction on and that then once in court the prosecuting counsel are particularly weak. Bear in mind the defendant will have pleaded not guilty as the case went to court. The court room is adversarial the prosecution counsel have to prove the Crown's case. If you have crown advocates and barristers who are quite frankly poor or don't grasp issues properly then defendants are going to escape punishment as juries will not be persuaded by poor advocacy. The judge should have explained to the jury the subtleties between the s.18 and s.20 OAPA offence. If he didn't do this satisfactorily then there has been an error in law and there could be a re-trial. But if he has then the failure for the jury to be convinced that the defendant is guilty of the more serious charge lies with the success of the defence counsel who put sufficient doubt in the mind of the jury or the FAILURE of the crown prosecutor to present the Crown's case properly.

I too have very great difficulty understanding how deliberately driving a vehicle at some one will not result in anything other than serious injury. Operating a car is a complex business and to drive it toward a vulnerable road user requires a determined attempt as pretty much every knows collisions with cars frequently result in serious or fatal injury.

As regards the introduction of hearsay evidence no you can't and bad character you can but only :

i beg to disagree with you- there are many forms of hearsay that are now admissible that were not previously- try computer records for a start. they are a form of hearsay but are usually now admissible

[s.101 – Defendant’s bad character; Criminal Justice Act 2003]

- if it s relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and prosecution ; or,

- it has substantial probative value in relation to the an important matter between a defendant and co-defendant; or,

- the defendant seeks to create a false impression of good character when the contrary is true eg previous convictions or the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.

So if defendant wants it said that he is not a thief as he is honest and trust worthy if he has a previous conviction for dishonesty then the prosecution can dispute this by mentioning his previous history of dishonesty. Not a wise move really.

Anyway I feel that whilst it is hard not having the full picture ie the statements of all parties and full knowledge of the scene of collision there is still a lot that the police and CPS have to explain as to why a charge of attempted murder was not pursued and that why the s.18 OAPA offence was not prosecuted more fully given the direct intent and deliberate action of the defendant to drive straight at the defendant which would result in serious injury. The fact that there is a whole car industry, regulatory body and testing organisation NCAP trying to make vehicles safer to avoid pedestrian injuries caused from being in collision with cars tells you that injuries are often serious and fatal.

It is far more difficult to get a conviction for attempted murder than it is for S18 Assault. The injuries may be similar. The intent may be similar and indeed the sentencing powers are the same, but the proof is more difficult.

Also, the CPS do not have to explain anything to you or the public. Their duty is to the Crown and under the prosecutor's pledge to explain any decision to drop or reduce charges to the victim ( or in fatal cases to the family)

We await what sentence he will be given but s.20 carries a max of 5 years unless I am right? So he’ll get 18months as it is his first custodial sentence. He would not get a reduction as he did not initially plead guilty. Well I suppose he wouldn’t to a s.18 offence with intent which has life imprisonment tariff if I am correct? His previous convictions will have a bearing in so much as how long ago they were, their nature and whether the defendant complied with the punishment or rehabilitation. If he didn't which looks likely then the judge will be mindful of a longer custodial sentence but not much longer!