Cycling Silk threats from driver case.

mybreakfastconsisted

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... rrister.do

A BARRISTER who filmed a car driver threatening to kill him as he cycled to work has complained after prosecutors refused to take-up his case.

Martin Porter QC recorded the confrontation with the motorist — and the numberplate — on a helmet camera and submitted the evidence to police.

But he was infuriated after a Met officer told him the case was being dropped because the Crown Prosecution Service believed it was unlikely to secure a conviction.

Mr Porter, 48, said that it was wrong that officers had even failed to question the driver — as this could have resulted in him admitting his guilt after being told the confrontation had been caught on film.

The incident happened as Mr Porter cycled along the A315 Staines Road in Hounslow on November 4. He races bikes as a hobby and often cycles the 30 miles from his Sunningdale home to his chambers near Temple.

As he approached a central reservation, Mr Porter moved into the centre of the lane to prevent any vehicles squeezing past and risk knocking him off. But this annoyed the driver of a Volkswagen Golf, who sounded his horn and screamed insults from an open window.

Mr Porter recalled: “As I'm going through there he comes up from behind and starts honking. Initially I couldn't really make out what he was saying to me, although he wasn't very polite.

“I was saying to him it wasn't a good place to overtake. He zoomed off, I overtook him at a traffic queue, then he came past me again, probably about four miles down the road. That was when he drew up alongside me, wound his window down and said he was going to kill me.”

After catching up with the car at traffic lights, he got the driver to confirm the threat to kill and was told by him: “You're a f***ing little ****, mate.” The car then sped off.

ketsbaia

I love how the driver still had to use the word 'mate'.

mybreakfastconsisted

I dunno about this, I know they prosecuted the Twitter bomb chap and that seems daft. Unpleasant, yes, but worth reporting? Really?

Headhuunter

I've seen that clip, I'm sure the barrister in question posts here sometimes? I have to say that the altercation was hardly what I would say as out of the ordinary. The driver didn't seemed especially riled and was smirking/grinning if I remember rightly as if it was a bit of a joke. This sort of behaviour is not to be ignored but all it takes is middle finger up, a shout of "you f*cking tw@t" to espress your displeasure and the world goes on as before. I personally didn't think it was an arrestable offence....

PBo

No sign of you responding to my points on "Superhighway 7" thread yet.

Does starting a new thread count as "avoiding the subject" in cyberspace?

mybreakfastconsisted

I would have said "Why don't you go and shag your mum UP HER ARSE" then gone happily on my way and given the ruffian nary another thought.

PBo

If the barrister caught him up and asked him to repeat the threat, that suggests to me that he knew it was just the road rage talking, not a real threat.

So presumably CPS won't prosecute for the death threat - i'm guessing it has to be "real" to count?

If they prosecuted everytime for the crime of being a complete tw4t behind the wheel of a car, then the courts would be overflowing......

zanes

PBo wrote:

So presumably CPS won't prosecute for the death threat - i'm guessing it has to be "real" to count?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout ... 673196.stm

In particular;

He alerted airport security who graded the threat level of the message as "non-credible"

Different law admittedly, but I think the point still stands.

Origamist

Headhuunter wrote:

I've seen that clip, I'm sure the barrister in question posts here sometimes? I have to say that the altercation was hardly what I would say as out of the ordinary. The driver didn't seemed especially riled and was smirking/grinning if I remember rightly as if it was a bit of a joke. This sort of behaviour is not to be ignored but all it takes is middle finger up, a shout of "you f*cking tw@t" to espress your displeasure and the world goes on as before. I personally didn't think it was an arrestable offence....

It's worth remembering that the camera did not catch the driver initailly threaten Porter, only the confirmation of the threat.

Porter stated:

Do bear in mind that the threat was not delivered when he was grinning sheepishly into my camera (which I think he spotted halfway through saying 'cocky ****') but earlier, in a menacing manner when, as he had obviously been planning for many minutes, he pulled alongside me (close) and make his threat.

Was the driver being serious when he threatened the cyclist, or were they idle threats and a bit of bravado. I don't know. What I do know is that people who make threats to kill whilst in charge of heavy machinery are not the kind of people that we should blithely ignore, or try to rile.

At the very least this chap needs a visit from the police and preferably a penalty notice for disorder.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Fuss over nowt, again. If you look at the driving sections, rather than the denouement at the traffic lights, I find it quite hard to see what the fuss is about. Rather tends to reinforce my prejudiced view that those with helmetcams get themselves into trouble (ie moving out at the island which provoked the initial blast on the horn) precisely because they think that they'll get some footage that will dob in a driver.

The parting shot "you forgot to indicate" could, I tend to think, have been better off as something with a bit more "bite".

waddlie

Maybe I'm going deaf, but I didn't actually hear the driver threaten to kill him. I heard him respond in the affirmative when the cyclist asked if he had threatened to kill him, but that's not the same thing.

Looks like more inflated nonsense from a headcam warrior to me...

{Edit to add - having watched the video again, the cyclist seems to move into 'super-primary' after the traffic island. I'm a big fan of using primary but at least have the sense to move back in smartly once you've passed the hazard. Unless of course you're looking for more blog fodder. If I'd been in the Golf I may well have given him a beep myself.}

greg66_tri_v2.0

Waddlie wrote:

Maybe I'm going deaf, but I didn't actually hear the driver threaten to kill him. I heard him respond in the affirmative when the cyclist asked if he had threatened to kill him, but that's not the same thing.

Looks like more inflated nonsense from a headcam warrior to me...

Quite - the performance of a tiny mic with wind blowing on it is, umm, compromised rather badly, shall we say.

What these guys need is a full on outside broadcast team accompanying them. Perhaps installed in the back of a Range Rover, a la Top Gear, that drives around with them...

snailracer

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...
A BARRISTER who filmed a car driver threatening to kill him as he cycled to work has complained after prosecutors refused to take-up his case.
...

Evidence issues aside, surely the main point here is the irony of a barrister complaining he has been let down by the legal system?

spen666

snailracer wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...
A BARRISTER who filmed a car driver threatening to kill him as he cycled to work has complained after prosecutors refused to take-up his case.
...

Evidence issues aside, surely the main point here is the irony of a barrister complaining he has been let down by the legal system?

Why is that "irony"?

The barrister has to operate within the system just as much as everyone else.

Its no more ironic than a bus driver complaining about the traffic laws

waddlie

Whadddya reckon then, Spen? Does the video meet the evidential test for... well, anything?

paulus69

If a barrister with a good understanding of the legal system and head cam evidence can't get the police to take action, what chance to ordinary cyclists have when they have run ins with motorists?

waddlie

paulus69 wrote:

If a barrister with a good understanding of the legal system and head cam evidence can't get the police to take action, what chance to ordinary cyclists have when they have run ins with motorists?

Headcam evidence of what criminal offence, exactly?

Origamist

Waddlie wrote:

paulus69 wrote:

If a barrister with a good understanding of the legal system and head cam evidence can't get the police to take action, what chance to ordinary cyclists have when they have run ins with motorists?

Headcam evidence of what criminal offence, exactly?

Porter is asking the CPS to reconsider a prosecution under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour...).

waddlie

Origamist wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

paulus69 wrote:

If a barrister with a good understanding of the legal system and head cam evidence can't get the police to take action, what chance to ordinary cyclists have when they have run ins with motorists?

Headcam evidence of what criminal offence, exactly?

Porter is asking the CPS to reconsider a prosecution under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour...).

Not sure where the evidence is for this. "Mumble mumble mumble, cockly little cunt." That's it. I heard the cyclist shouting first. What was he shouting? Was he provoking the motorist?

If we remove the car and the bicycle from the equation and look at it as two men arguing in the street, do we really want to see the police wasting their resources on something so minimal? Is the addition of the car and the motorcycle something a CPS lawyer can consider as an aggravating factor when considering whether to charge?

iPete

Where is the video? Ride the same road nearly every day...

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv8w5-cOmCs

I'm not sure why he felt the need to ride defensively at any point along that stretch of road?

spen666

Waddlie wrote:

Whadddya reckon then, Spen? Does the video meet the evidential test for... well, anything?

IMHO - there is insufficient evidence to bring proceedings against the driver for anything at all based on that video.

Firstly, it is not possible in first incident to properly make out much of what was said, let alone said by whom. IE How can court be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that what words were said or by whom.

The latter incident proves nothing at all. The question and answer are no evidence of any crime.

The letter on the blog exhibits a very worrying ignorance - not sure on whose part. The letter to the CPS District Prosecutor says

......My understanding is that the police officer assigned to investigate this case considered issuing a fixed penalty notice to the suspect for a breach of section 5 of the Public Order Act and took advice from the CPS at Hounslow. The officer was apparently then advised by Manjit Mahal that there was insufficient evidence ‘to pass the threshold test’ and that no action should be taken

The ignorance related to the threshold test. This is only applied where a defenadant is likely to be remanded in custody & all evidence is not available. This is a legal point, but the decision in this case would be on a higher standard the full code test. It is not clear who is making reference to the threshold test.

The letter is clearly one written by someone emotionally involved in the incident and lacks objective reason in parts. His reference to the words being comparable to pointing a loaded gun is an example of this IMHO

If I had to review the decision of the Crown Prosecutor (which in my work I do regularly), I would be happy the decision was an appropriate one

If the cycling lawyer wrong? IMHO he is wrong in relation to the evidential strength of his case. I am sure he was correct in relation to the description of the event, but proving it to the criminal standard is a different matter

Origamist

Waddlie wrote:

Origamist wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

paulus69 wrote:

If a barrister with a good understanding of the legal system and head cam evidence can't get the police to take action, what chance to ordinary cyclists have when they have run ins with motorists?

Headcam evidence of what criminal offence, exactly?

Porter is asking the CPS to reconsider a prosecution under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour...).

Not sure where the evidence is for this. "Mumble mumble mumble, cockly little ****." That's it. I heard the cyclist shouting first. What was he shouting? Was he provoking the motorist?

If we remove the car and the bicycle from the equation and look at it as two men arguing in the street, do we really want to see the police wasting their resources on something so minimal? Is the addition of the car and the motorcycle something a CPS lawyer can consider as an aggravating factor when considering whether to charge?

The evidential test is not predicated solely on the helmet cam film, Waddlie. Porter wants the film to be used to corroborate his written account of the incident. If the driver was at least intereviewed, he would have the opportunity to give his version of events (or perhaps more wisely, keep stum at certain junctures) but would still have to explain why he (seemingly) chose to admit the threat to kill.

That said, I can see why the CPS would be reluctant to pursue this...but Porter is rightly challenging them.

spen666

There is insufficient evidence IMHO to justify the arrest of the driver and therfore, no power to force driver to submit to an interview.

The lawyer has lost his objectivity here it seems to me. From reading his blog he does seem to have a large number of confrontations. He may be in the legal right in every case, but when there are so many confrontations, you must consider is the approach taken appropriate

snailracer

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

Origamist

spen666 wrote:

There is insufficient evidence IMHO to justify the arrest of the driver and therfore, no power to force driver to submit to an interview.

The lawyer has lost his objectivity here it seems to me. From reading his blog he does seem to have a large number of confrontations. He may be in the legal right in every case, but when there are so many confrontations, you must consider is the approach taken appropriate

It's certainly arguable whether there is sufficient evidence to arrest the driver - hence the correspondence...

Lack of objectivity, I don't think so. I might have avoided the loaded gun analogy as it's too emotionally freighted - but to be honest, that's a tangential issue here.

To have any idea about the ratio/number of confrontations (we'd first need to adequately define a "confrontation") and we'd need to know the kind of mileage the guy is doing. Giving that he races and has a longish commute, I'd suspect he's covering a lot of miles a year and I v much doubt he courts trouble.

antfly

Headhuunter wrote:

This sort of behaviour is not to be ignored but all it takes is middle finger up, a shout of "you f*cking tw@t" to espress your displeasure and the world goes on as before. I personally didn't think it was an arrestable offence....

IME giving the finger is only going to exacerbate any situation, it's best, and most satisfying, to completely ignore them. I have had people stop and wait for me after giving the finger.

bobinski

In my job i represent people who have been arrested.
The interesting thing about this "case" is i represent so many people who are arrested where there is even less evidence available. As a cyclist i find it galling in the face of what i deal with day in day out that no decision was made to speak to the driver.
The evidence here is by no means conclusive-it rarely is- but i would suggest there is enough to at least invite the driver in for an interview. If not to formally arrest and interview then as a volunteer under the caution plus 3 procedure. he may agree , he may not. you have an account, partly though not clearly corroborated by video and at least an aftermath recorded on video that he can be q'ed on. he should be. he made an effort some time and distance later to issue his threat.
where i would find myself if he rang me to ask him to represent him i just dont know

mybreakfastconsisted

antfly wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

This sort of behaviour is not to be ignored but all it takes is middle finger up, a shout of "you f*cking tw@t" to espress your displeasure and the world goes on as before. I personally didn't think it was an arrestable offence....

IME giving the finger is only going to exacerbate any situation, it's best, and most satisfying, to completely ignore them. I have had people stop and wait for me after giving the finger.

Indeed, any escalation means you're letting knob ends live in your head rent-free.

Smile and wave boys, smile and wave.

waddlie

snailracer wrote:

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

What matters in law is not what happened, but what can be proved. There is no threat on the video.

hfidgen

Barrister or no, if you have those sorts of exchanges and act like an arse on a bike then I can fully agree with no prosecution being made. Too many cyclists get all high and mighty and make a stupid argument into a big thing. (I've been guilty of nearly starting fights after bike related incidents, but i'm not proud of it)

Sticks and stones.. not like he actually drove at him with the car.

Very interesting compared to the twitter/airport thing though - perhaps if he'd have threatened to bomb the bike he would have been of to Guantanamo that evening

snailracer

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

What matters in law is not what happened, but what can be proved. There is no threat on the video.

The thing is, in this case the police didn't even bother looking for proof.