Family's anger as cyclist death case discontinued

MadammeMarie

Any lawyers here? I didn't quite understand the technicalities!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12338526

Pufftmw

The evidence that the lorry driver directly caused the actual death (by careless driving) was flawed/inadmissable or just not there. Therefore the only option was to change the charge to Careless Driving but that can't be heard in a Crown Court. But because the statute of limitations on bringing a simple charge of carelss driving against the driver has expired, it means he wont get charged with anything now.

sfichele

Truly amazing, brilliant! Is the law nothing more than a pedants game played out at the expense of real people?

spen666

sfichele wrote:

Truly amazing, brilliant! Is the law nothing more than a pedants game played out at the expense of real people?

no, the law is a set of rule

Thankfully the rules apply to use all so we know where we stand.

If the state does not comply with the rules re timeliness, then a case is not permissible.

Its far better this way, than having the state make up rules and offences as it goes along and you never knowing if you have broken the law or not

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Truly amazing, brilliant! Is the law nothing more than a pedants game played out at the expense of real people?

no, the law is a set of rule

Thankfully the rules apply to use all so we know where we stand.

If the state does not comply with the rules re timeliness, then a case is not permissible.

Its far better this way, than having the state make up rules and offences as it goes along and you never knowing if you have broken the law or not

But this isn't justice. Isn't that what law is for?

TuckerUK

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Truly amazing, brilliant! Is the law nothing more than a pedants game played out at the expense of real people?

no, the law is a set of rule

Thankfully the rules apply to use all so we know where we stand.

If the state does not comply with the rules re timeliness, then a case is not permissible.

Its far better this way, than having the state make up rules and offences as it goes along and you never knowing if you have broken the law or not

But this isn't justice. Isn't that what law is for?

Yes.

But no system is 100% perfect. I'm sure most of us would rather have a few guilty people walking free than locking up innocent people.

sfichele

Its far better this way

Outstanding! Really?

I'm sure most of us would rather have a few guilty people walking free

Sounds like an excellent idea!

dilemna

Some one has cocked up big time. Yet another disgrace from the police and CPS.

shouldbeinbed

dilemna wrote:

Some one has cocked up big time. Yet another disgrace from the police and CPS.

Why the police? They do not prefer the charges or prosecute the case through the courts and are a totally seperate organisation from the CPS.

Great sympathy for his family and friends, I ride that bit regularly and my wife passed as the medics were working on him on the road.

sfichele

The whole investigation sounds like a catalogue of errors:

The police viewed CCTV footage from a nearby public house which showed scenes leading up to the moment of the collision. It showed the lorry. And the cyclist. But problems in the transfer of that footage to a copying format resulted in crucial frames of the footage being lost.

http://blog.pannone.com/personal-injury/cycling-fatality-old-trafford-harry-wilmers-cps-decision-to-discontinue-prosecution-of-the-lorry-driver-633

dilemna

shouldbeinbed wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Some one has cocked up big time. Yet another disgrace from the police and CPS.

Why the police? They do not prefer the charges or prosecute the case through the courts and are a totally seperate organisation from the CPS.

Great sympathy for his family and friends, I ride that bit regularly and my wife passed as the medics were working on him on the road.

They do indeed have seperate identities but in reality they work very closely. Why police? Because they collect evidence to decide whether to lay charges again in conjunction with the CPS if very serious charges are being considered. So in all likelihood both organisations have cocked up. One will no doubt blame the other or some one else such as the forensic examiners or as above the CCTV operators. It's academic really, they all need to accept collective blame as it is yet another family of a deceased cyclist who have been let down by the justice system.

jimmypippa

If there is uncertainty about whether a more or less serious offence has occurred, does the English or Scottish system allow for the charge to be downgraded?

I am thinking about a hypothetical situation where someone is attacked, and there is doubt as to whether the attacker is guilty of ABH or GBH (say). Can someone be found guilty for a lesser offence, if tried for a more serious offence, and the judge/jury isn't convinced of their guilt for the more serious offence. I guess I am thinking of a verdict of "Not guilty of GBH but guilty of ABH" or something similar...

deptfordmarmoset

jimmypippa wrote:

If there is uncertainty about whether a more or less serious offence has occurred, does the English or Scottish system allow for the charge to be downgraded?

I am thinking about a hypothetical situation where someone is attacked, and there is doubt as to whether the attacker is guilty of ABH or GBH (say). Can someone be found guilty for a lesser offence, if tried for a more serious offence, and the judge/jury isn't convinced of their guilt for the more serious offence. I guess I am thinking of a verdict of "Not guilty of GBH but guilty of ABH" or something similar...

I don't know whether the law's changed on this but I did jury service (in England) a couple of decades ago and the ABH or GBH question came up then. It wasn't a case of either/or, more ''one or both.'' That is, the prosecution went for both ABH and GBH so that if GBH wasn't proven the lesser ABH could still be established.

jimmypippa

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

jimmypippa wrote:

If there is uncertainty about whether a more or less serious offence has occurred, does the English or Scottish system allow for the charge to be downgraded?

I am thinking about a hypothetical situation where someone is attacked, and there is doubt as to whether the attacker is guilty of ABH or GBH (say). Can someone be found guilty for a lesser offence, if tried for a more serious offence, and the judge/jury isn't convinced of their guilt for the more serious offence. I guess I am thinking of a verdict of "Not guilty of GBH but guilty of ABH" or something similar...

I don't know whether the law's changed on this but I did jury service (in England) a couple of decades ago and the ABH or GBH question came up then. It wasn't a case of either/or, more ''one or both.'' That is, the prosecution went for both ABH and GBH so that if GBH wasn't proven the lesser ABH could still be established.

Thanks for that.

pidism

Relating to this incident, it is sad that there is no prosecution forthcoming. But it is not fair to lay blame at the door of the Police who carry out at thorough investigation and gave full evidence to the CPS (the decision makers on charges/ prosecutions) well within the required timeline.
The current practises of the CPS are that they will often only prosecute if they really believe they have a realistic chance of winning. They are judged as other public bodies are on their success.

---

The offence of Careless driving is at the lower end of the spectrum and is deemed as a summary offence - therefore the rule book states a maximum of 6 months in which to serve notice on the defendant. If the time has exceeded the 6 months
"statute of limitations", then unless other serious offences are being heard, no prosecution for careless driving can be pursued.

From reading the article it would appear that the driver may have made a clumsy manouvre/ not checking mirrors correctly/ leaving enough room. This is careless, and may have caused the death of the cyclist. However without strong evidence to suggest the manouvre was the cause of the cyclists death, IE: cyclist not at fault at all the Death by Careless driving cannot be pursued. Only Careless driving can be pursued, which as the time limit has exceeded, the driver is free to go with only his conscience to punish him.

Travelling this route myself on a regular basis I have seen many cyclists flouting the rule book, skipping through red lights, cutting infront of oncoming vehicles. There may well be blame on several shoulders in this case, but unfortunately no one (myself included) know the full circumstances. So to blame anyone is naive. No system is ever perfect. We are all human. I am sure that the family links to the high echelons of the Met Police mean that this investigation will have been carried out by the book.

Sad days, not the first and we all know it will not be the last.

dilemna

pidism wrote:

Relating to this incident, it is sad that there is no prosecution forthcoming. But it is not fair to lay blame at the door of the Police who carry out at thorough investigation and gave full evidence to the CPS (the decision makers on charges/ prosecutions) well within the required timeline.
The current practises of the CPS are that they will often only prosecute if they really believe they have a realistic chance of winning. They are judged as other public bodies are on their success.

---

The offence of Careless driving is at the lower end of the spectrum and is deemed as a summary offence - therefore the rule book states a maximum of 6 months in which to serve notice on the defendant. If the time has exceeded the 6 months
"statute of limitations", then unless other serious offences are being heard, no prosecution for careless driving can be pursued.

From reading the article it would appear that the driver may have made a clumsy manouvre/ not checking mirrors correctly/ leaving enough room. This is careless, and may have caused the death of the cyclist. However without strong evidence to suggest the manouvre was the cause of the cyclists death, IE: cyclist not at fault at all the Death by Careless driving cannot be pursued. Only Careless driving can be pursued, which as the time limit has exceeded, the driver is free to go with only his conscience to punish him.

Travelling this route myself on a regular basis I have seen many cyclists flouting the rule book, skipping through red lights, cutting infront of oncoming vehicles. There may well be blame on several shoulders in this case, but unfortunately no one (myself included) know the full circumstances. So to blame anyone is naive. No system is ever perfect. We are all human. I am sure that the family links to the high echelons of the Met Police mean that this investigation will have been carried out by the book.

Sad days, not the first and we all know it will not be the last.

What relevance is this to the instant case? You forgot to mention drivers that break the law - speeding, not indicating, tailgating, dialing and driving, drunk drivers, driving with no tax or insurance, defective vehicles, faulty lights, etc.

sfichele

The current practises of the CPS are that they will often only prosecute if they really believe they have a realistic chance of winning

Reading between the lines, it sounds like the CPS was unsure of winning outright because of loss of evidence due to incompetence.

Then due to pedantry (Statue of Limitations) the case could not be heard on a lesser charge. As I understand it, the whole point of SOL is stop cases being brought against people a "long" time after an event and out of the blue. However, in the above case it doesn't make sense. A genuine case had been brought forward within sufficient time.

Pedantry!

pidism

dilemna wrote:

pidism wrote:

Relating to this incident, it is sad that there is no prosecution forthcoming. But it is not fair to lay blame at the door of the Police who carry out at thorough investigation and gave full evidence to the CPS (the decision makers on charges/ prosecutions) well within the required timeline.
The current practises of the CPS are that they will often only prosecute if they really believe they have a realistic chance of winning. They are judged as other public bodies are on their success.

---

The offence of Careless driving is at the lower end of the spectrum and is deemed as a summary offence - therefore the rule book states a maximum of 6 months in which to serve notice on the defendant. If the time has exceeded the 6 months
"statute of limitations", then unless other serious offences are being heard, no prosecution for careless driving can be pursued.

From reading the article it would appear that the driver may have made a clumsy manouvre/ not checking mirrors correctly/ leaving enough room. This is careless, and may have caused the death of the cyclist. However without strong evidence to suggest the manouvre was the cause of the cyclists death, IE: cyclist not at fault at all the Death by Careless driving cannot be pursued. Only Careless driving can be pursued, which as the time limit has exceeded, the driver is free to go with only his conscience to punish him.

Travelling this route myself on a regular basis I have seen many cyclists flouting the rule book, skipping through red lights, cutting infront of oncoming vehicles. There may well be blame on several shoulders in this case, but unfortunately no one (myself included) know the full circumstances. So to blame anyone is naive. No system is ever perfect. We are all human. I am sure that the family links to the high echelons of the Met Police mean that this investigation will have been carried out by the book.

Sad days, not the first and we all know it will not be the last.

What relevance is this to the instant case? You forgot to mention drivers that break the law - speeding, not indicating, tailgating, dialing and driving, drunk drivers, driving with no tax or insurance, defective vehicles, faulty lights, etc.

The relevance to the case is - neither you or I know the cause. I stated I have witnessed cyclists (not all, just some) disregarding safe road use and taking chances. Was this something the poor deceased cyclist did? has he tried to beat the truck off the mark? dont know. Doesnt change anything.

Relating to motorists breaking the law - I agree with you totally. I have been guilty of some of the offences. I imagine many drivers are guilty of 1 or more at some time in their life. And no cyclist is perfect. As i stated - we are all human. We make mistakes and make stupid decisions. ALL of us at some point. Some live to tell the tale. Some do not.
There are plenty of cyclist without lights, dressed in dark clothing. Poorly maintained bikes, drunk and cycling - causing a danger to themselves and motorists. I have witnessed a lycra clad cyclist chatting on his phone, no hands on the bars. Stupid!
Visit Oxford road in Manchester. Plenty of poor cyclists. AND plenty of poor drivers.

Let all of us who visit this site, continue to do so for a long time to come. I do not want to read another dead cyclist story.

Stay safe everyone. Ride carefully and look out for idiot motorists.

spen666

sfichele wrote:

...
Then due to pedantry (Statue of Limitations) the case could not be heard on a lesser charge. As I understand it, the whole point of SOL is stop cases being brought against people a "long" time after an event and out of the blue. However, in the above case it doesn't make sense. A genuine case had been brought forward within sufficient time.

Pedantry!

The SOL is not pedantry it is a position decided upon by Parliament for a number of reasons and only covers the least serious offences - ie those triable only in the magistrates court

you cannot have a SoL and then impose it or not depending on how you feel. Everyone is entitled to know what the case against them is and where they stand in relation to the law.

We either have a SoL or we do not have a SoL, you can't have it at the whim of the public according to how upset or outraged they feel.

spen666

sfichele wrote:

...
Then due to pedantry (Statue of Limitations) the case could not be heard on a lesser charge. As I understand it, the whole point of SOL is stop cases being brought against people a "long" time after an event and out of the blue. However, in the above case it doesn't make sense. A genuine case had been brought forward within sufficient time.

Pedantry!

The SOL is not pedantry it is a position decided upon by Parliament for a number of reasons and only covers the least serious offences - ie those triable only in the magistrates court

you cannot have a SoL and then impose it or not depending on how you feel. Everyone is entitled to know what the case against them is and where they stand in relation to the law.

We either have a SoL or we do not have a SoL, you can't have it at the whim of the public according to how upset or outraged they feel.