Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

dhope

Closing statements now that the jury is out.

Jurors trying a young cyclist accused of killing a mother-of-two by ploughing into her on a bike with no front brake have begun their deliberations.
Former courier Charlie Alliston was 18 years old when he hit Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, east London, on February 12 last year.
The 44-year-old HR consultant, who had been on her lunch break, suffered "catastrophic" injuries when the pair clashed heads and she died in hospital a week later.
Alliston, now 20, later blamed her for the collision in posts online.
He denies causing bodily harm to Mrs Briggs by "wanton or furious driving" under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
In a legal first, he is also accused of the manslaughter of Mrs Briggs, of Lewisham, south London, a charge he denies.
Alliston was riding a Planet X fixed wheel track bike, which he bought as an "upgrade" in January last year, at the time of the crash.
Prosecutors say the collision could have been avoided had a front brake been fitted, a legal requirement Alliston claims he was not aware of.
But the defendant told the jury having a front brake "wouldn't have made a difference" because he would not have had time to pull it.
Judge Wendy Joseph QC, in summing up to the jury at the Old Bailey, said a police expert estimated Alliston was doing between 10 and 14 miles per hour just moments before the crash, which was captured on CCTV.
The same police expert said tests showed a fixed wheel bike similar to Alliston's but fitted with a front brake would have been able to stop in time.
During his evidence, Alliston said he shouted twice after spotting Mrs Briggs, slowed down as he approached and manoeuvred his bike to avoid her before she "stepped back".
He later wrote on a cycling forum that he had twice warned Mrs Briggs to "get the f*** outta my way," and denied he was at fault, the court heard.
One witness, David Callan, told jurors he heard Alliston shout something as Mrs Briggs lay on the ground.
Judge Joseph said: "It's hard to think of a case that's more likely to rouse your emotions.
"A young man who was 18 at the time. A woman in her 40s with her life ahead of her.
"Put to one side feelings of emotion, feelings of sympathy, feelings of revulsion, feelings of prejudice."

In his closing speech before the jury was sent out, Mark Wyeth QC, defending, questioned the manslaughter charge.
He said: "I ask as a matter of common sense and looking across all the evidence, is this really manslaughter? Really?
"We've had an eloquent speech from (prosecutor) Mr (Duncan) Penny, we've had mood music all around this case and, yes, it's a tragedy for the Briggs family.
"It's also a tragedy for the Alliston family.
"The counsel of perfection that the prosecution put forward is so complete, if you reversed the outcome, if Mr Alliston went over the handlebars, had fractured his skull and died and Mrs Briggs got up and dusted herself off, what's to stop her from being prosecuted for manslaughter on the approach the prosecution take, because she should not have been there?
"As hard and unpleasant as that sounds, I'm not criticising Mrs Briggs."
Mr Wyeth suggested it was unlikely that drivers in Alliston's position would face the same charge.
He said: "If you drove your car really dangerously and at very high speed, you might get prosecuted for what's called gross negligence manslaughter. You might.
"But this defendant is not getting prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter, he is getting prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter.
"As drivers the prospects you would be prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter are very slender."
He said Mrs Briggs had not used the pedestrian crossing 30 feet away from where the pair collided and Alliston had right of way.
"This is not a case of somebody jumping the lights," he said.
"This is not a case of an approach speed on this bike that was illegal, it's a 30mph area and the hazards that were in that road were not of Mr Alliston's making."
Mr Wyeth also accused prosecutors of failing to pay attention to his client's claim that Mrs Briggs stepped back slightly and put herself in the way of his bike.
"The crown have run with this no brake point without, you may think, a proper analysis of the stepping back point," he said.
"Their preoccupation with brakes and speed is in contrast with with what the defendant was saying, which was really about the position of Mrs Briggs and she was, in due respect, the hazard."
He added that there was no damage found to the forks, headset or wheels of the bike and Alliston was not wearing a helmet at the time.
Likening the crash to a clash of heads in rugby, he said the results could be "devastating" even at low speed.

I'm not expressing an opinion, simply posting the above as it's relevant and not tabloid noise.

niblue

BTW my own view is that the charge of manslaughter is a reasonable one in this case as it seems to completely fit the law.

Whether a conviction is reasonable I've no idea, not having seen the CCTV footage which is the most important bit of evidence.

niblue

"As drivers the prospects you would be prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter are very slender."

He's right on that bit, because there is the alternative to prosecute for death by dangerous driving. That was brought in because of the reluctance of juries to convict drivers for manslaughter and is in effect a form of manslaughter itself.

wolfsbane2k

niblue wrote:

BTW my own view is that the charge of manslaughter is a reasonable one in this case as it seems to completely fit the law.

Whether a conviction is reasonable I've no idea, not having seen the CCTV footage which is the most important bit of evidence.

I concur (Having checked up the definition of Unlawful Manslaughter vs Gross Negligence manslaughter . My issues all centre around how much the law is an arse, and the specific charge of "death by careless or dangerous driving" should be abolished and all driver caused deaths should be uplifted to the same manslaughter cases... especially where speeding (unlawful) or similar unlawful acts contribute.

"Once these points are established the question whether the act was dangerous is to be judged not by the appellant's appreciation but that of the sober and reasonable man and it is impossible to impute the mistaken belief of the defendant that what he was doing was not dangerous"

wolfsbane2k

With a follow on bit about comparative death by driving & manslaughter

Why more of these aren't prosecuted under this rule I don't know:

"Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is evidence that a vehicle was used as an instrument of attack or to cause fright, (but where the necessary intent for murder is absent), and death occurs as a result."

zebra67

VinnyMarsden wrote:

And your point is zebra ?

haha! you guys are funny (er, not really).
I'm not really into making points. But if I was, My point was that sometimes it's impossible not to hit someone unless you assume that all visible pedestrians are going to quickly turn & step into your path, even when they show all signs of having seen you & planning to go somewhere else.

I don't even quite treat cars like that (although not so far off, instead I try to assume I'm invisible to them).

I don't want to 2nd guess the trial results or facts.

mrfpb

zebra67 wrote:

VinnyMarsden wrote:

And your point is zebra ?

haha! you guys are funny (er, not really).
I'm not really into making points. But if I was, My point was that sometimes it's impossible not to hit someone unless you assume that all visible pedestrians are going to quickly turn & step into your path, even when they show all signs of having seen you & planning to go somewhere else.

I don't even quite treat cars like that (although not so far off, instead I try to assume I'm invisible to them).

I don't want to 2nd guess the trial results or facts.

As defence counsel said the prosecution relies on a "counsel of perfection" - the idea that the rider must be assumed have perfect reflexes and bike handling skills to be able to anticpate and react to what the pedestrain did. Because he didn't react with perfect skills and handling to avoid the collision, he must be guilty.

niblue

As defence counsel said the prosecution relies on a "counsel of perfection" - the idea that the rider must be assumed have perfect reflexes and bike handling skills to be able to anticpate and react to what the pedestrain did. Because he didn't react with perfect skills and handling to avoid the collision, he must be guilty.

He would say that though, as it's their entire defence.

You don't need perfect biking skills to stop from 6.65m at 18mph, but you do need a working front brake - which is the prosecutions argument.

No idea which of them is right though, not having seen the CCTV!

slowbike

niblue wrote:

As defence counsel said the prosecution relies on a "counsel of perfection" - the idea that the rider must be assumed have perfect reflexes and bike handling skills to be able to anticpate and react to what the pedestrain did. Because he didn't react with perfect skills and handling to avoid the collision, he must be guilty.

He would say that though, as it's their entire defence.

You don't need perfect biking skills to stop from 6.65m at 18mph, but you do need a working front brake - which is the prosecutions argument.

No idea which of them is right though, not having seen the CCTV!

I read above that you'd tested braking distances on various bikes on a wet, but grippy surface.
The accident happened on the 12th Feb 2016 - London weather at that time was dry, and overnight temperatures dropped to below freezing - that would contribute to the ability to stop quickly - so it's arguable that regardless of the presence of the front brake, the collision would've occured.

However, I'm not going to sit on the fence here - and I accept I may be wrong as I haven't heard all the evidence - but in my opinion, the rider was at fault for the collision. He had time to shout twice at the pedestrian - obviously regarding them as a hazard - in my view any reasonable rider would've covered their brake(s) if they weren't already - assuming he had 6.65 meters warning (the number being banded about around here) then with average reaction time of 215ms he would've travelled another 1.6 meters - giving him 5 meters braking distance - he probably wouldn't have been stopped with a working front brake - but he would've scrubbed a lot of speed off and the collision would probably have been different.

IMHO - Accepting that he didn't have enough time to avoid the collision regardless of the presence of the front brake is significant - and I'd suggest that he shouldn't be found guilty of manslaughter - but he may be found guilty of "causing grievous harm by wanton and furious driving" - if the technical aspects of that charge apply.

niblue

The 6.65m was after his shout for her to "get out of his f***** way" so therefore after any reaction time so that can be taken out.

One reading of the evidence that's in the public domain is that he aimed to just miss her (maybe even trying to teach her a lesson, in line with his comments) but that a "slight step back" (from his own evidence) meant they then collided. Pure speculation of course, but that would also eliminate the brakes as a factor and mean he wasn't guilty of unlawful act manslaughter but could perhaps mean gross negligence manslaughter (or the wanton and furious) charge.

surrey_commuter

scientifically I would say a collision not avoided by breaking in time only allows you a strangled cry. Having the time to twice shout a short sentence means that he had enough time to stop.

slowbike

niblue wrote:

The 6.65m was after his shout for her to "get out of his f***** way" so therefore after any reaction time so that can be taken out.

One reading of the evidence that's in the public domain is that he aimed to just miss her (maybe even trying to teach her a lesson, in line with his comments) but that a "slight step back" (from his own evidence) meant they then collided. Pure speculation of course, but that would also eliminate the brakes as a factor and mean he wasn't guilty of unlawful act manslaughter but could perhaps mean gross negligence manslaughter (or the wanton and furious) charge.

Fair enough (I did say I could be wrong!) - if he did aim to just miss her then that does sway it back into the involuntary manslaughter camp - as you can argue that he didn't attempt to moderate his speed so much and passing someone that close intentionally - so as to shock them - is negligent as you've not considered that they may not be where you expect them to be - therefore a chance of collision is greater.
Do you know if the prosecution picked up on his punishment pass intention? Would be interesting if they did and it formed part of the reasoning for finding him guilty & considered in sentencing - as that could be used in motorvehicle vs cyclist cases too ...

apreading

I think he opted to 'go around' rather than stop before. The trouble with this mode of riding is that people are unpredictable. He might actually have got away with it if he hadnt shouted and she hadnt noticed him, because she might then have proceeded in a predictable manner and he would have passed behind her.

I navigate commuting roads where pedestrians are constantly crossing. You cant stop for them all because you would still be there when it was time to come home again. So you predict whether you will get past before they get near your trajectory, whether you need to change course to go behind them, turn further out into the road to make sure you have room to pass in front of them and/or adjust your speed to control whether you or they get there first. But you have to allow ALOT of leeway, stay alert for sudden changes from the pedestrian and be ready to slam the anchors on.

Most common reaction when they notice you is for them to suddenly jump backwards, thinking they are getting out of your way. This is all good and well unless you have worked out they will be clear and planned to go behind them.

Next most common is for them to simply freeze.

Then less common, they carry on at the same speed they were originally or even speed up to get out of your way. This does not seem to be the instinctive response from most people.

Sounds like the fixie rider slowed down a bit, planned to go behind the woman on the basis of how far out in the road she would be when he passed, shouted at her, she jumped back in alarm - right into his path at the last minute. A more mature and more experienced rider would have anticipated this as a likely outcome and been ready to brake, taken a wider line and maybe slowed down a little more. But he was just a kid and full of bravado and was probably behaving recklessly but he didnt really know any better. Just one of those s**t events where multiple things come together and the outcome is far worse than anyone would naturally expect. He has been a complete arse from the moment after the accident but the charges arent really about that. What he is or isnt guilty of, I am not clear, but I cant see that even we as mature and experienced cyclists would reasonably expect this outcome (death) from the way he was behaving so I cant see that it should be manslaughter. Reckless and arrogant maybe but not to the extend where death would have been likely but for a freak circumstance.

niblue

I think your take on it is a reasonable one however we're all just speculating given we've not seen the CCTV coverage.

That we don't all react the same is definitely true - my automatic reaction seems to be to brake in those circumstances (my subconscious seems to take the view that a slower speed impact is better than a higher speed one) however I'm a lot more experienced on two-wheels (powered as well as unpowered) than your typical 18 year old, as well as being rather more risk averse.

bendertherobot

Jury dismissed until tomorrow. Seems likely to be a majority direction at some point.

niblue

bendertherobot wrote:

Jury dismissed until tomorrow. Seems likely to be a majority direction at some point.

Well we can't agree so no reason why they should!

Most likely means that the CCTV footage isn't definitive then.

gabriel959

Yes but we are all cyclists so possibly a bit more understanding of riding a bike than the general car driving public.

mrb123

Likely to be a fairly polarizing case for the jury. Bound to be a couple of Daily Mail readers on there, but could also be some cyclists/commuters too.

If the judge gives a majority direction, remember that they still have to get 10 of 12 to agree either way. Otherwise it's a hung jury and potentially a retrial.

apreading

gabriel959 wrote:

Yes but we are all cyclists so possibly a bit more understanding of riding a bike than the general car driving public.

Thats a very good point - the whole idea of changing direction to go around an obstacle wont be in the mind of a car driver as they would have to go onto the wrong side of the road to do it. So their 'only' course of action and the way they will be thinking is that stopping is the only response to a pedestrian in the road.

slowbike

apreading wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

Yes but we are all cyclists so possibly a bit more understanding of riding a bike than the general car driving public.

Thats a very good point - the whole idea of changing direction to go around an obstacle wont be in the mind of a car driver as they would have to go onto the wrong side of the road to do it. So their 'only' course of action and the way they will be thinking is that stopping is the only response to a pedestrian in the road.

depending on how busy the road is - it may be the only option for the cyclist too ...

gabriel959

Meanwhile in a parallel universe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

Spared jail. Speeding 44mph on a 30mph.

mrfpb

gabriel959 wrote:

Meanwhile in a parallel universe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

Spared jail. Speeding 44mph on a 30mph.

And clearly being a vegan is one of the most relevant points in the case.

veronese68

apreading wrote:

I think he opted to 'go around' rather than stop before. ...
Most common reaction when they notice you ...

I'd add to the list of reactions the ones that deliberately take a step backwards to make you slow down more. Invariably this is young men or teenage boys, never had a middle aged woman do that so very much doubt that happened in this case. But, if someone does that and a cyclist was to hit them where would the blame lie in the absence of witnesses or CCTV? I know who the Daily Mail would blame.

TheStone

gabriel959 wrote:

Meanwhile in a parallel universe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

Spared jail. Speeding 44mph on a 30mph.

When you see things like that, how can they send this cyclist to jail?

dodgy

Apparently a majority decision has just been made, no detail yet.
https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/ ... 1093424128

slowbike

gabriel959 wrote:

Meanwhile in a parallel universe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

Spared jail. Speeding 44mph on a 30mph.

Wells was also injured and took full responsibility for the collision when she was interviewed in hospital, the Old Bailey heard.

She was sentenced to 4 months - suspended for 18 ... so "spared jail" is a bit subjective - no, she didn't physically go "inside" - but she had to behave for 18 months otherwise she would've done - but it's still a criminal record.

I believe (I'm not in the legal profession nor have I studied it) - Judges weigh up the merits of putting someone behind bars - which is why there's such huge discrepancy in sentences for the same offence.

What was the point in locking up someone who has - from the outset - taken full responsibility for their actions, is willing to face the consequences, shows remorse for their behaviour and has probably shown that they have altered their behaviour for the better ?

surrey_commuter

dodgy wrote:

Apparently a majority decision has just been made, no detail yet.
https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/ ... 1093424128

That says majority direction

dodgy

Oops. Misread it. Still not revealing, whatever it says.

bendertherobot

dodgy wrote:

Oops. Misread it. Still not revealing, whatever it says.

It's just a majority direction. There's no detail, per se, other than an explanation to the jurors about what they need/can do.

Directions and procedure

1. No majority verdict direction can be given unless the jury has been deliberating
for at least 2 hours 10 minutes. In practice, to allow time for the jury to go from
the court room to their retiring room and vice versa, more than the minimum of 2
hours and 10 minutes should be allowed.

2. It is for the judge to decide when a majority direction is to be given, although it is
good practice to inform the advocates of this intention. Sometimes advocates
may ask the judge when he is likely to give such a direction. The judge is under
no obligation to give any indication, although in practice this may be done.

3. If the judge has decided to give a majority direction the jury will be sent for and,
when they have returned to court the clerk will announce the period during which
the jury has been deliberating. The clerk will then ask the jury if they have
reached a verdict on which they are all agreed. Assuming that the answer to this
question is “No” the jury should be directed that:
(1) They should still, if at all possible, reach a unanimous verdict.
(2) If however they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict the time has now
come when the court could accept a verdict which is not unanimous but one
on which a majority of at least 10 of them agree; that is to say a majority of
10/2 or 11/1.

buckmulligan

Is it reasonably safe to assume that we can expect a verdict today then?