Hit from behind.

[thirdcrank]

I've just seen this on Martin Porter's blog about the Coroner's Inquest into the death of Michael Mason, a cyclist who was hit from behind by a car driver who apparently did not see him.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... mason.html

A detective from the Serious Collisions Investigation Unit confirmed to the Coroner that there were no criminal proceedings taken against the driver and that decision had been taken by the Metropolitan Police without reference to the CPS.

I'm not quoting from some vague media report, written by some hack with half an idea what was said and sub-edited for brevity and sensation. This is a summary by a Queen's Counsel so we can take it as an accurate report of the evidence which was given.

This case now seems to be closed but surely there needs to be some sort move to get the Metropolitan Police to review its procedures for the inevitable future cases.

I've searched the CTC website for the name of the deceased and I can find no reference to this rider's death.

==========================================================================
Edit to add:

I've found this from a media report, just after Michael Mason died.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/f ... 96427.html

The life support machine was switched off four days later after he slipped into a “permanent vegetative state” three weeks after colliding with a black Nissan in Regent Street (My emphasis.)

.

WARNING
The link contains a picture of the casualty in intensive care.

[reohn2]

In light of reading the two links am I now to believe I live in a 'civilised' society?
Where simply to claim not to have seen someone driven into is excuse enough to not even be considered worthwhile pursuing?
This case was investigated and found that the driver acted unlawfully in that a well lit cyclist was hit from behind and by the drivers own account didn't see him.

What does it take to get to a court let alone get a conviction,in this country today?

This case confirms to me that I now live a lawless and careless society without any meaningful police force I can rely upon to uphold the law.
It is completely outrageous!

[kwackers]

What can you say?

If she hadn't spotted some traffic lights and gone through on red she'd have had a fine and some points.

[DaveP]

It's hard to credit isn't it?
The cyclist was legally lit up. There were also street lights. Not stated, but perhaps it ought to be - its a (major) shopping street, not some suburban high speed rat run. The driver didn't see the cyclist. No case to answer...
Something's not right!

[reohn2]

..........Something's not right!

I'd say in this case nothing's right!

And it's not the first time,anyone can give cock and bull story as an excuse for taking someone's life or severely maiming them,all you have to do is drive a car into them and say sorry I didn't see them.

[Steady rider]

Should drivers be charged with 'driving involving death' and a special road accident court examine any evidence and decide the outcome. This would mean a court made up of people with a background of understanding road accidents, possibly 3 people, would examine the evidence. A motorist may not have been at fault so the charge would only relate to driving involving death and not assuming causing death. This would take over the roll of the coroner in road accident deaths but would have the power to issue a suitable sentence.

All driver would then be aware if an accident occurs and someone is killed, that they will be involved in a court case examining the evidence.

Would MPs support this as a private members bill?

[thirdcrank]

I've tried to research the current rules on a case like this being referred to the CPS for guidance. Much of the relevant stuff seems to be based on the assumption that the police will be all too ready to charge with insufficient evidence. The clearest stuff I've found is here:

The Director's Guidance On Charging 2013 - fifth edition, May 2013 (revised arrangements)

Guidance to Police Officers and Crown Prosecutors Issued by the Director of Public Prosecution under S37A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

5th Edition: May 2013

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/dire ... 5.html#a05

Quite a lot to go at but there are several references to a requirement that all charging decisions involving a death should be referred to an Area Prosecutor. That's set out most clearly here:

29. Area consultations

Consultations with Area prosecutors will take place in the most serious, sensitive and complex cases. These include;
* any case involving a death; ... (etc)

I suppose it's possible to argue that deciding not to charge somebody isn't a "charging decision." Indeed there cannot be any other explanation for a case like this not being considered by the relevant Area Prosecutor.
================================================================
PS By coincidence, I see that the former DPP who wrote that version of the Director's Guidance is going to stand for Parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30466832

It needs somebody with a bit of clout to take this issue up with his successor.

[snibgo]

As far as I can see, the police should take no further action unless two tests are passed:

1. There is enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, AND

2. A prosecution is in the public interest.

I'd love to know on what grounds this case was NFA-ed. On the surface, it appears a charge of death by dangerous driving would have been appropriate.

[thirdcrank]

A point I intended to make last night (but was distracted by childcare) is that since the changes in the rules about inquests, that avenue of reviewing a decision not to prosecute has gone. The rationale for that was that it's wrong for the CPS to take a reasoned decision not to prosecute, only for a coroner's jury to take the opposite view. I presume that's why the DPP's Guidance I quoted above says all death must be considered at quite a high level within the CPS.

Edit to add (something else I forgot)

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84724

That link is to a thread about the death of another rider and the inquest into his death. There's quite a bit in there about the changes to the powers and duties of coroners and there's a link within the thread to an earlier article by Martin Porter about coroners and inquests.

[Steady rider]

If the 'Police Officers and Crown Prosecutor' or perhaps Area prosecutors or coroner have doubts about

1. There is enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, AND

2. A prosecution is in the public interest.

Then the full details may not proceed to a court venue. It is complicating a situation by having these requirements set out and seeking opinions from police officers or CPS by adding extra views, pre judging the case in effect, that may prevent a court hearing. The coroner is judging the situation and the driver can decide not to give evidence.

Charging drivers with 'driving involving death' and not seeking prior opinions would result in the case going to court and a court would decide the outcome or seek addition information in some cases. This may streamline the procedures.

A court may decide that driving without due care, dangerous driving, intention to harm or kill or have some other option, accident due to medical reasons, medication, drugs, alcohol as contributing factors etc. All could be detailed by the court. Failure to see someone would probably be a case of driving without due care or having added circumstances as factors. in some cases the death will be the result of a cyclist being at fault in some way, the court would have to decide and not the police or CPS.

The bottom line is when someone has died the know details would be included in a court case and recorded. All road deaths would have a detailed court record and measures to reduce deaths could be more effective.

[thirdcrank]

Let's not kid ourselves. Had there been any unusual circumstances here to prevent prosecution, they would almost certainly have emerged at the inquest. (I'm thinking of things like the driver being terminally ill with only days to live, or now serving a life sentence imposed for a quite separate offence.) In the absence of anything like that, I'll suggest that this has been dealt with in what we must presume to be the normal way. ie it's been investigated by the specialist unit and - from Martin Porter's account which is worth reading - plenty of evidence has been gathered from witnesses and the technical examination of the scene. That evidence shows that the deceased was riding normally and with lights etc., on a normal shopping street, when the driver travelling at less than the speed limit ran into him from behind. The driver's explanation was that they had not seen the rider.

I suspect - and I'd take a lot of dissuading - that the investigators have felt that the driving disclosed by the evidence did not amount to careless driving as defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988:

3ZA Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, driving.

(1) This section has effect for the purposes of sections 2B [ie causing death by careless driving] and 3 above and section 3A below..

(2) A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.. (My emphasis)

(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused..

(4) A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving.]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

In other words, it seems it's to be expected that a competent and careful driver might be expected to collide from behind with a cyclist riding normally along a shopping street displaying proper lights etc. Furthermore, this is so obviously competent and careful driving that there's no need to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision.

And even on a cycling forum, few people seem concerned.

[beardy]

Lack of a post on the thread doesnt mean a lack of concern.

It is more a case that you couldnt really start a post on the subject without reducing yourself to a state of futile rage. You can let it ruin your life by getting worked up about it or you can resign yourself to ignoring the injustice and just hope it doesnt happen to you, which it probably wont.


Many of us have never had any faith in the Police, CPS and Judges, so this isnt anything new to us.

[kwackers]

Lack of a post on the thread doesnt mean a lack of concern.

It is more a case that you couldnt really start a post on the subject without reducing yourself to a state of futile rage. You can let it ruin your life by getting worked up about it or you can resign yourself to ignoring the injustice and just hope it doesnt happen to you, which it probably wont.


Many of us have never had any faith in the Police, CPS and Judges, so this isnt anything new to us.

+1

[thirdcrank]

Lack of a post on the thread doesnt mean a lack of concern.

It is more a case that you couldnt really start a post on the subject without reducing yourself to a state of futile rage. You can let it ruin your life by getting worked up about it or you can resign yourself to ignoring the injustice and just hope it doesnt happen to you, which it probably wont.


Many of us have never had any faith in the Police, CPS and Judges, so this isnt anything new to us.

That's fair enough and it's a POV I can understand. However, in my OP I did say

This case now seems to be closed but surely there needs to be some sort [of] move to get the Metropolitan Police to review its procedures for the inevitable future cases.

We've seen how public opinion can change the way the criminal justice system works. eg domestic violence. IMO we've been fortunate here that there was an experienced observer present in the person of Martin Porter who has reported what happened. IMO, cyclists need clarification of whether this level of decisionmaking is correct. If it is correct, it needs changing; if it isn't safeguards need to be in place to prevent its happening again.

[beardy]

You are absolutely correct and it is the sort of thing that I expect somebody else to sort out.

I suppose that the extent of my involvement is to pay my CTC subscriptions and I dont even know if that will help.

The world is full of problems that need sorting, dare I say others are more important than this injustice, even if they do not involve the cycling part of my existence.

I am not detracting from the cause, just explaining why it wasnt something that I felt I could usefully contribute to and now I am probably contributing in an unhelpful manner.

I guess angry enough not to be able to talk about it but not angry enough to (try) do anything about it.