Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

"Incomprehensibly callous" - Met slammed as Michael Mason’s family plan private prosecution

Family and campaigners react to police handling of case of London cyclist killed a year ago

The family of cyclist Michael Mason, who died last year after a motorist struck him in London’s West End, plan to launch a private prosecution against the driver involved after the Metropolitan Police Service yesterday said it would not be referring the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Yesterday’s statement from the Met was a retraction of one issued on Friday in which it said it would be making a referral to the DPP, now described as “incorrect.” The about-turn, and the way in which it has been handled by police, has been condemned by Mr Mason’s family as well as cycling campaigners.

Mr Mason, 70, died on 14 March last year from injuries sustained a little over a fortnight earlier when he was hit by a car on Regent Street, north of Oxford Circus.

The initial police decision not to pass the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is in part due to the fact that he was not wearing a cycle helmet and was dressed in dark clothing. While wearing a helmet and high-visibility clothing are recommended for cyclists in the Highway Code, neither is a legal requirement.

On Friday, a statement from the Met said the matter was being referred to the DPP. It was issued hours before a vigil was held in Mr Mason’s memory on the eve of the anniversary of his death, which was addressed by his daughter Anna Tatton-Brown.

Family feels "let down" by Met and asks, "What are the Met playing at?"

Reacting to yesterday’s retraction of that statement, she told road.cc:

At every stage now we have been let down by the Met police; from an insultingly soft interview of the driver, to the original decision not to prosecute despite the convincing evidence of their own expert, to this shilly-shallying over whether or not to refer the case to the CPS.

The Met allowed us to hold a vigil on the anniversary of my father's death thinking that we had had some small victory and that justice might yet be done. That now appears to be totally wrong.

None of this has been communicated to us first but played out in the media. I have heard nothing from my so-called family liaison officer since November.

This is no way to treat anyone, let alone a family dealing with the recent traumatic death of a loved one. Now, to add insult to injury, they seem to blame my dad, with his lack of high-viz and helmet, for his own death, rather than the woman who drove into him (who the police describe rather subjectively as a 'Careful and cautious driver').

It is a travesty of justice. What are the Met playing at here?

Lawyer says Met treatment of family "incomprehensibly callous"

The cyclist’s family was represented at the inquest into his death by Martin Porter QC, who has also acted for it in pushing the Met to refer the case to the DPP. He told us:

The mishandling by the Metropolitan Police of this whole matter by dithering and repeatedly changing their minds and by communicating to Ms Tatton-Brown first via the press is quite scandalous. The treatment of a grieving family by a service which purports to serve the public has been quite incomprehensibly callous.

In addition to this the Metropolitan Police have now sought to justify their earlier decision not to refer the case to the CPS by reference to (amongst other immaterial matters), and I quote:

“• Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.

• Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.”

It seems the police do not expect a lit cyclist travelling in compliance with all legal requirements at night to remain alive if he is not wearing a helmet and high viz.

The importance of seeking justice for Michael Mason by by-passing the Metropolitan Police Service is now very clear.

Cyclists' Defence Fund renews Justice for Michael appeal

The planned private prosecution will be brought with the help of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF), which has supported the family throughout and has now renewed its appeal for funds to fight the case, with the Justice for Michael campaign having raised nearly £10,000 to date.

In an email to road.cc, CDF co-ordinator Rhia Weston said:

The Cyclists' Defence Fund will now support Michael Mason's family in instructing lawyers to build the case for a private prosecution as soon as possible. We are therefore renewing our call for donations to the 'Justice for Michael' appeal.

We believe the police are clearly wrong not to refer the matter to the CPS so that they can consider whether or not to bring charges. Furthermore their suggestion that the chances of a guilty verdict are somehow lessened because Michael Mason wasn't wearing hi-viz clothing or a helmet is legally irrelevant and should have no bearing on the charging decision.

As for the Met's erratic briefings to the media - without informing the bereaved family or their lawyer - this shows unbelievable incompetence and insensitivity.

Campaigners condemn police handling of case

The way the police have handled the case and their lack of communication with Mr Mason’s family have been condemned by cycling campaigners.

In a statement, Nicola Branch from Stop Killing Cyclists, which organised Friday’s vigil, said:

Stop Killing Cyclists are horrified to learn of the awful treatment of the family of Mick Mason by the Met Police and we would recommend referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

To have been informed by a Press Release that that police would refer the case to the DPP, which although a bizarre and unconventional way of finding out, was a massive lift to the family, and now to have that hope whipped away from them equally through a Press Release, is an absolute disgrace.

The Met need to look very carefully how they deal with the family of a victim. They must be accountable for their actions.

Those views were echoed by Rosie Downes of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), who said:

We are shocked and disappointed to hear that the Met Police are not, as was claimed last week, asking prosecutors to consider bringing criminal charges against the driver who killed Michael Mason.

It is against the law to cause death or injury from driving or riding in a careless way and a full prosecution is the only way to test the evidence.

To use the fact that Michael was not wearing a helmet or hi-viz clothing as rationale for this decision is unacceptable. Michael was well lit, on a brightly lit street, and hit from behind by a driver who claimed not to have noticed him.

This is a serious failing of the justice system and highlights the lack of clear process for dealing with road deaths, which more often than not leads to families feeling let down by the justice system.

Our thoughts are with Michael’s family who must be very distressed by the misleading report and the lack of action.

Green London Assembly Member Jenny Jones says she will again be writing to the Metropolitan Polce commissioner:

I shall be writing to the Met Police to say that victim blaming is completely unacceptable and that statements like this reinforce the view held by many cyclists that the Met Police will do little to protect them.

Focusing on the cyclists lack of high viz when over a dozen witnesses clearly saw Mr Mason on this well lit stretch of Regents Street, is clearly a nonsense.

As for drivers being cautious and careful, I believe that most drivers are. That doesn't stop people switching off for a moment behind the wheel, or being distracted, while being in charge of a deadly machine.

The point of the law is to protect innocent people who are going about their lawful business from the malicious acts and negligence of others.

The police's job is to put their evidence before the prosecutors and let the lawyers decide if there is a case.

Met apologises for "miscommunication"

Yesterday, Chief Inspector Tracy Stephenson, Professional Standards Champion of the Met’s Roads & Transport Policing Command, wrote to Mr Porter to outline the force’s response to a complaint made on the family’s behalf in January into the handling of the case by police and senior investigating officer Nick Mason.

She said: “I am satisfied the report does not need to be referred to the CPS,” adding, “I have determined there has not been a breach of the professional standards by the officer.”

Chief Inspector Stephenson also addressed yesterday’s retraction of Friday’s statement that the case would be referred to the DPP. She said:

I would like to apologise that the above statement was in the press prior to you receiving the Investigation Report and being informed before it reaching the public domain. This was a miscommunication and I am truly sorry for any upset it has caused the family. The intention was to correct the original information regarding the referral to the DPP whilst sending you the letter regarding our findings. Unfortunately this mistakenly went into the press release.

The full investigator's report explaining why the Met did not refer the ase to the CPS, and the letter dismissing the family's complaint over the police's handling of the case are attached below.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

56 comments

Avatar
Brooess | 9 years ago
0 likes

What an appalling way to treat the family. Donated in the hope the Met get a very public strip torn off them for a) refusing to prosecute and b) such inhuman treatment of the family.
We so badly need to change behaviour towards cyclists in the UK - the obesity crisis is going to cost us a fortune...

Avatar
ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Just donated, to see the reason being given as not wearing an helmet is an insult to us all, how on earth does that mitigate the action of the driver ?

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 9 years ago
0 likes

Time for IPCC appeal then, how has it come to this?!

Well done MET  41

Having been knocked off my bike twice last year, the second time being quite serious, I'm off to donate to this CDF case. Justice NEEDS to be done here.

Avatar
Bez | 9 years ago
0 likes

So, for what it's worth, I have a column up about this. Well, partly, anyway: seems to me it's just the continuation of a pattern.
http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/03/bez-erasure/

Avatar
workhard | 9 years ago
0 likes

Fuck me but my piss is boiling about this.

Donation to CDF made but surely there must be something bigger we can do?

Avatar
Bikeylikey | 9 years ago
0 likes

Maybe the driver was young and pretty together with being very distressed at what she'd done, thereby arousing the protective instincts of Mr. Plod. At least it explains the mystery.

It doesn't seem that long ago since no cyclist wore hi-vis and helmets. What would they have put it down to then?

Avatar
Ush | 9 years ago
0 likes

I don't suppose that CI Tracy Stephenson is any relation of Sir Paul Stephenson?

Avatar
chaos | 9 years ago
0 likes

Such a poor, but predictable, response for such a sad event. The pain for those left behind is amplified by this type of inaction.
The lack of HiViz excuse is disgusting. I am confident there are many examples that prove the nonsense of such a remark, but 'Black' taxis springs to mind immediately! Maybe all vehicles should be fluorescent!
I have tried to engage with the Met Police several times, but they have never supported me. The last time involved a van deliberately driving at me - he was on the wrong side of the road - striking me with his wing mirror and throwing a punch out of the driver's window. The Met Police phoned the company registered to the van and when they did not get a reply, they dropped the investigation (I was wearing HiViz).

Avatar
BikingBud | 9 years ago
0 likes

Until these incidents are treated. as manslaughter nothing, unfortunately, will change

Avatar
peasantpigfarmer | 9 years ago
0 likes

I agree the misinformation is distressing for the relatives.( I have been in a similar position) however,reading the info about the accident,cctv etc. It is difficult to lay blame. So prosecution would be difficult. I think that police should just apologise for the poor communication & lack of compassion.

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

RDRF Committee members attended the vigil. I think this is a really crucial case and needs a lot of attention given to it.

Here is our taken on what is involved http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/03/20/the-michael-mason-case-a-national-scandal-...

Avatar
burtthebike | 9 years ago
0 likes

Just read the police report, and if the met was found guilty of institutional racism, then they are also guilty of institutional cyclism.

Avatar
Sepulchre | 8 years ago
0 likes

I also donated - and I've never done anything like that before but feel VERY incensed by the Met's behaviour on this.

Anyway, eere's an update from the campaign website.

Update: September 2015

We (the Cyclists' Defence Fund) are sorry that we have been unable to provide an update on the progress of the case until now. We want to reiterate how immensely grateful we are for the support shown so far for Mick and his family.

Unfortunately, we cannot go into great detail about the case at this stage, but we can say that the preparation for the prosecution is moving apace and heading into the final phases. We will update you again soon when we have more information. We are sorry that we cannot give out more details and hope you understand that this is because we do not want to jeopardise the case in any way.

Again, thank you so much for your generosity and for your patience.

https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael

Avatar
jacknorell replied to peasantpigfarmer | 9 years ago
0 likes
peasantpigfarmer wrote:

I agree the misinformation is distressing for the relatives.( I have been in a similar position) however,reading the info about the accident,cctv etc. It is difficult to lay blame. So prosecution would be difficult. I think that police should just apologise for the poor communication & lack of compassion.

Difficult to lay blame? Are you reading the same material I am, or are you only selectively taking in information?

Avatar
ronin replied to Bikeylikey | 9 years ago
0 likes
bikeylikey wrote:

Maybe the driver was young and pretty together with being very distressed at what she'd done, thereby arousing the protective instincts of Mr. Plod. At least it explains the mystery.

It doesn't seem that long ago since no cyclist wore hi-vis and helmets. What would they have put it down to then?

Or maybe her partner is a free mason...

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 9 years ago
0 likes

All I see of the Police in London these days are their pathetic "operation safeway" public relations campaigns where they seem to stand in groups of 3 or 4 (normally PCSO's with 1 PC) talking to each other (often with backs to the traffic).

Not actually paying any attention to the road traffic junctions they are supposed to be observing, whilst behind them motorists are busy lowering their hand held mobile phones (having just noticed the Police), motorists are driving into the ASL after the lights have changed, motorbikes are driving into the ASL which is occupied by cyclists, etc.

Funny thing? If you actually take this up with the Police when this happens, and ask them the law on the ASL the ones I have asked do not have a clue.

Waste of f*cking time and our money.

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

This was our initial reaction to the Michael Mason case : http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/12/30/the-michael-mason-case-law-enforcement-and... .

Of course, with the U-turn and reverse U-turn, and the astounding garbage about helmet and hi-viz, it has got worse.

Avatar
stevio1967 | 9 years ago
0 likes

donated - things are dangerous enough for cyclists without the Police appearing to be disinterested in this case... I know several local Coppers over here on the IOM who are cyclists and i can't see any of them being happy with this...

Avatar
felixcat replied to stevio1967 | 9 years ago
0 likes
stevio1967 wrote:

donated - things are dangerous enough for cyclists without the Police appearing to be disinterested in this case....

I know it is not really internet etiquette to correct others, but I do feel this is important.
You mean "uninterested" , "disinterested" means uninfluenced by considerations of personal advantage, which is what the police ought to be.

Avatar
Argos74 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Beyond shabby. The Met's got a lot of decent people doing a decent job. The halfwits responsible for this debacle are an embarrassment to humanity, let alone their uniform.

Avatar
mike the bike | 9 years ago
0 likes

I don't honestly believe there is a cover-up going on here, neither do I think some kind of dastardly plot has been hatched. What we have, as so often with the police, is a trail of incompetence and muddle.
We've all seen them, standing at a crime scene in their ill-fitting suits, spouting their jargon-filled platitudes at the TV cameras and impressing nobody except their own children. We shouldn't be surprised at events like these because, let's face it, they are in the police because they couldn't get in the army.

Avatar
atgni | 9 years ago
0 likes

Lodging a complaint here:

https://secure.met.police.uk/complaints/

Based on my opinion that their policy is putting me and every other person on a bike in danger.

Avatar
atgni replied to atgni | 9 years ago
0 likes
atgni wrote:

Lodging a complaint here:

https://secure.met.police.uk/complaints/

Based on my opinion that their policy is putting me and every other person on a bike in danger.

Got a clarification from the MET which is good; they emailed this response:

'I will be very clear, there is no policy within the police service not to prosecute, if an injured cyclist is not wearing High Visibility clothing or a helmet. The wearing of High Visibility clothing and a helmet is a matter of choice for a cyclist and you are right there is no legal requirement to wear this safety equipment.'

Avatar
atgni | 9 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
qwerky | 9 years ago
0 likes

Seems like whoever in the Met made this decision needs to be fired for being grossly incompetent.

The Met are excusing the driver because her victim failed to adequately ensure his own safety. Doesn't this apply to all victims? I guess we can expect to see murderers set free because their victims didn't wear stab proof vests, or shoplifters let go because the retailers didn't nail down the goods to the shelves. Well its their own fault really.

Avatar
IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes

The Met spent years covering up for kiddy fiddlers and ponces. Overlooking a road traffic death all in a normal days work.

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

If the cyclist had been a copper then the driver would have been hung, drawn & quartered by now.

 14

Avatar
InvisibleVisibleMan | 9 years ago
0 likes

Of course, if you hadn't made up your mind at the start to exonerate the driver, you could see the evidence about how many brake lights there were and so on in an entirely different light. If conditions were such that it was hard to see things, the driver should have been driving even more carefully.

Avatar
PhilRuss replied to InvisibleVisibleMan | 9 years ago
0 likes
InvisibleVisibleMan wrote:

. ...If conditions were such that it was hard to see things, the driver should have been driving even more carefully.

[[[[[ If conditions were such that it was "hard to see things" (in Regent St.), then that driver shouldn't be driving at all.
P.R.

Avatar
Metaphor | 9 years ago
0 likes

Disgusted. Donated £10.

Pages

Latest Comments