Driver who failed to stop after killing cyclist walks free from court

I think your caps lock may be broken, but to answer a few of your points:

skippy wrote:

AS pointed out , the Family can APPEAL !?  

Bereaved families can appeal.  There is a time limit on it, which will definitely have expired by now.

The appeal is not against the sentence.  The appeal is against the decision not to prosecute for another offence (such as causing death by careless driving).  

Now, I know that this is going to sound really outlandish, and some will think that I'm saying something the equivalent of the moon being made of cheese, but it is entirely possible that the family have seen the evidence collected by the police forensic crash examination experts and agree that there is no evidence of bad driving by the car driver.  I certainly haven't seen any references anywhere to the family complaining about the decision.  Has anybody else?

skippy wrote:

So to this end , i OFFER on a conditional basis to subscribe $A500 to a " CrowdFunder " :

1/   The Family makes the same amount or more available !

2/   That an amount in excess of $A20000 is raised by others .

Both caveats are there to ensure that , the family Act & that there is Public support for this proposal !

If the family wanted to appeal against the decision, they don't need money.  They simply need to write, email or make a phone call in reply to the letter that they are sent explaining the decision.

skippy wrote:

ANYONE else OUTRAGED by the absurdity , that ALLOWS a driver to state " His left side fell against MY Vehicle ? 

WHY was the vehicle between the kerb & the Cyclist ?  Hardly possible that the Cyclist was OVERTAKING the vehicle ?

The only details I've seen say that the driver was approaching a roundabout slowly when, according to him, the cyclist fell against his car.  Undoubtedly more was said in court but we don't know what that was and anything you may choose to think is pure speculation.

Take an example: a couple of weeks ago I was cycling into Southampton.  I came to a junction where there are three lanes: one for turning right and two for straight on.  There's another junction immediately after it, with straight on and left options, so effective the 3 lanes at the first are "turn right here", "straight on all the way" and "straight on then immediately left".

I was going straight on so was riding in the centre lane.  Straight ahead had a green light, the right turn lane was red.  As I approached the line, a pedestrian stepped out into my lane from the right, having assumed that because the bus had stopped, he could cross.  I braked hard and the combination of that, the wet road and my heavy panniers, I basically jack-knifed and very nearly came off the bike.  As I skidded, I also nearly went into the car that was passing me on my left.  There was nothing wrong with his driving but I very nearly fell into his car and may well have died had I done so.

Now obviously I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case.  What I'm saying is that I don't know what happened and neither do you.  It is, however, entirely conceivable that the police experts and prosecution lawyers were right and that the breeaved family were right and it's only those whose knowledge of the case extends to a couple of lines on road.cc who are wrong.

skippy wrote:

Regardless , as to the Past times of the CPS Personnel , there are UK Laws that are FLAWED and thus ABSURD !  Time that those CPS Personnel offered up a better set of Guidelines for Parliament to IMPLEMENT !

That's not what the CPS does.  The CPS applies the law as set down by Parliament.  The elected representatives decide what the law should be.  We call it democracy.

Ush wrote:

Quote:

the Crown Prosecution Service said: "The forensic collision team concluded that Mr O'Shea was not at fault for the accident and there was no evidence of bad or poor driving.”

It would add greatly to the public record if road.cc were able to report the names of the officers responsible for these conclusions, and also the personnel at the CPS who decided not to seek further information.

At the least it would enable the general public to decide whether it was a case of a few bad apples or a systematic problem.

Would it?

Police forensic collision teams are highly trained individuals who examine the evidence in minute detail.  If they say that O'Shea was not at fault and there is no evidence of poor driving, that doesn't suggest a bad apple or a systematic problem.  It suggests that the wasn't at fault and there is no evidence of bad driving.  Unless you have some extra knowledge about the incident that you'd care to share with us?

Equally, is there something you know that we don't about somebody at CPS deciding not to seek further information?  What further information are you saying that they could have sought (bearing in mind the expert forensic collision team's report) but didn't?  I've not seen any reports saying one way or the other whether the CPS sought any further information.

Is there something more to your post than "a cyclist was killed in a collision with a car, therefore anybody who says that it wasn't provably the driver's fault is wrong"?

Dan S wrote:

Ush wrote:

Quote:

the Crown Prosecution Service said: "The forensic collision team concluded that Mr O'Shea was not at fault for the accident and there was no evidence of bad or poor driving.”

It would add greatly to the public record if road.cc were able to report the names of the officers responsible for these conclusions, and also the personnel at the CPS who decided not to seek further information.

At the least it would enable the general public to decide whether it was a case of a few bad apples or a systematic problem.

Would it?

Police forensic collision teams are highly trained individuals who examine the evidence in minute detail.  If they say that O'Shea was not at fault and there is no evidence of poor driving, that doesn't suggest a bad apple or a systematic problem.  It suggests that the wasn't at fault and there is no evidence of bad driving.  Unless you have some extra knowledge about the incident that you'd care to share with us?

Dan S wrote:

Equally, is there something you know that we don't about somebody at CPS deciding not to seek further information?  What further information are you saying that they could have sought (bearing in mind the expert forensic collision team's report) but didn't?  I've not seen any reports saying one way or the other whether the CPS sought any further information.

Is there something more to your post than "a cyclist was killed in a collision with a car, therefore anybody who says that it wasn't provably the driver's fault is wrong"?

My post very clearly does not say any of those things. I understand that you are very emotional about this topic, but this sort of response is worse than useless.  You have written at length, asserting expertise and effectively asked us to accept your anonymous word that all is well.  I doubt very much whether you even have that information.

One of the principles which legitmizes a legal system is openness and transparency.  This is evidently lacking here.  While your rank-closing and knee-jerk defensive is both understandable and predictable it does nothing to address that lack.

Dan S wrote:

1. Somebody said that the police pass the evidence to CPS, which means there's evidence to charge, so where is that evidence now?  This is incorrect.  The police gather such evidence as they can find about the incident.  That includes evidence pointing towards and away from the guilt of the suspect.  The police are required to look for both.  That evidence then goes to the CPS.  Passing the evidence to the CPS doesn't mean that there is enough to charge.  It doesn't even mean that the police think there's enough to charge.  It just means that they've gathered such evidence as there is.  
.

A non-rhetorical question here. What exactly is the procedure? I am confused as to who gets to make these decisions, because I previously thought it was down to the CPS as to whether to bring someone to trial, and on what charges, but wasn't the issue in the Michael Mason case that the police refused to refer the case to the CPS?

Does that mean there are two hurdles that have to be cleared?

First the police have to decide there's a case, then the CPS have to do so as well?

In a more argumentative spirit, this

Dan S wrote:

In a recent case I did, the CPS lawyer was a triathlete (yes, I know, but he does ride a bike...), the advocate was a cyclist (and occasional triathlete), the main police officer was an Ironman triathlete (spot the theme?) and her Sergeant (overseeing the case from a police viewpoint) was a cyclist who had recently everested up a local hill. But sure, you go ahead and think of us as not caring about cyclists. We just can't imagine what it's like. Obviously.
.

Doesn't especially reassure me. The way you describe them make them sound like super-fit sportspeople who take pride in their elite cycling abilities - I don't feel such people necessarily have anything at all in common with ordinary non-motorists engaging in cycling or pedestrianing as a means (possibly their only means) of everyday transport. Still less with those who rarely cycle at all because it feels too dangerous.

You don't mention whether those you mention use a car as their main means of transport.

Personally though, while I suspect there is some systemic pro-driver bias in the CPS (how could there not be, given they are drawn from a wider pro-car culture?) I don't think its anywhere near the biggest problem.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Dan S wrote:

1. Somebody said that the police pass the evidence to CPS, which means there's evidence to charge, so where is that evidence now?  This is incorrect.  The police gather such evidence as they can find about the incident.  That includes evidence pointing towards and away from the guilt of the suspect.  The police are required to look for both.  That evidence then goes to the CPS.  Passing the evidence to the CPS doesn't mean that there is enough to charge.  It doesn't even mean that the police think there's enough to charge.  It just means that they've gathered such evidence as there is.   .

A non-rhetorical question here. What exactly is the procedure? I am confused as to who gets to make these decisions, because I previously thought it was down to the CPS as to whether to bring someone to trial, and on what charges, but wasn't the issue in the Michael Mason case that the police refused to refer the case to the CPS? Does that mean there are two hurdles that have to be cleared? First the police have to decide there's a case, then the CPS have to do so as well?

I don't claim a knowledge of that case particularly but from what a quick Google search tells me, yes that was the problem.  And yes, you are exactly right: the police make an initial decision as to whether there is enough evidence to charge.  If they think there isn't then they "NFA" the case ("no further action").  If the police think there is enough evidence then they refer it to the CPS and it is only if the CPS agree that it gets charged.  Relatively recently the Victim's Right to Review has come in, which effectively means that victims (including bereaved families) can appeal against either a police decision to NFA or CPS decision not to charge.  For completeness I will mention that the police have the power to charge some minor offences without CPS input.

This seems tortuous and in favour of the suspect.  The reason for the two stage process is as follows:
1. The police get a lot of calls/reports that either plainly aren't crimes (Mr Grumpy of Dunroamin complaining about his neighbour's cat pooing in his garden etc) or that are crimes but aren't going to lead to a charge for some other reason (as happened to me when my car had its window smashed while it was parked in town - no forensic marks could be found and there's no CCTV or witnesses - the case remains active in case fresh evidence arises but we can't charge anybody).  In these cases the police act as a filter to stop the CPS from having to consider cases where the answer is obvious.  If the victim disagrees then it gets reconsidered (and there are actually further levels of appeal as well that I won't go into).  

2. The police don't have the legal training to deal with the intricacies of charging.  Charging is not always easy and can ruin cases if not done by a properly trained lawyer.  At the same time as charging, the CPS also advise the police on what further evidence to obtain to help the case.

The system isn't flawless but it works well in 99.99% of cases.  Probably more.

Quote:

In a more argumentative spirit, this

Dan S wrote:

In a recent case I did, the CPS lawyer was a triathlete (yes, I know, but he does ride a bike...), the advocate was a cyclist (and occasional triathlete), the main police officer was an Ironman triathlete (spot the theme?) and her Sergeant (overseeing the case from a police viewpoint) was a cyclist who had recently everested up a local hill. But sure, you go ahead and think of us as not caring about cyclists. We just can't imagine what it's like. Obviously. .

Doesn't especially reassure me. The way you describe them make them sound like super-fit sportspeople who take pride in their elite cycling abilities - I don't feel such people necessarily have anything at all in common with ordinary non-motorists engaging in cycling or pedestrianing as a means (possibly their only means) of everyday transport. Still less with those who rarely cycle at all because it feels too dangerous. You don't mention whether those you mention use a car as their main means of transport. Personally though, while I suspect there is some systemic pro-driver bias in the CPS (how could there not be, given they are drawn from a wider pro-car culture?) I don't think its anywhere near the biggest problem.

I'm flattered to be described as a super-fit sportsperson!

The police officers I mentioned are certainly superfit, as is the CPS lawyer in that case.  The advocates much less so.  As far as I know, the sergeant and the reviewing lawyer cycle into work, as does one of the advocates.  All but one of the advocates also drive (not to work but when occasion demands it).  Personally, I either drive or take the train to somewhere short of work (whichever court it may be) and then cycle the rest of the way, which can be anything from 5km to 40km (depending on weather, how busy I am etc).

My initial post didn't mention the other cyclists in the CPS office.  5 or 6 that I can think of, all of whom are rather more what you'd call non-motorists using the bike as their mode of transport.  Probably about 10-15% of the office cycle to work on a regular or semi-regular basis.  The rest are by no means all driving, since many live within walking distance and the main train station is a 3 minute walk from the office as well.  As a rough estimate, I'd say 3 people drive to work each day for each who cycles.

As to the wider point, of course you're right: the CPS has an inherent pro-car bias simply because they are drawn from a society that is inherently pro-car.  The bit I object to is the recurring line thrown around the forum that the CPS as a whole don't care about cyclists, don't care when they get killed etc.  That simply isn't true.  It's not true partly because a goodly number of CPS are cyclists but also because they're all human beings.  That statement has two inherent facts within it: CPS lawyers care about loss of life, no matter whether the person was a cyclist or not; and CPS lawyers make mistakes.

There is undeniably a strong element among all drivers, whether they also cycle or not, of "Christ, that could have been me failing to check my blind spot before I turned left and killing somebody".  This feeling should not generally lead to a decision not to charge and nor should it lead to a decision by a jury to acquit somebody who has clearly been careless.  It should certainly mitigate any sentence imposed, in the sense that a momentary failure to check the blind spot is obviously less blameworthy than driving for several miles without looking at the road etc.  Both should be punished, but the punishment should reflect the fault as well as the outcome.

And that's my rant over!  Apologies, but it annoys me when people (and I don't mean you, your post was entirely fair and courteous) simply start throwing allegations around about people they've never met and about whose jobs they know nothing.  If you think it's annoying and upsetting reading about these acquittals online, try spending months meeting the bereaved families, preparing a case and prosecuting it, only to see the jury acquit...

Dan S wrote:

I want to start by saying that I think the sentence for failing to stop is too low.  I am not defending the sentence passed.  What I am going to do is explain a few things where previous commenters have, I think, made factual mistakes.  Then I'll add a couple of comments of my own.

1. Somebody said that the police pass the evidence to CPS, which means there's evidence to charge, so where is that evidence now?  This is incorrect.  The police gather such evidence as they can find about the incident.  That includes evidence pointing towards and away from the guilt of the suspect.  The police are required to look for both.  That evidence then goes to the CPS.  Passing the evidence to the CPS doesn't mean that there is enough to charge.  It doesn't even mean that the police think there's enough to charge.  It just means that they've gathered such evidence as there ].

Nope, your wrong mate. We seek charging advice from the cps if we believe there is evidence to charge because the powers that be don't believe we can make that decision on our own. If there is no or insufficient evidence then we nfa someone ourselves. In this instance the cps at source felt there was enough evidence to charge and take the driver to court. The Police can't charge for this offence without cps authority it's as simple as that. No authority equals no charge.

Stumps wrote:

Dan S wrote:

I want to start by saying that I think the sentence for failing to stop is too low.  I am not defending the sentence passed.  What I am going to do is explain a few things where previous commenters have, I think, made factual mistakes.  Then I'll add a couple of comments of my own. 1. Somebody said that the police pass the evidence to CPS, which means there's evidence to charge, so where is that evidence now?  This is incorrect.  The police gather such evidence as they can find about the incident.  That includes evidence pointing towards and away from the guilt of the suspect.  The police are required to look for both.  That evidence then goes to the CPS.  Passing the evidence to the CPS doesn't mean that there is enough to charge.  It doesn't even mean that the police think there's enough to charge.  It just means that they've gathered such evidence as there ].

Nope, your wrong mate. We seek charging advice from the cps if we believe there is evidence to charge because the powers that be don't believe we can make that decision on our own. If there is no or insufficient evidence then we nfa someone ourselves. In this instance the cps at source felt there was enough evidence to charge and take the driver to court. The Police can't charge for this offence without cps authority it's as simple as that. No authority equals no charge.

Yes, you're quite right.  On rereading my post, I did say that police pass the evidence even if they don't think there's enough evidence.  That's plainly wrong (as corrected in my post above, replying to FluffyKitten).  Not sure where I got that from!  I'll hide behind the fact that as an advocate, charging all happens before I get involved!

sq225917 wrote:

Obviously, there's more to this than meets the eye. Either it will hit an appeal for an obvious miscarriage of justice or there are circumstances we've not heard yet.

I agree entirely, except that by the time the case comes to court it's too late to appeal the decision not to charge about the manner of driving.  And there's no right to appeal against a lenient magistrates' sentence.

On the topic of appeals, however, if the police disagree with the charging decision then they can appeal it and another CPS lawyer (senior to the first and independent of them) reviews the case from fresh.  They are not shy of overturning each other's decisions, and frankly if one lawyer decides not to charge and another overrules that on appeal then the first lawyer is not going to get upset or shirty about it.  There's no secret backscratching involved.

If the relatives of the deceased disagree with the charging decision then they also have the same right of appeal and review.

As an aside, unless the situation had changed in the last couple of years, a lawyer who decides not to charge a road death case had to have a meeting with the relatives to explain that decision (unless the relatives don't want one).  If the lawyer decides to charge it then they don't have that meeting.  That prospect concentrates the mind somewhat. 

ChrisB200SX wrote:

HGV driver sees traffic at the last minute, kills 4 car occupants, gets 10 years.

Driver sees cyclist at the last minute, kills him, flees the scene, gets 5 months suspended and some community service.

Seems legit, justice done, right?

To be fair, there was camera evidence showing what the hgv driver was up to thankfully. Who knows what the outcome would have been if there wasn't?
Before driverless cars become the norm, I'd love it for mandatory dash cams on all vehicles, hard drives only accessible by police etc. They could potentially absolve or apportion blame to the driver of any incident they are involved in.
Plus, with the cameras being inside a car, police might take more notice of them compared to cyclists cams....

Jimnm wrote:

Leaving the scene is usually because the driver has been drinking or under the influence of drugs. He deserves to have nightmares every night for the rest of his life.  

RIP Brian Tozer ;/

...or is just an uncaring cunt far more interested in not getting into trouble than helping someone they've just run over.  

BikeBud wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

Leaving the scene is usually because the driver has been drinking or under the influence of drugs. He deserves to have nightmares every night for the rest of his life.  

RIP Brian Tozer ;/

...or is just an uncaring cunt far more interested in not getting into trouble than helping someone they've just run over.  

Yes, that's more common in my experience, although it may be that Jimnm can show us the statistics that drink/drugs is usually the reason.

Dan S wrote:

I'm no statistician nor do I desire to be... anyone fleeing from an accident usually has something to hide. If you have ever watched cops on the telly, they stop more people for being either drunk or under the influence of drugs whilst driving. No tax insurance or licence. It's a sobering thought for cyclists, excuse the pun 

BikeBud wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

Leaving the scene is usually because the driver has been drinking or under the influence of drugs. He deserves to have nightmares every night for the rest of his life.  

RIP Brian Tozer ;/

...or is just an uncaring cunt far more interested in not getting into trouble than helping someone they've just run over.  

Yes, that's more common in my experience, although it may be that Jimnm can show us the statistics that drink/drugs is usually the reason.

BikeBud wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

Leaving the scene is usually because the driver has been drinking or under the influence of drugs. He deserves to have nightmares every night for the rest of his life.  

RIP Brian Tozer ;/

...or is just an uncaring cunt far more interested in not getting into trouble than helping someone they've just run over.  

Yeah you're probably right Bike Bud it's probably what you say. The law is an ass especially in this case. The person(s) presiding on this case are cunts. It's a total fuck up