- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgDriver acquitted of killing cyclist after Crown Prosecution Service offers no evidence
A driver has been acquitted of killing a cyclist in Cumbria after the Crown Prosecution Service decided to offer no evidence at his trial.
Nathan James Holme, aged 24 and from Kendal, had pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing of causing the death through careless driving of Joseph Eric Park on 7 March 2018.
Mr Park, aged 74 and known as Eric, died in a collision involving Mr Holme’s Audi A3 on the A6 in Church Street, Milnthorpe, reports The Westmoreland Gazette.
Mr Holme had been due to stand trial today at Carlisle Crown Court.
However, Nicola Gatto, prosecuting, told Judge Nicholas Barker that the CPS had decided to offer no evidence against the motorist in the light of a report compiled by forensic collision investigators appointed by both the prosecution and defence.
“As such my instructions are to offer no evidence,” she told the court.
Addressing Mr Holme, Judge Barker said: “In those circumstances I return a verdict of not guilty.
“That results in this matter coming to a conclusion. You are discharged and can leave the dock.”
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.
Latest Comments
- LookAhead 13 min 19 sec ago
Do the ingredients for your homemade goods not come in packaging? That'll be consumer-sized packaging too, much less efficient on a litter-per-unit...
- Cugel 37 min 36 sec ago
Many seem to feel that its a priviledge to be run over, hooted at or otherwise belittled by an up-class drivist in a shiny tin machine with a user...
- Beatnik69 42 min 2 sec ago
I have a funny feeling that Translink don't allow bikes on trains before 9am, which is ridiculous. They ned to bring back the guard van that used...
- Daveyraveygravey 50 min 29 sec ago
+1 for my Proviz jacket. It's a proper one although I think I got it half price for £50....
- brooksby 1 hour 1 min ago
Maybe. I think I'm just different because I didn't pass my test until I was in my early thirties - my wife expecting our son was the final (er...)...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 15 min ago
Much better than what I was trying to concoct.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 32 min ago
Was it you that stole my bike?...
- brooksby 2 hours 14 min ago
Add new comment
8 comments
As they'd got as far as the case, wouldn't it have made sense to at least give a brief summary of the evidence so that the driver and cyclist's family get to hear the facts?
"C'mon judge, this Audi driver's obviously a complete dick... let's hang him!"
What a shame that the CPS couldn't be bothered. This isn't just a parking ticket or a late payment of a bill, it's somebodys life!
The CPS have ridiculous targets, so if there's a significant risk that the prosecution would have failed they'll have just abandoned it.
My guess is that the driver was charged following a review of the initial completed investigation.
The defence have then commissioned their own forensic review (probably on a certain aspect of the case/collision). CPS will have then asked for a similar review and as a result of one of the reviews has dropped the case. Maybe enough was done by the defence to muddy the waters, or maybe some genuine issue was identified.
Yes, a lot of time and money, I just hope that the family can understand and accept the decision.
EDIT: From the newspaper article, the defence and prosecution both commissioned forensic reviews, which were presented in a joint report. Suggests that both reviews agreed on the pertinent issue (whatever that was).
Problem being that in the Alliston case the investigation presented evidence of stopping distances based on a mountain bike heading towards a stop line in a car park rather than a road/fixed bike being surprised by someone stepping out in an urban environment. So maybe the forensic view was completely misleading or car-centric without anyone with the brain cell to challenge it...
If they are going to present no evidence, why waste everyone's time and money by actually allowing this to get to a court room and in front of a judge.
"However, Nicola Gatto, prosecuting, told Judge Nicholas Barker that the CPS had decided to offer no evidence against the motorist in the light of a report compiled by forensic collision investigators appointed by both the prosecution and defence".
So tell us, why was the driver originally charged and what evidence did the forensics come back with? Was it of the standard that plod used against Charlie Alliston?