CPS declines to prosecute speeding motorcyclist who killed 13-year-old cyclist

My deepest condolences to Samuel Breed's family and friends.

I wrote to my MP asking about this decision by the CPS and today he forwarded to me a letter from the solicitor general, the RT Hon Michael Ellis QC MP.

In part the solicitor general wrote: "It is my understanding that the CPS reviewed the facts of this case extremely carefully and determined that although there was sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution it was not in the public interest to do so. This decision was made due to the fact that the rider of the motorcycle sustained catastrophic and life changing injuries in the incident and was not fit to attend court."

The SG continued: "In reaching this decision the CPS has assured me that they considered the Director’s Guidance on Charging, the Code for Crown Prosecutors and their own legal guidance for dealing with the types of issues raised in this case. This includes specific guidance on fitness to plead. Following these considerations and consultation with the victim’s family, the lawyer in the case decided that the most appropriate outcome was not to prosecute."

An issue for me here is that there is no full public disclosure of the facts. Yes, the perp may not be fit to stand trial, but surely it's in the "public interest" that the circumstances are explored and made public? Possibly with a view to reducing the risk of recurrence ...

It's not easy to tell what happened to the motorcyclist.  Partly because while the press rush to identify victims, they often can't or won't identify potential perpetrators (for fear of prejudicing a future criminal trial?  Possibly.  Much more likely is that they fear a libel action).  And then there are the usual raft of stories that say the boy on the bike was killed when a motorbike collided with him (pesky motorbikes, out on their own, causing death and destruction).  Again, could be sloppy journalism but it's more likely to be fear of being sued.

Anyway, the biker was airlifted to hospital with "life-threatening injuries", and was still in a critical condition the next day.  But I can find no details of what those injuries were, or what sort of recovery the biker did or didn't make.

I can think of a couple of scenarios where it would not in my view be in the public interest to prosecute the biker.  Main one is if he'd suffered the sort of brain injury that meant he was now incapable not merely of recalling the collision (that ought to be no bar to a prosecution), but is incapable of instructing a defence team, incapable of participating in a trial process and/or incapable of understanding what is happening to him.

The fact that the decision is being made two years after the collision suggests that someone has thought about it quite carefully - and there has been plenty of time for the facts to be properly assessed, the decision made, reviewed, reviewed again further up the food-chain, explained to the victim's family (probably at several stages in the process).

Crap result, but without knowing more it's impossible to say it was the wrong one.

I once had a discussion with Dorset Police about an accident where a motorcyclist had driven into one of our company cars and caused an accident in which he had one or possibly two legs amputated. The Police told me that it was not in any way our drivers fault but that they would take no action against the motorcyclist because of the severity of his injuries (our driver was physically unhurt).

I quite understood at the time as we were only talking about damage to our car and the other party was never going to ride a motorcycle again.

I think that is the test. If the guilty party has prospects of ever driving or riding again then they should just prosecute to take that away. points on a licence or even short prison sentences are a bit irrelevant compared to the injuries.

no no, the motorcyclist needs to be tried and hopefully convicted and if he's guilty of death by dangerous driving he needs to be branded with that and he can take it to his grave with him. 
that's in the public interest, deter this from happening again 

My thoughts are with the poor family of the killed child.

I really hope they had part in the decision not to prosecute.

If not, then they need to be.

I can appreciate that if there is no point in giving points, disqualifying, sending to prison or otherwise penalising the motorcyclist (assuming he's found guilty of course) if that person was say in a coma and had not prospect of ever coming out of it, but if they're up & about, even if they're now confined to a wheelchair,  justice has to be seen to be done for the sake of the childs family.

So, provided you injure yourself when killing someone else then that's OK?

Is it F***. His injuries are life changing, his actions were life ending.

If nothing else he should be banned from owning or driving any motorised vehicle for the rest of his injury changed worthless life, just like the apparently worthless life of the innocent 13 year old that he killed.