Cyclist who broke motorist’s jaw cleared of assault – because of driver’s close pass

The problem with that is that it would leave the motorist who did an extremely close pass / endangered the life of the rider with a driving conviction.

By contrast the rider, who responded only because of the dangerously close pass and subsequent confrontation by the motorist would have been left with a criminal conviction with the serious consequences on employment etc that go with that.

The thing is the response wasn't immediate, so there is always a risk of prosecution where it is post event. As HP says any sentence should take account of the close pass and subsequent confrontation.

Despite what the daily fail might have us believe, self defence in the UK is very much upheld by the law.

ex_terra wrote:

The problem with that is that it would leave the motorist who did an extremely close pass / endangered the life of the rider with a driving conviction.

By contrast the rider, who responded only because of the dangerously close pass and subsequent confrontation by the motorist would have been left with a criminal conviction with the serious consequences on employment etc that go with that.

It was an inappropriate and unnecessary response, so the cyclist should bear the consequences of that. I would anticipate some kind of community service sentence, but I don't know if that has a big effect on employment.

Certainly in the UK, I would argue it should come under self defence, which would mean not guilty.

In the UK the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't. (And self defence can be preemptive).

The mail article shows the driver overtook dangerously close, while leaning on the horn, which shows it was intentional. Then stopped immediately around the corner (video skips a section, but you can see the same parked vehicle before and after, so it hasn't gone far). When the cyclist stops and complains that they nearly killed them, the driver swears back about  them blocking the road. The article also implies they approached the cyclist while doing so.

So I don't think it is unreasonable for the cyclist to claim that they believed the driver intentionally threatened them with the car, then stopped to get out and attack them (having already proved willingness by overtake with horn) so self defence.

I think it depends on the dynamic between the two as to whether it was self defence or not. Personally, I don't consider a 77 year old that's out of his car to be a threat to my safety, but maybe a younger, very aggressive driver would be. Also, I reckon a quick shove to an older person would be likely to put them on the floor to give enough time to confiscate the car keys and thus provide protection.

I think you may find the poor ickle pensioner was bigger and beefier than the cyclist. 

imajez wrote:

I think you may find the poor ickle pensioner was bigger and beefier than the cyclist. 

Not as good in a fight though, it appears.

Probably didn't think the cyclist had it "in him" to punch and would have been intimidated enough to back down. After all, they ride around in Lycra and that is a girls material.

qwerty360 wrote:

Certainly in the UK, I would argue it should come under self defence, which would mean not guilty.

 

In the UK the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't. (And self defence can be preemptive).

 

The mail article shows the driver overtook dangerously close, while leaning on the horn, which shows it was intentional. Then stopped immediately around the corner (video skips a section, but you can see the same parked vehicle before and after, so it hasn't gone far). When the cyclist stops and complains that they nearly killed them, the driver swears back about  them blocking the road. The article also implies they approached the cyclist while doing so.

 

So I don't think it is unreasonable for the cyclist to claim that they believed the driver intentionally threatened them with the car, then stopped to get out and attack them (having already proved willingness by overtake with horn) so self defence.

It is true that your scope for self-defence is very wide, and is judged on whether you take reasonable and proportionate action to defend yourself  against the threat that you genuinely believe is presented.

It's difficult to see here as the film has been edited, but it does seem that the rider approached the driver (in as much that they could have continued to ride - the altercation is at least 30s after the pass).

Doubt may be held over the idea that the rider was at any real risk anymore as the driver was out of his car, and, well, 30y older. [edit:having seen the photos I'll retract that. I'd certainly not describe him as frail.....]

However  - if the old boy had a weapon, swung a punch or the rider genuinely believed this was about to happen that could cover self-defence.

Surprise surprise, the Heil chose to give an incomplete account of the incident, trial or ruling....

The driver was a tool, possible close passed deliberately, and definitely should also have been prosecuted under driving legislation.

Note that the defence stated that the prosecution had become necessary in order to clear the defendant's name.

I agree with HP.  And I suspect the cyclist might not have been "deprived ... of the power of self control" if the driver hadn't been 77 years old.
 

However, the poor ickle pensioner looked bigger and beefier than the cyclist. 

The poor little pensioner lost a large percentage of his weight, that is, muscle mass  between incident and trial.  I think he is a septagenerian of unusually anabolic powers.

Thanks, hadn't seen that article, proven to be pure piffle.

In the UK a more appropriate way for the court to record this might have been an "absolute discharge" - something where clearly there was an assault, but the mitigating circumstances were such that any punishment would be considered inappropriate.

The advantage of that is that then they do have a criminal record and if it turns out that they make a habit of this, a future sentencing could take that into account.

Yes, absolutely, hopefully this gives us all a free pass to batter belligerent pensioners lol

Don't think this was some frail old pensioner. He's beefier than the cyclist.