Driver on trial in private prosecution

[sg37409]

Not sure if it should be here or in the "bill and bailey" section.

A woman accused of knocking down and killing a cyclist in central London has gone on trial in an "unusual" private prosecution.

Good, for a number of reasons.
I'd be interested to know how the CDF selected this case to pursue over others. Whatever: I'll be following this one closely.

[Redlight]

It's a fairly well-publicised case and I'm sure a google search would throw up most of the known facts. I don't think it would be sensible to discuss them here for fear of prejudicing the case but I think it would be safe to say that many people were surprised at the conclusions of the Met's investigation of the incident and the decision not to take any action.

[Gattopardo]

Yeah, nothing.

It seems that failing to be aware of what's in front of you while you're driving is an acceptable mistake, not careless, and that no explanation for that failure is necessary.

[spindrift]

Come on, they agonised over their decision for 17 whole minutes.

[Jakob W]

Can't say I'm surprised; disappointed, but not surprised.

[Sergeant Pluck]

Terrible for the victim’s family, and for cyclists in general.

I have no doubt that many drivers who intentionally drive with no consideration for cyclists will take careful note: all you need to say is that you didn’t see the cyclist.

It is previous cases of this type (sun in my eyes, didn’t see anyone beside my truck as I turned left) that go unpunished that helped put me off cycle commuting in London. Rightly or wrongly, I feel at greater risk every time one of these verdicts gets handed down. In addition, the thought that one’s family would have to go through such a legal process only to end up seeing the driver, in effect, being told that it was the cyclist’s fault...

Verdicts like this are widely read by drivers and serve to legitimise poor driving. It also encourages the police to continue with the sort of victim blaming that seemed to be the case here.

Lastly, while I am aware that the judge directed the jury to take no account of the fact that this was a private prosecution rather than coming from the police and CPS, my view is that it was bound to have coloured the jurors’ approach.

[hellymedic]

The Met & CPS failed to act and gather evidence at the time of the collision.
The shreds of credible evidence that remained for this case to stand were too scanty for a jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

The initial failure by the Met & CPS is a large part of the problem.

[caerau]

Seems to me, that, however worthy the motivations of the CTC here, that it might in the end have been counter-productive and a waste of the crowdsourcing money     Looks a bit of a joke and makes them look silly, a completely dismissive and humiliating outcome. 


Not that I have a better solution personally.  I wonder a little what they actually expected to happen here.

[Sergeant Pluck]

I wonder a little what they actually expected to happen here.

There were a lot of calls for action on social media etc. and there were a lot of angry cyclists following the CPS decision not to prosecute. Despite this I am sure that they (CDF) would not have proceeded in this way unless, rightly or wrongly, they believed that there was adequate evidence for a conviction. I don’t think there was any dispute that she killed a cyclist who was positioned so that he would have been clearly visible to her. Even the driver doesn’t seem to have disputed that. Her defence was that she didn’t see him. I suppose the CDF thought that even the basic facts themselves suggested careless driving: if I drove into a big fuck-off man sized gatepost causing an injury to someone, let’s say, I am sure the police would be happy to regard my driving as careless.

At the end of the day, sadly, I agree with you that the end result is counterproductive.

[ian]

To be fair, it's not just cyclists. Not seeing something is perfectly fine as an excuse for drivers. Parking a loaded truck on the pavement? I didn't see her. A cyclist right in front of you. I didn't see him.

Until we address the underlying attitude (and that's really a legal change to hold drivers accountable for their actions), this is will continue.

[Whitedown Man]

Drink driving, speeding, red light violations. All required a change to "strict liability" to overcome the "there but for the grace of god" mindsets amongst juries & magistrates.

I try generally not to be one of life's pessimists, but I can't see this hurdle ever being overcome for careless / dangerous driving offences unless we get to a point where the majority of vehicle use is driverless. But then that's a topic for a whole other thread.

[Jaded]

As long as the number of deaths stays low and the public think driving like cocks is normal it won't change.

[mattc]

Drink driving, speeding, red light violations. All required a change to "strict liability" to overcome the "there but for the grace of god" mindsets amongst juries & magistrates.

I try generally not to be one of life's pessimists, but I can't see this hurdle ever being overcome for careless / dangerous driving offences unless we get to a point where the majority of vehicle use is driverless. But then that's a topic for a whole other thread.

I for one haven't given up on presumed/strict liability in the UK. In most of the rest of Europe it just works.

(doesn't bring anyone back to life of course  )

[Whitedown Man]

Agree that it doesn't bring anyone back to life, but if it leads to a change in driver behaviour then maybe some of those lives wouldn't get lost in the first place.

[PeteB99]

Has the new trial actually finished yet or are people commenting on the original decision not to prosecute?

[caerau]

Give it a google, she was found not guilty after 17 minutes of jury deliberation.


Yes, it has finished.

[PeteB99]

Ta. All the refs Duck duck go came up with were for the trial starting April 3rd and expected to last 6 days.

[ian]

Give it a google, she was found not guilty after 17 minutes of jury deliberation.


Yes, it has finished.

I presume that anyone on the jury, had it been one of their relatives or themselves left dead, would have hoped for more 17 minutes of deliberation.

Of course, this shit always happens to someone else. Cars collide with things. Never drivers.

[caerau]

Indeed, I expect some of that time is probably the foreman reminding/instructing the jury what the rules are for deliberation process.
It probably really lasted length of time it took to vote on it.

[Gattopardo]

Seems to me, that, however worthy the motivations of the CTC here, that it might in the end have been counter-productive and a waste of the crowdsourcing money     Looks a bit of a joke and makes them look silly, a completely dismissive and humiliating outcome. 


Not that I have a better solution personally.  I wonder a little what they actually expected to happen here.

Oh maybe something as it was a road in a very built up area where peds just walk out and the cyclist was directly in front of her.

Make a mockery of justice.  Kill someone in a car and get a appropriate sentence.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-39527359

[Gattopardo]

Come on, they agonised over their decision for 17 whole minutes.

Keep writing a reply rude,sweary sarcastic but I really have no words just shame.

[DaveReading]

It seems that failing to be aware of what's in front of you while you're driving is an acceptable mistake, not careless, and that no explanation for that failure is necessary.

It's not rocket science - if you fail to see something or someone directly in front of you, in broad daylight, there are only a limited number of possibilities:

a) you were unsighted (by low sun, glare, reflection, etc) - in other words you were driving too fast for the conditions

b) your eyesight is defective - in which case you shouldn't be driving at all

c) you were looking somewhere other than where you were going - at your passenger/satnav/mobile, etc.

Hard to argue that any of those are acceptable.  Have I missed anything ?

[Gattopardo]

Didn't see him was enough.

[caerau]

It seems that failing to be aware of what's in front of you while you're driving is an acceptable mistake, not careless, and that no explanation for that failure is necessary.

It's not rocket science - if you fail to see something or someone directly in front of you, in broad daylight, there are only a limited number of possibilities:

a) you were unsighted (by low sun, glare, reflection, etc) - in other words you were driving too fast for the conditions

b) your eyesight is defective - in which case you shouldn't be driving at all

c) you were looking somewhere other than where you were going - at your passenger/satnav/mobile, etc.

Hard to argue that any of those are acceptable.  Have I missed anything ?

falling from the sky 

[ian]

From a quick perusal of what I could find she didn't even present an excuse as to why she didn't see him. She just didn't see him. It seems to have got worse. At least a couple of years back you needed a flimsy excuse (the sun was in my eyes, suddenly unaccountable nerve spasm, etc.) Now drivers don't even have to bother. Simply not noticing the person right in front is good enough. Since we hold drivers to no standard, demand no duty of care, that's not even considered careless.

But that's how it's going to go. A jury of drivers will see themselves in the dock. They'll vote accordingly.