Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: henshaw11 on 03 October, 2013, 02:16:28 pm
-
..whilst overtaking on a corner, at 40-50mph
http://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-consultant-who-killed-cyclist-while-driving-wrong-side-road
-
It's becomming more and more clear that if you want to murder someone and get away with it in this country, do it in a car.
Why this country is so subservient to deadly metal cages and makes so many allowances for them they wouldn't anywhere else in life both bemuses and depresses me.
-
Yes, this is a chilling verdict. The jury's decided that cyclists are obliged to take whatever evasive action is necessary in the circumstances irrespective of whether it's possible or not.
I'd be interested to see the Judge's summing up before the jury retired, specifically any reference to the the established principle of the "cyclist being entitled to a wobble".
-
Unfortunately one of the road.cc commentors has sent an email of complaint to the Attourney General and they say that as she has been aquitted then there is nothing they can do >:(
-
Unfortunately one of the road.cc commentors has sent an email of complaint to the Attourney General and they say that as she has been aquitted then there is nothing they can do >:(
AIUI, they can't review it for being 'unduly lenient' because she was acquitted. I presume, however, the prosecution could appeal the verdict?
-
Unfortunately one of the road.cc commentors has sent an email of complaint to the Attourney General and they say that as she has been aquitted then there is nothing they can do >:(
AIUI, they can't review it for being 'unduly lenient' because she was acquitted. I presume, however, the prosecution could appeal the verdict?
Not really, that is what the double jeopardy law is about. Double jeopardy was only relaxed in major criminal cases where substantive new evidence is available.
Wanting to beat a jury round the ears for a perverse verdict and therefore asking for a retrial with a new jury just because you don't like the verdict is heading to percecution of the suspect.
However I would like to see a critical review by those that know of the way the judge / magistrate handled the trial to see if that has steered the Jury to the aquital. If so then the judge / Magistrate should be taken outside for a serious talking to, if not then the CPS prosecutor should be taken outside and read the riot act for loosing the clearest case he could expect.
-
I'm sure nothing can be done about this verdict.
It's a *very* long time since I learnt to drive. I hardly drove after I passed my test but I'm sure I read somewhere (?Roadcraft ?Highway Code) that your driving manoeuvres should not 'hinder or baulk' other road users.
Seems that in this case, the cyclist *was* (predictably) baulked by this overtaking manoeuvre, which the driver could have helped (or prevented by not going fast round a blind bend on the wrong side). It is unfortunate this was swallowed whole by judge and jury.
-
I too want to see the transcript when it becomes available. Most of our disgust over court outcomes is often centred around our unhappiness with the choice of crime for prosecution or the range of appropriate sentences in the law; this seems entirely perverse.
She was charged with causing death by careless driving, overtaking on a bend without seeing oncoming traffic does seem to be careless, I would have thought that was the decision the jury had to make. The "causing death by" just follows, surely?
-
Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.
-
I have written to my MP asking him to investigate why the legal system is increasingly regarding cyclists as no better than roadkill, and how this squares with the government's stated intention to increase cycling as a share of the national transport matrix.
-
Didn't Cameron make some kind of statement about it not being right that every time you get on your bike you shouldn't feel you are taking your life in your hands?
And iirc he was going to do something about it
-
Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.
I thought she did collide with the cyclist. The car appears on the wrong side of the road, the lady touched wheels and fell into the path of the car which then hit her. The car didn't stop. I may be wrong about the last bits.
..d
-
I read it as the following from the facts in the text (my comments in parentheses):
Driver:
-> I decide to overtake two cyclists on a bend on the other side of the road (we don't know which direction the bend is)
-> I think it is safe because it is clear
-> At some point I see two cyclists in a line. I admit I should have seen them sooner, I don't know why I didn't
-> I decide that there's enough room to drive past at around 50mph (squeezing them into the side of the road coz they're bikes and don't take up any room and fuck 'em anyway)
-> One falls in front of me and I kill them (she does stop)
Cyclists
-> Lead cyclist and g/f see the car coming straight at them ( FUUUUUCK)
-> Lead cyclist - takes evasive action, slows down (and pulls to the side?)
-> Following cyclist clips the rear wheel (this is the really tough bit for the lead cyclist - apparently he slowed, suggests that his g/f didn't react the same way, I don't want to imagine what he must be feeling but it ISN'T HIS FUCKING FAULT)
-> Girl falls into path of car and is killed
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
-
I read it as the following from the facts in the text (my comments in parentheses):
Driver:
-> I decide to overtake two cyclists on a bend on the other side of the road (we don't know which direction the bend is)
It was a right hand bend.
So by pulling out to overtake she reduced her ability to see around the bend.
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
Not only did she think it acceptable, she still does despite the tragic consequences.
And the members of the jury also think it's acceptable.
And, by inference, the judge thinks it's acceptable.
-
I have written to my MP asking him to investigate why the legal system is increasingly regarding cyclists as no better than roadkill, and how this squares with the government's stated intention to increase cycling as a share of the national transport matrix.
There does appear to be a widely prevailing attitude that if you insist on using a bike on the road, you should keep the hell out of the way of anyone in a motor vehicle, and accept the consequences if you don't. There was someone on this very forum only the other day recounting how, having been hit by a car and injured. Even though the driver admitted driving carelessly, the police would take no further action against the driver. If a driver hits a pedestrian in similar circumstances it's far more likely action would be taken.
It feels like cyclists are viewed as if they were choosing to go for a swim in a shark-infested pool. There's no law to say you can't, but if anything happens to you, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.
-
Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.
I thought she did collide with the cyclist. The car appears on the wrong side of the road, the lady touched wheels and fell into the path of the car which then hit her. The car didn't stop. I may be wrong about the last bits.
..d
Point I was trying to make was that the cyclist's fall into her path was not from her direct contact.
Twitter yesterday compared this case to the case of a truck driver who was found guilty of careless driving after he had parked and vacated his vehicle on a main road, into which a car had fatally collided.
-
I have written to my MP asking him to investigate why the legal system is increasingly regarding cyclists as no better than roadkill, and how this squares with the government's stated intention to increase cycling as a share of the national transport matrix.
There does appear to be a widely prevailing attitude that if you insist on using a bike on the road, you should keep the hell out of the way of anyone in a motor vehicle, and accept the consequences if you don't. There was someone on this very forum only the other day recounting how, having been hit by a car and injured. Even though the driver admitted driving carelessly, the police would take no further action against the driver. If a driver hits a pedestrian in similar circumstances it's far more likely action would be taken.
It feels like cyclists are viewed as if they were choosing to go for a swim in a shark-infested pool. There's no law to say you can't, but if anything happens to you, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.
Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.
I thought she did collide with the cyclist. The car appears on the wrong side of the road, the lady touched wheels and fell into the path of the car which then hit her. The car didn't stop. I may be wrong about the last bits.
..d
Point I was trying to make was that the cyclist's fall into her path was not from her direct contact.
Twitter yesterday compared this case to the case of a truck driver who was found guilty of careless driving after he had parked and vacated his vehicle on a main road, into which a car had fatally collided.
The point I would make is take the analogus situation of a driver driving on the footway and the pedestrian tripping over whilst trying to jump out of the way and being hit and I think you will find the driver would be convicted.
-
Anyone notice the Mail and local press call Denisa a "novice cyclist" cos she only got the bike four days before Measures killed her. So, is someone driving a new car a "novice driver"?
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.
I would suggest that this is because the jury were all motorists (or at least a majority were) who see no problem with that sort of careless driving as they do the same themselves.
-
Agreed. And its why it helps the defence case to make sure that its seen as , just "has an accident" ,"error of judgement" etc, then the jury is less likely to convict of DBDD or DBCD, it would be seen as "just one of those things that can happen to any of us."
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.
I would suggest that this is because the jury were all motorists (or at least a majority were) who see no problem with that sort of careless driving as they do the same themselves.
And they probably all drive Audis as well, eh?
Funny old thing, you've got no proof and no indication that was the case. Because as well as probably being motorists, they probably have daughters, sisters many of whom cycle as well (ffs even the driver did). The jury system tends to work reasonably well on the case presented, it is likely there that we may see what caused this - to us - strange verdict.
The attitude of blind prejudice or bias you are accusing the jury of is exactly the one you are displaying yourself. You should probably consider that, but I doubt you will.....
-
I disagree. It's not a matter of proof or bias - it's a matter of trying to guess as to *why* the jury might reach that decision . And going by experience - mine, at any rate - there is a strong possibility that enough members of the jury may take the view that you only need this <> much room to pass a cyclist.
IME, whilst the majority of drivers that overtake do so at a vaguely reasonable distance, when approaching me as oncoming traffic, barging through any gap they've been left seems far more common. Or perhaps its just more easy to see exactly how close they are than when they're approaching from behind.
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.
I would suggest that this is because the jury were all motorists (or at least a majority were) who see no problem with that sort of careless driving as they do the same themselves.
And they probably all drive Audis as well, eh?
Funny old thing, you've got no proof and no indication that was the case. Because as well as probably being motorists, they probably have daughters, sisters many of whom cycle as well (ffs even the driver did). The jury system tends to work reasonably well on the case presented, it is likely there that we may see what caused this - to us - strange verdict.
The attitude of blind prejudice or bias you are accusing the jury of is exactly the one you are displaying yourself. You should probably consider that, but I doubt you will.....
Utter bollocks. Proof? We need proof for this forum? Civil or criminal?
I'm with Reg on this one.
Legislators, police, journalists, juries, judges, prosecutors, defenders, the public are motorists. Even if they were occasional cyclists we'd get some fucking wanky shit about wearing helmets, or hi vis or other victim blaming cuntishness.
-
It's not about what the cyclists were doing, that's the whole point.
The test is
if (and only if) the way he or she drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
(my bold full text here (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a24))
To understand we need to know how the ***** the facts were presented such that the jury could believe what she was doing was an ordinary standard of careful driving. How would an average person be convinced going around a corner on the wrong side of the carriageway could be careful driving?
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.
I would suggest that this is because the jury were all motorists (or at least a majority were) who see no problem with that sort of careless driving as they do the same themselves.
And they probably all drive Audis as well, eh?
Funny old thing, you've got no proof and no indication that was the case. Because as well as probably being motorists, they probably have daughters, sisters many of whom cycle as well (ffs even the driver did). The jury system tends to work reasonably well on the case presented, it is likely there that we may see what caused this - to us - strange verdict.
The attitude of blind prejudice or bias you are accusing the jury of is exactly the one you are displaying yourself. You should probably consider that, but I doubt you will.....
Utter bollocks. Proof? We need proof for this forum? Civil or criminal?
I'm with Reg on this one.
Legislators, police, journalists, juries, judges, prosecutors, defenders, the public are motorists. Even if they were occasional cyclists we'd get some fucking wanky shit about wearing helmets, or hi vis or other victim blaming cuntishness.
Ad you both cant see that is the same attitude? What hope is there, then.
-
You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?
No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.
I would suggest that this is because the jury were all motorists (or at least a majority were) who see no problem with that sort of careless driving as they do the same themselves.
And they probably all drive Audis as well, eh?
Funny old thing, you've got no proof and no indication that was the case. Because as well as probably being motorists, they probably have daughters, sisters many of whom cycle as well (ffs even the driver did). The jury system tends to work reasonably well on the case presented, it is likely there that we may see what caused this - to us - strange verdict.
The attitude of blind prejudice or bias you are accusing the jury of is exactly the one you are displaying yourself. You should probably consider that, but I doubt you will.....
Utter bollocks. Proof? We need proof for this forum? Civil or criminal?
I'm with Reg on this one.
Legislators, police, journalists, juries, judges, prosecutors, defenders, the public are motorists. Even if they were occasional cyclists we'd get some fucking wanky shit about wearing helmets, or hi vis or other victim blaming cuntishness.
Ad you both cant see that is the same attitude? What hope is there, then.
You'll have to explain in words with apostrophes.
-
Earlier this week a driver of <something vaguely Audi-shaped, not sure> overtook an HGV on a straight, but clearly didn't give a shit about me riding towards him.
OK, so there was room for the 3 of us, but a less experienced/bolshey rider would have been VERY rattled. To say the least. (I was calm enough to er ... gesticulate rather expressively.)
Presumably this is considered ordinary careful driving ::-)
-
Maybe I over reacted and possibly omitted the occasional gratuitous punctuation, but it seems to me that Reg and yourself are saying that the jurors returned a not guilty verdict because they are motorists. While there will be occasions that common experience might be relevant, in this instance they should have been asked to decide on a clear point, whether or not it fell into the definition of careful.
As to bias, from where we are sat there is no reason to suppose the jury was biased in the favour of the motorist as opposed to the victim and to take the attitude you do demonstrates the same prejudice that you are accusing the jury of having.
I don't have rose tinted spectacles and I recognise that drivers often don't give a tuppeny shit about cyclists, but driving around corners on the wrong side of the road appears careless by any construct. And then, not seeing the cyclists - had it been a skip in the road, the outcome would have been different.
-
Given that most people have forgotten more than they ever knew about the Highway Code, I doubt that there will ever be a situation where justice as intended will be served.
We live in an era where lives are changed in 'accidents', where getting a parking fine is akin to being waterboarded, private choice absolutely trumps community and the motorist is all powerful - more powerful than the law.
And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.
-
And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.
hope you get through today without too many painful memories or otherwise in the company of good friends.
-
Ditto. Be kind to yourself.
-
Given that most people have forgotten more than they ever knew about the Highway Code, I doubt that there will ever be a situation where justice as intended will be served.
We live in an era where lives are changed in 'accidents', where getting a parking fine is akin to being waterboarded, private choice absolutely trumps community and the motorist is all powerful - more powerful than the law.
And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.
Shouldn't the summing up for the Jury include reminders of what is and isn't careless.
-
And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.
hope you get through today without too many painful memories or otherwise in the company of good friends.
Thanks both.
It's been particularly crap this year. So much for time heals.
-
Given that most people have forgotten more than they ever knew about the Highway Code, I doubt that there will ever be a situation where justice as intended will be served.
We live in an era where lives are changed in 'accidents', where getting a parking fine is akin to being waterboarded, private choice absolutely trumps community and the motorist is all powerful - more powerful than the law.
And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.
We live in an era where, for most, thier rights trump their responsibilities. Things need to change.
As to your anniversary Jaded, I hope you got through with as little stress as you could.
-
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657 (http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657)
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
With victim blaming like that then how is there any chance of justice in these cases? >:(
[edit] I mis-read - that was not the judge summing up, but the slime defence barrister attacking one of the victims in open court
-
WTF ??? :demon:
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
With victim blaming like that then how is there any chance of justice in these cases? >:(
I don't think I can summon up a response rude enough. I don't think the necessary words have been created.
I don't know where to start. Not even with the sexism, where a woman can't make a decision to ride a bike (her boyfriend must make it for her and thus be deemed responsible), which is the cherry on the cake of bizarre, or the unwholesome filling of alleged inexperience that apparently is reasonably addressed with a death sentence, whereas running someone over isn't even considered careless or worthy of any censure. I know it's supposed to be adversarial, but seriously have a fucking conscience. The woman didn't even seem sorry, just a dull pattering of excuses.
-
I'm not advocating any action from anyone, but I hope I can be forgiven for having a sneaky desire to see the court of popular opinion bestow a somewhat less benign judgement on Dr Meadows. And perhaps her brief as well.
-
Perhaps that when you're trying to defend the indefendable, you clutch whatever straws you can get a hold of?
-
He did successfully defend the indefensible, by blaming the boyfriend for placing the victim in danger. That may be legitimate in our adversarial system, but it stinks.
-
Popular opinion, as shown by the unanimous decision by the members of the jury, is that it is stupid and reckless to ride a bicycle on the road. The brief's job is to read the jury and reinforce their opinions, and he got it right: they all agreed with his assertion that the victim was to blame. Every single one of them.
They also disagreed that that there was anything wrong with driving at 50-60 mph towards someone with a gap of 2 feet to the kerb. Every single one of them. That's less than the width of a person for fucks sake.
-
I don't think I can summon up a response rude enough. I don't think the necessary words have been created.
I don't know where to start. Not even with the sexism, where a woman can't make a decision to ride a bike (her boyfriend must make it for her and thus be deemed responsible), which is the cherry on the cake of bizarre, or the unwholesome filling of alleged inexperience that apparently is reasonably addressed with a death sentence, whereas running someone over isn't even considered careless or worthy of any censure. I know it's supposed to be adversarial, but seriously have a fucking conscience. The woman didn't even seem sorry, just a dull pattering of excuses.
Absolutely. Someone on Road.cc said
Its difficult to truly tell what I would do if this had been my partner. But I would be tempted to buy car and kill [Dr Measures] with it.
I hope her children realise how vial (sic.) she is showing no remorse.
I know it's the wrong response but I feel the same. For what it's worth I'd do in her lawyer too.
-
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences
.
I'm absolutely shocked by that. I truly feel for Ben Pontin.
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences
.
I'm absolutely shocked by that. I truly feel for Ben Pontin.
+1
-
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf
What was that quote about British Justice being the best that money can buy ?
-
The non-road traffic cases make for even more interesting reading.
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/janick-fielding/
-
Significant private fees are however required.
So sickening. I would be interested to hear how he justifies it to himself. I think I know, along the lines of "only doing my job, if the crown had done theirs " etc etc
I just wish karma could be arranged such that one of the drivers he got off, say for drink driving, ploughs into one of his nearest and dearest (assuming anyone could get anywhere near a slug like that). I wouldn't wish ill on anyone, but sure as eggs is eggs some of those he has got "off" are going to go on to kill and maim others, it might as well be people close to him.
-
The non-road traffic cases make for even more interesting reading.
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/janick-fielding/
Indeed so, but it also seems to suggest that he has also been responsible for the avoidance of at least some gross miscarriages of justice and (if I read it correctly) a lot of his caseload has come through the Legal Aid system.
-
The non-road traffic cases make for even more interesting reading.
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/janick-fielding/
Indeed so, but it also seems to suggest that he has also been responsible for the avoidance of at least some gross miscarriages of justice and (if I read it correctly) a lot of his caseload has come through the Legal Aid system.
No doubt he is a superb barrister, accustomed to probing weaknesses and deficiencies in how crimes have been investigated and prosecuted, as is right and proper, but that makes his comment (above) about Ben Pontin even more inexcusable. It can't really have contributed to the outcome - I hope.
-
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf
I am sure he will proudly add the latest notch on his gun to his CV, just as soon as he has deleted all the negative emails he is now receiving.
-
The non-road traffic cases make for even more interesting reading.
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/janick-fielding/
Indeed so, but it also seems to suggest that he has also been responsible for the avoidance of at least some gross miscarriages of justice and (if I read it correctly) a lot of his caseload has come through the Legal Aid system.
No doubt he is a superb barrister, accustomed to probing weaknesses and deficiencies in how crimes have been investigated and prosecuted, as is right and proper, but that makes his comment (above) about Ben Pontin even more inexcusable. It can't really have contributed to the outcome - I hope.
Actually I suspect it did, which makes me very very cross.
From the information provided, the judge instructed the jury that they had to decide two things: was the driving careless and did it set in train events that resulted in her death?
They may well have decided that she was careless, but there is a possible break in the proof between that and her death. There seem to be several points here.
First that he braked, apparently causing the crash. The defence was able to either refute or the prosecution was not able to prove that was as a result of the driver's manoeuvre. Then, the girl fell into the path of the car. That would have to be shown as a chain of events that was linked beyond reasonable doubt (this is a criminal prosecution) to the driving. There appears some gaps in evidence as to whether the car hit her.
So yes, I would say that the counsel's speech had an effect on the jury.
-
I think that it should have been arranged for the Judge, counsels, and each member of the jury in turn to stand in the road while a car drives past within two feet at 50-60mph.
It may have swayed their decision as to the carelessness of the action.
-
I think that it should have been arranged for the Judge, counsels, and each member of the jury in turn to stand in the road while a car drives past within two feet at 50-60mph.
It may have swayed their decision as to the carelessness of the action.
POTD :thumbsup:
But, seriously, that's a Very Good Idea.
-
They could be given certain sections of the Highway Code to read whilst they are standing there.
-
Absolutely.
And some may have noticed that the car is not described as passing within two feet, but as leaving a two foot gap. I just thought the bill for cleaning the road might be too much if the exact conditions were replicated.
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
A man being verbally smashed and pulped into the ground after losing the love of his life.
Its almost class war, cancer specialist....wtf.
-
There seems very little reporting of this case, those words of Fielding deserve attention.
-
Its almost class war, cancer specialist....wtf.
And former church bell-ringer
-
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf
"Significant private fees are however required."
He makes no bones about defending the indefensible (as long as they have the money).
What a scumbag!
-
Divorcee with a well-paid job's legal rottweilers versus the crown and a dead Eastern European waitress. Good luck with that.
-
Divorcee with a well-paid job's legal rottweilers versus the crown and a dead Eastern European waitress. Good luck with that.
Reading his case histories, I suspect that the bills have been paid by the insurance companies in most, if not all, of them. Whether that would be the situation in this case I have no idea, but I could envisage that the insurance company might consider it worth attempting to secure an acquittal to avoid the civil damages that might follow a guilty verdict. Why is this relevant? Because it's not 'class war'; this guy would have been equally vile to whoever got in his legal way. The list of those he has defended include more than a few who are unlikely to have been able to afford his services without corporate help.
-
The non-road traffic cases make for even more interesting reading.
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/janick-fielding/
Indeed so, but it also seems to suggest that he has also been responsible for the avoidance of at least some gross miscarriages of justice and (if I read it correctly) a lot of his caseload has come through the Legal Aid system.
Much more likely for some of the toe rags he's got off
-
Well, it makes me proud of our adversarial legal system. He'd probably give Hitler a blowjob and not even ask for a fee. Satan wouldn't want one. Shit, Hell will pretend not to be home the day he comes downstairs.
I wouldn't wish bad on anyone, but if there's karma I'm not going to be shedding a tear.
I have to go wash my mind now.
-
I'm reminded of the aggressive lines of questioning reported from the gang sexual abuse cases. I'm livid enough about this case, glad i didnt find the details of those cases.
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences
.
I'm absolutely shocked by that. I truly feel for Ben Pontin.
Wow, and none of the cycling organisations have picked up on this?
-
The reporting of the whole case seems muted to me, only the Henley paper and Mail reported the verdict, the Mail stopped comments very soon after the story appeared. No other press reports apart from cursory Times and Telegraph reports.
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
Would the jury be swayed by this sort of thing in a rape case?
"Mrs Perinova should be chastised for allowing her daughter out in that skirt on the day she was raped and murdered by these 3 high-spirited young men ...
"
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
Would the jury be swayed by this sort of thing in a rape case?
"Mrs Perinova should be chastised for allowing her daughter out in that skirt on the day she was raped and murdered by these 3 high-spirited young men ...
"
Probably.
They certainly seem to be swayed by lurid stories of the victim's behaviour, sexual history, alcohol consumption ...
-
The reporting of the whole case seems muted to me, only the Henley paper and Mail reported the verdict, the Mail stopped comments very soon after the story appeared. No other press reports apart from cursory Times and Telegraph reports.
Also quite muted on Twitter, despite some fairly strong early comments.
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
Would the jury be swayed by this sort of thing in a rape case?
"Mrs Perinova should be chastised for allowing her daughter out in that skirt on the day she was raped and murdered by these 3 high-spirited young men ...
"
That would be reported in the press.
Maybe if the driver had decided to leave the house half an hour earlier.
-
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf
What was that quote about British Justice being the best that money can buy ?
"British justice? Best in the world - as long as you can afford it!"
It was from the late Sir Gerald Nabarro after the appeal court had overturned his entirely proper conviction for going round the Totton roundabout the wrong way. The argument was that one of his secretaries was driving and not he and he somehow managed to convince the court of this.
When he made the above announcement, his two secretaries were beside him on the steps of the Roayl Courts of Justice. One of them was in tears. She later became Mrs. Christine Hamilton.
Nabarro died the following year. Some have argued that he never recovered from the original conviction and was a broken man.
-
Thank you. I'd forgotten all about Gerald Nabarro, I think I recall a pic of him in the press grinning inanely at the camera as he posed in front of three expensive cars with the numberplates GN1, GN2 and GN3.
-
Thank you. I'd forgotten all about Gerald Nabarro, I think I recall a pic of him in the press grinning inanely at the camera as he posed in front of three expensive cars with the numberplates GN1, GN2 and GN3.
Wasn't it NAB1, NAB2 and NAB3?
-
Ooo. Quite possibly.
-
Ooo. Quite possibly.
Quite probably if The Echo (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/features/true_crime/3703027.Nabarro_nabbed_for_danger_driving/) is to be believed. (Last line in the article) :D
-
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
Would the jury be swayed by this sort of thing in a rape case?
"Mrs Perinova should be chastised for allowing her daughter out in that skirt on the day she was raped and murdered by these 3 high-spirited young men ...
"
All comes down to how much money you have to win your case.
Ffs why is it people can not be honest to themselves when they have fucked up?
Part of the reason why I have never got off the shop floor for me, but there you go, I am not going to change now.
-
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1363185
More on this story. A very sad and moving letter from the victims parents. Seems they couldnt afford the same level of justice as the upstanding killer driver could.
-
:'(
-
It is matters like this that make me look forward to the day I have no professional attcahment to this justice system :'(
-
The verdict came on the poor dead woman's birthday as well. That really was twisting the knife.
-
Fuck, this makes me angry. What a sad, sad letter. I hope Dr Meadows and her partner develop a conscience at some point, though my hope is probably in vain.
-
Speechless.
-
Can we write a letter of condolence? Should we? Get it signed by lots?
I'd be happy to draft something, I think I shall.
-
What a sad, moving and damning letter. If you can do something, Ham, I'm all for it. I wonder if there is a way to copy that letter to the chambers of the "attack" barrister?
-
For what it's worth I've complained to the PCC about the Mail headline:
Top cancer specialist cleared of killing 21-year-old novice cyclist in car crash
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442036/Top-cancer-specialist-cleared-killing-21-year-old-novice-cyclist-car-crash.html#ixzz2j2Nh5I3b
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Failed by the justice system, then lied about after her death.
-
I've just wondered, I don't suppose there is any chance of a ruling of mis-trial on the grounds that the victim's "lack of" cycling experience seems to have been made much and is in fact a lie, or at least untrue?
-
Here's a draft. May need a bit of knocking about, I'll put it into a Google doc and let everyone who wants sign - maybe add a personal thought? I've tried to steer a middle ground between mawkishness and forthright, feel free to suggest improvements.
Dear Mr & Mrs Perinova
We are a group of cyclists who join on an Internet forum to share our interest. We have been following the story of your late daughter and we wanted to write with our heartfelt condolences. Your honest and straightforward letter that was published in the Henley Standard touched us deeply, and made us want to reach out.
This episode has made us all angry and frustrated; ashamed at the way the justice system has worked. None of us knew your daughter, but each of us is connected to her with shared experience - the same roads, the same bikes, the same drivers. With her passing, a little of each of us has died.
We can only guess at your pain and loss, but we hope that letting you know how much we all care may help console you at this very sad time.
-
That looks just right to me, Ham. Let us know how we get at that google doc, will you?
Peter
-
Looks good to me.
I don't think it would do any harm to try to get some publicity out of this through social media. Nothing can bring Denisa Perinova back but maybe it will prevent another similar tragedy.
-
I contacted Peter Walker of the Guardian bike blog, he said he'd seen the parents' words and they were heart breaking.
-
Heart breaking. Beautifully written and expressed.
-
New thread started for the sigs https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=77419.msg1585940#msg1585940
-
This is simply an epic failure of the justice system.
Upper class church-going-cancer-doctor-charity-fundraising-i'm-a-cyclist-myself woman fv<ks up when driving and kills someone.
She gets the best defence lawyer who wins by portraying the killing of someone on the opposite side of the roads as less of an accident than "putting her on a bike" in the first place. And the jury to a man agreed, just an accident, could happen to any of us, not guilty, not careless, this is acceptable.
She killed someone and was cleared due to our pro-motoring tendancies and buying a better lawyer.
Then we hear that a number of things that were not heard or were just plain wrong.
We've all heard a lot of awful cases, for me this is the worst.
-
This is simply an epic failure of the justice system.
Upper class church-going-cancer-doctor-charity-fundraising-i'm-a-cyclist-myself woman fv<ks up when driving and kills someone.
She gets the best defence lawyer who wins by portraying the killing of someone on the opposite side of the roads as less of an accident than "putting her on a bike" in the first place. And the jury to a man agreed, just an accident, could happen to any of us, not guilty, not careless, this is acceptable.
She killed someone and was cleared due to our pro-motoring tendancies and buying a better lawyer.
Then we hear that a number of things that were not heard or were just plain wrong.
We've all heard a lot of awful cases, for me this is the worst.
+ 1 am now ashamed of our, so called, justice system.
-
IIRC, she got the lawyer on Legal Aid. I'm not sure how. She lucked out anyway, getting one who boasts about getting people off driving charges.
-
IIRC, she got the lawyer on Legal Aid. I'm not sure how.
How? ???
I’ve added my signature to the letter.
Again, my heart also reaches out to the boyfriend, following Fielding’s despicable comments:
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf
Can’t say that I’m feeling terribly warm feelings for the jurors either I must say.
-
I've just read this whole thread and am appalled. I've added my name to the letter.
-
How shameful.
-
reply from the PCC:
Dear Sir
Thank you for contacting the Press Complaints Commission.
The concerns you have raised relate directly to the late Ms Denisa Perinova, the subject of the story. Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without the involvement of the Perinova family. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval. In such circumstances, we would generally require a complaint from the Perinova family or their representative, in order to take the matter forward.
If you believe, however, that there are exceptional public interest reasons for the Commission to proceed with an independent complaint under the circumstances, we would be grateful to hear from you in the next seven days.
Once we have heard from you, the Commission will be asked whether it wishes to take the complaint forward. If you would like to discuss your case before replying please do contact us. If we hear no more from you we will close our file on the matter.
-
So, who's going to mention to the Perinovas that there is such a thing as the PCC and forward to them the original letter and reply?
After we've forwarded the condolences. Though they may have run out of emotional energy.
Alternatively: exceptional public interest?
miscarriage of justice (getting off scot free for manslaughter), defamation of the victim (poor little thing didn't know how to ride a bike so wobbled into the path, so her fault really), misrepresentation of some sort but ianal.
I've just wondered, I don't suppose there is any chance of a ruling of mis-trial on the grounds that the victim's "lack of" cycling experience seems to have been made much and is in fact a lie, or at least untrue?
I'm wondering too.
And isn't there something (I think it was used by Stephen Lawrence's parents) you can (if sufficiently rich (?CDF) etc) bring a private prosecution which requires a balance of probablilities
-
I'd chip in a small contribution towards funding a private prosecution.
-
Update.
As in this thread (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=77419.0) I have been in contact with the parents, who have been receiving some excellent support.
The first angle of campaign was to put together a claim for their expenses in the hope that they could take the driver to court and use that as a method for reopening the case, if only in the media. Unfortunately, this was clearly in the driver's mind as well as the claim was settled.
The only other legal process option to them now would be to try to get the case reclassified as "Death by Dangerous Driving" which would be a long path worth no certainty of result.
They feel very poorly served by our "justice" system, although they are very grateful for the support received at such a difficult time.
FTR, the driver has not had the courage or decency to contact them with condolences or any expression of regret. Hardly surprising.
The end :'(
-
Only one word comes to mind.
BASTARD*.
No, that's not strong enough.
*Not you, Ham, you are a true gent for keeping with this and being a support in the parent's time of need. Good on you.
-
FTR, the driver has not had the courage or decency to contact them with condolences or any expression of regret. Hardly surprising.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the driver's legal advisors had told her not to make contact with the family and certainly not to express any regret, in case this could be taken as an admission of liability.
-
FTR, the driver has not had the courage or decency to contact them with condolences or any expression of regret. Hardly surprising.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the driver's legal advisors had told her not to make contact with the family and certainly not to express any regret, in case this could be taken as an admission of liability.
With all due respect to my learned colleague, bollocks.
Actually, it isn't bollocks. There's no reason why that sort of advice might not have been given, in the same way that the statement in court that Denisa was a novice cyclist, when she had been cycling since a very young age, was left unchallenged.
However, if this fine upstanding churchgoing woman of impeccable character and consumate driving ability had really wanted to say something to the parents to convey her sorrow, she could have done so without admission of liability.
-
A lawyer well-know to me told me today of a case where a US citizen (and uber-Christian) had stood trial here in the UK for causing death by dangerous driving.
I don't know the details of the case, other than she had been involved in a collision with a motorcyclist, who died as a result of the collision.
She was un-injured.
The PF obviously thought that based on the evidence, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, with a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
In the run-up to the trial, there had been e-mails from her talking about 'Prayer Attacks' to make the trial go in her favour.
The science seems so sound.
In the end, she was in fact acquitted.
Today, an instruction was received to explore how they could sue the estate of the deceased for her 'loss and suffering'.
-
FTR, the driver has not had the courage or decency to contact them with condolences or any expression of regret. Hardly surprising.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the driver's legal advisors had told her not to make contact with the family and certainly not to express any regret, in case this could be taken as an admission of liability.
With all due respect to my learned colleague, bollocks.
Actually, it isn't bollocks. There's no reason why that sort of advice might not have been given, in the same way that the statement in court that Denisa was a novice cyclist, when she had been cycling since a very young age, was left unchallenged.
However, if this fine upstanding churchgoing woman of impeccable character and consumate driving ability had really wanted to say something to the parents to convey her sorrow, she could have done so without admission of liability.
I merely said I thought it was likely that such advice might have been given - I expressed no view as to its bollock quotient.
*However*, were I ever to find myself in the same position as said driver, and to be given such advice, I very strongly suspect I would follow it cravenly, so I'm reluctant to criticise someone else for (possibly) doing the same.
(There are of course many other reasons to criticise her, and almost every one offers hope that I'd never get into the same position.)
-
A lawyer well-know to me told me today of a case where a US citizen (and uber-Christian) had stood trial here in the UK for causing death by dangerous driving.
I don't know the details of the case, other than she had been involved in a collision with a motorcyclist, who died as a result of the collision.
She was un-injured.
The PF obviously thought that based on the evidence, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, with a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
In the run-up to the trial, there had been e-mails from her talking about 'Prayer Attacks' to make the trial go in her favour.
The science seems so sound.
In the end, she was in fact acquitted.
Today, an instruction was received to explore how they could sue the estate of the deceased for her 'loss and suffering'.
That sounds like a case in Scotlandshire, Inverness, I believe.
-
Thanks for the pointer - http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/American-woman-found-not-guilty-of-causing-death-of-Conon-Bridge-motorcyclist-07112014.htm refers. There is quite a lot of detail in the article including:
But she added her thoughts too were with the family of the motor cyclist.
“I am very sorry for the Todd family. It’s an incredible loss for them and my heart goes out to them.”
-
Thanks for the pointer - http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/American-woman-found-not-guilty-of-causing-death-of-Conon-Bridge-motorcyclist-07112014.htm refers. There is quite a lot of detail in the article including:
But she added her thoughts too were with the family of the motor cyclist.
“I am very sorry for the Todd family. It’s an incredible loss for them and my heart goes out to them.”
The usual, lets get the facts right, blackbirds aren't the fastest production bike. People's perception of speed in a car do not relate to reality. Must have been speeding as he appeared from no where. Finally maybe praise the devil for allowing you to get away with murder. Never mind your heart going out, maybe looking what was going on around you.
EDIT _ Interesting comments from the prosecution and the defence profesional witnesses that driving a black bike on a summers day.
-
Um but the deceased had overtaken some people just before the accident - they were driving at the limit, so he was speeding.
-
The story linked to by Ham notes that the Blackbird was "the fastest production model of its kind at the time", the time being 1998.
One could probably argue that "of its kind" translates to "of the types of motorcycle made by Honda and named after members of the thrush family". If one were a git.
-
Um but the deceased had overtaken some people just before the accident - they were driving at the limit, so he was speeding.
So it is alright to not look, and kill someone as long as they are speeding? The investigator, the police one changed his mind that calculations at the time she had enough time to see him and react. So what he was doing before, didn't seem to be a factor at the time.
-
The story linked to by Ham notes that the Blackbird was "the fastest production model of its kind at the time", the time being 1998.
One could probably argue that "of its kind" translates to "of the types of motorcycle made by Honda and named after members of the thrush family". If one were a git.
OT, but I seem to recall someone got one to 190mph or so back in around 1995-6 or whenever it first came out. An erstwhile (as in late) friend of mine took delivery of one and got done for 136mph on the M4 near Swindon as he rode it home for the first time. I recall him (an experienced rider) being more than somewhat shocked at how quick it was. He had a year or so off to contemplate that.
-
Any settlement to Denisa's family would come from Measure's insurance company, surely? Low-paid job, no children, it wouldn't have been a lot. But the point is Measure's won't pay, we already know she quibbled about her legal aid.
-
Um but the deceased had overtaken some people just before the accident - they were driving at the limit, so he was speeding.
So it is alright to not look, and kill someone as long as they are speeding? The investigator, the police one changed his mind that calculations at the time she had enough time to see him and react. So what he was doing before, didn't seem to be a factor at the time.
Contradictory reports from investigators and the reconstruction was controversial as it had the motorcyclist on a different side of the road.
I think you can't really tell who was at fault from that news article.
-
a bit off topic and late but just to show it isn't just cyclists that have to put up with this sort of crap
A policewoman who repeatedly denied that she was talking on her mobile phone when she caused a fatal crash has escaped prosecution.
Crown Prosecution Service said there was no evidence she had committed an offence because the phone was on her lap and set to loudspeaker.
When interviewed by police, Miss Carpenter repeatedly lied and said she was not on her phone.
She later said she briefly took a call before admitting she had been on the phone for the entire journey, but had had it on the loudspeaker in her lap.Miss Carpenter, who has been with Dorset Police for three years, has completed a police driving course.
PC John Hayward, Dorset Police’s accident investigator, told Bournemouth Coroner’s Court: ‘The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.' she actually pulled out of a T junction in front of the bike So make of it what you will,
-
a bit off topic and late but just to show it isn't just cyclists that have to put up with this sort of crap
A policewoman who repeatedly denied that she was talking on her mobile phone when she caused a fatal crash has escaped prosecution.
Crown Prosecution Service said there was no evidence she had committed an offence because the phone was on her lap and set to loudspeaker.
When interviewed by police, Miss Carpenter repeatedly lied and said she was not on her phone.
She later said she briefly took a call before admitting she had been on the phone for the entire journey, but had had it on the loudspeaker in her lap.Miss Carpenter, who has been with Dorset Police for three years, has completed a police driving course.
PC John Hayward, Dorset Police’s accident investigator, told Bournemouth Coroner’s Court: ‘The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.' she actually pulled out of a T junction in front of the bike So make of it what you will,
Her smiling for the cameras when she went to the hearing was the icing on the cake
Carpenter was a PCSO? CPS chose not to prosecute. Claimed the phone was on speaker phone in her lap so not holding it so that was acceptable.
-
The problem there is that hands-free is not illegal, and using a mobile on speaker-phone presumably counts as hands-free - particularly if it can't be proved that the call was not initiated by voice control (which pretty much all mobiles will do these days). She lied, yes, but she lied about doing something that probably wasn't illegal. However, to pull out in front of a motorcycle hardly shows paying due care and attention...
-
It's illegal to be distracted when driving, and we know hands-free phones are as distracting as being over the drink drive limit. At the moment, drivers can argue that they were chatting on a phone but not distracted. Bonkers.
-
yes even eating a meat pie is distracting!! the point I was making is that it's not just cyclists who get the shit end of the stick when this sort of thing happens the "smidsy" thing has been going for quite a while in biking things but doesn't get very far, that sall
-
It's illegal to be distracted when driving, and we know hands-free phones are as distracting as being over the drink drive limit. At the moment, drivers can argue that they were chatting on a phone but not distracted. Bonkers.
Distraction is not the correct term, IMO.