Malicious prosecution of civic minded cyclist or what?

[Arrowfoot]

I wonder if lawyers from the Cyclist Defence Fund being present and backed by Cycling UK led to the charge being dropped. I wonder if it was someone facing the charge alone.

At the very least an apology should be offered for months of anxiety. This happened in March 2021 and they dropped the charge on the day of the trial yesterday.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/case-against-bristol-cyclist-prosecuted-7676122

 

[Cycleops]

Seems like the police and CPS don't have the brains they're born with.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Quite clearly vindictive.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

The comments on the article as direct from the Daily Fail

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Quite clearly vindictive.

What's the revenge involved?

 

[ianrauk]

Seems like the police and CPS don't have the brains they're born with.

I think we all know that this is given.

 

[mjr]

A hole & Scum Police continuing its famous approach to Stokes Croft, eh?

 

[Arjimlad]

It was dropped a few days ago. Those of us who upload footage to Avon and Somerset are baffled by their decision to prosecute Tom. It's at odds with their usual commitment to road safety and support for third party reporting.

There are some strange comments emerging on some people's reports, for example turning round to catch proper footage of a driver on the phone is verboten for some but not others.

He may have had a more confrontational style than the police were happy with, and they seem concerned that one day one of us may encounter a Jack Rawlins or Kenneth Noye, but forcing this to prosecution is incomprehensible. Thankfully the CPS kicked it out.

Leading lights within the police supporting third party reporting, such as Andy Cox and Mark Hodson have tweeted their bafflement at this prosecution also.

 

[steveindenmark]

I think it depends on the actual circumstances. The police are quite often willing to prosecute drivers using cyclists webcam footage. But if the cyclist then break the law himself in order to get that footage. They are not immune to prosecution themselves.

But this case sounds it should have been a non starter to begin with. The lesson learnt here is do not defend yourself. Get a solicitor.

 

[MontyVeda]

I think it depends on the actual circumstances. The police are quite often willing to prosecute drivers using cyclists webcam footage. But if the cyclist then break the law himself in order to get that footage. They are not immune to prosecution themselves.

But this case sounds it should have been a non starter to begin with. The lesson learnt here is do not defend yourself. Get a solicitor.

bit of a stretch to claim he broke the law, despite what the police claim in this particular case.

 

[steveindenmark]

bit of a stretch to claim he broke the law, despite what the police claim in this particular case.

That is not for us to decide. The police and CPS originally thought there was a case and that is their call, not ours. Our opinions on that count for nothing.

 

[MontyVeda]

That is not for us to decide. The police and CPS originally thought there was a case and that is their call, not ours. Our opinions on that count for nothing.

Which law did they claim he broke?

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Which law did they claim he broke?

It's in the article

 

[MontyVeda]

It's in the article

all i saw was 'inconsiderate cycling' which is very very vague.

anything specific which is actually against the law?

I don't believe 'stopping on a carriageway' is actually against the law, which is all the cyclist did.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

all i saw was 'inconsiderate cycling' which is very very vague.

anything specific which is actually against the law?

I don't believe 'stopping on a carriageway' is actually against the law, which is all the cyclist did.

No, it's a specific offence.

Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.​

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.