20 cm from Death - Outcome

[boydj]

The ruling would not come into it if you were offered and refused a lawyer.

While it's a far from satisfactory outcome, I think we can take some consolation from the fact that the driver would at least have been given something to think about, after being interviewed under caution, and probably had some months of worry over a possible prosecution and a threat to his job.

 

[DrSquirrel]

Okay - were they given he option? did they refuse? etc etc

 

[GAVSTER]

Right. I managed to have a chat with the PF today, in particular the PF that reviewed the case following my complaint. It was a very interesting conversation...


At the start of this process I thought the police were at fault, then I felt that the PF were at fault, now it would appear that the Scottish Government and the Supreme Court are at fault!

Mags - this is what I posted about two weeks ago.

It is not the polis or the PF that is at fault it is the Scottish Government that is at fault (you could try and blame the ECHR too but ..)

The ruling they refer to is the Cadder ruling - one that was inevitable after the Solduz judgement. i mentioned that before.

I would say again. Take it up with your MSP and tell him or her to tell Kenny MacAskill the Scottish Justice Secretary that your're not happy.

To the subsequent poster - it is not the absense of a lawyer that is at fault according to EHCR but the lack of access to one.

In England and Wales under the PACE Act there is an automatic right to legal representation. In Scotland because of the old system of corroboration that was not the case - it is now under new guidelines from the Lord Advocate.

 

[magnatom]

Sorry guys, I've been under the weather recently so did manage to reply to this.

GAVSTER, if you did, I missed it! Sorry! What is there to take up with my MSP? The issue seems to be out of my hands, and as far as I can tell nothing that I can do, and the protocol for interviewing the accused has changed already.

 

[JoysOfSight]

Why can't they re-interview the driver?

Are they saying if they'd interviewed someone for multiple-homicide but this rule change came along, they'd have let him off?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Why can't they re-interview the driver?

Are they saying if they'd interviewed someone for multiple-homicide but this rule change came along, they'd have let him off?

A very good point.

He hasn't been convicted on the basis of evidence given without a lawyer.

The prosecution hasn't even started.

 

[magnatom]

I have no idea of what could and couldn't be done here, although it may have run out of time, as it has been more than 6 months since he was charged. What are the rules in Scotland?

The problem is I don't know where I can and cannot push. Anyway, I'm not sure if I want to push any more. As I mentioned earlier, it is the bigger picture I am interested in.

What is good news were the comments from the PF about the admissibility of helmet camera evidence, i.e. an expert witness can be brought in. That is useful information for anyone in Scotland. If anyone tries to suggest that the video evidence is not admissible, this information could be very useful.

 

[classic33]

I have no idea of what could and couldn't be done here, although it may have run out of time, as it has been more than 6 months since he was charged. What are the rules in Scotland?

The problem is I don't know where I can and cannot push. Anyway, I'm not sure if I want to push any more. As I mentioned earlier, it is the bigger picture I am interested in.

What is good news were the comments from the PF about the admissibility of helmet camera evidence, i.e. an expert witness can be brought in. That is useful information for anyone in Scotland. If anyone tries to suggest that the video evidence is not admissible, this information could be very useful.

I can sympathise. I bet there was a stage when you would have settled for the drivers head on a plate. You passed that stage & found yourself fighting a new battle, against the system. System appear to have won.

Early on, before you removed the clip from youtube, you mentioned you think you know where the tanker was coming from. If this is the case why not write to the company operating the site. You've already done this with First. And if if looking at the larger picture we manage to get a company willing to help out in the making of the video, would that not help?

 

[GAVSTER]

Sorry guys, I've been under the weather recently so did manage to reply to this.

GAVSTER, if you did, I missed it! Sorry! What is there to take up with my MSP? The issue seems to be out of my hands, and as far as I can tell nothing that I can do, and the protocol for interviewing the accused has changed already.

Your case is going nowhere I'm afraid but you might get the law changed so that corroboration in Scots law is made more sensible so that video evidence could be used along your statement to get a conviction.

 

[Amanda P]

As Vike suggested there are other ways of determining who was driving the HGV, unfortunately the police thought there was no need with the statement admission. So there were no other corroborating checks.

This is all very interesting, and I understand where you going from here.

But, surely, armed with this new information, it's not too late to collect evidence of who was driving that tanker on that day - the tacho discs and drivers' records (delivery notes, rosters etc) should still be filed somewhere and could still be examined. Or the driver could simply be re-interviewed, this time with the option of having a lawyer present.

As you say, though, after all this delay, it probably is too late. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[Ravenbait]

As you say, though, after all this delay, it probably is too late. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I don't know if there's a time bar (a statutory timescale for taking a case) on road traffic offences. Might be worth checking.

On the other hand, it might also be time to decide what can be learned from this and move on. The likelihood of the same circumstances arising again (the change from not needing a lawyer present to needing one during the course of an investigation, which is what seems to have happened here) is very low.

Sam

 

[jdrussell]

Hi,

Firstly, I think the video is shocking. I have watched three times now and as a cyclist it gives me chills every time I watch it. I'm glad, first and foremost, that you are OK and survived this ordeal even though you were obviously shaken up. I totally understand the points made about corroborating evidence, and no, I am not saying this is right. Of course the sole video evidence of the person riding the bike should be used as primary evidence material. No further evidence should be necessary. The only reason that it shouldn't be submitted is if you work with Stephen Spielberg on the next instalment of Avatar, where you have the means available to edit the video.

What also leaves a sour taste in my mouth is the fact that the PF's letter states that they have been unable to contact the driver, this is an outright lie. The letter is also shockingly written. It astounds me how some people can get to positions like this and are unable to do their job properly on a multitude of levels.

I hope you get this sorted in your favour, I really do as it really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If it is doing that to me, god knows what you are going through with this.

Jon

 

[CopperBrompton]

I don't know if there's a time bar (a statutory timescale for taking a case) on road traffic offences.

In England, it is 14 days to issue a notice of intended prosecution, and six months to bring the matter before a court.

 

[BILBO]

Hi, there. I have just watched your video and it brought back a horrible memory for me because something very similar happened to me on a roundabout in London. I was three quarters of the way round the roundabout when a huge truck approached and what is amazing is that I made eye contact with the driver because I am very wary of trucks and he slowed but then accelerated forcing me into an emergency stop which was terrifying because I knew there was loads of traffic behind me. I have never been so angry in my life and shouted a load of abuse at him when I got round the other side whereupon he shouted abuse at me and threatened me with violence. He was eating a sandwich as he drove onto the roundabout I might add! It was a hideous experience because it was so deliberate, you really do wonder what sort of people are driving around out there.

Your headcam is interesting, where can I get one and how much?

ta

Bilbo