Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[growingvegetables]

Unfortunately he is not wrong, but what a terrible argument to use in someone's defence.

The barrister lmows how to "work a jury". A stark and terrifying indictment of what passes for justice for vulnerable road users.

 

[growingvegetables]

Sad but true, the job of the defence barrister is rarely ever a popular one.

... but a lucrative one? Sorry ... this one is sticking in my craw. I suppose there's an element of weary expectation of how killer drivers evade justice. How many times have we seen/ heard it? But "tweaking" it so overtly, obviously, and brutally - "somebody" ****ing wept.

 

[slowmotion]

The barrister lmows how to "work a jury". A stark and terrifying indictment of what passes for justice for vulnerable road users.

Isn't "working the jury" an essential part of an adversarial justice system? The UK system probably works as well or better than any other country's.

 

[growingvegetables]

Unfortunately they are not courts of justice, they are courts of law.

... and theatrical performance

 

[growingvegetables]

Isn't "working the jury" an essential part of an adversarial justice system? The UK system probably works as well or better than any other country's.

I beg to differ.

 

[slowmotion]

I beg to differ.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I think that a defence council trying to persuade a jury to acquit purely because the jurors themselves might sometime be in a similar situation to the defendant's is absolutely appalling. I hope the judge would stomp on that line pretty quickly.

 

[growingvegetables]

... I think that a defence council trying to persuade a jury to acquit purely because the jurors themselves might sometime be in a similar situation to the defendant's is absolutely appalling. I hope the judge would stomp on that line pretty quickly.

Innumerable press reports say otherwise, but we must hope.

 

[Pale Rider]

Worth bearing in mind the prosecutor also made a speech.

That's not in any press report I've seen, but the jury would have heard it and it's for them to decide which speech they think more of.

They will also have been told that nothing the barristers say is evidence in the case.

Of course, that can cut both ways, but they are told to decide the case on the evidence, so they may choose not to take much account of either speech.

In this case, both barristers are QCs, so the speech part of what is a battle should at least start on a roughly equal footing.

The prosecutor makes his speech first, so the defending barrister - assuming he is light on his feet - has the opportunity to counter it, so in that respect he has an advantage.

The last word goes to the judge in her summing up, which one might think the jury would take more notice of than either speech.

 

[slowmotion]

Worth bearing in mind the prosecutor also made a speech.

That's not in any press report I've seen, but the jury would have heard it and it's for them to decide which speech they think more of.

They will also have been told that nothing the barristers say is evidence in the case.

Of course, that can cut both ways, but they are told to decide the case on the evidence, so they may choose not to take much account of either speech.

In this case, both barristers are QCs, so the speech part of what is a battle should at least start on a roughly equal footing.

The prosecutor makes his speech first, so the defending barrister - assuming he is light on his feet - has the opportunity to counter it, so in that respect he has an advantage.

The last word goes to the judge in her summing up, which one might think the jury would take more notice of than either speech.

I've only been on a jury for two trials. In both cases, the juries took the judges' warning to judge the case on the evidence only extremely seriously.

 

[Milkfloat]

One question I ask myself. If the defendant had brakes fitted, but failed to use them, would he even be in court?

 

[srw]

I thought their job was to defend the accused not blame the victim. Who is dead and not able to defend herself.

If the best way to defend the accused is to shift the blame onto the victim - that is what will happen. Victims and their families have rarely had a voice in the UK courts; it's only recent governments, acting under pressure from the worst bits of the tabloid press, which have begun to change that.

 

[jefmcg]

One question I ask myself. If the defendant had brakes fitted, but failed to use them, would he even be in court?

As far as I can tell from what I have read, that's exactly what did happen. He shouted at her twice and swerved before attempting to stop only when he was nearly upon her. That also explains his otherwise bizarre ascertain that it was impossible to avoid the collision with any brakes.

Riding through London at speed shouting at but not slowing for errant pedestrians? How has he only hit one?

But I think he's in court because of the crap he posted online.

 

[Pale Rider]

He's in court because the pedestrian died.

 

[DaveReading]

Innumerable press reports say otherwise

For better or worse, a jury is not required or expected to explain how and why it reached its verdict, so any press speculation around that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes and no. Yes because in the most literal way that is true. No because there is more to it than that.
If it were as simple as that, quite a lot of drivers would be similarly prosecuted, way more than ever do.

He's in court because the pedestrian died after a collision with a cyclist. Cyclist are a menace. Especially Lahndahn Louts.

Had he been driving a car as badly, and as badly "maintained" well... the defence have said it all, a much lesser charge I reckon.