Hitting a cyclist from behind not dangerous, just careless.

[spen666]

The Jury did not find him guilty or not guilty of any crime. He plead guilty to a lesser crime. This is normal practice and happens all the time.

I am not sure you are correct.

He pleaded to the careless offence, but still stood trial on dangerous offence.

The jury found him not guilty of the dangerous offence


That is my reading of the case.




Your interpretation is a common scenario, but it does not appear to be the one in this case

 

[spen666]

Bit less indenting please. The charge is too emotive, why do you think they had problems with juries in Apartheid South Africa? It falls because of There But For the Grace of God. There should be a single charge, Causing Death on the Roads, let the court sort out the sentence. This keeps happening because driving standards are so low and jurors are reluctant to expose their driving to scrutiny, of COURSE it was Dangerous because a man is dead, there's the proof, but too many cases are slipping away because of these charges that amount to a hostage to fortune.

I have argued along these lines for years. I even proposed it to the Law Commission, but they said it was too big a topic to consider!



My proposal has always been for a single offence of "bad driving" with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It would be up to the judge to sentence according to sentencing guidelines. It avoids trials where the facts are not in dispute but what is in dispute is does it amount to dangerous or careless driving


I would also abolish common assault, abh, gbh and gbh with intent and have a single offence of assault - dealt with in a similar manner

 

[Drago]

Very nice rant, except for one minor minor point.

The CPS did prosecute the driver for death by dangerous driving.


Why did the case fail? Probably because there was insufficient evidence to persuade the jury the offence was made out.

The CPS present the evidence in court, but who obtains or collects it?


Yes, that's right the police.


So you have a situation where the police fail to provide sufficient evidence and then blame the CPS for what is effectively a police failing.




Oh and I work with police and CPS everyday as well, but I have no vested interest in either camp as I worek for neither of them

If the police provided naff evidence then why did the duty prosecutor at CPSD (usually a senior prosecutor at that) authorise the charge? Why did the local CPS Justice Admin department not query it, as they all too frequently do? Why did the appointed Court prosecutor not query it and try to drop the case, as they all too frequently do?

It's clear that not working for either the Feds or the CPS you have no real understanding of how they work, or the processes involved with checks and balances at multiple stages.

 

[benb]

So the jury are of the opinion that driving without being able to see properly does not meet the dangerous driving definition of "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous"

It's too vague, too open to interpretation.

 

[spen666]

If the police provided naff evidence then why did the duty prosecutor at CPSD (usually a senior prosecutor at that) authorise the charge? Why did the local CPS Justice Admin department not query it, as they all too frequently do? Why did the appointed Court prosecutor not query it and try to drop the case, as they all too frequently do?

It's clear that not working for either the Feds or the CPS you have no real understanding of how they work, or the processes involved with checks and balances at multiple stages.

Well If you had the slightest understanding of how the criminal justice system worked, rather than a very narrow police minded view, you would understand the post you made is nonsense.

Are you disputing the police have the role of investigators and it is their role to collect the evidence?

Are you disputing that juries/ courts can't convict if their is insufficient evidence?

If their is insufficient evidence, the failing is the police to collect that evidence (assuming it exists)

You seem to blame the CPS in this post for not pointing out the evidential failings in the police work, yet in your previous post you are bleating that the CPS won't take cases to trial becuae of perceived or actual evidential problems.



I have to say that you and your attitude are part ( note part) of the problem in the CJS. The police and CPS are part of the prosecution team. To have one part of the team constantly complaining, and publically at that about another part of the team is not how successful teams work.






PS if you are indeed in the police, then why are you not riding the Police Unity Tour in July?

 

[Drago]

No understanding? How many foundation degrees in Criminal Justice have you earned lately? What level of investigative accreditation do you hold?

Because I'm not.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The tacograph which was fitted to Mr Byrne’s vehicle hadn’t recorded any sudden braking when reaching or passing over the bridge and Ms Gatto suggested this supported evidence that Mr Byrne had not seen Mr Gandy.

And it equally supported the position that the driver failed to adjust his driving in any way, despite his vision being affected by low sun, road glare and hedgerow shadows.
This 'failed to see' defence has to be regarded as an admission of neglect.

GC

 

[ianrauk]

I wouldn't get into a qualifications willy measuring competition with Spen. He'll spank you qualifications-wise...

Oi.. leave 'em be Reg... FIGHT! FIGHT!

 

[benb]

And it equally supported the position that the driver failed to adjust his driving in any way, despite his vision being affected by low sun, road glare and hedgerow shadows.
This 'failed to see' defence has to be regarded as an admission of neglect.

GC

Couldn't agree more.
Unless a completely unlit cyclist, on unlit roads, at night, "I didn't see him" shouldn't be a defence; it should be an admission of guilt.
If you didn't see them, then you were de facto not looking properly.

 

[Origamist]

And it equally supported the position that the driver failed to adjust his driving in any way, despite his vision being affected by low sun, road glare and hedgerow shadows.
This 'failed to see' defence has to be regarded as an admission of neglect.

GC

I'm not sure if the distinction is important, but did the driver actually claim that the sun blinded him or he couldn't see because of road glare, or was this an argument used by the defence to explain away how the driver could mow someone down who should have been visible from 200m away.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The Jury did not find him guilty or not guilty of any crime. He plead guilty to a lesser crime. This is normal practice and happens all the time.

I rather think they did. he was charged with two offences and pleaded guilty to the lesseroffence. He then went to jury trial for the greater offence.

From the CTC "Paul Byrne has been found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving."
&
From the http://www.crewechronicle.co.uk/news/jury-finds-hgv-driver-not-8810886 "Paul Byrne appeared before a jury in a two-week trial at Chester Crown Court after the death of 65-year-old Stewart Gandy on the A530 near Nantwich on November 12, 2013. He also pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of causing death by careless driving."

Checking facts in this case ain't hard, shame folk don't bother before posting.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm not sure if the distinction is important, but did the driver actually claim that the sun blinded him or he couldn't see because of road glare, or was this an argument used by the defence to explain away how the driver could mow someone down who should have been visible from 200m away.

It would appear to be the latter although I'm not sure it's any less worrying. It was offered on the accused's behalf as an angle of defence.

GC

 

[KneesUp]

Low winter sun and long shadows is a crap defence. If that's the case its incumbent upon the driver to be even more careful than usual, or even pull over and stop altogether. .

Exactly.

It's the same defence as "The conditions were poor and I didn't take them into account" but phrased differently.

 

[Origamist]

It would appear to be the latter although I'm not sure it's any less worrying. It was offered on the accused's behalf as an angle of defence.

GC

I find it more worrying...

I could think of quite a few other scenarios in which the driver's behavior could be explained, but they would not help the defence's case.

 

[glenn forger]

Doesn't always work:

Detective Constable David Holmes, from Kent Police, said: ‘The events of that day will linger long in the memory of those affected, some of whom will never fully recover from their injuries.

‘Juraj Orsula claims he was blinded by the sun in the moments leading up to the collision, which should have been reason enough to reduce his speed.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rway-jailed-six-half-years.html#ixzz3UpAX8TwB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sometimes. Just sometimes.