Lorry driver acquitted of causing cyclist's death by careless driving

[glasgowcyclist]

From the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-26667983

"John Stewart, 54, was accused of causing Andrew McNicoll's death on Lanark Road, Edinburgh, in January 2012.

However, a jury returned a majority verdict of not proven against the HGV driver.
The verdict came at the end of a four-day long trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Prosecutors alleged that Mr Stewart, of Carstairs, Lanarkshire, drove his articulated lorry with undue care and attention.

They alleged that he overtook Mr McNicoll, of Balerno, Edinburgh, at an unsafe point in the road and that a trailer that was attached to his vehicle came into contact with the cyclist.

Prosecution lawyers alleged this action caused Mr McNicoll to lose control of his bike and strike a parked Mazda car, causing him to suffer serious injuries which contributed to his death.

During proceedings, the court heard that accident investigators were unable to prove that Mr Stewart had acted illegally."​

GC

 

[Tin Pot]

Maybe he wasn't guilty?

 

[Markymark]

It is up to the prosecutors to prove the case.
"During proceedings, the court heard that accident investigators were unable to prove that Mr Stewart had acted illegally."

The accident investigators could not prove it, therefore an innocent man. As horrible as it is that a fellow cyclist died, if it cannot be proven the driver did anything wrong, then he is innocent. If the law needs changing or these investigations are flawed then that needs to be looked but not at the expense of a man who is, in the eyes of the law, innocent.

 

[the snail]

'not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'

 

[fimm]

Yes, as I understand it, "not proven" is a Scots Law thing.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven :
"Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary."

 

[mr messy]

'not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'

+1
Think of it as we the jury think you're as guilty as sin but the prosecutor hasn't done their job well enough to convict you

 

[Markymark]

'not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'

In England it is, not sure about Scotland.

 

[Dogtrousers]

In England it is, not sure about Scotland.

The "Not Proven" verdict only available in Scotland, not in England.

They were thinking of doing away with it in Scotland a couple of years ago. I don't know if they're still pontificating, or whether they decided to retain it.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

'not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'

Not proven is as much an acquittal as not guilty.

GC

 

[buggi]

this why we should have presumed liability.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

this why we should have presumed liability.

That's for civil matters though, not criminal.

GC

 

[buggi]

That's for civil matters though, not criminal.

GC

so what is the law in France? I thought it was for criminal

 

[glasgowcyclist]

so what is the law in France? I thought it was for criminal

Sorry, don't have a clue. The campaign to introduce it here concentrates on the civil compensation procedures.
See http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_compensation/stricter_liability/


GC

 

[Pale Rider]

I know of two death by careless cases in England in which the jury has been discharged after being unable to reach a verdict.

Talking informally to lawyers, it seems juries are reluctant to convict what are often otherwise blameless citizens - no previous hardworking, family men - like themselves.

Just my opinion, but I think a jury which says it cannot reach a verdict is copping out of its responsibility.

They are there to make a decision - guilty or nor guilty - saying 'we can't do it' is wimpish.

Similarly, 'not proven' in Scotland could be seen as a cop out by the jury.

 

[Crankarm]

Sorry, don't have a clue. The campaign to introduce it here concentrates on the civil compensation procedures.
See http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_compensation/stricter_liability/


GC

A very muddled document arguing for change in the law and showing total misunderstanding of legal concepts such as strict liability.