Michael Mason Inquest

[Pale Rider]

The case would have to get beyond 1/2time first and unless there is some evidence of careless driving it won't.

There is plenty of conjecture and supposition ( some of which is probably true) but a lack of evidence. Without that evidence, the Judge will end the trial at the conclusion of the prosecution case, without the defendant going near the witness box

Yes Spen, I've posted at least a dozen times there's no evidence of careless driving.

I think it will struggle to get to court at all.

My understanding of private criminal prosecutions is the full evidence test still needs to be passed, because the Director of Public Prosecutions will almost certainly stop the case if the test is not passed.

 

[theclaud]

My reading of the evidence is that she was driving carefully, and there is certainly no evidence she was driving carelessly.

"With the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything."

This is such a sad thread.

Not merely sad, but insane. I do no use the word lightly. I get the astonishing impression that @Pale Rider is typing with a straight face. Look for a second at the uncritical acceptance of the breathtaking nonsense in the second quote above. If this is to be credited, then it goes without saying that all motor traffic should be barred forthwith from all urban roads after dark - are we seriously expected to accept that drivers cannot be expected to 'pick out anything'? What are they, and we in their path, relying on - God? If it is not 'careless' to kill a human being in front of your eyes because you failed to see he was there, the the word has no meaning. The rest is weasel words.

 

[benb]

The people saying there is no evidence of careless driving.

If running into someone from behind isn't evidence of careless driving, then I don't know what is.

 

[Arrowfoot]

My understanding of private criminal prosecutions is the full evidence test still needs to be passed, because the Director of Public Prosecutions will almost certainly stop the case if the test is not passed.

It does not work like that for private criminal prosecution. In the majority of cases, CPP intervenes when they realise they should have prosecuted the case in the first place and not doing so would be embarrassing. CPP can take over the case and discontinue if the interest of Justice is not served such as the defendant has been provided prior immunity from prosecution, the defendant has received a caution or has been penalised in some form, national security matters, interferes with an on-going investigation or trial or if they feel it is vexatious. Though the CPP can use the full evidential test argument, they will not use it unless it is vexatious.

I can guarantee you this case will proceed as a private prosecution or the CPP will take over and prosecute or the defendant prefers to settle. But not the CPP taking over to discontinue or stop. The right to bring about a private prosecution is an important piece of legislation open to anyone who feels that they did not receive the justice.

 

[Pale Rider]

Not merely sad, but insane. I do no use the word lightly. I get the astonishing impression that @Pale Rider is typing with a straight face. Look for a second at the uncritical acceptance of the breathtaking nonsense in the second quote above. If this is to be credited, then it goes without saying that all motor traffic should be barred forthwith from all urban roads after dark - are we seriously expected to accept that drivers cannot be expected to 'pick out anything'? What are they, and we in their path, relying on - God? If it is not 'careless' to kill a human being in front of your eyes because you failed to see he was there, the the word has no meaning. The rest is weasel words.

All very emotional and appealing to the intellectually shallow, but there is still no evidence of careless driving, so the case is still going nowhere.

That's under the law as presently framed.

You and lots of others don't like it, so you need to campaign to change the law.

There are instances where campaigning by victims' families has led to changes - the abolition of the double jeopardy protection for grave crimes - so it can be done.

 

[Pale Rider]

Though the CPP can use the full evidential test argument, they will not use it unless it is vexatious.

The DPP can use the full test argument to take over and stop a prosecution, or the DPP can stop the prosecution if it's malicious or vexatious - whether the full code test is met or not.

Or, as you say, the DPP can take over the prosecution and order his minions in the CPS to get on with it.

I can guarantee you this case will proceed as a private prosecution or the CPP will take over and prosecute or the defendant prefers to settle. But not the CPP taking over to discontinue or stop. The right to bring about a private prosecution is an important piece of legislation open to anyone who feels that they did not receive the justice.

I agree about the importance of the right to bring a private prosecution, but the private prosecutor still has to operate under the same law as the public one.

You say you can 'guarantee it will proceed as a private prosecution'.

I wouldn't be so bold as to guarantee anything when it comes to the law. other than lots of money will go into the pockets of lawyers.

But even if the DPP lets this case run, or takes it over and orders the CPS to do it, it remains desperately weak evidentially.

 

[Arrowfoot]

You say you can 'guarantee it will proceed as a private prosecution'.

I wouldn't be so bold as to guarantee anything when it comes to the law. other than lots of money will go into the pockets of lawyers.
.

I think you have interchanged "unlikely to get a conviction" with the "lack of evidence" and thus the confusion. A prima facie case does exist. If the Police had referred to DPP who then decided that a conviction is unlikely and decided not to prosecute, people would have understood. And a private prosecution is unlikely. What the Police did was to take on the role of the DPP, the Court and the jury and even mitigated for the defence - no hi vi jacket, no helmet, straight line.

Not meeting the evidence test in this case for example would be - cannot be established if it is indeed the car that knocked the driver, couple of witnesses saw the cyclist zipping in and out of traffic with speed with no regard to the traffic etc. In the first case, there is no evidence to bring about a prosecution and in the second there is no evidence to suggest that the driver committed an offence.

Yes, I can guarantee that CPP would not stop the private prosecution.

 

[Lemond]

The people saying there is no evidence of careless driving.

If running into someone from behind isn't evidence of careless driving, then I don't know what is.

You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.

 

[Lemond]

It's reasonable to ask who you are accusing of saying this. When you realise nobody's said it you really ought to apologise. I think your emotions are clouding your judgement, calm down and discuss like an adult with fewer sarcastic outbursts or invented straw men.

DI Mason made-up evidence to fit his decision.

 

[Dan B]

You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.

According to government press releases, tailgating and hogging the middle lane would both be a "careless driving" offence. If it's careless to drive too close to the car in front, how can it not be careless to drive so close to them that you actually hit them?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-penalties-for-careless-driving-come-into-force

 

[Dan B]

The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of ... any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.

No person shall drive or cause or permit any other person to drive, a motor vehicle on a road if he is in such a position that he cannot have proper control of the vehicle or have a full view of the road and traffic ahead.

Someone clearly didn't have a full view of Mr Mason.

 

[Mugshot]

How can you say "I don't really care that the police say they have investigated..." and then claim that you're not biased? Clearly, by your own admission, you are not prepared to accept anything the police say. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

No.
I am not a fully paid up member of A.C.A.B, I have throughout my life tried to give the police the respect which I believe their position and authority merit (though they make it awfully hard sometimes), my BFF has been in the police service for 30 years, I go on a golf weekend with my mate and around 15 or so of his police buddies every year (and have lots of jolly drunken japes with the lot of them). In general I hold the police service in high regard. However that does not mean that I believe they cannot get it wrong and in my personal experience of a situation with not dissimilar circumstances to this one, although with nothing like the tragic consequences, they did. My view of the police and their investigations is balanced, your assumption seems to be that if the police say they've investigated then that's that, there is no more to be said, you are wrong in that assumption and the bias fits very neatly on your shoulders.

 

[Lemond]

According to government press releases, tailgating and hogging the middle lane would both be a "careless driving" offence. If it's careless to drive too close to the car in front, how can it not be careless to drive so close to them that you actually hit them?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-penalties-for-careless-driving-come-into-force

Because the law dictates that tailgating is and of itself careless or dangerous. I would assume that's because it involves a deliberate act/choice by the driver. They don't need to tailgate, but they chose to do it. I would assume the same goes for lane hogging.

 

[Dan B]

This is the most solid evidence that, as a society, we have lost sight of what is and what is not reasonable.

It would be if it were true. "There are countless examples of what driving behaviour
can be considered to be careless driving. The following is a non-exhaustive list: mistakes
such as cutting in front of another vehicle when emerging from a side road, or driving
through a red light; distractions such as tuning a car radio or using a mobile phone; eating
or drinking whilst driving; driving inappropriately close to another vehicle; failing to adhere to
the relevant parts of the Highway Code (see below); lighting a cigarette whilst driving;
remaining in the overtaking lane."

http://motoroffence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-law-behind-careless-driving.pdf

I find it very strange if driving too close to the vehicle in front is likely to result in a careless driving charge, but actually hitting it apparently is not

 

[Dan B]

Because the law dictates that tailgating is and of itself careless or dangerous. I would assume that's because it involves a deliberate act/choice by the driver.

You would be wrong.

The Prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the motorist has departed
from the standard of driving of a competent and careful driver in all aspects of the case.
This is an objective test and is primarily a question of fact. It does not matter whether the
careless driving was as a result of the Defendant's negligence, incompetence, inexperience
or his deliberate intent.