Michael Mason Inquest

[Lemond]

Except that "no further action" ignores the available evidence:

• Lack of helmet cited as one reason for no further action - irrelevant to charges against the motorist
• Mr Mason was wearing dark clothing - ignoring the fact that he was legally lit up, and no checks whatsoever made to ascertain just how visible he was to the motorist under those conditions
  
• One witness supposition that "he was lost in a sea of lights" taken at face value - again, as above, no attempt made to check the validity of this suggestion (which in any case ignores the two witnesses who did see him)
• CCTV evidence taken as evidence of no careless driving - it is limited merely to the camera's field of view so is not applicable to the time of impact, nor does it show that the motorist was paying due attention. It is not evidence of careful driving whatever.
• The motorist's own testimony that she "didn't see him" has been ignored

You, in all your attempts at making excuses for the motorist and police, have failed to explain in any way why any of these points are false. Quite the opposite: you've gone to great lengths to produce even more spurious excuses to account for the Met's behaviour. Why is that, I wonder?

Two points:

Firstly, you (and others) seem to believe that "available evidence" is being ignored. It is not. What you seem totally unwilling to accept is that in this particular case the police view is that the available evidence, when considered in its entirety, is not sufficient to ensure a realistic prospect of conviction (a burden they are obliged to meet), hence the decision to take no further action.

Secondly, if it can be proved that the driver was driving dangerously or carelessly as defined by the law, then I believe she should face the full weight of such in court.

Against accusations of coverup, whitewash and corruption that have been bandied about within this thread, I've tried to shed some light on how the system works and the reasons why the decision to take no further action was taken. For some of you that's clearly a step to far.

 

[Lemond]

That would be because you don't come across as someone with any credentials on the subject just as an apologist for drivers who kill.

How about having a girlfriend who was hit by a car and killed as she rode to work? Would that count as "credentials" on the subject? Please stop calling me an apologist for drivers who kill. You've done it twice now, and it's really not helpful.

 

[CopperCyclist]

@Pale Rider and others who have given the reasons why it didn't go to CPS are correct, accurate and put the case forward well. Under our current system, Michael Masons case had the 'correct' outcome.

It's a policy and outcome I disagree with strongly.

My issue is that I believe it SHOULD always be enough for a careless driving charge (note I don't necessarily say conviction) when any driver says "I didn't see them" when 'they' - be it a car, person or a bike - were clearly there to be seen.

For me, the 'careless' is proved by the statement of "I didn't see them"(a competent driver would have) and the 'death caused' is already there.

A conviction may not necessarily follow for many reasons, but it should be enough for a charge because "I didn't see them" is a very, very different excuse from "they just jumped out" or "I saw them but they swerved into my path at the last moment and I couldn't avoid them."

Unfortunately CPS, some police, and some public don't agree - and the rules CPS impose on prosecutions get the deciding vote.

 

[Wobblers]

The investigation was not as you describe it, you are simply bleating about it because you don't like the result.

The coroner, who will have seen lots of these, was give full disclosure of the investigation and made no comment about it, other than a finding of accidental death.

The coroner could have asked the police why certain things were not done, or even adjourned his hearing and asked them to reinvestigate, or he could have made a different finding.

That he did none of these things indicates he was content with the standard of the investigation.

Unless something can be found that was critically missing from the investigation then all attempts to undermine it are a waste of time.

There will always be something extra that could have been done, but inquiries must be deemed at some point to be sufficient.

Do me the minimal courtesy of actually reading what I said:

I'd have no complaint if it had got to the CPS and been rejected on grounds of insufficient evidence. But it wasn't allowed to even get that far.

You have not offered any explanations or counters to the points I have made, or @Dan B, for that matter. Instead, you've gone for an "appeal to authority" argument. Coroners are not trained in the art of police or collision investigation, they are not the authority you are looking for. Your ad hominem over my "bleating" coupled with your continued refusal to address the points raised can but raise doubts as to your objectivity. I can only conclude you are motivated by bad faith.

 

[Wobblers]

Two points:

Firstly, you (and others) seem to believe that "available evidence" is being ignored. It is not. What you seem totally unwilling to accept is that in this particular case the police view is that the available evidence, when considered in its entirety, is not sufficient to ensure a realistic prospect of conviction (a burden they are obliged to meet), hence the decision to take no further action.

In which case I await with interest your explanation as to why Mr Mason's clothing and lack of helmet were key points raised to explain the failure to take the case to CPS. You could also explain just why the driver's statement that she didn't see him to not be sufficient, given the laws that have already been quoted on this thread.

 

[Lemond]

Have you actually thought about what you're saying here? The court is the place to decide whether or not the case can be proved, not to rubber stamp a previous decision.

Wrong. Again. The court is the place where it is decided whether the defendant is guilty.

 

[Pale Rider]

Do me the minimal courtesy of actually reading what I said:


You have not offered any explanations or counters to the points I have made, or @Dan B, for that matter. Instead, you've gone for an "appeal to authority" argument. Coroners are not trained in the art of police or collision investigation, they are not the authority you are looking for. Your ad hominem over my "bleating" coupled with your continued refusal to address the points raised can but raise doubts as to your objectivity. I can only conclude you are motivated by bad faith.

Coroners have seem many accident reports and have the power to have them looked at again.

This coroner did not, so it's an indication the accident report was done correctly within the guidelines.

You say you would have no complaint if it had gone to the CPS.

They are no more likely to say this case passes the full evidence test than the police are.

Your problem is you have decided on a verdict - 'guilty' - with no reference to any evidence or how the system works.

You are then faced with the uphill task of trying to make everything fit into your desired outcome.

It never will.

But you will get more and more frustrated trying to make it so.

 

[Lemond]

Exactly, not on the police officers desk.

Once again you've demonstrated your lack of understanding, you just don't realise it. And you say I don't have any credentials on the subject.

 

[Arrowfoot]

@Pale Rider and others who have given the reasons why it didn't go to CPS are correct, accurate and put the case forward well. Under our current system, Michael Masons case had the 'correct' outcome.

It's a policy and outcome I disagree with strongly.

My issue is that I believe it SHOULD always be enough for a careless driving charge (note I don't necessarily say conviction) when any driver says "I didn't see them" when 'they' - be it a car, person or a bike - were clearly there to be seen.

For me, the 'careless' is proved by the statement of "I didn't see them"(a competent driver would have) and the 'death caused' is already there.

A conviction may not necessarily follow for many reasons, but it should be enough for a charge because "I didn't see them" is a very, very different excuse from "they just jumped out" or "I saw them but they swerved into my path at the last moment and I couldn't avoid them."

Unfortunately CPS, some police, and some public don't agree - and the rules CPS impose on prosecutions get the deciding vote.

CPS was not given the opportunity to make t call. It was not referred to them. A person was killed and the driver did not see anything. The law as it stands provide enough to prosecute. But the Met chose not to and even mitigated for the potential defendant.

 

[Pale Rider]

CPS was not given the opportunity to make t call. It was not referred to them. A person was killed and the driver did not see anything. The law as it stands provide enough to prosecute. But the Met chose not to and even mitigated for the potential defendant.

The CPS would have been examining the same case and applying the same full evidence test, so it's likely the CPS would have made the same decision as DI Mason.

After all, one of the main reasons the CPS was formed was it was felt police officers were often overly aggressive in their attitude to charging.

The police don't call them the Criminal Protection Service for nothing.

 

[Lemond]

No, I wrote that you don't come across as having any credentials, a significant difference. If you can't read what is written it is probably time to finally stop digging.

How so? Are my posts factually incorrect?

 

[Arrowfoot]

The CPS would have been examining the same case and applying the same full evidence test, so it's likely the CPS would have made the same decision as DI Mason.

After all, one of the main reasons the CPS was formed was it was felt police officers were often overly aggressive in their attitude to charging.

The police don't call them the Criminal Protection Service for nothing.

I would and I think some others would have preferred that CPS make the call unless there is no prima facie case. There is a degree of independence (no short skirts, jiggling pockets and doe eyes) plus the legal training of a higher standard that helps. Of the CPS says no, no going to prosecute, I have issues accepting that.

Note: the point about CPS, they could do better in the violent cases.

 

[Lemond]

It is not whether you are right or wrong, it is your attitude. Try reading your posts.
This oneThe family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?” where you champion the cause of a driver to assume they have hit an animal, when they have in fact killed a human.

This one"The driver told his insurance he "wasn't moving at impact"where you champion the cause of a driver who only looks one way before pulling out.

This oneAmbulance Close Passwhere you champion the cause of a driver who squeezes through a narrow gap at speed.

And this thread.

Of your 150 odd posts, most are championing the rights of drivers to kill and or endanger other people.

If you don't like what I say (which seems to coincide with me not sharing your opinion), please use the ignore function. That's what it's there for. It will stop you getting all hot under the collar.

 

[Dan B]

@Pale Rider and others who have given the reasons why it didn't go to CPS are correct, accurate and put the case forward well. Under our current system, Michael Masons case had the 'correct' outcome.

I am so glad you put the word 'correct' in scare quotes. I really don't care that much that the police have acted in accordance with their own policies when their policy is so blatantly wrong. The law says that driving which falls below the standard of "competent and careful" is an offence. Failing to see a cyclist in front of you, or even a cyclist in front and slightly to one side of you, is not the mark of a competent or careful driver. If the police policy doesn't allow the prosecution of a careles driver who kills, that policy is wrong. If the prosecution is considered likely to fail because the jury are motorists, or whatever, then work out some way (better lawyers, expert witnesses, reconstructions, many good suggestions have been made) to shorten the odds. But dropping the case at this point is just saying "I might not win, so I'm not even going to try". Is that in the interests of justice?

 

[Lemond]

The only thing I've "championed" is the rule of law. I didn't realise that was such a reprehensible view around these parts. The fact that some posters equate that to championing the rights of drivers who kill, speaks more to their character then mine.