Michael Mason Inquest

[PK99]

The 'rule of law' is always open to challenge and amendment. That's how it works.

...and lynch mobs who decide guilt without reference to the rule of law are also open to challenge

 

[CopperCyclist]

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?

Did you stop reading after the point you quoted? You've just basically said exactly what I said in the rest of my post - no argument here!

 

[CopperCyclist]

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.

As Pale Rider said, the investigation supervisor had to apply the same test that CPS does. If we think it has a case, it then gets sent to CPS. If the officer believes there isn't a case, it doesn't. The DI applied that test and found there wasn't a case for the reasons given by Pale rider. Those reasons are accepted under our current system. I disagree with them for the reasons I gave in my above post, and indeed, my own personal feeling is that this matter should have got to court.

 

[Lemond]

The 'rule of law' is always open to challenge and amendment. That's how it works.

Of course. But what matters is what the law says right now, not what we think it should say or what it may or may not say tomorrow.

I think what happened to Mr Mason is nothing short of a tragedy, and having been there myself I have nothing but sympathy for his family and friends. I totally understand the sense of outrage some of you feel.

However, in discussing the events, some posters have made statements and made assumptions that are just factually incorrect - certainly with regards to how the police gather evidence, conduct an investigation and build a case based on what can be proved.

 

[Pale Rider]

The 'rule of law' is always open to challenge and amendment. That's how it works.

Agreed.

But the way to do it is to campaign for change, not break or ignore the law in the hope the legislature will one day agree with you.

It's why I ventured upthread the family might be better off using the defence fund to campaign for change, rather than spend it on a prosecution which looks doomed to fail in one way or other.

 

[PK99]

Stop being so silly, no one has decided guilt.

The evidence to prosecute clearly does exist though. The driver hit and killed a person on the road and admitted that they had completely failed to see them. To my mind that should be sufficient to say that they shouldn't be allowed in charge of a vehicle again.

 

[Lemond]

Not so. In one of the examples I linked for you, you championed the right for a person to leave a human dead or dying in the road, potentially to be run over some more, on an assumption that they had hit an animal. Please don't try to justify that one any further because I really can't see you making it anything other than worse.

Oh grow up, I did no such thing.

 

[Pale Rider]

We don't need the law changing, we need it enforcing.

At the very least you need a big change in the way the DPP obliges the police to make charging decisions.

The pressure to push this case through to court may be successful.

But that won't stop another family hitting the same buffers in the next case.

If you achieve the policy or law change I and @CopperCyclist have suggested, all drivers in future will be treated in the way you seek.

That is the verdict I would like to see a court arive at. It remains the right of a jury, once it gets there.

Gambling on a jury verdict is an option.

But even if the private prosecution gets to court, there are still many hurdles to cross before a jury gets to decide on it.

Evidentially, it remains a very poor case, the DPP can stop it any time, the judge can stop it at any time.

Even if the prosecution get as far as presenting their case, the defending barrister will inevitably make an application there is no case to answer.

The decision on that is up to the judge, but I reckon it's a knocking bet he will allow it.

I've been involved in a lot of death by careless and death by dangerous cases which have got as far as a jury.

Juries seem to find them very hard to decide.

I can think of at least two cases where the jury was hung - no decision.

No help to the family because the driver leaves court in the same position he/she entered it - not convicted of any offence.

 

[Lemond]

Your words, for which you have no foundation beyond wishful thinking
"But in instance the driver honestly believed that she had hit an animal, not another human being. As did the police."

Here's my "foundation" as to why I said the driver believed she had hit an animal: Because that's what she said. She said - on camera - that she thought she had hit an animal. She was then arrested on suspicion of failing to stop at the scene of an accident, but no charges were brought. And at the subsequent inquest the coroner described what happened as a tragic accident and recorded a verdict of accidental death. How is any of that wishful thinking on my part? It's what actually happened.

 

[Pale Rider]

The Yorkshire Ripper honestly believed that god had told him to murder women. Did the police let him off?

No, although the police arguably missed a couple of chances to nick him.

I once had a chat with Sutcliffe's trial barrister, James "Jimmy" Chadwin QC.

He was rightly very highly regarded in criminal law circles, although as I said to him, he didn't do much of a job for Sutcliffe because he got 13 life sentences.

Chadders was suitably amused by my chiding.

This excerpt from his obit in The Times sums him up well:

An advocate of considerable charm and charisma, Chadwin was able to influence juries with an almost effortless ease. With his rotund figure, battered wig and penchant for cheroots, he bore more than a passing resemblance to Horace Rumpole. Like John Mortimer’s creation, he had an ingenious mind that frequently produced surprising results. His good-natured humour and seemingly limitless fund of anecdotes was much admired by other barristers and by the Bench.

 

[Dan B]

Did you stop reading after the point you quoted? You've just basically said exactly what I said in the rest of my post - no argument here!

No, I read the whole thing and liked it.

 

[oldstrath]

No, although the police arguably missed a couple of chances to nick him.

I once had a chat with Sutcliffe's trial barrister, James "Jimmy" Chadwin QC.

He was rightly very highly regarded in criminal law circles, although as I said to him, he didn't do much of a job for Sutcliffe because he got 13 life sentences.

Chadders was suitably amused by my chiding.

This excerpt from his obit in The Times sums him up well:

An advocate of considerable charm and charisma, Chadwin was able to influence juries with an almost effortless ease. With his rotund figure, battered wig and penchant for cheroots, he bore more than a passing resemblance to Horace Rumpole. Like John Mortimer’s creation, he had an ingenious mind that frequently produced surprising results. His good-natured humour and seemingly limitless fund of anecdotes was much admired by other barristers and by the Bench.

Nothing about looking for truth in there. Not a necessary qualification for a good barrister?

 

[Lemond]

The driver's wishful thinking which you champion.

Again, you've misunderstood. It's the rule of law I champion.

 

[Dan B]

Again, you've misunderstood. It's the rule of law I champion.

No, it's the rule of procedure you champion.

 

[Pale Rider]

Nothing about looking for truth in there. Not a necessary qualification for a good barrister?

Not when it comes to representing a defendant in court.

The idea is to secure the best result for the client, within the law and within what I would call the rules of the game.

A criminal court is adversarial, it's a battle, and the winner is often the one who plays his hand most skilfully.

A lot of it comes down to tactics, some of which we will see in the Mason case.

It's not all bad news for those interested in securing a conviction, there are some very highly skilled prosecuting barristers.

But as a general point, the system is weighted in favour of the defendant - the burden of proof being just one example.

So if all other things are roughly equal in terms of barristerial firepower, the bias in the system will likely result in an acquittal.