Michael Mason Inquest

[glasgowcyclist]

At every stage now we have been let down by the Met police; from an insultingly soft interview of the driver, to the original decision not to prosecute despite the convincing evidence of their own expert, to this shilly-shallying over whether or not to refer the case to the CPS.

The Met allowed us to hold a vigil on the anniversary of my father's death thinking that we had had some small victory and that justice might yet be done. That now appears to be totally wrong.

None of this has been communicated to us first but played out in the media. I have heard nothing from my so-called family liaison officer since November.

This is no way to treat anyone, let alone a family dealing with the recent traumatic death of a loved one. Now, to add insult to injury, they seem to blame my dad, with his lack of high-viz and helmet, for his own death, rather than the woman who drove into him (who the police describe rather subjectively as a 'Careful and cautious driver').

It is a travesty of justice. What are the Met playing at here?

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private

Would you mind making it clearer when you're quoting someone else? Some of your posts can look as though they are your thoughts when they are the words of someone else, and it can get a bit confusing.

GC

 

[spen666]

Close, but not entirely correct...

https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...ase-management/charging-and-case-preparation/

The supervisory officer authorising the case to be presented to CPS has to themselves apply it as part of the process for deciding if it is suitable. The supervisory officer applies it as a screening measure for referral, the CPS apply it for real for.charging. As an officer who spent 6 years working as a Nationally accredited AI, and a supervisory officer who has to make either threshold test (charging) or full code test (referral to CPS so they can apply the test for an actual charging decision) every day, the information in the public domain I think the Mets decision is flawed.

Of course what you quote is 100% irrelevant to the law it is an internal police procedure you are quoting.

The law is that the Crown Prosecutor applies the Full Code for Crown Prosecutors test.


Don't worry about your lack of knowledge of the law. That's what lawyers are there for. No one has ever been convicted of a criminal offence because of what is in internal police guidance. It is just guidance not the actual law

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Check out the attachment: "The Investigating Officer’s Report, explaining Met's reasons for not referring Mason case to CPS" at:

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-incomprehensibly-callous-met-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private

That reasoning BOILS MY PISS

Donation to CDF made.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I cycled home last night mentally pointing out potential victims, ooh, no helmet, no hi viz, be lucky. Ignoring the legal bit, it was Regents St not some dingy back alley you might just as well complain about them not taking enough precautions under Wembley's floods. And pick one, he was doing 30 or he was possibly slow enough to at least be within the testing regime of a helmet (irrespective of whether it'd still do any good).

 

[Lemond]

Am I alone in thinking that the police are being given too much of a bashing here? Is Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign right in arguing that all drivers involved in collisions with cyclists should be charged - irrespective of blame - and attend court to prove their innocence? Absolving cyclists of any and all blame by default? Scary stuff.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'm not sure the consensus here is all drivers must be guilty of everything. I think it's more if you can hit and kill a cyclist everyone else has seen maybe you did something wrong.

 

[growingvegetables]

Am I alone in thinking that the police are being given too much of a bashing here? Is Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign right in arguing that all drivers involved in collisions with cyclists should be charged - irrespective of blame - and attend court to prove their innocence? Absolving cyclists of any and all blame by default? Scary stuff.

Eeeeh - where do I start?

"Charging" is irrespective of blame. It absolves no-one, nor allocates blame to anyone. All it does is indicate there is a charge to investigate and answer --- and not be decided beforehand, on dubious reasoning (I'm being generous), or because the driver has a lovely smile!

 

[Lemond]

I don't suppose you've had any dealings with the particular officers involved though, have you? Or are all Met officers tarred with the same brush?

And, according to the documents contained within this thread, Charlie Lloyd really does want all drivers involved in collisions taken to court.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I worry when a driver did not see somone that they hit in front of them in the centre of busy London even at night. This is not a highway where you would taking considerable speed. So far we have not had a reasonable explanation.

Keen for the private prosecution to resolve this.

 

[Lemond]

Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.

 

[Lemond]

Yes we all understand that.

I was replying to Arrowfoot, who was asking for an explanation as to why the driver didn't see Mr Mason.

 

[glenn forger]

Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.

Suggested by a random passer-by. At the same time, the old bill dismiss another random passer-by who stated Gale Purcell was doing more than 30mph. The police did this by looking at cctv evidence from Top Shop. That level of proof would not be accepted for the issuing of a speeding ticket so it's odd that it's accepted in establishing culpability in a fatality.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.

Stop with the victim blaming. Stop it.

A man died because yet another a driver didn't pay enough attention to what they were doing. The street was lit. The car has headlights. If the driver had been looking, and seeing, they would have seen the poor guy. Regardless of how he was dressed. And not killed him.

And the Met in this case are either bent or chuffin' incompetent, and in either case deserve everything thrown at them by cyclists.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The question to answer is why the driver didn't see the cyclist when the cyclist had lights.

I've walked down Regents Street. I've even jogged down it a couple of times. I've never collided with a pedestrian and they don't have lights.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.

I saw the comments about dark clothing. no Hi Viz jacket etc. but he had lights and she had lights. What about pedestrians who cross such roads. How do you drive on rural roads with no lighting except the headlights that you have.

She actually said she did not see anything.