Michael Mason private prosecution

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes, but the cyclists could have got experts of their own. Indeed, I would think it wouldn't be that hard to find another retired traffic cop to expertly disagree with him. I assumed that was where some of the the £70K would have gone.

possibly true. If only the Met had done their job properly in the first place eh?

 

[Pale Rider]

Rent-a-tame-expert is always a possibility, although not much point if he/she says the same as the expert from the other side.

Daft as it may sound, preparation of the case may have been slightly hampered by lack of funds.

As a guide, a businessman acquaintance of mine asked me to recommend a QC to act for him in a simple assault trial.

The legal bill was £37,500.

This case is more complex, and like everything, QCs probably cost more in that there London.

Incidentally, my mate was happy - the QC got him off - he would have paid almost anything to get the not guilty verdict.

One might see that as putting a price on justice, although the case wasn't up to much, and as I told him any competent criminal barrister could have successfully defended it.

For, at a guess, about a tenth of the price.

 

[velovoice]

All of which surely indicates that this is the wrong way to deal with issues of driver competence and licensing? Because otherwise you're happy that a woman who is impaired or inattentive enough to miss someone hitting her bonnet, and deranged enough to considered that potatoes may fall from the London sky, can continue to drive, unexamined.

Surely it is past time to treat driving as a privilege, separate licensing from criminal punishment, and take the serious stuff out of the realm of game playing lawyers and biased juries?

Absolutely!

As eloquently argued by Martin Porter QC on his cycling blog - see my post on page 3 for links.

 

[keithmac]

Reading the link to the new evidence and the lack of at least a careless driving charge is just gobsmacking.

Maybe they made that much of a cock up with the investigation (or lack of) they had to decline to prosecute fist time round.

Makes even less sense now than it did to start with, frankly unbelievable..

 

[KnackeredBike]

All of which surely indicates that this is the wrong way to deal with issues of driver competence and licensing? Because otherwise you're happy that a woman who is impaired or inattentive enough to miss someone hitting her bonnet, and deranged enough to considered that potatoes may fall from the London sky, can continue to drive, unexamined.

Surely it is past time to treat driving as a privilege, separate licensing from criminal punishment, and take the serious stuff out of the realm of game playing lawyers and biased juries?

We live in a world where hitting things whilst driving is almost seen as inevitable-that's-what-insurance-is-there-for type event. And if it's a cyclist then the cyclist should have been wearing hi-viz/wearing a helmet/cycling further out so I could see them/cycling in the gutter so I could pass them/not have gone straight on at that junction etc. etc.

And the worst part is almost all of us will know a cyclist who has suffered life changing injuries, and almost all of us will have had a close call ourselves. But this is a price to pay for the advantages of being able to drive the kids 800 metres to school. Sod the obesity epidemic.

Driving is about the most anti-social mainstream thing you can do, and I speak as a reluctant driver myself.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

According to The Standard the jury "deliberated" for 17 minutes. I'll wager not one was a London cyclist.