The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”

[snorri]

One does wonder if the defence objected to any potential jurors who were cyclists being selected for duty on this case?
It was the case in Scots law that objections could be raised to any would be juror without needing to disclose reasons for objection.

 

[ComedyPilot]

A jury of drivers who probably do exactly the same thing...

This sums it up perfectly IMO. People have got used to motorists being 'hard done to' that they now expect to be absolved of responsibility for poor driving, and 'driver' juries are more likely to sympathise because the jurors believe 'that could have been me'

 

[Tin Pot]

So is it because the evidence of wrongdoing was all circumstantial? I don't get it...?

 

[glenn forger]

As Ronald Reid says:

Juries are usually well instructed but in cycling cases a jury of peers they are not.

Road users are overwhelmingly drivers, only about 2% on average are made up of cyclists. Jurors are either more likely to be drivers or passengers and will be unable to relate to the cycling experience. After-all, cyclists don’t carry passengers unless you count the insignificant percentage in child carriers, who can’t be jurors anyway.

We are all on the other hand drivers or car passengers. Therein lies the problem. I’ll paraphrase Edmund King, president of the AA, who in a R4 debate said “all road users are blind to their own misdemeanors”. A point adequately supported by a 2012 RAC survey which found that 83% of drivers admit to being regular speeders and yet 92% say they are law abiding. You don't need a venn diagram to spot the delusion.

Therein lies the problem. Any juror who is also driver is being asked to judge someone who in all likelihood behaves just like them on the road. Many on the jury are judging themselves as much as the accused.

A guilty verdict is unlikely.

 

[spen666]

That's human beings for you. You can bet they're nearly all car drivers, so straight away at more likely so subconsciously align their sympathy with the offender.

Hopefully in light of the admissions made by the offender the family will bring a civil prosecution against him for damages.

A civil prosecution?

Not sure how a prosecution (a criminal law term) will result in damages (a civil law remedy).

A civil law suit may result in damages. A prosecution if successful will result in a criminal punishment.

 

[slowmotion]

There are rules which exclude certain folk, with certain track records, from serving on juries. These rules need to be changed imo, to exclude those with motoring convictions from serving on juries in motoring cases.

As a matter of interest, does anybody have any figures for the percentage of motorists who have never had any convictions? I'm not seeking to 'normalise' bad driving (or make excuses for my speeding offence) but I'm curious to find out if barring them from serving is a realistic proposition. Thank you.

 

[Wobblers]

On my phone not got different colours to play with, my sometimes confused comments in {} in the quote.

You still seem to be perpetuating the supposition that jurys are all drivers convicted of some motoring offence that would sway their judgement.

Bringing it back to the topic for a moment, Have I missed the publication of this jury's motoring rap sheets? Some.of us are simply pouring our own prejudices onto the situation and imposing judgements on the jury based on smoke and mirrors. Aren't we also forgetting that there may well be grand/parents on that jury deliberating on the killing of a teenage boy by someone not simply going too fast but repeatedly sending and receiving texts up to seconds before they killed the lad. Is it really feasible that IF they do all have speeding tickets then these would be more of a factor in their decision than the love and protective instinct they would feel towards their own grand/children with such a dangerous reckless individual in their midst?

Err, no. It was an example to illustrate your argument was based on a supposition. One that is not based on evidence.

I also find it more plausible to suggest that as the majority of the jury were almost certainly motorists, their attitude would be far more likely to be one where a cyclist is merely regarded as an inconvenient obstacle to get round. At best. And that is most certainly not supposition. A very casual perusal of the comments section on anything cyclist related will illustrate that one. As motorists, they will have a tendency to identity with the accused. As motorists, they are more likely to be thinking "There for the grace of god". As motorists they will be less keen to blame the accused, for that would also be to blame their own driving habits. I hope that you are right, that the jurors' instinct would be to remove a dangerous idiot off the roads. But I lack any faith in that, as the widely held prejudicial beliefs that all cyclists are habitual law breakers, so it must have been his fault, despite the evidence will certainly be in play, even if only subconsciously.

 

[slowmotion]

But I lack any faith in that, as the widely held prejudicial beliefs that all cyclists are habitual law breakers, so it must have been his fault, despite the evidence will certainly be in play, even if only subconsciously.

Isn't that a bit extreme? I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.

 

[snorri]

It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. .

It would be fine if it were not also known that 90%** of drivers consider themselves to be better than average drivers.

** or whatever the impossibly high figure is.

 

[slowmotion]

It would be fine if it were not also known that 90%** of drivers consider themselves to be better than average drivers.

** or whatever the impossibly high figure is.

Crikey! Jurors Are Human shock? I believe that the figure for those who think they are better than average drivers is closely mirrored by that of those who think they are better than average lovers.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Isn't that a bit extreme? I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.

Or that three of the jurors held out and when it was obvious none of the other nine were going to change one of them decided they wanted to go home for their tea and agreed not-guilty.

I've not served on a jury, I've a friend who has done it twice, the experience convinced him that (in Medway anyway) he'd never want to be tried by a jury as their overwhelming worries were 'did they look guilty' and 'how quick can we get this over with, we've stuff to do'. Fair to say, he wasn't sold on our justice system. I'd say maybe it's improved, but...

 

[glenn forger]

Crikey! Jurors Are Human shock? I believe that the figure for those who think they are better than average drivers is closely mirrored by that of those who think they are better than average lovers.

If a panel of people are being asked to decide whether a certain behaviour is careless then it's relevant to ask whether they themselves ignore the law and behave that way themselves.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Isn't that a bit extreme? I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.

Have you not seen how people drive day-to-day on the roads in Britain? Mr Toad is alive and well and everywhere.

"Make way! Make Way!" Parp, parp.

 

[Tin Pot]

Or that three of the jurors held out and when it was obvious none of the other nine were going to change one of them decided they wanted to go home for their tea and agreed guilty.

I've not served on a jury, I've a friend who has done it twice, the experience convinced him that (in Medway anyway) he'd never want to be tried by a jury as their overwhelming worries were 'did they look guilty' and 'how quick can we get this over with, we've stuff to do'. Fair to say, he wasn't sold on our justice system. I'd say maybe it's improved, but...

I have, and it was a bit more like Twelve Angry men (Hancocks Half Hour version) than mature justice you might expect. I convinced the last hold out that the guy was innocent after a couple of hours.

It's the best system unless you trust judges.

A lot of the people did want to leave but others were keen that their judgement be heard, and at the end of the day the right result was heard.

I would expect that the judge gave direction on this case, ours did and emphasised the actual law over what we might feel about the situation.

It may have been that they were discouraged to accept purely circumstantial evidence - beyond reasonable doubt and all that?

 

[glenn forger]

Why do you think Sinden changed his story at the last minute?