This beggars belief! £35 fine.

[Brandane]

I can see BBs point, there is no point in taking this sentence personally just because the victim was a fellow cyclist. Yes, the sentencing is farcical and offers no deterrent value to the driver involved, or to those who might be tempted to drive in a similar fashion in the future. The same could be said of drivers who kill other drivers, or pedestrians, through their carelessness. The courts do not take enough consideration of the consequences of the carelessness; they only consider the fact that there was some degree of careless driving (the driver was NOT charged with causing death by careless driving; only careless driving).

The message they are sending out is that the roads are dangerous places to be, and if you use them, you do so at your own risk and do not expect to be protected by the justice system. I am not saying this is right or fair, but it appears to be the way of things in the big bad world out there. It is the same for victims of other crimes too: robbery, theft by housebreaking, assault, etc.; the sentences handed out to the perpetrators are usually a complete and utter joke. And they wonder why the UK is in such a state?

 

[CopperCyclist]

The fact the CPS only charged careless must mean they regarded death by careless as a complete non-starter, although it's not clear why.

Not necessarily. They could have regarded it as a 50/50 chance and still decided not to risk their figures. Unfortunately they are measured by successful prosecutions, which strongly affects what they chose to take to court.

This quote stuck in my mind when they changed the system to allow the CPS to make the charging decisions: "It's like telling a gambler he can only bet on winning horses, but letting him pick the field for every race."

 

[Drago]

CC is bang on. The CPS get graded by successful prosecutions, so their primary interest is not seeing justice done but is actually achieving a target. In essence each case is tried by the CPS before it gets to a real court.

Doubtless CC is in a position like myself where we've been there and witnessed crimes, often very serious assaults, and the CPS won't run it because their interest is in their performance data, not justice.

It would have been more appropriate to charge with a 'death by' offence and let a court decide. Sure, this way they ended up with a successful prosecution so their figures look just dandy, but in reality he got such an incredibly minor punishment as to be meaningless really, and the expense of getting to that resolution is vastly diaroportionate on terms of time and money.

This should he gone to a court on the greater charge for the court to decide. If he'd been found not guilty then in real terms he wouldn't be much better off than he is now, and the only thing that suffers is the CPS's performance figure. But then he may have been found guilty and given a more meaningful punishment.

 

[Pale Rider]

Not necessarily. They could have regarded it as a 50/50 chance.

The phrase used is 'no realistic chance of a conviction' which is a bit different to 50/50.

I'm aware many detectives are frustrated by the reluctance of the CPS to charge a serious enough offence.

Equally, CPS lawyers will tell you coppers are routinely over-optimistic.

Going back to this case, the CPS would have known fine well the decision to charge only careless would cause a stir, so rightly or wrongly, they must have been sure of it.

In other words, the CPS must be confident they can demonstrate there was no realistic chance of a conviction of death by careless.

 

[Drago]

Equally, Police officers will tell you CPS lawyers are the dross and dregs who aren't good enough to earn £200 and hour I'm a private practice. Some of them are woeful to the point of embarrassment in court. Some of us police officers are also qualified to be solicitors (and will be when I finish my 30) so can see both perspectives.

I once witnessed a sexual assault in Sansford town centre on a Friday night. I gave chase, but being burdened with boots, body armour, peg, handcuffs, bag of doughnuts etc I didn't unite catch him. I did get within a few feet.

I positively id'd the male. He is of very distinctive appearance, being 6'5" tall with distinctive facil tattoos, and his mums name tattooed on his neck, all of which I clearly saw. Further more, on the previous Ddcade I had arrested this gent 14 times, including just the previous week. I knew him so well that when I went to nick him his Ma would let me in and make me a cuppa while he got dressed.

In addition to this, another bobby who knew this gent equally well but was not present independently confirmed his identity from CCTV.

However, the CPS wouldn't run it because it was a 'but dark' and I "may have been mistaken."

Dud you also know that in a modern ID parade (actually a video based process now) our offenders diatonctive tattoos have to be blanked out in the interests of fairness? So even if all the victims sees in the dark is mateys mums name nd DoB on a neck tattoo that evidence can't be used to identify him in a line up.

That's how much the CPS care bout justice. If it isn't a dead cert and then some they don't care.

 

[glenn forger]

The CPS also rely on the police, to gather evidence, examine the scene, take witness reports. When we hear examples of the police waving witnesses away, cocking up investigations, rushing to allow traffic flow rather than carefully establish what happened and display an antipathy toward cyclists to the extent of arresting the cyclist after they've been assaulted by a motorist then not all the blame can be laid at the CPS' door.

 

[Drago]

Yes we do, but none of thy is relevant to this particular point of discussion.

And a post script to my tale above. Because of the CPS's inexplicable refusal to run matey was never charged, and as released.

A few weeks later he tried it again and raped a female. This time there was no copper passing by to interfere, and an innocent woman's life was ruined because the CPS didn't charge as remand a dangerous individual when the opportunity arose.

Justice, public safety, none of it means anything to them. Their silly little game of high scores is their only concern, and the only time the CPS ever change is when they drop a big enough bollock for it to make national news.

And to make this game even more fun on some areas the CPS insist that a case is reviewed first by a senior officer (even though rank does not confer a higher ibvestigative qualification on a copper) who wil then authorise it to go to the CPS for review. So before it even gets to court the case has been privatwy tried twice, quite often by people who may not be investigators n the police side, or I aligned solicitors on the CPS side.

 

[Pale Rider]

Some of them are woeful to the point of embarrassment in court.

They certainly are.

I had some sympathy with the CPS advocates when they first started prosecuting in crown court a few years ago.

They were told they had to do it, and were sent in with no training or experience against defence barristers
who had plenty of both.

Things seemed to have turned full circle, certainly in the North East where I am, in that many cases are now prosecuted by barristers again.

I understand the Bar managed to convince the bean counters at the CPS that the services of a barrister were no more expensive when set against the wages of the CPS lawyer, and the fact that while the CPS lawyer was in court someone else had to be paid to do the work he would have been doing back in the office.

 

[benb]

This is an outrage. I'm apoplectic.
http://road.cc/content/news/73826-t...s-his-licence-after-cyclist-killed-collission

 

[oldfatfool]

So speeding on the m-way at 78mph is considered a greater crime than murder.

 

[ianrauk]

This is an outrage. I'm apoplectic.
http://road.cc/content/news/73826-taxi-driver-fined-£35-3-points-his-licence-after-cyclist-killed-collission

Being discussed on 2 previous threads. So will merge with this one HERE

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I could not express my feelings without resorting the basest of profanities when I read this y'day. I still can't.

How the **** do we appeal this ****ing travesty? ****s.

 

[glenn forger]

Mail picked it up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...killed-cyclist-Tom-Ridgway-fined-just-35.html

The family of student Tom Ridgway hit out at the 'insulting' fine, insisting the punishment did not do justice to the 'enormous tragedy' of his death.
Ichhapal Bhamra, 54, carried the young man's body on his bonnet for 90 metres after smashing into him on a street in the suburbs of Birmingham.
But the only charge he faced was driving without due care and attention, leaving him with three points on his licence after he pleaded guilty at Solihull Magistrates' Court.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264400/Taxi-driver-Ichhpal-Bhamra-killed-cyclist-Tom-Ridgway-fined-just-35.html#ixzz2IKtmgFnL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook​

 

[benb]

Being discussed on 2 previous threads. So will merge with this one HERE

Cheers. Sorry - I did search, but not well enough!

 

[benb]

Is there any reason why the CPS cannot dual-charge both "driving without due care" and "causing death by careless driving"?