Dalston fatal e-bike crash rider 'going too fast' - Court Case

[flecc]

He cannot be tried or punished for anything else related to this incident.

The prosecution get one go, they tried with the three charges.

He was acquitted of all three.

That is the end of it.

I disagree. The offence of using an illegal vehicle was over a period of time and place, mostly totally unrelated to the time and place when the charged offence occurred.

There is precedent in speeding law. Drive through a Gatso or similar speed trap and detected at an illegal speed and an offence is created for which one is penalised.

Repeat that further along the same journey and a second punishable offence is created, whch can be and usually is pursued.

The same happens if detected twice separately on the same journey by two officers at different times in different places.

This two fine situation has been challenged successfully in some cases where the two occasions have been on the same road or single motorway, but generally not one where the two are on different roads. It's regarded as one of interpretation by the court.

So in his case there is no certainty, the police could proceed and the CPS could back them with a court left to interpret on the circumstances of his journey if a challenge is mounted then.

Of course this is likely to be academic, since as I posted, the police would almost certainly ignore this minor fine offence.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Of course this is likely to be academic, since as I posted, the police would almost certainly ignore this minor fine offence.

This case has lots of publicity, shouldn't the law enforcers be using the opportunity to fine the illegal cyclist a large amount, put points on his driving license etc to get maximum publicity? They have the proof and according to the various news outlets he didn't even deny the fact that it was illegal.

If they don't do it in such an obviously guilty case they're never going to do it and the use of illegal ebikes will continue to rise.

 

[Amoto65]

We need to do the same as France with Illegal ebikes.

 

[flecc]

This case has lot's of publicity, shouldn't the law enforcers be using the opportunity to fine the illegal cyclist a large amount, put points on his driving license etc to get maximum publicity? They have the proof and according to the various news outlets he didn't even deny the fact that it was illegal.

If they don't do it in such an obviously guilty case they're never going to do it and the use of illegal ebikes will continue to rise.

As posted on this link, it could be politically undesirable.

On a minor point, he might not have been challenged on the vehicles illegality, it appears he volunteered that guilt on defence advice, perhaps to seek some sentencing advantage.

We'll have to wait until the day an individual police officer, probably a traffic officer, pursues a case of illegal use. It could be a long wait since most will just warn rather than get involved in a complex issue.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

As posted on this link, it could be politically undesirable.

On a minor point, he might not have been challenged on the vehicles illegality, it appears he volunteered that guilt on defence advice, perhaps to seek some sentencing advantage.

We'll have to wait until the day an individual police officer, probably a traffic officer, pursues a case of illegal use. It could be a long wait since most will just warn rather than get involved in a complex issue.
.

But when that day arrives surely the case wouldn't go to court because it could be politically undesirable?

 

[RobF]

I disagree. The offence of using an illegal vehicle was over a period of time and place, mostly totally unrelated to the time and place when the charged offence occurred.

There is precedent in speeding law. Drive through a Gatso or similar speed trap and detected at an illegal speed and an offence is created for which one is penalised.

Repeat that further along the same journey and a second punishable offence is created, whch can be and usually is pursued.

The same happens if detected twice separately on the same journey by two officers at different times in different places.

This two fine situation has been challenged successfully in some cases where the two occasions have been on the same road or single motorway, but generally not one where the two are on different roads. It's regarded as one of interpretation by the court.

So in his case there is no certainty, the police could proceed and the CPS could back them with a court left to interpret on the circumstances of his journey if a challenge is mounted then.

Of course this is likely to be academic, since as I posted, the police would almost certainly ignore this minor fine offence.
.

I'm afraid not.

Apart from anything else there is no other evidence of him riding illegally, even though posters on an internet forum will 'know' he was.

You cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

Which this is most certainly not.

 

[flecc]

I'm afraid not.

Apart from anything else there is no other evidence of him riding illegally, even though posters on an internet forum will 'know' he was.

There didn't have to be that evidence of riding speed.

He's confessed to the offence before a court full of witnesses and the vehicle itself supports his confession. It's enough, but as said, it's highly unlikely a case would result.

But technically it can as I've shown, since it can be viewed as an offence unconnected in any way to the tried case. That was not least because that was a case about his riding behaviour, while the offence we are discussing is the technical nature of the vehicle he was using and not how he was using it. It was illegal on the road if ridden at any speed.
.

 

[flecc]

But when that day arrives surely the case wouldn't go to court because it could be politically undesirable?

Suppression is not that easy. I remember one e-bike case where the traffic officer wouldn't let it go, even after being stopped from acting repeatedly. Also a police officer cannot be ordered to ignore a law broken and stopped from prosecuting it if determined, not even by the most senior officer of the force, as Northern Ireland's chief police officer once admitted.
.

 

[Bobajob]

As I thought, you don't disagree with the facts.

LOL.

Oh I’m so totally opposite lol.
Jesus said at a gathering of men about to stone a woman of ill repute to death, ‘he who hath no sin cast the first stone’
She was murdered by them.
Somehow I could be wrong but some here would adopt the same position.
Lol

Nothing personal it’s just amusing how some people are so quick to condemn.

 

[RobF]

There didn't have to be that evidence of riding speed.

He's confessed to the offence before a court full of witnesses and the vehicle itself supports his confession. It's enough, but as said, it's highly unlikely a case would result.

But technically it can as I've shown, since it can be viewed as an offence unconnected in any way to the tried case. That was not least because that was a case about his riding behaviour, while the offence we are discussing is the technical nature of the vehicle he was using and not how he was using it. It was illegal on the road if ridden at any speed.
.

No, it is not enough.

There is no evidence for a legal charge of speeding because there is no camera reading to produce a number.

There is no charge simply of 'speeding' so a simple statement 'I was speeding' is not enough for a conviction.

What the prosecution is entitled to do is to introduce evidence that he was going quickly to support their contention he was riding carelessly.

Which is what they did.

It is also beyond tin foil hat barmy to suggest there's some high level government interference with the judiciary over proceeding with the case.

The case was prosecuted because it passed the two tests.

There was a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and it was in the public interest.

In any case, the judge doesn't produce a verdict, the jury does.

 

[Amoto65]

Oh I’m so totally opposite lol.
Jesus said at a gathering of men about to stone a woman of ill repute to death, ‘he who hath no sin cast the first stone’
She was murdered by them.
Somehow I could be wrong but some here would adopt the same position.
Lol

I can't quite see the relevance of this quote from a book of fairytales ?

 

[RobF]

I can't quite see the relevance of this quote from a book of fairytales ?

I'm guessing he's saying that many of the people on here who are calling for severe punishment of the rider will have ridden themselves irresponsibly in the past.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

No, it is not enough.

There is no evidence for a legal charge of speeding because there is no camera reading to produce a number.

There is no charge simply of 'speeding' so a simple statement 'I was speeding' is not enough for a conviction.

What the prosecution is entitled to do is to introduce evidence that he was going quickly to support their contention he was riding carelessly.

Which is what they did.

It is also beyond tin foil hat barmy to suggest there's some high level government interference with the judiciary over proceeding with the case.

The case was prosecuted because it passed the two tests.

There was a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and it was in the public interest.

In any case, the judge doesn't produce a verdict, the jury does.

Did you even read flecc's post, he was making an entirely different point?

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I'm guessing he's saying that many of the people on here who are calling for severe punishment of the rider will have ridden themselves irresponsibly in the past.

He's suggesting that many people on here go around killing pedestrians?

How weird.

 

[flecc]

There is no evidence for a legal charge of speeding because there is no camera reading to produce a number.

Why do you completely ignore what I posted and pretend it was something else?

I stressed that it was not about speeding and that no evidence of that was necessary. It is as I said about using a vehicle that was illegal on the road, at any speed, and that is what I've posted from the outset. That is totally unconnected with the original case which was about his riding behaviour.

As for your silly remark about foil hat behaviour, I can only say that you are an innocent lacking some of the knowledge of what can and does happen when the need arises. That isn't posted from conspiracy theory or the like, but from direct knowledge of incidences, both very occasional and institutionalised.

I think you would be surprised and perhaps shocked at how corrupt the system can be when the need arises.
.

 

[Andy McNish]

I don't see any corruption here, Flecc. And from my experience of Crown Court cases 'government interference' in any way with the charge or court case is vanishingly unlikely.

It was sensible for the CPS to charge him for causing death whilst uninsured and causing death through careless driving. More serious offences would-be very hard to prove and more trivial ones wouldn't be dealt with by a jury trial at Crown Court as they aren't either way.

The 'not guilty' verdicts are also within sensible jury parameters. The level of fault required for the death by careless driving is a two fold test. First the accused's actions were sufficiently at fault to be shown to be a material cause of the death. And secondly you have to show careless driving of a motor vehicle, which requires a higher degree of fault. There is Supreme Court guidance that simply exceeding a speed limit does not necessarily amount to careless driving, but may sufficiently contribute to the death, for example.

Both these tests have to be met beyond reasonable doubt ( the new test wording is that the jury has to be 'sure').

The other charge - causing death whilst uninsured looks easier to get a guilty verdict on (assuming it's a given that he should have had insurance and didn't - which it presumably is in this case). As for have charge you just need to convince a jury that the fault being a material cause of death threshold has been passed.

I'm a little surprised he got off on that, but the jury (or enough of them) must have felt unsure that he was sufficiently at fault to get over the lower threshold.

Basically they must have felt that he wasn't going too fast for the traffic conditions and it was just bad luck that the pedestrian rushed out in front of him rather than the next driver in line.

He's lucky but it's not an obviously wrong decision, especially with us not being there and hearing the evidence like he jury was able to.

 

[flecc]

I don't see any corruption here, Flecc. And from my experience of Crown Court cases 'government interference' in any way with the charge or court case is vanishingly unlikely.

It was sensible for the CPS to charge him for causing death whilst uninsured and causing death through careless driving. More serious offences would-be very hard to prove and more trivial ones wouldn't be dealt with by a jury trial at Crown Court as they aren't either way.

The 'not guilty' verdicts are also within sensible jury parameters. The level of fault required for the death by careless driving is a two fold test. First the accused's actions were sufficiently at fault to be shown to be a material cause of the death. And secondly you have to show careless driving of a motor vehicle, which requires a higher degree of fault. There is Supreme Court guidance that simply exceeding a speed limit does not necessarily amount to careless driving, but may sufficiently contribute to the death, for example.

Both these tests have to be met beyond reasonable doubt ( the new test wording is that the jury has to be 'sure').

The other charge - causing death whilst uninsured looks easier to get a guilty verdict on (assuming it's a given that he should have had insurance and didn't - which it presumably is in this case). As for have charge you just need to convince a jury that the fault being a material cause of death threshold has been passed.

I'm a little surprised he got off on that, but the jury (or enough of them) must have felt unsure that he was sufficiently at fault to get over the lower threshold.

Basically they must have felt that he wasn't going too fast for the traffic conditions and it was just bad luck that the pedestrian rushed out in front of him rather than the next driver in line.

He's lucky but it's not an obviously wrong decision, especially with us not being there and hearing the evidence like he jury was able to.

I agree on this case with all that we know now.

Early on I suggested by saying "I am caused to wonder" whether there was just a possibility of policy interference, this based on actual knowledge of this happening, but I did not say it did. Of course it is never a direct instruction of any kind from government to judiciary, more using the intricacies of existing law for someone involved to suggest beforehand a "suitable" course to/for the prosecution. Which is legal of course, though the intention might not be.
.

 

[RobF]

I've no idea what Flecc is on about concerning an 'original case' of riding illegally.

The only case I know of involving this bloke is the one involving the death of the pedestrian.

The suggestion of interference with the prosecution is ludicrous.

It's only a scratty death by careless involving two nobodies who have no influence.

No shadowy figures in government are the least bit interested in preventing cycling getting negative publicity.

The case was prosecuted by an independent contractor - a barrister - so he must have been in on it as well, along with all the CPS lawyers and the police involved in case preparation.

Oh, and the judge, who in any event does not return verdicts, the jury does.

Perhaps all 12 of the panel were nobbled by MI5.

As I said, interference in the case is a ludicrous suggestion.

 

[Amoto65]

It's only a scratty death by careless involving two nobodies who have no influence.

No shadowy figures in government are the least bit interested in preventing cycling getting negative publicity.

Unless the rider turns up dead in a suitcase locked from the outside in his bath.......

 

[flecc]

As I said, interference in the case is a ludicrous suggestion.

As is your response which contains all manner of ridiculous suggestions and ignores once again what I've actually posted.

Clearly you seem to believe our legal system today is perfection itself and uncorruptible and I'm probably wasting my time trying to convince you that there are occasions when that is not true, even institutionally untrue. However, here's a little hint:

The Head of the CPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions are political appointments and in 2008 under the Labour government Keir Starmer was appointed to both of those two posts. He has a bee in his bonnet about certain sexual abuse cases which also agrees with Labour policy as has been shown since.

During his tenure in those posts he exercised that preference by interfering with the way in which the lawyers in the CPS decided upon prosecution. Basically he disagreed on their common judgements of much of the evidence's validity and the criteria they were using, directing them to change that to his preference to ensure more convictions.

Starmer has admitted to that publically on more than one occasion, the last time only yesterday when challenged on the point by Andrew Neil on his TV show at 7pm on BBC2. Therefore you can view that if you have Freeview Plus or a similar see again facility.

I say that is improper interference which, since the CPS works very closely with prosecutors, the courts and the police, will obviously affect the outcomes of cases as he intended and has indeed done so. In fact what he has directed has had far worse, perhaps unintended consequences since, but that is another story for a different time.

Many of us will have views on some of Starmer's other decisions which seemed to favour the political establishment over the public interest. For examples:

In February 2009, Starmer decided not to prosecute any police over the controversial shooting of Jean Charles Menezes.

In July 2010, Starmer announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the death of another innocent man, Ian Tomlinson. This led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up. After a subsequent inquest found that Mr Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Starmer expediently changed his mind, announcing that Harwood would be prosecuted for manslaughter after all. The officer was acquitted in July 2012, but dismissed from the police that September. Apparently both not guilty but guilty, read into that what you will.
.