E-bike rider weeps as he is cleared of death by careless driving

I'm quite surprised he hasn't been sent down using a derestricted bike!

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/thomas-hanlon-ebike-sakine-cihan-dalston-crash-a4376446.html

Edited March 2, 20206 yr by aardvark5

I think we all are but he was on trial/in the dock accused of riding without due care and attention to which his peers ( a jury) cleared him of , laying the blame for incident with the unfortunate women who walked into his path.

It is said he pled guilty to riding an uninsured /registered higher powered bike but he wasn't on trial for the bike use, so whether or not he will get fined and points is unknown or a suspended sentence for this who knows.

 

If a private case is brought against him then it might not be all over done and dusted yet.

I could do with this deleting please Admin, somebody beat me like a ginger stepchild by a few days.

If this happened in France they might even have bought the Guillotine out of retirement, last used in 1977.

Seriously though he would have been likely more severely dealt with by the republic.

I think we all are but he was on trial/in the dock accused of riding without due care and attention to which his peers ( a jury) cleared him of , laying the blame for incident with the unfortunate women who walked into his path.

It is said he pled guilty to riding an uninsured /registered higher powered bike but he wasn't on trial for the bike use, so whether or not he will get fined and points is unknown or a suspended sentence for this who knows.

 

If a private case is brought against him then it might not be all over done and dusted yet.

 

He denied all three charges and was found not guilty of all three charges.

 

The other two, causing a death by while riding unlicensed, and causing a death while riding uninsured. require an element of bad riding to be proved.

 

Since the jury acquitted him of careless in the death by charge, it would have been perverse to find him guilty of the other two.

 

Although they could have done.

 

Juries occasionally come up with a mix of verdicts that look odd.

Sorry, but this collision was entirely the fault of the pedestrian who ignored the Highway Code.

 

 

 

How to Cross a Road Safely

• THINK FIRST - PLAN. Find the safest place to cross then stop. ...
  
• STOP. Stand on the pavement little way back from the edge. ...
  
• WATCH AND LISTEN. Look for traffic in all directions and listen.
  
• WAIT UNTIL IT'S SAFE. Wait patiently and let the traffic pass. ...
  
• WATCH AND LISTEN. When it's safe, walk directly across the road.
  

As I've said elsewhere, it will be interesting to see if follow up charges are made against him for riding an illegal machine, having no insurance, speeding, no insurance etc etc.

 

If not, the pedelec law is a farce and many more people will be ignoring it.

If not, the pedelec law is a farce and many more people will be ignoring it.

 

As the saying goes.. The law is an ass. The verdict was rightful and has had little impact on ebikers. It's a shame that the same can't be said for the unfortunate pedestrian.

As I've said elsewhere, it will be interesting to see if follow up charges are made against him for riding an illegal machine, having no insurance, speeding, no insurance etc etc.

 

If not, the pedelec law is a farce and many more people will be ignoring it.

 

There can be no 'follow up' charges.

 

He was acquitted of causing a death while riding uninsured and without a licence.

 

That's it, the criminal case is finished.

 

Following the abolition of double jeopardy, the death by careless charge could in theory be reopened, but only if there is significant new evidence.

 

Realistically, there cannot be any new evidence that is so significant as to warrant reopening the case.

There are some cold hearted people here.

There are some cold hearted people here.

 

It does seem that way and in the other thread.

If this was a motorist with no tax, insurance, MOT and a modded car, posters would be jumping over them even though the woman walked out into the road.

End of the day justice has been applied, a sitting jury have deliberated and found him not guilty.

It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with the jury's verdict.

End of the day justice has been applied, a sitting jury have deliberated and found him not guilty.

It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with the jury's verdict.

 

They heard the evidence and they saw his demeanour in court which is more than I did! On that basis who am I to question their decision.

 

 

Whilst I’m surprised at the outcome, that’s the basis of our justice system.

Sorry, but this collision was entirely the fault of the pedestrian who ignored the Highway Code.

Wow that is really harsh and thoughtless, at the end of the day the guy was riding an illegal bike which should not have been on the road at all, and then ran off after the accident. I wonder how you would feel if one of your loved ones was killed by an illegal driver?

There can be no 'follow up' charges.

He was acquitted of causing a death while riding uninsured and without a licence.

That's it, the criminal case is finished.

Following the abolition of double jeopardy, the death by careless charge could in theory be reopened, but only if there is significant new evidence.

But can't the other features (riding while uninsured, riding while untaxed, etc) still be brought? (genuinely a question as I don't understand the law here). As I understood from earlier posts (but maybe misunderstood) they were even admitted by the defence. I don't think they would even require a court case. They would add up to a relatively small fine, confiscation of the bike, and if he has a driving licence lots of points (probably enough to lose the license). Much heftier fine if it did go to court.

There can be no 'follow up' charges.

 

He was acquitted of causing a death while riding uninsured and without a licence.

 

That's it, the criminal case is finished.

But he hasn't been charged (yet) with riding while uninsured and without a licence. Those are different charges aren't they???

He was charged with causing a death while uninsured, and causing a death while riding without a licence.

 

He was found not guilty by the jury of both charges.

 

That is the end of it.

 

The prosecution cannot now go back and lay other charges arising from the same incident.

 

The double jeopardy rule that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence has been changed following the case of an acquitted murderer who confessed to a cell mate years later.

 

But there will only be a second trial in truly exceptional circumstances in which significant new evidence emerges.

 

Realistically, that cannot happen in this case.

The prosecution cannot now go back and lay other charges arising from the same incident.

Double jeopardy prevents a person from being tried again for the "same crime", I'm not sure of the relevance of "same incident" in this context.

 

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-double-jeopardy

 

I'd have thought that the crime of riding while uninsured and without a licence is different to the crime of causing death while riding uninsured and without a licence.

 

Anyway, time will tell in this case....

I'd have thought that the crime of riding while uninsured and without a licence is different to the crime of causing death while riding uninsured and without a licence.

 

They are different, because they're not 'crimes'. They're driving offences. Upon conviction of those offences, they would not appear on a criminal record.

Maybe he has already admitted to the other offenses, and simply been fixed penalty fined....

Andy

They are different, because they're not 'crimes'. They're driving offences. Upon conviction of those offences, they would not appear on a criminal record.

 

They can be recorded if another “crime” occurs at the same time.

 

Had he been found guilty of the more serious issue of causing death then the other offences would have been recorded on his criminal record.

 

If he ever had reason to disclose convictions he would have needed to disclose everything - I know someone that by mistake didn’t and it caused him a lot of grief.

I suspect the rider has gone through enough stress during the wait and trial that he has been pretty punished. A custodial sentence would had been a better deterrent for others, though.

I suspect the rider has gone through enough stress during the wait and trial that he has been pretty punished. A custodial sentence would had been a better deterrent for others, though.

Somebody somewhere will or already has made a judgement call on whether it’s in the public interest and I suspect it will all disappear into the noise now.

 

However on the basis that I was completely wrong in my guess about what was going to happen, that could be completely wrong :-)

If he ever had reason to disclose convictions he would have needed to disclose everything - I know someone that by mistake didn’t and it caused him a lot of grief.

 

But not if they are "spent".

 

A spent conviction is a conviction which, under the terms of Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, can be effectively ignored after a specified amount of time. The amount of time for rehabilitation depends on the sentence imposed, not on the offence.

 

Essentially, a conviction cannot become spent until the order ends. Some orders run for many years longer than the 'main' sentence. If someone received a 4 month prison sentence, this would be spent 2 years after the end of the full sentence.

.

But not if they are "spent".

 

A spent conviction is a conviction which, under the terms of Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, can be effectively ignored after a specified amount of time. The amount of time for rehabilitation depends on the sentence imposed, not on the offence.

 

Essentially, a conviction cannot become spent until the order ends. Some orders run for many years longer than the 'main' sentence. If someone received a 4 month prison sentence, this would be spent 2 years after the end of the full sentence.

.

For some purposes an offence is never spent