Apologies if this has been done, but I saw another one of THOSE stories.

I won’t labour the details because it’s all so depressingly familiar – van driver who was texting moments before ploughs into young cyclist, killing them, then acquitted of all charges.

What struck me as being different in the coverage I saw on the local news site was ‘below the line’ in the comments. I may have just not found them yet, but as far as I can see there are none of the usual “cyclists are a menace, they shouldn’t be on the road if they don’t want to be killed, road tax, insurance, nearly ran me over on the pavement once” rants – all the comments are either “WTF, how was he acquitted?” or, of the few that disagree, along the lines of “that’s how our jury system works, respect the decision, they heard the evidence”.

Has a corner been turned regarding the stigmatising of innocent cyclists being killed on our roads?

The article (with comments below) that I’m referring to is here:

linky

and for those who are particularly interested in more analysis of this particular case, there’s some good stuff here:

another linky

Very sad reading, a young chap who’s had his future taken from him and a family left seemlingly without justice.

Reading the info in the blog it seems incredible that the case could be thrown out so easily. I don’t really understand the system, did the prosecution not make any sort of case or did the judge not direct the jury properly?

We will eventually hit a critical mass (the true critical mass, not the antagonistic one) where people know enough friends, family and colleagues that use a bike to get around that they no longer see ‘cyclists’ as different to them and at that point, the blaming cyclists thing will drop significantly.

In London that’s already starting to happen in some areas/groups. It’s gradually happening elsewhere so maybe we’ll start to see more balance as we do in this story.

Mind you, I reckon that because the victim was young and he was wearing a helmet that affects people’s views, unfortunately.

Legally, can this be appealed? On the face of it the whole thing seems crazy.

Legally, can this be appealed?

No, it can’t. Only overly-lenient sentencing post conviction.

I think most of us can look at it and be pretty sure that the van driver’s version of events is highly suspect to put it mildly, but the need to deal with any reasonable doubt means that, without a surviving witness, it’s going to be harder for a jury to convict for death by dangerous driving.

Guilty men will go free to reduce the chance of wrongful conviction.

It’s just a shame that the ‘lesser’ offence of using a mobile does not have a wider sentencing range perhaps even including custody and certainly bans on a par with drunk driving for offenders who can be shown to be persistently using one throughout a journey. At least this lad’s family would have the comfort of this.

I got sucked into reading comments on Facebook (I know 🙄 ) last night on a post from a Welsh police force explaining the legalities of riding two abreast and asking drivers to be patient.

Soul destroying stuff. I wouldn’t trust most of them with a bus pass never mind a driving licence and over a tonne of metal. 🙁

Already done here

There’s a reason I don’t ‘do’ facebook – whatever the topic, it’s open season for idiots to post moronic nonsense.

What strikes me as a bit different, in my experience, is that so many otherwise ‘right thinking’ supposedly intelligent people seem to have such a huge blindspot (probably literally as well as metaphorically) when it comes to cyclists, or as they are commonly known, “bloody cyclists”

A couple of years ago, I had a meeting with some trustees of another local charity who were talking to us about a potential merger, so quite an important meeting. One of the trustees was a successful businessman who gave up a lot of his time to serve as a trustee of a local mental health charity, was concerned with stigma (in a mental health context) and ensuring that the most disadvantaged in society weren’t excluded etc etc. Still, within a couple of minutes of me arriving in my bike gear, I’d heard about road tax, insurance, jumping red lights, riding on the pavement, riding without lights, and holding up traffic with “inconsiderate” road positioning. This was the first time we’d met.

If I’d turned up and been a Somali immigrant I doubt I’d have been subjected to a rant about unfettered immigration, unsustainable pressure on social housing and taking jobs from local people. If I’d turned up and been obviously gay (not sure how that would work, maybe an “I’m gay and proud” T-Shirt) I doubt I’d have had a rant about Christian values, but cyclists? Fair game.

Cyclists do seem to be the only group that it’s still okay to slag off in pretty much any social context, apart from gypsies obviously. It’s time it stopped, and I have some small hope from the reaction that that acquittal seems to have generated online that maybe, just maybe the tide might be starting to turn. Heck, there was even a picture online of Clarkson on a bike the other day..

I hate these threads and I generally avoid commenting on them, but it’s worth stressing that the information upon which the writer on “Beyond the kerb” bases his whole argument may be inaccurate, thus undermining the whole argument; unless we can examine the prosecution evidence everything we say is pure supposition. That said, I can’t but help totally agree with the sentiments behind it. I’m a parent of two young children who love biking; I’m a lifelong cyclist who commutes to work almost every day and im also a Police Officer who attends and investigates serious, life altering and fatal traffic collisions. I’ve also been the Family Liasion Officer on numerous road deaths.

My personal observations are that all road death, irrespective of the circumstace, is horrible. The sudden violent nature is extremely difficult to come to terms with. People quite rightly look for the answers why their loved ones have died, and this naturally involves seeking to blame someone. This is completely natural and cannot be helped.

As cyclists on a cycling forum we view these news stories of drivers “getting away with it” from a particular perspective. As much as we try to be neutral about it, it’s difficult not to be emotional. Again, this is completely natural and cannot be helped; it’s human nature.

However, one thing I would try to encourage is to try and understand the British legal system and then examine these disappointing outcomes again. What I mean is as much as we can all ‘guess’ what happened and then come up with a suitable punishment, the courts have to stick to the rules.

We have to remember that in UK law we have a presumption of innocence until proved beyond a reasonable doubt of our guilt. in other words, it’s not for the driver to prove his innocence, it’s for the prosecution to prove his guilt.

This means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defence has to merely introduce a reasonable doubt. It’s extremely difficult to accept this when a young life has been lost. It’s heartbreaking and there are, no doubt, a number of cases where the prosecution case could have been better presented, but just remember, this burden of proof and presumption of innocence is there to protect you too. God forbid you find yourself in those same unfortunate set of circumstances where you collide with someone, whether pedestrian, cyclist or other road user, and even though you know you did nothing wrong, the state is going to try and prove you’re guilty.

The criminal justice system is not anywhere near perfect, but it’s what we’ve got. My own personal experiences have often made me think a review of the system is desperately needed. For example, I can think of a number of incidents where if the burden of proof was on the balance of probabilities there would have been a very different outcome.

I would advise everyone to try and develop a good understanding of it and then sometimes these decisions will make a little more sense. They won’t be any less sad but understanding the whole process will help with understanding the final decision.

Already done here

Aye, that’s the thread about the case itself.

What prompted me to open this thread wasn’t the case itself (a depressingly familiar tale from incident through to verdict) but the online response on a local news site, not normally a venue short of “bloody cyclists” type comments, but in this case refreshingly not the case.

I suppose there’s a cross-cutting theme there though, that if the general populace move away identifying cyclists as “them” rather than a subset of “us” that might start to be reflected not only in online comment boxes, but also in jury deliberations..

“it’s worth stressing that the information upon which the writer on “Beyond the kerb” bases his whole argument may be inaccurate”

To be fair, I stressed that in the article 😉

There’s an update here.
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/somethings-seriously-wrong-here/

Additional information is still arriving (as is corroboration of existing information), often via people who attended the trial, so some of the content in there is already due an update. Stay tuned.

I think the reason the comments on Kent Online aren’t the usual nonsense is that it’s a piece of local journalism about a story that has heavily impacted a small local community: the driver knew the victim, there were complications in sourcing jurors, and many of the commenters seem to have connections with people involved in the case. This story is about the loss of a young local lad, and the legal shrug that followed it; not about a faceless sack of lycra far away who never mattered because they didn’t pay a mythical “road tax”.

mildred I’d be interested in your / the police’s views on dash cams. It seems to me that dash cams in vehicles would do at least some of the talking for the deceased in these tragic situations.

Bez, yes you did; I’d say you went to fair lengths to stress it but i thought it worth repeating as some people do forget this.

Dickyboy, I thinks dash/helmet cams are great. They’re dynamite in court when the bland presentation of the facts can often hide the gruesome reality of what happened. A (moving) picture paints a thousand words etc.

I know there’s been a few threads knocking around of how cops don’t accept the footage saying its inadmisable or not useable because it’s not the original footage/copy. Well that’s balls; as long as it’s handled properly once in police hands, there’s no reason it can’t be used.

In fact to show how well received dash cam footage is have a look at this murder trial:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-30437876

Scroll down to the paragraph entitled ‘contract killing’.

Dashcams are becoming more prevalent but are no more likely to be legislated for than limiting cars to 70mph, lest motorists freedom to do what they like be infringed. If the insurance industry offers significant discounts, they may become even more common but without laws / consequences for destroying footage, the worst offenders will still not face justice. I use a Garmin VIRB in the car and on the bike. I know it watches me as much as those around me, so I’m a very good boy. If we all drove like we knew we were being watched, there would be a lot less aggro, risk taking and tragedy on the roads.

In this case by the driver quite blatantly lying. I wasn’t in court, so all my information is at best second hand, but have read reports from people who do claim to have been in court. It seems the CPS made big mistakes concerning the use of the mobile phone and discrediting Sinden’s lies. Despite this the judge made some quite clear directions concerning the evidence presented by Sinden which should have led the jury to disregard much of it. Yet they still found him not guilty based on the doubt the defence introduced by his lies.

Things are broken in the system.

There but for the grace of god go the jury. How many have texted while driving?

I was going to pick the same sentence and say what aracer just said

Its pretty obvious what he said was BS and like rape [ forgive the OTT comparison but bare with me] as there are no other witnesses and no other testimony the prosecution rate is woeful.

Of course we need to err on the side of caution but we have erred so much blatant liars are getting away with it because we cannot prove it.

I am not sure what the solution is tbh but the system is broken

TBH if i wanted to kill someone I would buy them a bike then mow them down….probably get away with it as well…that cannot be right.

It’s hard not to agree but my job aside, it’s in my nature to always feel compelled (damned?) to give a balanced, or often devil’s advocate view. For example:

In this case by the driver quite blatantly lying. I wasn’t in court, so all my information is at best second hand

Be careful here because although you may have a honestly held belief, this has to be based on fact; you may want to read this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
Which also covers online posts. In a quirk of law, despite you viewing him as the offender, it will be up to you to prove he was lying. Can you?

But if its true, and you have evidence of this, have a look here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/1
And make a complaint.

It’s very frustrating being a copper; aside from the millions of pounds we earn, fast cars and guns, we also get to go to court and listen to these “reasonable doubts”. A few years ago I arrested someone for being drunk in charge. It duly went to court and in the opening spiel the defence asked their own client if he had ever been arrested. He replied “no”. At which I nearly popped; he was very well recorded and had numerous convictions – all involving alcohol. I was about hopping on my chair at his blatant lie. I didn’t know what to do other than stick my hand up like a schoolboy; Spying I was slightly agitated by something the CPS lawyer, who’d casually perused the file only one hour before trial, called a halt so he could consult with me. I told them of his record – all of which was described on his file, and pointed my finger at him whilst uttering “he’s lying through his teeth”. There then began a period of recess where the defence was instructed to have a consultation with his client. Meanwhile, chumpy-bollox here was warned that any outburst would be seen as contempt of court…!!! So what was you saying about the system is broken?

Anyway, this is worth the read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11486832/New-Crown-Prosecution-Service-watchdogs-impartiality-called-into-question-over-20-year-friendship-with-DPP.html

But more so consider this published last month following a review:

http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/CJJI_FRTI_Feb15_rpt.pdf

And here’s a taster:

“Despite the recommendations made in the 2008 review, little progress has been made towards a coherent model for providing a specialist service that allows prosecutors with the necessary
knowledge and experience to demonstrate the quality of decision-making and appropriate communication skills. A set of eligibility criteria for the role, a suggested structure to deal with caseload and a bespoke training package would all play an important part in giving the
specialist prosecutor, and by implication the work itself, the high priority it merits.”

and:

Inspectors were disappointed to find that there was no systematic procedure for monitoring and analysing performance by CPS Areas in respect of FRTIs. As a minimum requirement, we have called for distinct flagging of new cases on the case management system, completion of advocate’s reports on jury acquittals and adverse case reports in all other unsuccessful outcomes (including those cases where a guilty plea is accepted as an alternative to a more serious count). Only by collecting such data consistently can improvements in performance be measured and informed responses made to legitimate media interest.

Yep, no problem at all with that – the most obvious one in this case being his claim that he got the last text before turning onto the road the fatal collision occurred on and then drove at 40-50mph. Distance between where he turned onto the road and the collision 1.2 miles. Time between last text and 999 call 55 seconds (I’ve now seen it reported as 80 seconds, though that doesn’t tie up with the reported times of text and 999 call, and in any case still wouldn’t be possible at 50mph even if acceleration to 50mph was instantaneous and 999 call immediate).

Of course it could be that the reporting I’m relying on is inaccurate – I’d be very surprised as it comes from multiple sources, but in any case I’d still be safe under the honest opinion defence.

But if its true, and you have evidence of this, have a look here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/1
And make a complaint.

I’d hope somebody with more direct evidence was looking into that – certainly enough people with a direct interest who were in the courtroom to hear the evidence.

in the opening spiel the defence asked their own client if he had ever been arrested. He replied “no”.

I’d have thought that to be a fairly dangerous question in the context – IANAL, so may have got this wrong, but I thought a defendant’s record couldn’t normally be brought up by the prosecution team. Doesn’t the need to challenge such an answer allow the prosecution to introduce it?

They were trying to demonstrate his good character (he didn’t have some), and that the whole thing was ludicrous. Prosecution can bring up prior similar offences as evidence of bad character. It was a very surprising opener.

As mentioned above the van driver’s has only to introduce a reasonable doubt. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. When everything you read is telling you otherwise it feels desperately unfair, but this is the system we have. On the balance of probabilities he would probably be considered guilty, but that isn’t our system.

I can’t help thinking that in this case something is missing from the reports, or accounts; all of the forensic crash investigators I know would’ve been all over those discrepancies like a rash.

Did I read this correctly

I realised it was a cyclist on the pavement on my left hand side. He started to come off the pavement and I started to react. I started to brake and steer around the cyclist.

Seems to suggest he rode off the pavement into the road and the driver took avoiding action but failed to react quickly enough?

Its alway difficult to get the full and correct story of what happened and what evidence is presented. Im not trying to lessen or apportion blame but I could see how this might be mitgating circumstances and reasonable doubt

Did I read this correctly

I realised it was a cyclist on the pavement on my left hand side. He started to come off the pavement and I started to react. I started to brake and steer around the cyclist.
Seems to suggest he rode off the pavement into the road and the driver took avoiding action but failed to react quickly enough?[/quote]

You read right, but other reports online suggest that this is perhaps, allegedly, unlikely to have been true – the pavement in question being the sort of narrow, debris strewn muddy mess that someone on a road bike would have no likely cause to ride on, and less likely cause to suddenly, without warning, ride his road bike off (no drop kerb) onto the road at that point. IANAL and I wasn’t in court to hear all the evidence and I don’t know the road or pavement there personally, so do take this as completely hearsay, however.

That is also my understanding and my opinion [ whihc may be wrong]ie he was able to allege this and nothing could be used to negate it [ no witnesses] but many think the description is unlikely to be true due to the condition of the path, the victims experience of road riding etc. Many have the opinion, though it not possible to prove it, that his account is BS said to avoid a prosecution for mowing him down whilst texting.

Legal system aside, I think a constructive change could be made to ensure the jury members have sufficient intelligence to process the evidence and judges recommendations, this could be helped by having a legally trained officer of the court available to the jury to assist with summarising the salient facts and law. When I was on jury service 2 younger members chose to ignore the judge’s guidance in favour of their own opinion meaning a majority verdict wasn’t possible so someone who ought to have been found guilty wasn’t. Most frustrating 3 hours for a long time.

other reports online suggest that this is perhaps, allegedly, unlikely to have been true – the pavement in question being the sort of narrow, debris strewn muddy mess that someone on a road bike would have no likely cause to ride on, and less likely cause to suddenly, without warning, ride his road bike off (no drop kerb) onto the road at that point

Ok, I’m playing devil’s advocate here and not being argumentative for the sake of it, so please bear with me but the above is soooo wishy washy and seems to rely upon a balance of probabilities argument that it is totally useless, and even counterproductive to state.

What I mean is, the words suggest, perhaps, allegedly, and unlikely contain absolutely no definites. No hard unassailable fact that would stand up to rigorous questioning. Presenting a case in this manner would do the defence’s job for them in that it already contains its own reasonable doubt.

Its the same as saying “well he might have or might not… we just don’t know”.

Again, I don’t mean to be argumentative but putting all emotion to one side the courts have to consider all evidence, including that for the prosecution and for the defence. as much as it boils my wee wee at times – its the system we have.

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence* if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence

*why didn’t his backtracking/new story/inconsistency harm his defence ?

I recall a conversation with a CPS prosecutor many years ago, about ‘either way’ crimes where the defendant can choose whether to be tried by a magistrate or by a jury. She said she would choose a jury every time, because they’re so unpredictable and regularly can’t grasp what’s going on you’ve got a good chance, even if the evidence against you is strong. Conversely, she said you would have to be very very good to hoodwink an experienced magistrate.

A slightly lazy top of Google reference to the Vick Pryce first trial debacle and related issues with juries.

Some issues with jury trials

I think maybe it is time to have a look at the merits and flaws of jury trials, and inded the adversarial system against the inquisitorial system seen in France and other countries.

the words suggest, perhaps, allegedly, and unlikely contain absolutely no definites

Do you think it was written to not be libellous? I know mine was

Thegreatape, you’re absolutely right. It occurs to me that in an adversarial court it’s doesn’t matter who presents the most compelling evidence/argument, but rather rewards best theatrical performance.

Scaredypants, my understanding of that part of the caution is that an inference can be drawn from a defendant’s silence, and not that an inference can be drawn from an inconsistency. Inconsistent accounts are normally picked apart by the prosecutor (if they notice them).

See here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/

On the issue of the pavement: All of the accounts I have received agree that there was *zero* forensic evidence of Squire ever having been on the pavement.

If the multiple, consistent reports I have are accurate then the physical evidence shows (and was apparently accepted in court to show) that Squire was travelling parallel with the course of the road at the time of impact. Unless multiple reports are erroneous, the forensic evidence:
– is wholly consistent with him never having been on the pavement,
– fails to support (though strictly does not necessarily preclude) him ever having been on the pavement,
– and is at odds with any notion that he may have been in the progress of leaving the pavement at the point of impact, or that the collision occurred immediately after him having done so (he would have needed to take up a path of motion parallel to the kerb prior to impact_.

The sole “evidence” that he was on the pavement is a claim made by the defendant, who made a number of mutually inconsistent claims, apparently including a complete change to his story between initial police interviews and the trial. The credibility of his statements must surely have been rock-bottom on this basis.

If you want information as to the “known” details of the evidence presented, it’s probably in here; much of this is corroborated by multiple attendees to the trial.
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/somethings-seriously-wrong-here/

If anyone has further information, I’d love to have it.

I seem to recall a change in the law so that a person acquitted can be tried again for the same offence if new evidence comes to light?

It is not impossible that Squire was on the pavement. It is, however, unlikely. It’s more than just unlikely. Squire was a competitive triathlete; he would have been fit and fast, and such riders almost always stick to the carriageway even when half-decent cycle tracks are available. I would wager that you could survey every triathlete in the country and ask them if they would mount that pavement at the entry to Ringwould, and if there are more “yes” replies than can be counted on one hand, I would raise an eyebrow at the very least. Which isn’t to say that Squire didn’t do it, but—to any “cyclist” at least—it is surely beyond reasonable doubt.

The fact that there was no forensic evidence whatsoever to back up Sinden’s claim should surely have cemented this point. Even if one was inclined to take the defendant’s word for it, Sinden appears to have blazed a trail of contradictory, far-fetched claims. The trustworthiness of any given claim must surely be rock-bottom. Not least when one considers that reportedly none of Sinden’s statements prior to the trial implied that Squire was on the pavement

I can see no reason why a cyclist [ experienced or otherwise would be trying to ride that kerb

accident site

“I seem to recall a change in the law so that a person acquitted can be tried again for the same offence if new evidence comes to light?“

Yes, though the additional evidence has to be substantial. It is also possible to bring a private prosecution and it may also be possible to hold an inquest, which would make the forensic evidence publicly available. All “AIUI, IANAL”, natch.

I believe these and at least one other option are being explored.

As one of the recent comments on the news article says: “This story is far from going away. Ringwould is full of reporters and TV crews.”

It is not impossible that Squire was on the pavement. It is, however, unlikely. It’s more than just unlikely. Squire was a competitive triathlete;

who (according to that what was written on beyondthecurb) didnt like that road?

Also this bit

“Why does a cyclist who is nervous about the road he is on stop in the carriageway to mount the pavement, and then—with the pavement continuing onwards—return to the road less than 300ft later?”

If the cyclist was not comfy on the road maybe he tried the path, got sick once he realised how crap it was and rejoined the road. I know ive dont that. Of course the rest of the drivers story is so full of holes this fact is kind of moot sadly.

If he did not like the road he would have considered the pavement by now and either tried it or rejected it for reasons so obvious, to any cyclist, I wont list them.

“I seem to recall a change in the law so that a person acquitted can be tried again for the same offence if new evidence comes to light?”
yep but for murder manslaughter serious sex war crimes and arson endanger life etc not for death by dangerous driving . Also a requirement for genuinely new substantial evidence and a lot of procedural hoops.
It does seem from the reports and particularly from one of the well informed letters in the press that all the relevant material was put before the jury and stressed by the judge in summing up.

mildred on your bad character question it was a real cock up by defence counsel to ask “have you ever been arrested ?” if the true answer was yes as it effectively puts character in issue and it all goes in .

I was on a jury two years ago; the experience destroyed my faith in the jury system.

Do you think it was written to not be libellous? I know mine was
[/quote]

Sod that. I’m not afraid of getting chased for libel over calling him a liar – any such action fails on clause 1 of the defamation act. Would be quite amusing if he was stupid enough to take somebody to court for that.

So, what he said about the cyclist riding on the pavement was quite clearly a pack of lies based on all available evidence. Well beyond reasonable doubt that the cyclist was actually on the road. The crucial word there is “reasonable” – the cyclist having come of the pavement as described is not in any way a reasonable thing for him to have done (especially given the defendant previously claimed he hadn’t seen the cyclist).

The fundamental issue here is that the judge should surely have directed the jury to disregard all the evidence provided in court by the defendant – that this didn’t happen is either a failure of the judge or of the CPS to present sufficient evidence to prove that he was telling porkies.

I’m hoping somebody is looking into the possibility of charging him with perjury – seems like an easy case to prove, and the possible sentences are at least as long as he would have got for the original offence.

Can you elaborate Globalti?

I was right in thinking it was an own goal in that way then – thanks for the clarification (it all helps me play at being an internet lawyer 😉 )