Look after yourself out there, you are your own last line of defence 🙁

Yep seems like you need to plead guilty to be successfully prosecuted for killing a cyclist.

I’m not surprised 😥

Statement from his daughter:

Apparently driving into the back of a well illuminated and visible person directly in front of you doesn’t fall below:

“what would be expected of a competent and careful driver”

Mostly lost for words, very disappointed, but sadly I’m not that surprised 🙁

very disappointed, but sadly I’m not that surprised

+1

Suspect the jurors thinking “there but for the grace of god go I”.

Perhaps drivers should be excluded from juries in such cases?

Every member of that jury knew that the police and cps didn’t think there was enough evidence to charge her, that’s got to have a serious influence on their thinking.
It’s their combined failure to pursue this in the first place where any anger should now be directed, not against the jury or even Gail Purcell. The case should have been heard by a jury who started from the premise that those who enforce the law actually believe it’s worth trying to enforce.

From the Guardian:

The jury at the Old Bailey took 17 minutes to clear Purcell, of St Albans, of causing death by careless driving.

17 whole minutes.

those who enforce the law actually believe it’s worth trying to enforce

Indeed.

There is a lot wrong with the way the police, and to a lesser extent the CPS, approach their responsibilities in this country.

Another court case that does nothing to encourage any confidence of cyclists who use the road! 👿

Maybe it’s time to invest in bike missile systems that lock on to moving vehicles that enter our comfort zone.

There was a comment on Facebook from a guy at the trial* who said that the witness evidence had been contradictory, including a suggestion that the cyclist swerved.

Given that the law requires a criminal burden of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt, I can see why the jury took the option to acquit the driver, even though I don’t like the outcome.

*for clarity, he was horrified at the verdict and not pro-driver

Just came across this myself.

Driver acquitted in crowd-funded prosecution relating to cyclist’s death

As most Jurists are possibly/probably drivers, and not likely to be cyclists, wouldn’t that alter their understanding/perception of the case and evidence?

Perhaps jurists in such cases need to be selected to have a fair balance, or possibly be made to both cycle and drive the section of road when the incident happened? Might change the outcomes significantly.

Meanwhile in Canada ..

Bike-blocking dangerous driver gets 15-year sentence: Report

It was the idea that jurors were drivers and ‘there but for the grace of God…’ lead to the updated conviction that is available ‘death by careless driving’ rather than dangerous.

What would a jury have done if it had been a child walking in the road….

Have you ever sat in a jury panel? You can’t just find someone guilty of something because you want to. The judge makes it very VERY clear before you disappear into the deliberation room that you must consider all the evidence and make your decision on that evidence alone. If the prosecution didn’t present their case and clearly prove guilt then I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do.

Private prosecutions also have to overcome the perception (right or wrong) that the CPS probably chose not to proceed for good reason.

To correct a couple of points above:

The failure of the Crown to bring a prosecution in this case was not on the part of the CPS. They were not involved: the Metropolitan Police refused to pass the case to them.

The judge stated during the trial that there was a valid case to answer, in response to a claim by the defence to the contrary.

The judge also told the jurors, in response to a direct question, that they were unable to infer anything from the fact that the prosecution had been brought privately and not by the Crown.

I cannot help but think that a jury trial was the reason for the not guilty verdict here, unless the jury was composed of good balance of car drivers and those who solely rely on bikes to get around.

The Met failed in this, completely. They didn’t even interview the witnesses. The private prosecution did, which is why it got as far as it did.

Shameful.

We have less rights and protection under the law on the roads than a dog.

The failure of the Crown to bring a prosecution in this case was not on the part of the CPS. They were not involved: the Metropolitan Police refused to pass the case to them.

I stand corrected. That really is pisspoor from the Met.

The dark humoured joke … buy the victim a bicycle if you want to escape a murder prosecution…. is still true

In any other area of life you’d be subject to the severest of sanctions. Now if the HSE was the prosecuting authority there would be a lot of people behind bars for their behaviour…..

To correct a couple of points above:

The failure of the Crown to bring a prosecution in this case was not on the part of the CPS. They were not involved: the Metropolitan Police refused to pass the case to them.

So if the Police refused then that implies that the CPS were aware of the case. Do you actually mean refused or is it that the CPS were never made aware of the case?

Jurors highly likely to be drivers so yeah possible bias against cyclists, but jurors also seem to let off other seemingly downright negligent drivers. “Sorry I don’t know what happened I didn’t mean it” is the sort of piss poor defence my 7yo comes up with when he’s hurt someone, we should expect a damn sight more from adults. If you’re not pissed, speeding or on your phone then you’ve a good chance of “getting away with it”

Juries need to stop empathising with the accused and start empathising with the victims.

Juries need to stop empathising with the accused

One of a number of flaws with the jury system. Not that I’m saying the alternatives are better as they too have flaws.

One of a number of flaws with the jury system. Not that I’m saying the alternatives are better as they too have flaws

its one of the strengths too. Strict liability can be too blunt a tool sometimes

True. And of course, both systems (jury or non-jury) result in just outcomes day in day out across the country.

Strict liability has nothing to do with criminal law and hence is not an alternative to the jury system. The main alternative is trial by magistrates, which is what Martin Porter argues for (in that certain offences can be tried either way and the choice is the defendant’s alone: they tend to be advised to choose the jury because there is a greater chance of acquittal; Porter’s argument is to restrict this choice). For what it matters, I don’t entirely agree; I would propose an alternative approach, but I need to write that up once I’ve published the article about this case.

So if the Police refused then that implies that the CPS were aware of the case. Do you actually mean refused or is it that the CPS were never made aware of the case?

Before the CPS can/will consider a prosecution, the case has to be passed to them, and the Met refused to do that.

For more details see the section headed “Reason” towards the bottom of this article:

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2015/03/20/erasure/

EDIT – Apologies, read your first post, then posted, prior to reading your second post 😐

Strict Liability can be a feature of Criminal and Civil Law. I am aware of the campaign to bring it into civil law in respect of motor accidents. I was still referring to it in the criminal context.

Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to health and safety. Also many driving offences are crimes of strict liability eg. speeding, driving without insurance. The use of strict liability in criminal law is controversial as it means a person may be liable where they are not at fault or have taken all reasonable care to ensure compliance of the law (See in particular Callow v Tillstone). However, the harshness of strict liability in criminal law is generally tolerated as it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public in areas where it is perceived that there is a need to provide such protection.

It’s not the fault of the Jury. It’s the wording of Law in this case. A great shame on all fronts.

Yes, true (the reason for my misappropriation being that I’ve tended to hear and use liability in civil terms and culpability in criminal terms).

Realistically, though, strict offences work for trivially provable offences but for all sorts of reasons they’re never going to be suitable for nuanced ones or for serious ones such as causing death.

The issue here is the lack of objectivity in the law. And I think that is fixable without excessively restricting necessary flexibility.

The main alternative is trial by magistrates,

this certainly seems IM(layman’s)O* a better idea for the less serious offences. Driving offences already seem to be viewed by society as minor, so any incident where no one was seriously hurt is probably relegated to downright trivial in a jurors mind, war on the motorist and all that.
Jury trials not going anywhere for serious stuff, we just need to get juries to empathise with the victims and their families. Maybe it’s a societal shift needed rather than a legal one.
But yeah the wishy washy wording probably doesn’t help, “I’m a safe and competent driver and on occasion my attention has wandered and I ended up doing X, so X is forgiveable, not guilty”

*no legal experience and not even been on a jury, just read a little, so could be talking cobblers

Perhaps that’s the crux of it donk.

Before the CPS can/will consider a prosecution, the case has to be passed to them, and the Met refused to do that.

My question still remains, who did they refuse, you can only refuse a person or an organisation, it’s a act against anothers wishes. You cannot refuse something that has not been asked of you. Whose wishes did they act against in refusing to pass this to the CPS. I assume the family’s but did they also seek advice from the CPS.

you can only refuse a person or an organisation, it’s a act against anothers wishes

I refuse to eat fish

that argument is just not true they simply a failure to do an act. Its does not need to be against anything or its wishes.

In this case the police can present the evidence to the CPS as they think a crime has been committed and they did not do this. Clearly some disagreed but it is not necessarily an act against a n other.

I refused to ride my bike today as another example