The thing is, lacking proof of intent beyond reasonable doubt, it isn’t assault.

I agree – but the cyclist describes it as “an attack” so presumably he thinks it was intentional.

If that is the case then shouldn’t the police investigate it as an assault and, once they have gathered evidence, interviewed the suspects, spoken to witnesses etc, THEN determine if they can prove it was intentional or if they can only get them for the lesser road traffic offences.

What we* seem to be saying here is the video doesn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was intentional so they can’t investigate it as assault.

That is wrong-headed. The video should only be one piece of evidence.

If someone put me in hospital by hitting me over the head with a spade and I went to the police to file an assault charge, I wouldn’t expect them to say “Well we don’t have any video so we’ll have to assume it was an accident” nor would I expect them to say “Well we have CCTV that suggests that it might be intentional but it’s not conclusive so we’ll treat it as an accident”. I’d expect them to investigate an alleged assault.

.

* and by “we” I mean us on the forum. We don’t know what the police thinking or process was. They might have treated it as assault.

Shirley at very least we have grounds for:

1. Leaving the scene of an accident
2. Driving without due car or the more serious Dangerous Driving
3. Perverting the course of justice

If you can prove intent than it would be assault or ABH if not GBH.

The video is shocking but it would be easy for a lawyer to argue that they were just driving normally and failed to spot the cyclist due to some act of God.

I would like to see much stiffer penalties for dangerous driving in line with bans for life.

failed to spot the cyclist due to some act of God.

Yep, and also had some short term memory issue which made them conveniently forget the cyclist that they had been stopped directly behind before the lights changed.

It makes no difference what he thinks – and presumably he’s just basing that on his own interpretation of the video as he clearly didn’t see the car coming. Anyway, how do you know the police didn’t investigate it for assault? The thing is, in a situation where they can’t even prove who the driver was, exactly what evidence do you think there could be which would prove intent? We have done “beyond reasonable doubt” haven’t we?

If someone put me in hospital by hitting me over the head with a spade and I went to the police to file an assault charge

it would be a completely different and non-comparable situation. You’re not going to come up with an analogy here of something which is clearly likely to be assault which is comparable, and there’s a reason for that. Sadly many drivers are that crap that they drive into things in front of them unintentionally, even things which have been in front of them for a while (I witnessed one car running into the back of another in a traffic queue this morning – I’m sure that wasn’t intentional).

Provided you can prove beyond reasonable doubt who the driver is.

3. Perverting the course of justice

Which is where the loss of memory comes in. If you could prove who was driving then that would be a poor approach to take in court, but given they can’t, then that’s one way of introducing reasonable doubt that failure to name the driver is deliberate.

I’m not being an apologist for the car occupants here – but maybe I am for the police and the CPS. You might not like the way the law works, but most of this is pretty fundamental to the way our law system does work – and in general it works very well and is rightly world renowned. It is unfortunate that vehicle crime like this is different to other crime, but in this case there is a genuine difference – basically down to the fact that most vehicle crime is unintentional (if we exclude speeding!) at the point where the specific crime is committed. We could rightly argue that there’s intent involved in driving badly enough to do things like this – and I would – but that’s a different argument.

but most of this is pretty fundamental to the way our law system does work

maybe* we should treat car offences differently, when there’s evidence that specific crimes have be been committed prosecute for those as normal, when its quite possibly ****wittery or negligence use balance of probability, I accept you’re going to struggle to jail people using that method but bans should be doable – and I think getting these idiots off the road is more important than jailing them. In this case highly likely one of these 2 did it so 2 year ban for both unless they can prove which did it, then that person gets 3 year ban (don’t want spouses taking the fall).

*definitely, considering how badly these things normally seem to get prosecuted/sentenced

Presumed liability would come in handy here. Charge them both until one squeals.

I’m not one for defending the police at all times, goodness knows that would be a daft stance to take, but on this one, while it may he the case that Notts Police have missed something (none of us can say based on a news article and without access to the file) it is entirely plausible that they have done everything within their power and left no investigative stone unturned and this is the end result. Such are the rules/procedures/limitations of what they are and are not allowed to do – there are a lot of them.

Presumed liability is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. If you used it in criminal cases then all suspects would be guilty until they had proved they were innocent, which I am not a fan of, frankly.

Will there actually be a court record of this publicly available?

Fwiw, the victim gave a better interview on the local lunchtime news than the evening news, but the amount of coverage it has got will hopefully make people stop and think about the level of injustice suffered by cyclists hit by vehicles.

I’m not convinced changing the way the law works would be appropriate – slippery slope and all that. The offence the driver did get prosecuted for is arguably already a step that way, involving the requirement to incriminate yourself, but I’d argue the correct thing in such cases is simply to increase the maximum penalty for that offence so that you could give a sentence similar to that if found guilty of the original offence committed (and then get the **** judges to actually give something other than the minimum possible sentence) A driving ban certainly should be within the normal range for failing to provide the driver’s details in cases like this where the magistrates should recognise that they are taking the piss.

Though of course, bearing in mind the way dangerous driving is sentenced, the question is whether the maximum £1000 fine and 6 points (or even the £150 fine he did get) is that dissimilar to what they might have got if prosecuted for dangerous driving.

Exactly what I’m thinking – hopefully a lot of good might come out of all the publicity for a case where the driver is so clearly a scumbag and the cyclist so clearly an innocent victim (those who’ll just say the cyclist shouldn’t have been on the road are a lost cause).

the amount of coverage it has got will hopefully make people stop and think about the level of injustice suffered by cyclists hit by vehicles.

haha you’re funny. I think coverage will just convince more people to answer the question “who was driving your car on X date?” with “I don’t know officer, sorry”

but maybe I’m just extra cynical today

I dunno it may work in the way you say and people will generally be appalled by it but if someone is personally involved in an incident they’ll say “hang on what about that hit and run case? I can get out of this.”

As mentioned presumed liability is a civil thing – and way up there the one person on this thread who should know more about this aspect of the law than the rest of us put together did suggest the police could have banged both of them up for 24 hours to put the pressure on.