Cyclist doing nothing wrong killed in broad daylight. CPS do nothing.

Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.


Anthony's father comments he

http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/vi...9e114774d75ae0


'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
survivors.

Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
court hearing.

This CPS decision means that no jury will get It’s chance to see
evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.


After all, the well known facts are, Anthony and his friend, both of
whom were legitimately placed in the road, and were in no way at
fault, were hit from behind by a van travelling at considerable speed,
and in broad daylight. '

The CPS decision not to prosecute a driver who ran into Anthony, in
broad daylight, with clear visibility, criticised he

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...cps_deci sion



' Mr Harding (of the CPS) says cost is not an issue.

He says they applied the code.

What about the public interest Mr Harding? Isn't that in the code?

Hundreds of yards of visibility on a beautiful evening and you decide
not to prosecute?

Why, if cost is not the issue?

Why don't you want a jury to consider the facts?

People, stay off your cycles please.

If you get killed, hit from behind when you are doing nothing wrong,
the state will not even bother a jury with the evidence.

Mr Harding, this is something we are all interested in, the public at
large. With respect it is not only the people directly involved in the
case, but the rest of us too who require an explanation. It is our
lives too at risk, and the state's failure to protect the public
interest intensifies the danger. You have failed us all, and we all
require an explanation.'


Something is very wrong here, this case beggars belief. It has
ramifications for anyone who cycles, a justice system loaded against
those with most to lose.

On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...ards_father_qu...

"“When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in this
case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."

There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not necessarily
on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid, sometimes do Very
Stupid Things Indeed.

Ian

On 5 July, 20:11, Ian wrote:
On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...ards_father_qu...

"“When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in this
case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."

There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not necessarily
on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid, sometimes do Very
Stupid Things Indeed.

Ian

There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.

spindrift wrote:
On 5 July, 20:11, Ian wrote:
On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...ards_father_qu...

""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."

There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.

Ian

There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.

Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?

On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 5 July, 20:11, Ian wrote:
On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...ards_father_qu...

""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."

There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.

Ian

There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.

Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. Read the thread.

spindrift wrote:
On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 5 July, 20:11, Ian wrote:
On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...ards_father_qu...

""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."

There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.

Ian

There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.

Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything
untoward?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. Read the thread.

I have, there is no evidence of any description. Quite understandably there
is an emotional plea from the father that the case should be properly
investigated. But contributions are your usual emotive rants.

I repeat, is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything
untoward?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

spindrift wrote:

Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.

I don't really want to make adverse comment on what a bereaved parent has
said in such a case (those of us who are parents can easily understand their
feelings). But perhaps some light and shade is required here (though of a
general nature and not about the specific case itself).

Anthony's father comments he

http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/vi...9e114774d75ae0

'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
survivors.

That, I'm afraid, is simply inaccurate. The burden of proof lies primarily
with the Crown, as it does in all criminal matters.

Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
court hearing.

This CPS decision means that no jury will get It’s chance to see
evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.

Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service.

On 5 July, 20:46, "Brimstone" wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 5 July, 20:11, Ian wrote:
On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...ards_father_qu...

""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."

There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.

Ian

There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.

Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything
untoward?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. Read the thread.

I have, there is no evidence of any description. Quite understandably there
is an emotional plea from the father that the case should be properly
investigated. But contributions are your usual emotive rants.

I repeat, is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything
untoward?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The evidence we have is that an experience cyclist was using the road
in the correct manner and was hit from behind in broad daylight and
killed. No charges have been laid against the driver.

I would say that was 'untoward.'

If both parties using the same road abide to the HC, it is not
possible for a collision to take place.

On 5 July, 21:27, JNugent wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.

I don't really want to make adverse comment on what a bereaved parent has
said in such a case (those of us who are parents can easily understand their
feelings). But perhaps some light and shade is required here (though of a
general nature and not about the specific case itself).

Anthony's father comments he
http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/vi...&postdays=0&po...
'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
survivors.

That, I'm afraid, is simply inaccurate. The burden of proof lies primarily
with the Crown, as it does in all criminal matters.

Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
court hearing.
This CPS decision means that no jury will get It’s chance to see
evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.

Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service..

If the CPS decide not to lay charges, the Crown have no opportunity to
decide anything. That's the whole point.

A civil claim can fail because no charges were laid. For example, a
cyclist hit by an inattentive driver was aksed whether they would be
happy for the driver to atend a driver awareness course rather than be
fined for an offence. the cyclist agreed, then their civil case failed
because no prosecution was put in place.

spindrift wrote:

JNugent wrote:
spindrift wrote:

Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.

I don't really want to make adverse comment on what a bereaved parent has
said in such a case (those of us who are parents can easily understand their
feelings). But perhaps some light and shade is required here (though of a
general nature and not about the specific case itself).

Anthony's father comments he
http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/vi...&postdays=0&po...
'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
survivors.

That, I'm afraid, is simply inaccurate. The burden of proof lies primarily
with the Crown, as it does in all criminal matters.

Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
court hearing.
This CPS decision means that no jury will get It’s chance to see
evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.

Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service..

If the CPS decide not to lay charges, the Crown have no opportunity to
decide anything. That's the whole point.

Wrong on two counts.

Firstly, there is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Secondly, "the Crown" does not decide cases. That is for the jury or the bench.

A civil claim can fail because no charges were laid. For example, a
cyclist hit by an inattentive driver was aksed whether they would be
happy for the driver to atend a driver awareness course rather than be
fined for an offence. the cyclist agreed, then their civil case failed
because no prosecution was put in place.

Surprisingly, considering the amount of ranting you do about it, you don't
actually have much (layman's) knowledge of the legal system, do you?