====================================================================================
The collapse in traffic policing has been in proportion to the increasing priority given to investigating personal violence and particularly sexual offences. That's an observation, not a complaint.
We are now seeing the investigation of a lot of things which were not thoroughly dealt with in the past, and I predict that the lack of thoroughness in the investigation of road traffic offences will go the opposite way, ie down.
The events following the death in a fatal crash of Michael Mason seem to be the nadir - the pits - but there's little to stop it getting worse.
Recent legislation has largely prevented coroners' inquests pointing the finger at suspects, on the basis that a thorough police investigation followed by a legally qualified decision by the CPS is a better guide for criminal proceedings than a coroner's jury hearing a lot of evidence which would be inadmissible in a criminal trial. I fear that it's gone too far in that in fatal crashes, the police seem to be taking decisions which should be taken by the CPS. In the private prosecution which followed the death of Michael Mason, the judge dismissed a submission of "no case to answer." That's not the same as the CPS's evidential test which requires that "Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge." I would say that in a case involving death, that decision should be taken by the CPS and not anticipated by a police officer. (The two CPS tests were introduced to stop over-zealous police prosecutions, but I'm saying they should be applied before a decision is taken not to prosecute a driver after a fatal collision. I suspect that this is the only type of investigation into a sudden or violent death with a known suspect where the CPS is not automatically consulted. The DPP announced a while ago that the CPS would not give theoretical charging decisions about deceased suspects, which shows how much CPS advice is valued normally by the police.)
How might this be achieved? Apart from the usual lobbying, which has certainly led to the changes in priorities I mentioned above, the legal route may be the only answer. That's not cheap but AFAIK, concerned people crowd-funded the unsuccessful private prosecution after the death of Michael Mason and IIRC something like a thousand good people stumped up an average of fifteen quid each to buy the "Close Pass" mats.
I don't know anything of the details but there's been a lot of publicity recently about John Warboys' victims being compensated for an inadequate investigation of their complaints involving events some years ago. I understand that was based on their human rights not being respected. It's not to belittle their experience to note that they were not killed. I really do think this approach might be more successful than another private prosecution in the event of a similar death of a cyclist. It seems to me that a private prosecution is likely to fail largely because the jury will know that the police had already "cleared" the defendant. In the Michael Mason case, it was also something like three years before it reached the Crown Court, which is in nobody's interest. Also, the acquittal can be portrayed as justifying the original decision not to proceed, even though the verdict may have been based on that decision.
My second suggestion involves strengthening the role of coroners so that they insist on a senior CPS lawyer explaining the reasons a known suspect was not prosecuted. The witness box might be a lonely place for somebody with all eyes on them to explain "We don't prosecute drivers for shunting other drivers, and it's no different to us if they kill a cyclist." I think the CPS would take a close look at the police file before the inquest. I'm not saying every case would go to court but it would tighten up the approach.
IMO, the route here is through the Chief Coroner, a recently created post "providing national leadership for coroners in England and Wales."
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/related-of ... f-coroner/
It's worth remembering that the first post-holder, now retired, issued guidance to coroners that deaths of elderly residents in care homes should be investigated as though they were deaths in state custody under human rights law. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) have been amended so this is no longer the case but that doesn't mean this is not a worthwhile route.
Good human rights lawyers tend not to come cheap, but Michael Mansfield QC's performance at the Diana/ Dodi inquest fundamentally changed the inquest system, even though he eventually had to accept that his client Fayed had no evidence for any of his allegations.
I've posted this on this thread because that's the way the discussion is going, but I'll re-reiterate that the proposed charge of causing death by dangerous cycling is a distraction. This is based on working within the system.
============================================================================
PS Sorry to make this even longer but I've remembered that the last DPP introduced a right to seek a review of CPS decisions to not to charge people, or to discontinue proceedings, based on human rights principles, btw.
viewtopic.php?p=674702#p674702
from the link in that post
Mr Starmer said the move could affect about 70,000 cases a year, but would not cover those dropped by the police. (My emphasis)
Time to extend it to some of those cases, in particular where somebody has been killed?
)