Cycling UK Forum

I see that they have been cleared of the perverting justice allegations and the trial on the causing death by dangerous diving charge will now be timetabled for 17 December
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44806460

The prosecution alleged that they'd both deleted their call logs, that the wife's father is a senior policeman in the investigating force and got involved, that the wife's phone went missing for a while so couldn't be handed over, that the bloke had denied being on the phone at the time although this was disproved by phoneco records...

The BBC report is rather vague on what actually happened to close the case, but the acquittal appears to have been on the judge's direction, rather than the result of a jury deliberation. It's academic now, but particularly given the nature of some of the prosecution evidence, one would like to know on what grounds.

ChrisButch wrote:The BBC report is rather vague on what actually happened to close the case, but the acquittal appears to have been on the judge's direction, rather than the result of a jury deliberation. It's academic now, but particularly given the nature of some of the prosecution evidence, one would like to know on what grounds.

In a jury trial, the judge decides the law and the jury are supposed to reach a verdict based on the "facts" ie the evidence they have heard, within the law as directed by the judge.

Perverting the course of justice is a Common Law offence: it isn't to be found in legislation, but has been developed by judges in earlier cases. I assume that having heard the prosecution case the judge has decided that the evidence is inadequate to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for the case to be considered further by the jury. The way that is done - is for the judge to direct the jury to acquit. In short, the judge has decided "no case to answer" but the jury's verdict is sacrosanct. FWIW, the judge may not have given a detailed explanation for this decision. If the defence has made a submission, possibly with another from the prosecution, it may have been little more than the judge agreeing. Although one of the defendants was also charged with the causing death - and still is - the defence will have made the point that having heard the evidence about the alleged perverting the course of justice the jury might be prejudiced. So, fresh trial with a different jury.

Yup, that was pretty much my thought on what had happened based on the limited info.

The tes for the judge to stop the case is that "no jury, properly directed, could convict on the strength of this evidence".

From what I read of the prosecution opening I was a bit surprised, but perhaps the prosecution overreached themselves with tales of the call log being deleted and the phone going missing. Meanwhile Chris Boardman himself has had to carry on like a trooper; I suspect only a fraction of the TV audience knew what was happening with his family this week.

The judge directs the jury..
What is the jury for? Can/may it not decide?

IF they are found guilty of DD is there a possibility of a life sentence if the new tariffs are brought about before the trial starts? Or will it as per usual be downgraded to death by careless because the CPS and the system is so messed up beyond its purpose they'll get a slap on the wrist from the judge who already seems to be saying that perverting the course of justice is no big deal

One step at a time. AFAIK the charge is causing death by dangerous driving, which may be reduced. One way that might happen would be for the jury to say not guilty of dangerous but guilty of careless, or it might be plain "not guilty."

It's only after conviction that the sentencing options come into it, although the defence may mention the possibility of a long jail term when urging the jury to acquit.

The maximum sentence is the maximum at the time the offence was committed.

FWIW, it's rare for anybody to be sentenced to the maximum for any offence: the maximum is intended for the worst possible case. Also, a maximum sentence of life imprisonment does not mean it is a mandatory life sentence, which AFAIK only applies to murder convictions. Even then, a "whole life tariff" is not automatic.

Worst possible case: I do understand that if somebody dies it cannot be any worse, but this refers to the guilt of the offender.

Ok, you answered my question, whatever the tarif/sentencing guidelines at time of alleged crime is what is applied in court.
Let's hope justice is upheld and not the sham we see/read about all too often!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46593000
Changed his plea for a lighter sentence? Let's hope it's not a token sentence.

I see the driver has pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and sentencing has been deferred
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46593000

This is a tricky one ... if i fell of my bike into the path of a following car ... how would they be to blame ... there is obviously a lot more to this than the link provides .... life is one long tragedy with sparks of happiness...
Jules has a facebook friend, whom we have met on a number of occasions, he fell of his motorbike and was run over by the HGV behind him, paralysed from the chest down he returned to motor cycle racing eventually becoming the PARA 600cc world champion.
As i said previously .... a lot more involved here .... so sad though ..

He has now pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving so that's the charge for which he will eventually be sentenced

viewtopic.php?p=1304506#p1304506

Speechless

[XAP]Bob wrote:Oh {FFE - family-friendly edit }...
"Carol Boardman died after her bike collided with a pick-up truck in Connah's Quay, Flintshire, on 16 July 2016."

Thanks Bob I hadn't picked up on that.