Cyclist arrested

[DaveP]

One to keep an eye on, I think.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8577612.stm

[[XAP]Bob]

Very little detail there - so he hit someone crossing the road.

involuntary manslaughter? What's that when it's at home?

[toontra]

The junction where the accident happened is controlled by lights. One of the roads is one-way. These factors could give a clue as to why he was arrested.

[mw3230]

Very little detail there - so he hit someone crossing the road.

involuntary manslaughter? What's that when it's at home?

In essence it's murder but without the malice aforethought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaught ... nslaughter

[thirdcrank]

Manslaughter is unlawful killing, not amounting to murder. I don't think the terms voluntary and involuntary are legal expressions, so much as ways of identifying the two types of manslaughter. In layman's terms, manslaughter is doing something so recklessly that somebody is unintentionally killed. That is what has become known as involuntary manslaughter. Ever since it has been possible to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter by arguing diminished responsibility, that has, I think, been the more common form of the offence. It's referred to as voluntary because the killing was intentional.

Ther's no offence of causing death by dangerous cycling, so manslaughter is all that's available.

Once upon a time, this type of thing would have been dealt with by a summons if there had been a decision to start proceedings. During the 1990's (?) possibly late 1980's a joint working party of the CPS and police decided that when allegations of arrestable offences were being investigated, then arrest and charge would be the normal course. (The suspect can be released police bail if further inquiries are needed before a decision is made.) For various reasons it reduces delays to the benefit of all concerned and it keeps a much tighter check on what's happening.

(And while I've been slowly typing this mw3230 has been quicker and more succinct.)

[mw3230]

Manslaughter is unlawful killing, not amounting to murder. I don't think the terms voluntary and involuntary are legal expressions, so much as ways of identifying the two types of manslaughter. In layman's terms, manslaughter is doing something so recklessly that somebody is unintentionally killed. That is what has become known as involuntary manslaughter. Ever since it has been possible to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter by arguing diminished responsibility, that has, I think, been the more common form of the offence. It's referred to as voluntary because the killing was intentional.

Ther's no offence of causing death by dangerous cycling, so manslaughter is all that's available.

Once upon a time, this type of thing would have been dealt with by a summons if there had been a decision to start proceedings. During the 1990's (?) possibly late 1980's a joint working party of the CPS and police decided that when allegations of arrestable offences were being investigated, then arrest and charge would be the normal course. (The suspect can be released police bail if further inquiries are needed before a decision is made.) For various reasons it reduces delays to the benefit of all concerned and it keeps a much tighter check on what's happening.

(And while I've been slowly typing this mw3230 has been quicker and more succinct.)

Unusual for me!

These days the police are under greater pressure to arrest if for no other reason than to capture the DNA sample of the arrested person (which they are authorised to do). This has led to many people being arrested for offences which may previously have been dealt with by way of summons. The arrest itself does not automatically point to the offence being more serious (although it's more distressing for the offender)

[gilesjuk]

I just wonder why this is news worthy? it's on many news sites.

Car drivers run people over every day and that doesn't get reported.

Motorists will be calling for insurance and licencing as usual.

[irc]

The junction where the accident happened is controlled by lights. One of the roads is one-way. These factors could give a clue as to why he was arrested.

More speculation: A tourist? Did she look the wrong way before stepping off the kerb? But I'd expect there to be some evidence of recklessness for a manslaughter charge. The cyclist going through a red?

Who knows? I'll be interested to see in due course why they have gone for manslaughter given how rare it is for that charge to be used when drivers kill.

EDIT

Apparently tourists in London are several times more likely to be involved in RTAs than locals

http://emj.bmj.com/content/25/12/843.abstract

[toontra]

Who knows? I'll be interested to see in due course why they have gone for manslaughter given how rare it is for that charge to be used when drivers kill.

That's why I'm thinking there may have been a contravention of regulations involved to warrant an arrest.

EDIT: Actually, according to a police statement to the press below, it is not known whether it was the cyclist's fault, the pedestrian's, or simply an accident, which makes the arrest more puzzling:

http://www.camdengazette.co.uk/content/camden/chronicle/news/story.aspx?brand=CAMCOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newscamc&itemid=WeED10%20Mar%202010%2013:10:35:103

[[XAP]Bob]

"We don't know the situation and we don't know whether the cyclist went through a red light or whether the mother and daughter crossed when they should not have.

So no clear evidence of an offence yet...

A

"There is a certain amount of responsibility on cyclists to keep their speed at a level where they are able to stop in any circumstances but we really don't know what has happened in this situation.

Obviously not a requirement for either motorists or pedestrians though...

"Also pedestrians tend to rely a lot on listening when they cross the road. Unfortunately this means that they often won't hear a bicycle coming and will think they are free to cross.

As a holidaymakers from Denmark I think it more likely that they looked the wrong way...

[yakdiver]

As a holidaymakers from Denmark I think it more likely that they looked the wrong way

Unfortunately for the cyclist, the dead don't talk and it only takes one bystander to say he was riding very fast, yet in reality he was only doing say 13-15 mph

[Edwards]

Sergeant Steve Mulcahy, of the Alperton Collision Investigation Unit, said: "It is a very rare and strange thing that has happened. It is a real tragedy. It is quite a busy junction and we want to see if any witnesses saw the incident.

"We don't know the situation and we don't know whether the cyclist went through a red light or whether the mother and daughter crossed when they should not have

As there is not a lot more information to go on. It seems rather bad form to be blaming the pedestrian at this stage.
Please remember she died.
I feel certain that if the cyclist had died, the victim would not be blamed so quick.

[[XAP]Bob]

As there is not a lot more information to go on. It seems rather bad form to be blaming the pedestrian at this stage.
Please remember she died.
I feel certain that if the cyclist had died, the victim would not be blamed so quick.

No intention to blame anyone at the moment, apologies if that's how I'm coming across...

But I can't imagine that a motorist would have been arrested, the police have got "better" things to do - or rather not enough time to deal with all the RTAs. The cyclist stopped at the scene - it's more than likely an accident.


My only real beef with the reporting is suggesting that cyclists should always be able to stop on a dime, in a car I frequently drive at 30 on urban roads - it'll take me a while to stop, but I have to assume that people are going to behave in a mostly predictable fashion, looking before moving into the road etc. Depending on the number of people, their age and observable behaviour I'll moderate that speed and or my road position to minimise any risk.

[thirdcrank]

To arrest somebody, you need a power of arrest. There is a power of arrest for manslaughter. There is also a power of arrest for causing death by dangerous driving. AFAIK it's commonplace now for drivers involved in fatal collisions to be arrested and interviewed, for reasons I've explained above.

The reason for the arrest is the basis for the power to do so - any subsequent charge would be based on the evidence obtained during the investigation and might well be different to the reason for the arrest. While the word "arrest" makes it sound dramatic, in many ways the suspect / alleged offender / totally innocent person being broken on the wheel by the system is better protected since while in police custody they have the right to free legal advice from a solicitor and they or their representative will be present in any interview which will also be tape-recorded, rather than being laboriously recorded in contemporaneous notes.

[Cunobelin]

Who knows? I'll be interested to see in due course why they have gone for manslaughter given how rare it is for that charge to be used when drivers kill.

That's why I'm thinking there may have been a contravention of regulations involved to warrant an arrest.

EDIT: Actually, according to a police statement to the press below, it is not known whether it was the cyclist's fault, the pedestrian's, or simply an accident, which makes the arrest more puzzling:

http://www.camdengazette.co.uk/content/camden/chronicle/news/story.aspx?brand=CAMCOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newscamc&itemid=WeED10%20Mar%202010%2013:10:35:103

Being arrested is a two way street, it establishes a certain legal status and protects both the Police and the individual as it formalises the way statements are made, how the evidence is collated etc.