Interesting news story...

[GreenArrow]

It was the wing mirror that killed him
Gar, I disagree with you. It wasn't the wing mirror that killed him; it was a careless driver who didn't seem to give a toss that killed him!

No excuse for not stopping- and that apparently may have been enough to save the cyclist's life. At the very least, I hope that the driver has now been banned from driving, if not, then IMHO he should hand in his licence or submit voluntarily to re-training if he really is sorry.

Point isn't just that he hit the cyclist- who may or may not have been particulatly visible (another good reason for riding well out of the verge), but that he hit something hard enough to LOSE a mirror (takes some doing) and then STIlLL didn't stop.

[gar]

He may be on bail in his own recognisances
if the story is true. Two more charges to be heard.

I do agree with you. NOT stopping was probably what killed our fellow cyclist. the news paper says so too.

You know where to go to discuss it with the accused, according to another researched hyperlink

Peter Cottrell
White Hart

Old Romsey Road
Cadnam
Hampshire
SO40 2NP
Tel: 023 80812277

[Mrs Tortoise]

I saw bits of this on the news too. It struck me that apart from possible manslaughter charges, he should have been done for failing to stop at an accident; failing to report an accident; driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving. The fact that he is 72 shouldn't be a factor; the law is supposed to be impartial. Perhaps we need a pressure group like the RSPCA who look to prosecute offenders!

[gar]

The only possible reason for the Perverting the course of justice charges is that he paid off the Dead man's family whilst on bail.

This may have saved him from prison on the manslaughter charge, but he is probably still
running fast to stand still with the law.

The law does weigh up value and cost as often as it wishes to do so, and if the Judge decided that any payment made was sufficient "for legal reasons" to acquit him of manslaughter, then that is not our concern at all.

It is still our concern, as a charge is still unheard apparently, that he Perverted the course of Justice, as to what punishment he should suffer for making a substantial payment.

Had he been found guilty he would have served a sentence AND paid Criminal Injuries Compensation. CIC would not be payable for the latter charge.

[DMG]

More information can be found here:
http://archive.thisishampshire.net/2005 ... 95169.html

This gives the Judge's ruling on the manslaughter charge.

The perverting the cause of justice charges relate to covering up his involvement by having the damage to his car repaired.

[gar]

archive.thisishampshire.net/2005/10/14/95169.html

[gar]

a manslaughter charge can succeed only on proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical aid, or prompt medical aid, would have saved the deceased,

Well thanks for the news report Hampshire Echo, not before time in the public interest.

After all my speculation, I agree with Everybody
here above. /bA very wrong judgement./b

According to the judge a LION came out of the
woods just after the accident(and he could not get out of the way becoz of a broken arm), mauled the victim, and he died of shock, so it was not beyond reasnable doubt.

[gar]

a manslaughter charge can succeed only on proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical aid, or prompt medical aid, would have saved the deceased,

If medical aid would not have saved him then he is INNOCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gar]

An experienced prosecuting officer would have known this only too well, and known the likely outcome/verdict.
Who has got friends then?

What is the next lesser charge to manslaughter somebody? I can't remember.

[Mrs Tortoise]

The way this is going, it will probably be found that the cyclist committed suicide!

Isn't it going to be something like, 'causing death by driving' or 'dangerous driving'.

But as it's only a cyclist, it'll probably be a £60 fine, £30 if paid in 14 days! (Remember that law and justice are not synonyms!)

[gar]

Yes Mrs Tortoise but the maximum sentence for one of those that you suggest might be 12 months; the minimum sentence for manslaughter might have been five years, which would have influenced the judge's perception of a safe verdict.
Believe it or not sentences for crimes against the person are very carefully graded indeed, which is why it is now so surprising that the CPS helped by the local police pinned manslaughter to his lapel and not the lesser charge.

Free Masonry at work! He has four children... a man of 72... says the Hamshire Echo.... Well! Well ! Well!

Ah!.... and one of them a police inspector in Hampshire police??? Do what we can for you Mr Cottrell! How about a more serious charge!!!??... that means acquittal as unsafe but purgatory while you are going through the proceedings!!

[gar]

a manslaughter charge can succeed only on proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical aid, or prompt medical aid, would have saved the deceased,

The prosecuting officer knew this; he gave it a lot of thought. Crown prosecution service (CPS)can only proceed accordingly. That is why there was an acquittal.

Known as a technicality..... gets quite technical eh!!? Eh??

Have a bit of charity!

[eldon]

Why the consirpacy theory GAR?

If the manslaughter charge was brought based on the time taken for medical help to arrive, then simply stopping would not prevent the charge being brought, as taking too long to raise the alarm (due to giving first aid for a time for example) could also be used as justification.

We should be asking why the charges of failing to stop and report were not brought as these would have had more chance of success and may well have resulted in a guilty plea.

If you are suggesting conspiracies, does that the fact that the victim was an ex police officer not lead to the possibility of fellow officers trying for the most severe charge in the hope of success?

[eldon]

Just a quick clarification. None of Mr Cottrell's sons is in the police, the ex police officer called by the defence was an acquaintance of Mr Cottrell.

Also, don't you think that giving a possible address is a little irresponsible, could lead to reprisals against an innocent party as Mr Cottrell does not live at the pub mentioned.

[belgiangoth]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4351294.stm
(Cycling champ dies in road crash)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 343410.stm
(Davies-Jones injured in collision)

Happens to the Pros as well.

Sure, fines and Prison are no good. You should just take away their liscence for a number of years, and them make them have to re-take their test.