Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
jois
Posts: 334
Joined: 22 Sep 2022, 12:29pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by jois »

iandusud wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 10:51am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... x-63041115
This resulted in a conviction of dangerous driving (and rightly so) but the guy who was off his head on booze and cocaine the night before, and was using his phone whilst driving who killed a cyclist was not. I wonder what the result of the e-scooter rider's case would have been if he had been tried by a jury of e-scooterists?
There is quite possibly a bias, not sure it's dependent on mode of transport so much as how that transport is used or exsperiance., if you get a jury of people who have been endangered/ annoyed by escooters they may be more likely to convict. And that's most people I would guesss.

Just as it seems a jury made up of posters on here, may well have had him hanging from the nearest tree.

When selecting a jury of your peers, you can't really exclude people who drive, drink, do or have taken recreational drugs or used a mobile whilst driving

all of these are indemic in our society and so likely to be reprented to some extent. Most people I consider would feel it wrong to do all of them at the same time,

The burden of proof is on the prosicutions, it seems they couldn't meet that standard with this jury. A jury with a different selection of folk may have come to a different conclusions.

The whole issue with jury trials is the views of a dominant few tend to prevail
Nearholmer
Posts: 3929
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by Nearholmer »

Just as it seems a jury made up of posters on here, may well have had him hanging from the nearest tree.
Seems to me that some here would be quite happy to move to sentence without the bother of convening a jury, hearing the evidence, or being instructed as to what the legal test or burden of proof are.

Since 74% of the adult population holds a driving license, one would expect roughly 9/12 jurors to be “drivers”, Which is a good thing given the way the legal test works for dangerous driving (look it up to see).
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by cycle tramp »

julianm wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 8:09pm Link to the report here:
https://thestrayferret.co.uk/harrogate- ... s-driving/
I used to time trial on that road & used it frequently for getting up to Boroughbridge.
I think it will be familiar to plenty of riders on the forum.
I'm almost frightened off the roads after a couple of incidents locally & this might just be enought to convince me I'm unsafe anyywhere.
Thank you for posting. My sympathies go to those he has left behind, and I am sure that everyone would rather this had not happened.
In regards to your last comment, you are right. None of us are safe and to quote the film fight club 'on a long enough time line everyone's survival rate drops to zero.' We are always at risk, whether its from a batch of cancer cells, or sudden death syndrome, heart defect, thrombosis.. the list grows on... if we are lucky we have the next 24 hours in which to live, and then perhaps the next 24 hours after that. I am hoping to ride my bike in that time, despite the risks. I would much rather ride my bike rather than spend all the hours from now until my own death under the cloud of fear and doubt. It may kill me, equally if I stop my health may worsen quicker and I may perish twice my weight and suffering all the discomforts of gluttony.
Tell those that you love, that you love them and care for them, make a tidy end for yourself so that you only burden them with of your passing is sorrow, and not with any debts or unfinished business, and then live the next 24 hours in the best way you can.. holding the hope, but not the promise, that there may be another 24 hours after that....
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
LancsGirl
Posts: 255
Joined: 5 Jun 2021, 9:57pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by LancsGirl »

Cugel wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 8:29am
LancsGirl wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 12:48am Drinking the night before, so drunk he "couldn't see". Traces of cocaine in his blood stream. Isn't that an illegal drug?

Though he has pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. Presumably a lower sentence.

Maybe of interest to any Yorkshire folk:

He lives on St Mary's Avenue in Harrogate, and is an "aspiring property developer", whatever one of those is. Presumably his company is this one:

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

By the looks of those company accounts he's stopped "aspiring". All this is publicly available information, by the way. Just saying.
Is that a pitchfork I see in your mit or is it a burning brand? :-)
Both. One in each hand.
LancsGirl
Posts: 255
Joined: 5 Jun 2021, 9:57pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by LancsGirl »

thirdcrank wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 10:50am My own experience of jury service including being the foreman didn't give me any confidence at all. Of course, I'm unable to report on our deliberations but I did spend a lot of time standing by in the canteen listening to discussions of people between cases etc and the thing that struck me most was the extent of the theorising about stuff which hadn't formed part of the evidence.
That was my experience too. A great deal of postulating by various jury members as to how DNA had got onto a particular piece of evidence, when the extremely circuitous route they suggested hadn't been suggested by the defence. I great deal of "what could have happened is....". Whereas the accused's legal team themselves offered practically no defence. The accused didn't take the witness stand, no alibi was offered, no explanation as to his movements that day. In fact the only words he, or any of his associates, family or friends uttered during the entire proceedings was "oh, for xxxx's sake", when, after we failed to reach a verdict and he was remanded back into custody, having already been on remand for about 18 months. The judge gave the prosecution a bit of ticking off for that. I followed the retrial, and he was retried and sentenced. Can't remember what the sentence was, but I expect he will have served most of it on remand. Which apparently has advantages for the accused/convict.
thirdcrank wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 10:50am Re stiffer sentences, I think it's widely believed that they tend to reduce the likelihood of a guilty verdict.. This is part of the reason why defence advocates make such a big issue of the maximum possible sentence for the charge, rather than the mandatory guidelines. In "my" case, after I had delivered the guilty verdicts the beak said he knew we would be interested to know the sentence but sentencing would be deferred. However, because of the defendant's record he was subject to a minimum seven years, plus whatever he got for the current convictions. The reaction of my fellow jury members suggested to me that had they known about that, they would never have convicted. I believe there was quite a lot of discussion in our absence before the judge ruled we would not be told.
Again, exactly my experience, even down to the length of the sentence, on a different case. Sentencing was immediate, and because of previous convictions for exactly the same offence (already revealed to us before our deliberations), was a mandatory 7 year minimum. The judge had asked if we wanted to stay for sentencing, which we did. When we heard the 7 years announced there was a couple of audible gasps, and back in the jury room, collecting our coats and mobile phones, a few people expressed shock. I too think if they had known they might not have convicted. Of course it wouldn't have taken too long to search for sentencing guidelines, and we deliberated overnight. In fact I don't think that would have contravened the (now standard, I expect) judge's warnings not to search the internet for information "about this case'.

Isn't 12 Angry Men still a fantastic film though? Joseph Sweeney's logic at the outset is sound, and could actually apply in some jury rooms, maybe. And when Edward Binns threatens to "lay out" Lee J Cobb after he's been yelling at Joseph Sweeney, it's a lovely moment. And Lee J Cobb's breakdown. Some of Hollywood's best character actors giving some fantastic performances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
LancsGirl
Posts: 255
Joined: 5 Jun 2021, 9:57pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by LancsGirl »

jois wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 2:33pm Just as it seems a jury made up of posters on here, may well have had him hanging from the nearest tree.
Juries don't decide sentences, only whether an accused is guilty or not.
jois
Posts: 334
Joined: 22 Sep 2022, 12:29pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by jois »

LancsGirl wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 12:14am
jois wrote: 27 Sep 2022, 2:33pm Just as it seems a jury made up of posters on here, may well have had him hanging from the nearest tree.
Juries don't decide sentences, only whether an accused is guilty or not.
It was a flippant remark evoking the instant justice of the old West where they did
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by Postboxer »

It seems it may be a problem that the trial takes place after the defendant has already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, the onus then being put on the prosecution to prove dangerous driving, and then on the jury to agree and convict. I always think the wording is stupid. If someone drives down a road and runs into a clearly visible cyclist, killing them, then that was clearly dangerous driving.

Perhaps there should first be a trial to decide whether the driver's standard of driving caused the death of the victim, then a trial for the defendant to try and prove some extenuating circumstances to prove it was merely careless driving that led to the death of the victim, though I can't think of many.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by Jdsk »

Postboxer wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:09pm It seems it may be a problem that the trial takes place after the defendant has already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, the onus then being put on the prosecution to prove dangerous driving, and then on the jury to agree and convict. I always think the wording is stupid. If someone drives down a road and runs into a clearly visible cyclist, killing them, then that was clearly dangerous driving.
...
You're not alone in this line of thinking, but there are good reasons for having a scale of different offences. One of them is the willingness of juries and magistrates to convict. (This was one of the reasons that capital punishment was abandoned in the UK.)

It would be possible to have different titles such as in the first degree, in the second degree. This would keep the hierarchy of offences while avoiding the confusion between driving that is dangerous (in common parlance) and dangerous driving (as defined in English law).

Jonathan

PS: CPS guidance on motoring offences:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... c-charging
Nearholmer
Posts: 3929
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by Nearholmer »

I suppose it would be possible to alter/reverse the burden of proof, not only for this crime but lots of others, so that it worked a bit like the Health and Safety at Work Act, where the accused has to defend themselves by demonstrating that they have acted ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ to prevent the occurrence.

It would be similar in concept to the defendant attempting to prove that they had properly discharged a duty of care, rather than the prosecution proving that they hadn’t, that they had acted negligently.

But, that would involve turning a few principles of English law inside out, so far as I understand things.

Is this how ‘strict liability’ works in other countries?
jois
Posts: 334
Joined: 22 Sep 2022, 12:29pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by jois »

Postboxer wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:09pm It seems it may be a problem that the trial takes place after the defendant has already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, the onus then being put on the prosecution to prove dangerous driving, and then on the jury to agree and convict. I always think the wording is stupid. If someone drives down a road and runs into a clearly visible cyclist, killing them, then that was clearly dangerous driving.

Perhaps there should first be a trial to decide whether the driver's standard of driving caused the death of the victim, then a trial for the defendant to try and prove some extenuating circumstances to prove it was merely careless driving that led to the death of the victim, though I can't think of many.
They are alternate charges any way, you can be prosecuted for one and convicted of the other, happens a lot from dangerous to careless less so the other way round.

The wording from memory is something like driving below the standard of a carefull driver

And driving well below the standard of a careful driver

It's a bit airy fairy when one becomes the other.

It's not the outcome that's the defining issue. It's the manner of the driving that lead to it

Not paying attention is careless driving, not paying attention and hitting someone is careless driving

Not paying attention hitting someone and killing them is death by careless driving.

If you want dangerous driving they have to do worse than just not pay attention or every minor prang would be dangerous and a 12 month ban
Last edited by jois on 28 Sep 2022, 6:50pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by Jdsk »

Nearholmer wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:38pm I suppose it would be possible to alter/reverse the burden of proof, not only for this crime but lots of others, so that it worked a bit like the Health and Safety at Work Act, where the accused has to defend themselves by demonstrating that they have acted ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ to prevent the occurrence.

It would be similar in concept to the defendant attempting to prove that they had properly discharged a duty of care, rather than the prosecution proving that they hadn’t, that they had acted negligently.

But, that would involve turning a few principles of English law inside out, so far as I understand things.
...
It would.

I, and some others, think that many driving offences would be better handled in the domain of "privileges to use the road in this way" rather than criminality. That would have some similarities to "privilege to fly an aircraft in this way". Completely different burden of proof, expert assessors with appeals processes, and sanctions that are predominantly withdrawal of those privileges, supervised and conditional return of them, and appropriate testing. And the main purpose of those sanctions would be avoidance of future harm rather than punishment.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by Jdsk »

Nearholmer wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:38pm ...
Is this how ‘strict liability’ works in other countries?
In civil or in criminal proceedings?

Thanks

Jonathan
jois
Posts: 334
Joined: 22 Sep 2022, 12:29pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by jois »

Jdsk wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:45pm
Nearholmer wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:38pm I suppose it would be possible to alter/reverse the burden of proof, not only for this crime but lots of others, so that it worked a bit like the Health and Safety at Work Act, where the accused has to defend themselves by demonstrating that they have acted ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ to prevent the occurrence.

It would be similar in concept to the defendant attempting to prove that they had properly discharged a duty of care, rather than the prosecution proving that they hadn’t, that they had acted negligently.

But, that would involve turning a few principles of English law inside out, so far as I understand things.
...
It would.

I, and some others, think that many driving offences would be better handled in the domain of "privileges to use the road in this way" rather than criminality. That would have some similarities to "privilege to fly an aircraft in this way". Completely different burden of proof, expert assessors with appeals processes, and sanctions that are predominantly withdrawal of those privileges, supervised and conditional return of them, and appropriate testing. And the main purpose of those sanctions would be avoidance of future harm rather than punishment.

Jonathan
I suspect it's a long debate. But driving as a privilege is what we have now. Your licence can be removed for any criminal offence not just driving, a privilege with criminal sanction. There is certainly no right to drive unless you twist the echr to make it so
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Harrogate porsche driver who killed cyclist not guilty of dangerous driving

Post by Jdsk »

jois wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:52pm
Jdsk wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:45pm
Nearholmer wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 6:38pm I suppose it would be possible to alter/reverse the burden of proof, not only for this crime but lots of others, so that it worked a bit like the Health and Safety at Work Act, where the accused has to defend themselves by demonstrating that they have acted ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ to prevent the occurrence.

It would be similar in concept to the defendant attempting to prove that they had properly discharged a duty of care, rather than the prosecution proving that they hadn’t, that they had acted negligently.

But, that would involve turning a few principles of English law inside out, so far as I understand things.
...
It would.

I, and some others, think that many driving offences would be better handled in the domain of "privileges to use the road in this way" rather than criminality. That would have some similarities to "privilege to fly an aircraft in this way". Completely different burden of proof, expert assessors with appeals processes, and sanctions that are predominantly withdrawal of those privileges, supervised and conditional return of them, and appropriate testing. And the main purpose of those sanctions would be avoidance of future harm rather than punishment.
I suspect it's a long debate. But driving as a privilege is what we have now. Your licence can be removed for any criminal offence not just driving, a privilege with criminal sanction
What I describe there would remove the need for a criminal conviction: "Completely different burden of proof".

Jonathan
Post Reply