Motorist is very sorry for killing cyclist.

[Nearholmer]

There is no prejudice here Nearholmer

What is the original meaning of “prejudice”?

Pre = before

Judice = judgement

It means making a judgement before having the facts or evidence, and this thread is rife with people making judgements about the guilt of the defendant, without having the full facts, on the basis of a few tiny snippets in a news article.

J’accuse!

[Nearholmer]

Why tie it to a case such as this, though?

If you read what I’ve written in this thread, you will see that at every turn I’ve attempted to draw it back to general principles.

Unsuccessfully.

[Nearholmer]

Either he was paying paying attention in which case the act was deliberate and a murder charge would be appropriate. Or he was was not paying attentiion which case he is guilty as charged.

No, that isn’t what the case is testing.

It’s testing whether or not his conduct fell far short of that expected of a careful and competent driver (he’s already admitted that it fell short, but not admitted that it fell far short).

[roubaixtuesday]

...it is factually correct to say that a single, small, steady rear light on a bike in traffic at night is “less than ideal”...

To use in defence in a court of law is victim blaming, whether "factually correct" or not.

[Nearholmer]

I’m not at all sure I understand or agree with that, n fact I’m pretty sure I don’t agree that it is necessarily so, but since I haven’t used it as a defence in court, presumably you aren’t saying that I’m victim blaming, although, again presumably, you might be saying that an attempt at victim blaming is going on in the case under discussion.

[Tiggertoo]

That is a clear example of prejudice

It does appear, my friend, that anyone on this thread offering an opinion which differs from your take on a matter, is 'prejudiced'. Time to take stock?

[Vorpal]

Some speculations and accusations have been removed.

Can we please argue nicely?

[Jdsk]

Draper found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... e-25281218
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63343365

That ends the sub judice restrictions on publication.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

It would be interesting in due course to hear the judge's sentencing remarks - perhaps something along the lines that the jury was not deceived by your specious excuses.

[Nearholmer]

It does appear, my friend, that anyone on this thread offering an opinion which differs from your take on a matter, is 'prejudiced'.

The only opinions I’ve accused of being prejudiced, in the original meaning of the word, are those that involved deciding on guilt before hearing the evidence.

Anyway, the people who did hear the evidence, and get briefed on what the law actually says, have delivered their verdict now, so we know: the guy was guilty. It would indeed be interesting to read the sentencing remarks.

[Jdsk]

A motorist has one job above all else. Not killing or injuring

True, but also completely missing the point of the trial.

The law doesn’t say “If for any reason whatsoever, a person dies in an incident involving a vehicle that you are driving, you are guilty of a crime”.

It has two offences: causing death by careless driving, and causing death by dangerous driving, the first revolving around whether your conduct fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver, the second far below.

That being the case, lots of details about the circumstances come into play. From what little we know of this case, two relevant factors seem to be:

- whether or not a careful and competent driver would have identified that there was a person on a bike ahead of them; and,

- whether a careful and competent driver would have allowed themselves to attend to a fretful child travelling with them, while on the move, which might be thought of either as allowing themselves to become distracted, or taking sensible action to temporarily mitigate a distraction., and perhaps whether a careful and competent driver would have used the particular means to pacify the child that this guy did.

There might be a stack of other factors that we don’t know about.

The guy has pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, so he admits that he fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver, and could get five years in jail, the question is did he fall far below, making him liable for a longer prison sentence, up to ‘life’.

As vulnerable road users, we might prefer the law to be “the other way round”, requiring any driver involved in an incident where a cyclist of pedestrian is killed to prove themselves innocent of causing death by dangerous driving, or we might prefer a range of harsher sentences to be applicable to careless driving, but unless or until the law is changed, it is what it is, and a person faced with the possibility of life imprisonment is surely entitled to mount a defence …… they might, after all, not be guilty.

Adopting a “lynch mob” attitude in any instance where a motor vehicle is involved in an incident where a cyclist dies is no different from The Daily Mail mentality of forming a lynch mob around any case where a pedestrian dies as a result of an incident involving a person riding a bike.

Everyone is legally and morally entitled to a fair trial, including mounting a defence, it’s as simple as that.
...

Yes.

One of the things that happened in this thread is the usual drift from the purpose and outcome of a criminal trial (in Wales this time) to blame and contributory causes and how to avoid this sort of harm in the future. Those are important but they are very different from this sort of trial.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
If case after case threw up evidence that drivers really struggle to pick out single, small steady red lights in traffic as bikes, and that people were dying as a result, that I can imagine leading (after hugely protracted debate) to a change in law. Coroners put forward observations/recommendations to (I think) The Home Office if they spot trends of that kind.

There aren't many constraints on what Coroners can do. Current practice is to use "Preventing Further Deaths Reports" and there are mandatory processes after they have been sent:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coroners

But the coronial system is notoriously poor at spotting trends. This came to public attention after the Shipman murders, and Spiegelhalter analysed the problem and made some recommendations.

I hope that the new Road Safety Investigation Branch will improve this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... h-launches

Jonathan

[dutchbike]

There is more detail of the case here :

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... e-25281218

After reading the reports in the link it occurred to me that a better defence lawyer and a worse prosecutor may well have led to a different verdict. It's a shame the article doesn't mention the judges summary.

[Jdsk]

Thats the same article as linked upthread.

Is there a judge's summary? We may get sentencing remarks...

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

To clarify for the wider readership, the judge's summing up is delivered last thing before the jury retires to consider its verdict. As well as instructions like not researching the internet, the judge explains the relevant law and summarizes what they see as the significant points of the prosecution and defence cases. Quite a lot of this involves forms of words approved by the appeal courts and trial judges have to be careful not to cause grounds for appeal against conviction.

If the jury convicts, then sentencing comes next but, for administrative reasons and policies of whatever they now call probation officers, there is generally an adjournment - typically three weeks - while pre-sentencing reports are prepared. There's then a sentencing hearing at which the defence counsel will address the court in mitigation and then the judge will make their sentencing remarks, going into quite a bit of detail about the Sentencing Council's guidelines, and precedents and then any discount applied for things like remorse, before they come up with the bottom line. This is where the judge - in polite terms - may remark that they are taking into account that the jury was not taken in by the evidence suggesting the child was responsible for the phone activity