Cycling UK Forum

I share West Midlands cyclist tsar Adam Tranter's concern about the lack or arrest or lack of explanation concerning this shocking rollover. They need to explain why no arrest was made, https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... s-28315905

The police have said that they are investigating what happened. That's what they should be doing.

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 1:27pm The police have said that they are investigating what happened. That's what they should be doing.

Jonathan

Belatedly.

UpWrong wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 1:28pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 1:27pm The police have said that they are investigating what happened. That's what they should be doing.

Jonathan

Belatedly.

AIUI, in layman's terms, the police may now arrest anybody during the investigation of any offence (see Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as substituted by section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... ection/110

Also AIUI, the exercise of this otherwise unlimited power is subject to PACE Code of Practice G

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... g-2012.pdf

This is just one more thing where I have neither personal experience or training, but my understanding is that on the limited information available in the links, arresting the driver would not have been apprpriate. In particular, sending out signals that the police take a dim view of something is not a reason to exercise this power of arrest.

UpWrong wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 1:28pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 1:27pm The police have said that they are investigating what happened. That's what they should be doing.

Jonathan

Belatedly.

Belatedly how?

They issued an update, suggesting it was an investigation that had started. I'd hazard a guess it started on Saturday, just after the incident.

Crashing a car is, in itself, not an offence against the law, it’s what causes the crash that maybe an offence (for example: losing control and crashing due to having a heart attack while at the wheel presumably isn’t an offence, unless one has set off on the drive after clear signs of an incipient heat stack, so in full knowledge that one could easily become a danger to others). So, it does seem reasonable that the police do a bit of work before clapping the driver in irons.

Which isn’t to say that there isn’t a problem with motor vehicles hitting pedestrians on pavements, because there is. There is an interesting article on the CUK website analysing the topic, and (going from memory) I think it says that 2001-2019, 141 people walking on pavements or verges were hit and killed by motor vehicles, whereas in the same period 1 person walking on a pavement was hit and killed by a person riding a bike.

thirdcrank wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 3:20pm ...
In particular, sending out signals that the police take a dim view of something is not a reason to exercise this power of arrest.

Well said.

Jonathan

Absolutely disgusting.
Police sending out the usual message that Mr Toad in his tuppence ha’penny motor car can do just what he likes.
If it was three black lads with a wrap of weed, they would all have been in handcuffs.

In what way is it “inappropriate “ to arrest somebody tearing along in a two ton killing machine, on the wrong side of the road, completely out of control, straight over a pedestrian crossing and rolls the bloody thing on the pavement.

Disgraceful. These are the same police who have to knock on the door to tell relatives that a family member has been killed in a road “accident”. They don’t like doing that, but can they not recognise cause and affect?

The default position must be the driver is responsible for this kind of event unless they can prove otherwise. If it was a medical condition, or mechanical or software failure then the police should say so, otherwise it perpetuates the idea that dangerous, incompetent and/or irresponsible driving is acceptable. And clearly they didn't notify the press/media of any investigation for 48 hrs which was bad PR.

Arresting suspects may be part of the investigation of an alleged or suspected offence. That's not really governed by the nature of the offence but the need to gather and secure evidence. If a suspect is refusing to reveal their identity, arresting them may be the only sure way of finding out. Be that as it may, although being arrested isn't necessarily pleasant,it should never be part of the punishment. That's the role of the eventual tribunal.

Although things like the PACE Codes of Practice contain a lot of verbiage, they result from around half a century of reform of the olden days, when police had to learn which offences were felonies and which were misdemeanours and which offences had their own specific powers.

I'm not suggesting that rolling over a car is somehow OK. I am saying that if a driver whose ID is not in doubt crashes their car and remains at the scene co-operating with the police, then there may be no grounds under Code G to arrest them because it would not facilitate the investigation.

I think it's worth pointing out that this approach should reduce what I'll term creativity to justify an arrest. I remember a report in Criminal Law Review from the days before it was plundered by Cap'n Bob. A young female student was stopped when cycling without lights after dark. She ignored the officer's request for her name and address and was arrested on suspicion of theft of the bike.
=================================================
Colin's post crossed with mine but it doesn't affect what I'm saying much. What he's referring to sounds like misuse of the powers
========================================
UpWrong also posted again. I can only assume they ignored my earlier post

Thanks TC. It's good to have a knowledgeable and articulate policeman to explain the law clearly.
Would it embarrass you to tell us what rank you achieved?

thirdcrank wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 4:52pm UpWrong also posted again. I can only assume they ignored my earlier post

I haven't diregarded your posts. You have pointed out the legal processes. Let's see if anymore information emerges and if it doesn't it will highlight a very unsatisfactory situation.

What information would you like, given your concern about bad police management of PR?

Mike Sales wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 4:59pm Thanks TC. It's good to have a knowledgeable and articulate policeman to explain the law clearly.
Would it embarrass you to tell us what rank you achieved?

I was promoted to inspector in September 1978 and retired in July 1997 after thirty years service. Any embarrassment is caused by remaing an inspector so long. Winston Churchill wrote along the lines that spending so long in the lowest form at Harrow taught him the basics of English grammar and I'd like to think that my police service had a similar effect on my understanding of criminal law.
=======================================
@ UpWrong

I don't expect "act and section" from a layman but to put it bluntly, I do not think you have paid much heed to what I was saying.. To put it another way, what's incorrect in my post?

thirdcrank wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 5:17pm @ UpWrong

I don't expect "act and section" from a layman but to put it bluntly, I do not think you have paid much heed to what I was saying.. To put it another way, what's incorrect in my post?

There's nothing incorrect in your post. The Law appears to be operating in a blinkered box and it wouldn't be the first time.