Home
Family and campaigners react to police handling of case of London cyclist killed a year ago

The family of cyclist Michael Mason, who died last year after a motorist struck him in London’s West End, plan to launch a private prosecution against the driver involved after the Metropolitan Police Service yesterday said it would not be referring the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Yesterday’s statement from the Met was a retraction of one issued on Friday in which it said it would be making a referral to the DPP, now described as “incorrect.” The about-turn, and the way in which it has been handled by police, has been condemned by Mr Mason’s family as well as cycling campaigners.

Mr Mason, 70, died on 14 March last year from injuries sustained a little over a fortnight earlier when he was hit by a car on Regent Street, north of Oxford Circus.

The initial police decision not to pass the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is in part due to the fact that he was not wearing a cycle helmet and was dressed in dark clothing. While wearing a helmet and high-visibility clothing are recommended for cyclists in the Highway Code, neither is a legal requirement.

On Friday, a statement from the Met said the matter was being referred to the DPP. It was issued hours before a vigil was held in Mr Mason’s memory on the eve of the anniversary of his death, which was addressed by his daughter Anna Tatton-Brown.

Family feels "let down" by Met and asks, "What are the Met playing at?"

Reacting to yesterday’s retraction of that statement, she told road.cc:

At every stage now we have been let down by the Met police; from an insultingly soft interview of the driver, to the original decision not to prosecute despite the convincing evidence of their own expert, to this shilly-shallying over whether or not to refer the case to the CPS.

The Met allowed us to hold a vigil on the anniversary of my father's death thinking that we had had some small victory and that justice might yet be done. That now appears to be totally wrong.

None of this has been communicated to us first but played out in the media. I have heard nothing from my so-called family liaison officer since November.

This is no way to treat anyone, let alone a family dealing with the recent traumatic death of a loved one. Now, to add insult to injury, they seem to blame my dad, with his lack of high-viz and helmet, for his own death, rather than the woman who drove into him (who the police describe rather subjectively as a 'Careful and cautious driver').

It is a travesty of justice. What are the Met playing at here?

Lawyer says Met treatment of family "incomprehensibly callous"

The cyclist’s family was represented at the inquest into his death by Martin Porter QC, who has also acted for it in pushing the Met to refer the case to the DPP. He told us:

The mishandling by the Metropolitan Police of this whole matter by dithering and repeatedly changing their minds and by communicating to Ms Tatton-Brown first via the press is quite scandalous. The treatment of a grieving family by a service which purports to serve the public has been quite incomprehensibly callous.

In addition to this the Metropolitan Police have now sought to justify their earlier decision not to refer the case to the CPS by reference to (amongst other immaterial matters), and I quote:

“• Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.

• Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.”

It seems the police do not expect a lit cyclist travelling in compliance with all legal requirements at night to remain alive if he is not wearing a helmet and high viz.

The importance of seeking justice for Michael Mason by by-passing the Metropolitan Police Service is now very clear.

Cyclists' Defence Fund renews Justice for Michael appeal

The planned private prosecution will be brought with the help of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF), which has supported the family throughout and has now renewed its appeal for funds to fight the case, with the Justice for Michael campaign having raised nearly £10,000 to date.

In an email to road.cc, CDF co-ordinator Rhia Weston said:

The Cyclists' Defence Fund will now support Michael Mason's family in instructing lawyers to build the case for a private prosecution as soon as possible. We are therefore renewing our call for donations to the 'Justice for Michael' appeal.

We believe the police are clearly wrong not to refer the matter to the CPS so that they can consider whether or not to bring charges. Furthermore their suggestion that the chances of a guilty verdict are somehow lessened because Michael Mason wasn't wearing hi-viz clothing or a helmet is legally irrelevant and should have no bearing on the charging decision.

As for the Met's erratic briefings to the media - without informing the bereaved family or their lawyer - this shows unbelievable incompetence and insensitivity.

Campaigners condemn police handling of case

The way the police have handled the case and their lack of communication with Mr Mason’s family have been condemned by cycling campaigners.

In a statement, Nicola Branch from Stop Killing Cyclists, which organised Friday’s vigil, said:

Stop Killing Cyclists are horrified to learn of the awful treatment of the family of Mick Mason by the Met Police and we would recommend referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

To have been informed by a Press Release that that police would refer the case to the DPP, which although a bizarre and unconventional way of finding out, was a massive lift to the family, and now to have that hope whipped away from them equally through a Press Release, is an absolute disgrace.

The Met need to look very carefully how they deal with the family of a victim. They must be accountable for their actions.

Those views were echoed by Rosie Downes of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), who said:

We are shocked and disappointed to hear that the Met Police are not, as was claimed last week, asking prosecutors to consider bringing criminal charges against the driver who killed Michael Mason.

It is against the law to cause death or injury from driving or riding in a careless way and a full prosecution is the only way to test the evidence.

To use the fact that Michael was not wearing a helmet or hi-viz clothing as rationale for this decision is unacceptable. Michael was well lit, on a brightly lit street, and hit from behind by a driver who claimed not to have noticed him.

This is a serious failing of the justice system and highlights the lack of clear process for dealing with road deaths, which more often than not leads to families feeling let down by the justice system.

Our thoughts are with Michael’s family who must be very distressed by the misleading report and the lack of action.

Green London Assembly Member Jenny Jones says she will again be writing to the Metropolitan Polce commissioner:

I shall be writing to the Met Police to say that victim blaming is completely unacceptable and that statements like this reinforce the view held by many cyclists that the Met Police will do little to protect them.

Focusing on the cyclists lack of high viz when over a dozen witnesses clearly saw Mr Mason on this well lit stretch of Regents Street, is clearly a nonsense.

As for drivers being cautious and careful, I believe that most drivers are. That doesn't stop people switching off for a moment behind the wheel, or being distracted, while being in charge of a deadly machine.

The point of the law is to protect innocent people who are going about their lawful business from the malicious acts and negligence of others.

The police's job is to put their evidence before the prosecutors and let the lawyers decide if there is a case.

Met apologises for "miscommunication"

Yesterday, Chief Inspector Tracy Stephenson, Professional Standards Champion of the Met’s Roads & Transport Policing Command, wrote to Mr Porter to outline the force’s response to a complaint made on the family’s behalf in January into the handling of the case by police and senior investigating officer Nick Mason.

She said: “I am satisfied the report does not need to be referred to the CPS,” adding, “I have determined there has not been a breach of the professional standards by the officer.”

Chief Inspector Stephenson also addressed yesterday’s retraction of Friday’s statement that the case would be referred to the DPP. She said:

I would like to apologise that the above statement was in the press prior to you receiving the Investigation Report and being informed before it reaching the public domain. This was a miscommunication and I am truly sorry for any upset it has caused the family. The intention was to correct the original information regarding the referral to the DPP whilst sending you the letter regarding our findings. Unfortunately this mistakenly went into the press release.

The full investigator's report explaining why the Met did not refer the ase to the CPS, and the letter dismissing the family's complaint over the police's handling of the case are attached below.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

56 comments

Avatar
thx1138 [64 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Who the hell are the Met to judge that dark clothing and no helmet were the cause.  102

Avatar
nniff [177 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

What would the Met's position be with regard to a pedestrian knocked down while walking across a zebra crossing, at night, while wearing dark clothing?

Avatar
Paul M [363 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
thx1138 wrote:

Who the hell are the Met to judge that dark clothing and no helmet were the cause.  102

I think Chief Inspector Tracy Stephenson must be confusing herself with Judge Dredd - "I AM de Law".

Avatar
mudshark [44 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

By giving the impression that they are useless more people will lose respect for the police. If he wasn't using lights I might have some sympathy for their position but it was a well lit road anyway. Can anyone knock hit a cyclist who's not wearing bright clothing and a helmet and know they're not going to be prosecuted?

Avatar
sfichele [140 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Once again it's open season on cyclists...

Avatar
ibike [165 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I’m now very worried. I wear ordinary clothes when riding a bike. At night I have bright lights at back and front but it seems that should I be hit by a driver I will be deemed responsible for my own death or injuries.

Avatar
keepontriking [19 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I just feel sick at this.
It gives carte blanche for drivers to kill and removes any remaining respect or confidence I had for our legal system.

Avatar
edster99 [338 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Add the conclusions from the coroners court (see other thread) that the only person who didn't see the cyclist was the driver... un-f*ing-believable.

Avatar
catfordrichard [25 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I've a horrible feeling that this will end up in court and a jury will return a not guilty verdict as there will be a defence of something along the lines of 'cyclists' hounded the poor woman driver etc. I'm hoping that once Boris has given up his second job of London mayor then we might get a candidate who'll hold these people to account and demand some action.

Avatar
atgni [429 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

FFS that's a pathetic position for the MET to take.

How can the Barclays Bikes now be hired after lighting up time now? Surely the MET have effectively outlawed them with this policy.

Avatar
anarchy [100 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

oink oink

Avatar
StoopidUserName [325 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

BUNCH OF CUNTS.

I say that after watching the aforemented cunts utterly ignore blatent red light jumping by cars at Aldgate today. Like every fucking day.

But oooh lets get them naughty cyclists and their dark clothing woohoo!!!

Avatar
StoopidUserName [325 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

ps I've donated again - and so should you. Could be any of us.

Avatar
ChairRDRF [360 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This is really, really important for cyclists - and anyone with a basic sense of decency - to get stuck into.

The helmet bit in particular is quite fantastically grotesque. It is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether it would have had any effect on the severity of injuries: the point is that prosecution is supposed to relate to the act of driving into someone. (Although in a sense it IS relevant - for those of us who have always warned that helmet advocacy is all about victim blaming).

So , whatever the consequences of a prosecution, it is important to support the family's initiative through the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

How to give is explained here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150319-met-adds-insult-injury-mason-case

It could be you next time...

Avatar
jacknorell [969 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

The cause of death was a road traffic collision leading to fatal head injury. But I suppose the MET can't understand a simple causative chain?

Also, their subjective and favourable description of the driver is insulting, as she clearly was neither, and because that type of language/view has no place in an RTC investigation.

Avatar
P3t3 [411 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I've just donated to the fund. This one has become ridiculous. It might be me that is knocked down next time.

For reference what can a private prosecution do? Can it lead to criminal conviction etc? Or is it just money based?

Avatar
portec [116 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This case has resulted in me losing a significant amount of the respect I had left for the police. The way they have acted is either grossly incompetent or grossly dishonest. I wonder if this woman has friends in high places.

Avatar
jollygoodvelo [1659 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I drive a black car, frequently wearing dark clothing.

I assume that the Met will hold me responsible if someone drives into me.

Avatar
Animal [41 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Yes, I wondered the same. She must be being protected.

Avatar
Jonny_Trousers [278 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I've just donated, too. My main issue is not whether the driver is or is not guilty of careless/dangerous driving, it's that the MET are playing judge and jury when it's not their business to do so, and that they have decided the victim was culpable in his death despite doing nothing whatsoever wrong.

We need this case to go forwards to show the MET and the public at large that enough is enough: cyclists deserve the respect and protection of the law just like anyone else.

Avatar
atgni [429 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Has the driver been granted some form of legal anonymity?

From other website: 'the driver was commuting home in Hertfordshire from her work at a hairdresser's salon in central London. She was driving a 'motability' car owned by a disabled friend.' So looks like a congestion charge dodger!

But if a person on a bike is not wearing a not-required helmet it appears it's ok by the MET for someone in a vehicle to carefully and cautiously drive over them. Genuinely stunned!!

I will be writing to current ministers and whoever takes over in a few weeks to urgently quash this stupid MET policy.

Avatar
jmaccelari [252 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This makes my blood boil: so no high-viz and helmet (neither of which is a legal requirement) mean you can legally be mown down and killed? And if you only have one? Can you be seriously injured?

This is Keystone Cops stuff...

Avatar
Curto80 [50 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Quite aside from the fact that the Met are simply speculating that he would not have died had he been wearing a helmet, and there's nothing I've seen suggesting they have any evidence for that, it is a fundamental principle of English law that a perpetrator "takes their victim as they find them". That is to say, for example, if an assault against somebody with a particular or unusual vulnerability would not have killed the "average person" (ie: somebody not sharing that vulnerability) but does kill the victim, then that does not excuse the accused from the outcome. What the Met are doing here is making up their own version of this country's criminal law. That is offensive to the rule of law and the separation of powers. It may sound dramatic, but standing up to this is as much about standing up for democracy as it is about justice for the family and protecting cyclists (which alone are obviously both very important causes).

Avatar
cat1commuter [1422 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

So in detailed Officer's report .doc linked above:

o Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.
o An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything.

Doesn't the second point contradict the first? If the environment was so confusing, would Hi-Viz clothing have helped? If the environment was so confusing, shouldn't the driver have adapted their driving to the conditions, and slowed down?

And:

o Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.

Bicycle helmets prevent minor head injuries, not serious ones.

Avatar
Ramuz [299 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Disgusted. Donated £10.

Avatar
InvisibleVisibleMan [27 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Of course, if you hadn't made up your mind at the start to exonerate the driver, you could see the evidence about how many brake lights there were and so on in an entirely different light. If conditions were such that it was hard to see things, the driver should have been driving even more carefully.

Avatar
Simon E [3072 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

If the cyclist had been a copper then the driver would have been hung, drawn & quartered by now.

 14

Avatar
IanW1968 [326 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

The Met spent years covering up for kiddy fiddlers and ponces. Overlooking a road traffic death all in a normal days work.

Avatar
qwerky [183 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Seems like whoever in the Met made this decision needs to be fired for being grossly incompetent.

The Met are excusing the driver because her victim failed to adequately ensure his own safety. Doesn't this apply to all victims? I guess we can expect to see murderers set free because their victims didn't wear stab proof vests, or shoplifters let go because the retailers didn't nail down the goods to the shelves. Well its their own fault really.

Avatar
Quince [381 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
cat1commuter wrote:

So in detailed Officer's report .doc linked above:

o Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.
o An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything.

Doesn't the second point contradict the first? If the environment was so confusing, would Hi-Viz clothing have helped? If the environment was so confusing, shouldn't the driver have adapted their driving to the conditions, and slowed down?

And:

o Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.

Bicycle helmets prevent minor head injuries, not serious ones.

Precisely. It's as though the Met think it's fine to indiscriminately hurl a tonne of metal down one of the county's most populated streets without being held responsible for the consequences.

Which is besides the point; the Met shouldn't be playing judge and jury to begin with.

Donated: https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael

Pages