A London cyclist who gave police video footage that showed a moped rider kicking out at his bike as he passed him has been told that no action will be taken against the man in question because there were no independent witnesses to what happened.
The incident happened on the New Kent Road on the evening of 16 January as Chi Yong La rode home to Greenwich from his job in the West End with publisher Conde Nast.
Riding away from the kerb to avoid potholes, drain grilles and manhole covers, he exchanged words with a man on a moped who was undertaking him to his left.
As the man sped away, he aimed a kick at Chi's front wheel, leaving the cyclist struggling to maintain balance on the busy road.
"I was really shaken up," he told road.cc following the incident. "I was really holding on for dear life, making sure I didn't topple over."
Chi lodged a complaint with the police, and sent them a video of the incident – like many cyclists, he uses a helmet camera so that in the event of an incident involving a motor vehicle or pedestrian, he has something more than just his own word to fall back on.
The full video he sent to police can be seen here (contains some swearing).
The letter he received from the Traffic Criminal Justice section of the Metropolitan Policer Service's Operational Command Unit for the South East Region, reads:
I am writing concerning your complaint to police regarding the manner in which a motor vehicle bearing the registration mark GJ05FGF was ridden along New Kent Road @ 16:44 hours on the 16/01/2014.
I would advise you that it is the policy of the Metropolitan Police Service to investigate cases that have a realistic prospect of achieving a successful prosecution at court.
In view of the lack of independent witnesses to support your claim, we are unable to initiate proceedings on this occasion. However, the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle has been notified of your allegation and a record of the incident will be kept within this office.
Chi told us that the police response was "disappointing to say the least but I can't say I expect anything more."
One question the incident, and the police's reaction to it, does raise is just how seriously they take helmet camera footage, and why that should be seen as less acceptable than independent eyewitness testimony, which can be inaccurate depending on the person's recollection.
Another is that police regularly appeal to the public for help in catching suspects whose alleged crimes have been caught on CCTV, with no witnesses around, and where the footage is of much lower quality than that typically captured by helmet cameras.
In January 2012 we reported how motorist Scott Lomas was convicted of a public order offence after he threatened cyclist Martin Porter who was riding to work.
The Metropolitan Police only referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service after Porter had twice complained about their initial decision not to take action. despite his having provided them with helmet camera footage.
The fact that Porter is a Queen's Counsel, making him more suited than most to negotiating the criminal justice system, is likely to have been a factor in the case reaching its eventual conclusion.
73 thoughts on “Police take no action against moped rider caught on camera kicking out at cyclist’s bike”
not surprised, again…
not surprised, again…
Is anyone really surprised?
Is anyone really surprised?
handing out fixed penalty notices easy, gathering enough evidence to prosecute, not so easy. Convincing the CPS…….
I suspect the paperwork piles are also small and not so small respectively.
“no action will be taken
“no action will be taken against the man in question because… they couldn’t give a flying fcuk about no damn cyclists”
Or words to that effect.
We already knew a motorist
We already knew a motorist can get away with anything in London…what else is new?
I am surprised.
And my
I am surprised.
And my respect for law and justice and those involved in it as a profession diminishes daily.
Why do the police not rely on
Why do the police not rely on independent witnesses for murder too, that would cut their workload down too.
Hamster wrote:Why do the
Quite right, this could very easily have been a murder case. It should be attempted murder at least. But there I go again forgetting that a motor vehicle was involved, making murder and attempted murder completely legal.
“Realistic chance of
“Realistic chance of prosecution” is the killer blow, as between the CPS and a jury, it appears nigh on impossible to get a result.
I can only suggest he sends the footage to Robert Goodwill and asks what he intends to do to address behaviour like this if he seriously wishes to promote cycling
p*ss poor.
p*ss poor.
I wonder if a civil case, to
I wonder if a civil case, to get damages from the mopedist for the stress and panic caused, would have any chance of success. We could crowdfund the legal costs, as we did for the defence of the chap who rightly crossed a stop line when a car was occupying the Advanced Stop zone.
I wonder if a civil case, to
I wonder if a civil case, to get damages from the mopedist for the stress and panic caused, would have any chance of success. We could crowdfund the legal costs, as we did for the defence of the chap who rightly crossed a stop line when a car was occupying the Advanced Stop zone.
Its things like this that
Its things like this that make me feel unsafe as a cyclist, particularly as a commute cyclist. If someone is allowed to act in that way, which could very easily have led to the death of the cyclist if he doesn’t stay up and falls into the next lane, then wtf can you do to be safe. Ok a prosecution wouldn’t stop the act but it might, just maybe, have removed someone with clear anger issues from the road, and hopefully society too, making everyone just that little bit safer. I wonder how long until this guy does something similar and causes serious injury. Would the police be so lenient had the cyclist crashed and been injured i wonder.
Not enough that there are
Not enough that there are dangerous psychopaths on the road, what makes it so much worse are the work-shy twits in the police force covering for them. No time to do our jobs and protect people, there are donuts to eat!
Just one of the many things that are wrong with this society.
userfriendly wrote:Not enough
I hereby wish to retract this comment of mine further up in this thread. It was typed in frustration and anger. I don’t think the police are the problem, in fact I believe that the vast majority of them are doing good and important work, and they could use more support and resources.
Actually, yes! I am
Actually, yes! I am surprised. And I am appalled that there is no action been taken!
I know for a fact that you can appeal against a decision like that and I would speak to an independent lawyer to have this driver tried! Mr Goodwin is a very good address for this sort of thing (as previously mentioned!)
There is a major public interest in having this case reviewed and even though there might not be a jail sentence or such at the end of it, it would set a precedence, which is what is really needed!
Perhaps Martin porter might
Perhaps Martin porter might be interested, this is becoming a pattern.
Why is headcam footage not acceptable? Just today the Met have released “the best images they have” of three guys accused of throwing coins at Theo Walcott, they look like they were taken on a potato. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26014757
There is no rational explanation for this other than a total lack of care for cyclists’ lives; it’s like they’re scared that if juries are presented with video footage of motorist actions they might actually convict on sensible charges and judges might have to award proportional sentences.
Is there no way of funding a judicial review of the police approach to headcam footage? Some way of forcing them to consider it as valuable, in fact, better than any eyewitness.
Does this mean that any
Does this mean that any person convicted based on CCTV evidence can appeal due to lack of independent witnesses?
I’ve got to agree with a
I’ve got to agree with a number of other people – both surprised and disappointed and annoyed. How much more f*ing independent than an inanimate object can you get ?????
I’d be appealing any conviction I got based on CCTV that’s for sure. Apparently they are extremely biased – the official description is ‘criminalist’ apparently, and we cant have that.
Aaaargh!
As a serving Police officer i
As a serving Police officer i find this embarassing to say the least.
the comment “I would advise you that it is the policy of the Metropolitan Police Service to investigate cases that have a realistic prospect of achieving a successful prosecution at court.”
Why ?
We investigate everything in my force, if there’s not enough evidence fair enough, but at least we’ve tried. I would be happy to investigate this with the cctv evidence.
stumps wrote:As a serving
Is this policy advice just ‘official speak’ ? Because it needs re-writing. How do you know if it has a realistic chance of succeeding in court, if you don’t investigate? To me, it reads like ‘if there isn’t a black and white case we wont even bother to investigate’. ‘And by that I mean he rode past and handed me a signed confession after trying to kick me off’ ‘And you included it in your letter’
stumps wrote:As a serving
I’m glad to hear you say this – how on earth can they know if there is a realistic chance of prosecution if they don’t investigate it. Surely this should be down to the CPS to decide anyway?
The problem with the Met treating cyclists as second class citizens is exactly what you see on this thread – a widespread lack of trust in the police. If they don’t enforce the law then I wonder how long it will be before people take it into their own hands.
Quote:
I’m glad to hear you
The CPS point is a good one. The last time I had help form the Police (an attempted bike theft) they were fantastic, but as often happens the CPS eventually decided not to bring the scallywags to court.
A few weeks later, by an almost random coincidence I spoke to one of the officers involved who was quite happy to moan about the CPS as well, and how much of their work goes largely to waste because of them. However annoying that may be, we can’t have a situation where the Police themselves start abandoning cases so easily.
Even if the case ultimately fails, not bothering at all sends a terrible message. The seriousness of the crime, and the message it sends regarding road safety should be considered.
Quote:
I’m glad to hear you
The CPS point is a good one. The last time I had help form the Police (an attempted bike theft) they were fantastic, but as often happens the CPS eventually decided not to bring the scallywags to court.
A few weeks later, by an almost random coincidence I spoke to one of the officers involved who was quite happy to moan about the CPS as well, and how much of their work goes largely to waste because of them. However annoying that may be, we can’t have a situation where the Police themselves start abandoning cases so easily.
Even if the case ultimately fails, not bothering at all sends a terrible message. The seriousness of the crime, and the message it may send regarding road safety should be considered.
At least he got a response.
I
At least he got a response.
I had a Range Rover driver twice try to knock me off and then swerve in front of me and stop dead causing me to collide with the back of the car.
I called 999 straight away and although I was on a busy A road I was told the response car couldn’t find me!
I then had a PC visit and take a statement. I had the car reg and full description which I gave. My word against his but he still left the scene of an accident without giving details.
This was last October and I’ve heard nothing from the Met police.
The response here does not surprise me in the least.
Crowd funding on this one? If
Crowd funding on this one? If cycling websites keep raising this type of injustice then they should be suggesting a course of action. Most of our bone idle lazy institutions want an easy life; unless you are prepared to kick them in to action things will never change. They rely on apathy!
Another entirely predictable
Another entirely predictable outcome from the civil servants with warrant cards masquerading as law enforcers
This is disappointing, but
This is disappointing, but given Martin Porter’s experiance not entirely surprising.
I think that there is a number of people who commute whom having tired of near misses have brought helmet cams to capture this in the hope that should the worse happen, there would be some recompense, some more reliable independent evidence that is better than their word versus yours.
Some of the new cameras picture quality is fantastic, better than some CCTV recordings, which could be on ancient kit, recording on tapes that had been re-recorded over hundreds of times previously. Yet crystal clear sharp evidence from the victim’s point of view is not acceptable.
Because you know cyclists have this special ability, if they wish something really really hard then they can alter video evidence just with the power of their mind.
How can video footage not be
How can video footage not be independent???
jarredscycling wrote:How can
I think it is to do with tampering and all that but theyb take that excuse way too far. All the police video is all calibrated and timed and is tamperproof. So it can be used in evidence. The police are using this standard that they are required to have to discount video evidence not from their own cameras. But they are really inconsistent. It’s just an excuse. Video evidence can be presented as evidence. The defence can try to discredit it if they think it’s been tampered with or have a problem with it.
This one was pretty easy really. The mopedist could easily have been shown the footage and offered a fixed penalty notice (£100 + 3 Points) for careless driving. (a lower charge than Dangerous driving which is what their actions amounted to) They would just have to take that or risk going to court for a £5000 max and 3-9 points. Or even the cps upping the charge. to DD which is a 12 month ban with a compulsory extended retest but it is quite possible that you will face a prison term or a community penalty if you are convicted.
No court necessary and a big shot across their bows as to their future driving behaviour all for a FPN which they would be wise to bit the officers are off for.
Lazy policing here.
Still as long as they are warning cyclists about High viz and otherwise OK drivers about ASL encroachment I suppose letting go a driver that is actively trying to knock a cyclist off is beyond their resources.
methinks that the police have
methinks that the police have had that standard letter template since Victorian times. They look to see if the box that indicates witnesses has been ticked. If it hasn’t they send the standard letter.
The form does not have a box for “helmet camera footage in full HD”.
One of the reasons that the police are so seriously narked with the government is that they are the last un-reformed public service in the UK. I have a few friends in the Surrey force and even they think some of it is beyond silly.
I’ll give you an example. Way back in the day I was in a nightclub in Bournemouth. A bouncer tried to chat up my girlfriend so we just decided to leave. On my way out of the club I was hit in the back of the head and then kicked while on the floor. I then heard the “leave it Carl” and on rolling over saw it was the fellah that had tried it on with my girlfriend. So I called the police. They eventually came. Spoke to the bouncers, then took me and my girlfriend to the police station and took a statement. Then a week or two later they said they couldn’t do anything as they didn’t have enough evidence.
Now my current Police friends drawing on their police training tell me that I went about it all wrong. Instead of calling the police to report an assault. I should have stayed down and got someone to call for an ambulance because I was injured after an assault. This approach I am told would have put the reported assault on a higher footing.
This is basically the equivalent of diving in football. So Chi. What you probably should have done is taken a dive (slow down a bit first, fake it if necessary.) but go down. That’s how you get witnesses. Now you have a collision, an RTC with injuries and a motorist that fails to stop.
As refs go the police aren’t giving any penalties for a manly attempts to stay upright. They are impressed by spectacular dives.
oozaveared wrote:This is
Which is the advice I’ve been given by two serving traffic officers. Go down and stay down.
To this end, one has to
To this end, one has to question why the police are going wear and use video cameras themselves, apart from being in the name of openess……
This. Is. F-ing.
This. Is. F-ing. Disgusting.
The police response seems to be that they can’t be bothered to investigate, because they don’t think they can win.
AFAIK they’re under a legal obligation to investigate a reported crime.
Malfeasance in public office complaint against the officer making this decision?
Sadly, I’m not surprised at
Sadly, I’m not surprised at all.
I’m pretty ignorant about such matters, but is there nothing we can do beyond declare our disappointment on web forums? Is there someone we can bombard with emails each and every time the care of a cyclist is ignored or trivialised? It would be laughable if it wasn’t so bloody depressing.
Ooh that’s too difficult for
Ooh that’s too difficult for the old bill to deal with and not have a definite prosecution. Speeding far easier as they are not having to make a judgement, it’s black n white.
Pretty much anything that someone could defend generally doesn’t go to court.
It’s a boilerplate letter.
It’s a boilerplate letter. I’ve seen exactly the same wording before in other threads about video footage of bad drivers and actually been in receipt of the same letter after I and another cyclist were “hustled” out of the way at traffic lights in Balham by a four wheel drive that made contact with both of us.
The driver turned into a petrol station to make a U-turn, so there was a set of CCTV coverage and our witness accounts, but not enough “independent” evidence to proceed apparently…
If you watch any of the motorway cop shows, this is actually as good as any of the footage they show.
Wow, just wow.
I have just
Wow, just wow.
I have just started a forum topic that looks at this and other news stories lately. I’d be grateful for any comments about what you think needs to be done about the current state of affairs. It cannot continue.
http://road.cc/content/forum/110081-meet-jury
surely a complaint to the Met
surely a complaint to the Met at their lack of action would be an idea, although i would assume that only the victim could do that.
“lack of independent
“lack of independent witness”… remember that for when the police try to prosecute you, which if you’re a cyclist they’ll be more than happy to.
CTC’s Road Justice campaign,
CTC’s Road Justice campaign, which is calling for a much more robust response from the criminal justice system to crimes like this (and worse) would like to get in touch with the cyclist involved. If you’re the cyclist or if you know them, please get in touch via the website contact form – http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/contact
The campaign has written to the Met police seeking a proper explanation of why no action was taken against the moped rider.
Can I just say I’ve watched
Can I just say I’ve watched the video, and therefore consider myself an independent witness.
“It was the bloke on the moped wot dun it Officer.”
Whatever the “difficulties”
Whatever the “difficulties” proffered by the Police, what we should be doing is funding not just civil action, but “paid for” social media campaigns that target the likely peers of the individuals concerned, the effectiveness of which is something that even the Police are starting to recognise.
Aggressive drivers often have lifestyles that reveal all sorts of naughtiness, so they tend to fear publicity; and that is the key to reducing this sort of antisocial behaviour.
And of course, each successful civil claim also helps to illuminate the decidedly curious reluctance shown by the Police and the CPS to secure a proscecution for the common good.
Neil753 wrote:Whatever the
The CTC (Cycle Touring Club of GB) have a legal section to fight for cyclists cases in relation to other road users and bodies. It might be worth passing this onto them.
—————-
I have now seen the posts just above which state this in a bit more detail – sorry.
I’m pleased to see the
I’m pleased to see the justified outrage of so many commenters.
How to go forward?
One way MIGHT (I can’t say any more than that) is, as Edgeley suggests, is to proceed through the civil courts.
Fingers crossed the mopedist
Fingers crossed the mopedist now feels full of spunk and brave? So that he tries and under takes a left turning bus and loses both his legs, I don’t wish him dead, just off the roads… Hmmm might be a bit harsh there, ok 1 leg.
X(
The leaked email a little
The leaked email a little while ago said all you need to know, ” bump up the troops targets for a few weeks” or words to that effect. If you have that culture in an organisation nothing will get done that isn’t this weeks issue.
“no independent
“no independent witnesses”
But there was an independent witness, the guy on a bike who caught up and asked what happened. How would you go about finding him?
By the way the link to the full video isn’t working but you can see a video in the original article:
http://bit.ly/1fTK0G5 (don’t worry it’s on road.cc).
Who do we write to, met, CPS
Who do we write to, met, CPS or the local station, any details from the response?
Shocking, but given its the
Shocking, but given its the Met I can’t say I am at all surprised. The victim should appeal the decision and complain and get some public pressure built up. I can’t re-watch the video (too much traffic!) but I did watch it the first time it got published. From memory its clearly a kick at a cyclist on a busy road. This is not a heated exchange that was six of one half a dozen of another before both parties went their seperate ways, it could of ended horribly if the rider had become unsaddled.
Two offences spring to mind; Causing Danger to Road Users which fits the circumstances but is not an offence often considered (and should be) and dangerous riding. You’ve also got a threatening behaviour and had the rider become unsaddled and got injured (minor through to life-threatening) you’d also have a reckless assault.
So to start with there are three offences he could be interviewed over and this massively increases the possibilty that he could of been convicted of one or more.
This is not the CPS making a decision this time, this is the Police knocking it on the head because frankly they dont think its serious enough and are too busy. Thats the real deal.
There is video footage untainted by human perception and the victims testimony. Video recordings cant alway show the entire incident and sometimes what you think/believe is ocurring on the video is totally wrong, but this video looks simple and clear. That is enough to prosecute. Its disgusting. I am so glad I live nowhere near anywhere where it says Metropolitan. They haven’t even interviewed the scumbag on the scooter to record his account. Pathetic. I hope the victim pursues it and gets the justice he deserves.
No matter the inadequacies of
No matter the inadequacies of the CPS or police the fundamental problem remains the over-use of motorized vehicles and the alienated attitudes of their users. There’s a classic Swedish road-safety story (scroll down after intro) which drivers should be made to read before they go out on the road. Car use is too normalized:
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/jan/31/to-kill-a-child/?insrc=hpbl
“Afterward everything is too late. Afterward there is a blue car stopped sideways in the road, and a screaming woman takes her hand from her mouth, and it’s red with blood. Afterward a man opens a car door and tries to stand on his legs, even though he has a pit of horror within him. Afterward a few sugar cubes are strewn meaninglessly about in the blood and gravel, and a child lies motionless on its stomach, its face pressed heavily against the road. Afterward two pale people, who have not yet had their coffee, come running through a gate to see a sight in the road they will never forget. Because it’s not true that time heals all wounds. Time does not heal the wounds of a dead child, and it heals very poorly the pain of a mother who forgot to buy sugar and who sent her child across the road to borrow some. And it heals just as poorly the anguish of a once cheerful man who has killed a child.”
over on Singletrackworld
over on Singletrackworld someone posted this link
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/smile-youre-on-dashcam-camera-more-motorists-are-installing-incar-recorders-to-capture-instances-of-bad-cycling-and-driving-9101712.html
from part way down the article:
“Paul Marshall, Suffolk’s deputy chief constable, said: “Increasing use is being made by the public of digital cameras to record evidence of offences which can be used by the police to support prosecutions. This is welcomed by Association of Chief Police Officers as quite often the only evidence available is an eyewitness account which is disputed by the alleged offender.”
so expect to see a lot of videos of cyclists riding two a breast and without helmets
I had just the same
I had just the same experience recently with video evidence – here’s what Hertfordshire Police wrote to me on 15th October:
“Hello,
Thank you for your submission. Your email has been forwarded to our Process & Collisions department, who deal with this type of incident. I have asked them to reply to you direct.
Regards,
Herts Police”
Then on 17th January:
“I can confirm that this Unit took no action in relation to the allegation of Using a Mobile Phone whilst driving. This is because the driver of the vehicle was not stopped at the time by a Police Officer, was not reported and Cautioned by a Police Officer and the phone itself was not examined /checked by a Police Officer.
I note that you are to be contacted regarding the fact that the driver then wilfully drove at you causing fear and anxiety. When this has been done and the evidence considered a decision will be taken as to what action can be taken against the driver in relation to this incident.”
I am still waiting for the phone call.
I suspect that the proliferation of cameras means that the Police don’t have the resources to follow up on the evidence submitted to them. Furthermore the CPS pretty much can’t be bothered to bring cases. Would not surprise me if many forces are disillusioned with them.
Is it really the case that
Is it really the case that the police will do nothing unless there is a chance of successful prosecution? At the least, could they not call the scooter riding pillock in for a bollocking and to let him know his appalling behaviour will be kept on record?
Well there’s a
Well there’s a surprise!
Can’t help thinking that he may want to ditch the moped now though, as the reg plate is widely displayed on the interweb. 😉
So just to be clear, I can
So just to be clear, I can aim a kick at a police officer and so long as there’s no “independent” witnesses, even if it’s been recorded on cctv, I won’t face prosecution ?
In days gone by this kind of
In days gone by this kind of thing would have been dealt with by vigilantes. If the dwindling faith in the police service to bring justice to bear continues further we may see such practices return.
I would prefer that the police have the resources and will to act, though it seems this is only likely to happen when it is one of their own involved – there was no video evidence in this recent case: http://road.cc/107764
This is a ridiculous
This is a ridiculous situation. Without a willingness to even to attempt a prosecution for such a blatant attack, the law is providing no deterrence.
It’s a failure of its function to protect the public.
And how vigorous would the
And how vigorous would the police have been had it been a pedestrian? A lot more I suspect. Sorry Met but your actions do little to dispel the motorists’ accepted assumption that cyclists are second class citizens.
This is pathetic!
It seems to
This is pathetic!
It seems to me, having viewed the video a couple of times, that the very least the police could charge the moped rider with is driving without due care, because he clearly deliberately undertakes the cyclist.
I think most reasonable people would consider his actions dangerous (i.e. dangerous driving) and a less charitable interpretation might, in view of the proximity of nearby vehicular traffic in the outside lane, even amount to attempted murder.
While I accept the latter might be a stretch for the police & CPS to take on, the 3points plus fine of the lesser charge might at least act as a wake-up call to the idiot.
Andy
cybernaut wrote:
I think most
Sorry, but my faith in juries is as follows, why was the cyclist blocking the lane, what choice did the moped rider have but to go up the inside.
mrmo wrote:cybernaut wrote:
I
And of course to then kick out at him is completely justified as a method of trying to reposition the bike to its proper place… Although sadly i agree with your thoughts on jurys
md6 wrote:mrmo
And of course to then kick out at him is completely justified as a method of trying to reposition the bike to its proper place… Although sadly i agree with your thoughts on jurys— cybernaut
“just letting the cyclist know I was there, he was obviously unaware what with the dark and rain, and Boris was on the news a week back telling us that all cyclists use headphones, so I knew that using the horn wouldn’t work….”
mrmo wrote:
Sorry, but my
Of course the moped rider has a ‘choice’, and that choice is to follow the rules of the road, or not – and he chose not. He should wait behind until a clear and safe place to overtake. Same as any other road user. That is no excuse for undertaking.
jash wrote:mrmo wrote:
Sorry,
My interpretation of mrmo’s post is they were merely pointing out with jaded realism how a typical jury (most likely packed with bad drivers!) would likely interpret this. I think your reply might be missing their point.
I recall that in high-profile US trials we hear a lot about jury-vetting, where admitted racists might be excluded from trials with racial elements, etc. Personally I’d like to see trials involving dangerous/aggressive behaviour from motorists have juries that we can be sure aren’t full of Top Gear watching petrolheads! If a cyclist is the victim, then at least some of the jury should be cyclists or at the very least non-drivers!
Does that mean I can go kick
Does that mean I can go kick a police officer and when that’s filmed on shoulder cam expect to avoid prosecution?
Double standards as usual I expect.
It’s not just cyclists that
It’s not just cyclists that the police can’t get their act together for
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-shocking-moment-a-man-gets-kicked-out-of-the-top-window-of-a-moving-doubledecker-bus-9106088.html
Huw Watkins wrote:It’s not
Hang on a mo my friend. I just read that. The police did arrest and the CPS did prosecute someone but they were acquitted. That’s not the police’s fault. They did their bit.
Did they really? In addition
Did they really? In addition to the event being filmed by another bus, all buses have cameras on board + witnesses
And they still couldn’t present enough evidence to secure a conviction?
Huw Watkins wrote:Did they
Hmmm.
So they had the video from the following bus. Tick
and they had the video from inside the bus that the chap was thrown out of. Tick
They presumably had the witness statement from the chap thrown out of the bus. Tick
And statements from any other witnesses. Tick
They passed these to the CPS. The CPS looked at them and thought they could get a conviction. The CPS brought the case to court. The court looked at the evidence. The defence put their side of it (whatever that was) the verdict was acquittal.
Possibilities:
The victim couldn’t or wouldn’t identify the perpetrator
The video in the bus didn’t show anything.
The perpetrator was wearing a hoody or scarf and couldn’t be seen on camera.
The person they arrested convinced the court that whoever it was on the bus it wasn’t him.
One of the witnesses said something that undermined their credibility
or ……
So tell me again which bit the police got wrong?
Huw Watkins wrote:Did they
It isnt the Police’s job to present the evidence to the court, thats the job of the cps barrister / solicitor. Get your facts right before making accusations.
Has this been downloaded to
Has this been downloaded to youtube? A surprising amount have been and in some cases they have helped promote the case and final action taken (police/councils/government bodies) don’t like too much bad publicity.
I have posted above on what I
I have posted above on what I think should have happened (DD Charge ) and more realistically what could have been done by the Met without even breaking sweat. (Careless Driving FPN 3 points and £100) So I am all for going after the guy.
The difference though was that he kicked out toward the cyclist. Now up to the point that he actually connects it’s not an RTC and it’s not an assault. He may claim that he was making the gesture not trying to kick the wheel. They are different charges.
In the case of a cop with a camera the difference would be this. Kick towards a cop and it would be a public order offence, threatening behaviour. Actually kick the cop and it’s assault.
Sentencing wise
Fear or threat of low level immediate unlawful violence
such as push, shove or spit = Low to medium level community order +Band B fine
so it’s a threat therefore minimum of that lot.
Assaulting a police officer is a summary offence. The starting point is a custodial sentence 6 – 26 weeks.
When they say lack of
When they say lack of independant witnesses… Did they make any attempt to contact the bloke who rode up and discussed it having seen the whole thing?