A driver who admitted exchanging texts with his girlfriend before his van hit and killed an 18-year-old cyclist has been cleared of causing death by dangerous driving, and of causing death by careless driving.
Philip Sinden was driving the Vauxhall Vivaro that hit and killed 18-year-old triathlete Daniel Squire on the A258 at Ringwould in Kent at around 8:40am on September 7 2013.
After the verdict, the family of Daniel Squire shouted at the jury: “Were you not listening?”, “What a waste of time” and “I can’t believe that”, reports Kent Online's Paul Hooper.
During the trial the court heard that Sinden had sent 19 texts and received 22 from his girlfriend between 6.07am and 8.32am. He and his girlfriend continued texting until she sent a message at 8.39.49. He was alleged to have composed a message at around 8.40am which was never sent.
Prosecutor Dale Sullivan said: “The defendant had been using his mobile phone either just before or at the time of the impact and he failed to react to the presence of Daniel who was in front of his vehicle until the very last moment.”
But Sinden claimed that he had not been distracted by using his phone.
“I was texting just using my left hand. When I pulled out onto the road I was trying to keep my attention on the road, so I typed without looking at the phone.”
He claimed Daniel Squire had unexpectedly joined the carriageway from the pavement.
“I realised it was a cyclist on the pavement on my left hand side. He started to come off the pavement and I started to react. I started to brake and steer around the cyclist.
“It was all very quick but it seemed to me he had adjacened [sic] out slightly from the lane he should have been on.”
Sinden told the jury that Daniel had turned around and looked behind him “just before it [the van] struck the bike”.
“He just came out more than I expected. I spiked my brakes," he said.
Members of Daniel Squire's family attended every day of the trial at Canterbury Crown Court.
Judge Heather Norton expressed her “profound sympathy” for Daniel's family.
She told them: “I appreciate that is not the verdict you were expecting and was not the verdict you were hoping for.”
82 thoughts on “Texting van driver cleared of responsibility for death of 18-year-old cyclist”
Honestly, what is the point.
Honestly, what is the point. Just get rid of these offences, there’s seemingly no point charging anyone with them.
Its so depressingly absurd,
Its so depressingly absurd, and even more depressingly common place.
Soooo, he admits using his
Soooo, he admits using his phone whilst driving and still no conviction. I think the jury should have an IQ test X( X( X(
He was texting, which means
He was texting, which means he could not have been concentrating 100% on the road. He was composing a message, picturing what it looked like as he typed (if indeed he was capable of doing so without looking at the phone). So he was in no position to think about what he was seeing or anticipate. So when something happens, it is all down to his subconscious ringing an alarm, his being dragged back to the real world and starting to react.
I wasn’t there, so cannot say to what extent he might have anticipated the cyclist’s wishing to rejoin the carriageway and thus have given him room before he did so; but in my opinion, texting or using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous driving. That is why they are illegal (except talking using a hands-free kit, which IMHO is also dangerous). On my commute I pass a nursery and primary school, at a time when parents are dropping off at the roadside and entering and leaving the school driveway. It is very busy and hazardous, but incredibly I see people on their phones as they drive past, seemingly oblivious to the danger and the consequences of any slowness to react to a toddler deciding to give their mother’s hand the slip. If their mind was on the job, they would slow right down and be obviously vigilant. The fact that they aren’t shows how distracting using a phone is.
I haven’t seen the court transcripts, but is it not a huge coincidence that the driver’s use of a phone immediately preceded the death of another road user in a collision with his vehicle that he failed to avoid? If the judge regarding the charge of death by dangerous driving to be unproven, why was he not convicted of dangerous driving?
[quote=arowland
I wasn’t
[quote=arowland
I wasn’t there, so cannot say to what extent he might have anticipated the cyclist’s wishing to rejoin the carriageway and thus have given him room before he did so;[/quote]
This is the drivers story the foot path (if you can call it that) actually starts where the accident occurs, it is a foot wide a most covered in dirt and debris and in the couple of metres between is start and the accident there I’d no dip to mount the pavement. If you saw the crash site believe me you would not believe this event – shocked if no photos were shown to disprove the drivers story.
texting in left hand but not
texting in left hand but not distracted? can he text without looking???? WTF!
Words fail me
Words fail me
Wow. So the Police provide
Wow. So the Police provide evidence of phone use prior to and right up to the incident, AND the driver admits it, but the Jury still find him not guilty?!
What if he’d hit and killed a child – this sends an awesome message ‘Texting while driving, it’s okay by us’ FFS
Book me a ticket off this rock.
What if he’d hit and killed a
He did hit and kill somebody’s child.
Time to take cases like this
Time to take cases like this out of a jury’s hands. The evidence is obvious, there was no disputing what he did or what he was doing. It should be just a technical summing up of what happened. Guilty forever!!!
Something puzzles me. To
Something puzzles me. To quote the article above…
“He claimed Daniel Squires had unexpectedly joined the carriageway from the pavement.
“I realised it was a cyclist on the pavement on my left hand side. He started to come off the pavement and I started to react. I started to brake and steer around the cyclist.”
…My puzzlement is this – What pavement?
As far as I can remember there is NO pavement on the A258 anywhere near Station Road. How can a cyclist come off a pavement that isn’t there? I am of course making the assumption that by pavement they mean footway beside a road. More importantly, why wasn’t this challenged in court?
This has to be appealed!
A pavement of sorts starts
A pavement of sorts starts right where Dan was treated, but it is not rideable no dip to mount, probably less than a foot wide and is covered in debris and mud. Given the short distance I wouldn’t be surprised if the impact was before it’s start where there isn’t even a verge. Seems the drivers story changed a number of times with nothing he said adding up which makes the verdict extremely hard to take. Cannot begin to understand what his family must be feeling.
levermonkey wrote:Something
Street view on the stretch of road is dated May 2014 (here) allows us to find the spot where the accident happened. A very narrow piece of pavement begins by the Ringwould sign while travelling from Dover towards Deal – I assume this is the “pavement” that Daniel came off into the road. If you step forward on street view you can see the memorial where the accident happened.
A few things ….
1. Why on earth would he have chosen to ride on that very narrow strip of pavement only to dismount after a few yards when there had been no pavement on his journey before that ?
2. He was training for an Iron Man. did he have had some kind of GPS or time recording device or even a smart phone with Strava etc ?
3. Did anyone seek to match the contents of the recording device with the drivers story ? He may have been on the pavement for a phone stop or to fix a puncture in which case the timer would show a gap in the recording points or a period of not moving and match the drivers story. Without a device to disprove the drivers story I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that would have chosen to cycle on that bit of pavement. It doesn’t make sense.
4. I live in Canterbury (where the case was tried). Local cycling group SPOKES attended and will be compiling a report of the trial.
5. I really hope the CPS / prosecuting authorities considered why he would have been on that pavement – to me it really makes no sense. If he had a puncture or mechanical then there would probably be witnesses to say they had seen him stopped.
I suggest the pavement story may not have been challenged either because there weren’t any experienced cyclists involved on the CPS side or simply that they didn’t look that closely at the scene.
I recently did jury service
I recently did jury service and I can honestly say that the CPS in the case were completely incompetent. They did very little to corroborate stories, vital evidence was missing, etc etc. In the lunch room we overheard other jurors talking about how incompetent their CPS were… I think it’s a trend…
BigglesMeister wrote:
I
Yeah – it looks as if there’s a dangerous lack of expertise in prosecuting these cases, because prosecuting lawyers aren’t themselves cyclists (and nor is the judge and most of the jury).
Surely the jury should have been shown pictures of that ‘pavement’, or, better yet, taken there and asked to try and cycle along it themselves!
Also I think there should be efforts made to ensure juries are genuinely representative, not just ‘peers’ of the accused but also ‘peers’ of the victim.
BigglesMeister
I suggest the pavement story may not have been challenged either because there weren’t any experienced cyclists involved on the CPS side or simply that they didn’t look that closely at the scene.— levermonkey
The question HAS to be asked, why, unlike the convention for most trials where death or serious injury has taken place, was there NO SITE VISIT made by the Court so that the judge & jury could appraise the evidence and statements with a clear knowledge of the crash site and other road details relevant to the case.
We must also question WHO or WHAT set the requirement to EXCLUDE FROM THE JURY:
ANY PERSON LIVING WITIN 2 MILES OF THE CRASH SITE OR REGULARLY USING THE A 258
ANY PERSON WITH THE MOST REMOTE LINK TO DANIEL – IE BEYOND FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
The exclusion of close relatives and friends is an expected caveat but the latter seems a bit excessive and does not appear to be matched by a similar caveat applied to the defendant. Were these conditions initiated through the petitioning of the defence team?
More & more detail is emerging which suggests serious omissions and statements made which cannot be substantiated by a factual analysis most notably the claim to have covered 1.2 miles in under 50 seconds from standing start to stopped after the crash, driving legally (NB 1 mile in 60 seconds = driving at legal limit passing start & finish point at 60mph)
Around 20 years ago STV staged a rear end crash using a remote controlled car and crash test dummy set up on a bike. Their crash analysis engineers were able to highlight the damage to the car delivered at an impact speed of 27.3mph, both to the car and to the ‘victim’
Particularly noticable was the damage that an 60-100Kg adult can do when given the destructive energy of a 30mph or greater impact (15 KJ of energy has to be turned into the breaking of a body and damage to a car) converting that in half a second or less puts over 30KW of power into the damage process.
A V Lowe wrote:We must also
That’s the first detail I’ve seen about the hitherto enigmatic jury oddities. Thanks. What’s the provenance of that information?
Here’s a synopsis of what
Here’s a synopsis of what happened with the selection of the jury. Remember that the original date of the trial had already been postponsed by 12 months. I would have expected the judge, who was been based at Canterbury for 3 years, to take a little bit of time prior to the case to examine the geography of the area around the collision site as this was a “death on the road.”
1. The judge indicated that regular users of those road should be excluded from the panel – what does regular mean? Most drivers who live in that area would use this road!
2. The judge then indicated that jurors who lived within a certain radius of the collision site should also be excused from duty.
She then named Ringwould and St. Margaret’s as the two places of exclusion, thus demonstrating her lack of local knowledge.
Upper Walmer, Ripple and Kingsdown are closer to the site than St. Margaret’s. The exclusion zone was changed to a specific radius of 2 miles rather than the two named places.
All very arbitrary, rushed and not thought through.
And no vetting of the jurors to show that they met these criteria.
Why weren’t jurors who have been caught using mobile ‘phones, but not given a criminal conviction, excluded?
.Why weren’t jurors who have been caught speeding in the area, but not given a criminal conviction, excluded?
That information was recorded
That information was recorded by observers at the trial
when this kind of tragedy
when this kind of tragedy happens to someone with some
power then things will change … until then we are, apparently,
expendable …
This is what happens when you
This is what happens when you have a jury that hates cyclists and sees them as a nuisance who should not be on the road.
As Wardy74 says, the problem
As Wardy74 says, the problem is the jury system in UK courts is farcical. Time and again we have nonsensical outcomes from trials. The anniversary of Magna Carta is the right moment to consign juries to history and allow panels of judges to determine the outcome of trials. It won’t be perfect, but it will surely be better.
Sober killer gets let
Sober killer gets let off!
Alcoholic Arsonist jailed for 7.5 years.
The arsonist made the drunken mistake of only potentially killing people but definitely damaged property. We hate kids in this country and we value wealth over people.
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/11870218.Alcoholic_arsonist_gets_7_5_years_for_London_Road_attacks/
Honestly WTF.
I would be
Honestly WTF.
I would be nice to know it there were any other witness to the classic motorist suggestion of a “suicide swerve” by the cyclist.
Other than that It would be dreadful if the members of the jury were to loss somebody close to them in simular circumstances and they receive same “justice”. I’d feel so sorry for them.
The message seams to be, it open season on cyclists.
When the only witness is dead
When the only witness is dead a defendant can make up any story to minimise their responsibility. I hope their conscience makes them pay but I suspect it won’t.
Words fail!
Words fail!
Unreal outcome, his poor
Unreal outcome, his poor family. I hope there is some sort of avenue to appeal but I fear there isn’t. ~X(
Awful. I feel so sorry for
Awful. I feel so sorry for the family and depressed that we let idiots like this off after killing a person.
Unbelievable verdict.
Unbelievable verdict. Obviously no cyclists on the jury then.
As well as the blatant breach of the law regarding mobile phones, Highway Code has plenty to say about drivers and cyclists such as ;
213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
There is an onus on the driver to be give space, anticipate and be prepared to move or brake.
I am not sure how you can do this if you are busy texting. And to claim you can text without looking at the phone!! And the jury agreed!!! Gobsmacked….
Maybe the Cyclists Defence Fund and CTC can pursue this further, this is farcical…..
seanbolton wrote:Unbelievable
Spot on!
It’s surreal how little accountability it there is when it comes to cyclist vs automobile. Surely this must change!
My deepest sympathies go out to Daniel’s family.
time to deal with things your
time to deal with things your self cos the law wont
I didn’t murder him, ha
I didn’t murder him, ha swerved into my knife while I was vaguely distracted by trying to load my gun.
I know it’s been said before,
I know it’s been said before, but, if ever I want to murder someone, I’m going to buy them a bike.
A disgrace! I’m not saying, hang the driver for texting, and maybe a custodial sentence would do no good, but at least let it be known he was largely responsible for the death of that poor boy.
To the jury….SHAME ON YOU
To the jury….SHAME ON YOU
What direction did the judge
What direction did the judge give the jury? Was m’lady asleep and missed the admission of the offence of using a hand help mobile telephone while driving?
So what is the justice system
So what is the justice system trying to say? Vigilante justice is the only way?
I know we dont have all of
I know we dont have all of the facts and I really hate to feel like this, I also probably dont mean it but….right at this moment….I really do hope the jury loose someone to a texting driver.
It does sound like a classic
It does sound like a classic SWSS, Single Witness Suicide Swerve.
Another shuddering reminder
Another shuddering reminder of the completely f+@ked situation we find ourselves where a driver having carried out those actions can be found not guilty.
As far I can see the following needs to happen..
1) A massive, and I mean far beyond the scale of the current one running for drug driving media campaign needs to take place to stigmatise driving whilst using your phone in the same way that drink driving is seen now. If the van driver had been drunk he’d have been found guilty by the jury. Of that I have no doubt. The issue is that drink driving is the only road crime that is seen as a crime by the general public.
2) Unmarked police motorbikes need to be used to activly go out and catch people doing this. Bring a fear (and i chose that word carefully) to drivers that they are going to get caught if they don’t change their behaivior. Not PCSO’s looking at green boxes where the drivers lower their phones by the time they get to them. The police must start putting resources into this.
3) As a London rider I’m going to make it my business to press any candidate for the next mayor position for if they would back the above. We have vast resources poured into stopping terror attacks, kettling student protests, policing areas around football grounds. If this many people were getting killed by football violence then there’d be uproar.
catfordrichard wrote:3) As a
The only candidate who’s in favour of creating streets safe and pleasant for people of all sorts is Christian Wolmar. Unfortunately he’s far down the current polls because he’s so much less known than the ex-ministers etc.
I’m voting for him, genuine nice guy and would be great, but with no expectation of him winning 🙁
The guy didn’t even get fined
The guy didn’t even get fined £70 for using a mobile phone whilst driving.
I don’t usually comment on
I don’t usually comment on these things because you can normally apply some logic to a decision that while not popular with cyclists explains the decision. But this is unbelievable. Anyone texting while driving is not in full control of their vehicle. My deepest sympathy goes out to the victims family and friends.
The problem with juries is
The problem with juries is that they are, in the main, composed of people who either lack the wit to come up with an excuse to get out of doing jury service, or simply have nothing better to do with their time.
I would sh*t myself if I were ever put in front of a jury to defend myself against a crime I didn’t commit, because time and again the verdicts returned prove nothing other than that the jurors are utter f*cktards.
srchar wrote:The problem with
I’ve read many moronic comments on here but this takes the biscuit. I’ve done jury service twice and am neither of those. Sometimes they are composed of opinionated tossers like yourself who are unable to view things objectively, and other occasions of people whose logic is difficult to fathom. What you should do is get involved and try to help these people come to the right and proper verdict. I’ve spent hours arguing in murder and child abuse trials. In the end we got the right outcome. If they weren’t allowed to do a majority verdict it could have been one person the rest of the jury couldn’t turn round. You on the other hand contribute fuck all, other than lining your own pockets with more money by opting out.
Something I have noticed in
Something I have noticed in London recently is a growing number of cyclists and pedestrians shouting abuse at motorists using hand held mobile phones / smart phones whilst driving, or tapping on their window to let them know other people are watching. I can think of several instances where people have alerted a nearby Police officer to the driver, who has then been flagged down.
I also remember a courier who was infamous in London for ripping phones of out motorists hands and throwing them into the traffic!
However, its very obvious that the Police have no real control over the streets any more, especially road traffic, and citizens are now taking it upon themselves to shame motorists by making a commotion.
I agree with an earlier comment that we need a massive publicity campaign to chance social attitudes towards cell phone driving, as was done with seat belts and drink driving.
When the law was changed there did seem to be an improvement for a while, until the smart phone became very accessible to the masses, with its all inherent distractions.
In addition, its a fair bet that motorists have realized the chances of being caught, let alone prosecuted, are minute.
hampstead_bandit wrote:I
It’s not about mobile phones.
This morning a transit van driver flew past far too close for no good reason downhill into a 40mph limit, honked loudly and shook his fist out of the window (by which time he was past the 30mph sign and still doing 45-50mph, as many do there). He won’t be opening the curtains tomorrow to a broken windscreen but only because I don’t know where he lives.
On Monday an HGV overtook on double white lines with a car coming the other way and cut back in so early that I had to hit the brakes.
A colleague was telling me that he won’t cycle to the office any more. He was sick of the fear that the next close pass could easily end his life, and that he was powerless to do anything about it.
Let’s be honest, it’s not about mobile phones.
license to drive = license to
license to drive = license to kill
While out and about today, I
While out and about today, I saw quite a number of people using phones while driving, mostly van drivers. Looking at a phone screen, or holding one to your ear while driving is bad enough, but actually typing text whilst driving . . . WTF !!!
This is a very odd verdict given the circumstances as described in this post. It sets a very dangerous precedent. Anybody up before a jury in future, for a similar offence, can now quote this particular case and say, “all I was doing was texting, I wasn’t looking at the screen, or talking into the phone”, to stand a good chance of getting away with it.
There seems little point in having a law that forbids phone use while driving, if this is what happens when an offender kills someone.
Do we know the drivers
Do we know the drivers address? More ways of achieving justice than through courts.
Ah so texting is ok. Cycling
Ah so texting is ok. Cycling is an incumberance to texting road users. Judge 1 justice nil. Killer goes free. What a fuck up system we have in the UK.
Guessing the jury have not
Guessing the jury have not been on a bike for a few years. Twats.
Wouldn’t it be karma if
Wouldn’t it be karma if Philip Sinden was killed in an RTA by a mobile toting moton …………… and it wouldn’t even be murder, nor causing death by dangerous or even careless driving ………… he would be erased from this earth without so much as a wibble, as if he never existed, except to his family and those that knew him and us. A bit like Daniel Squire and his family.
The jury must have all been retards.
Now, how can I fit an AK47 on my bike?
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=Az_6xdfxtwxVYXgAlN9NBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTI0cWd2M2s2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM0OWY4NjRiOTdlOGQzMzkyNjUxNTUwNGVmODYwNzliMQRncG9zAzEwMARpdANiaW5n?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dbicycle%2Bwith%2Bgun%26n%3D60%26ei%3DUTF-8%26y%3DSearch%26fr%3Dyfp-t-903%26fr2%3Dsb-top-uk.images.search.yahoo.com%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D100&w=640&h=450&imgurl=www.geekologie.com%2F2012%2F02%2F08%2Funicorn-gun-on-bike.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgeekologie.com%2F2012%2F02%2Fomg-ar-15-unicorn-with-attached-chainsaw.php&size=111.7KB&name=Hit+the+jump+for+a+couple+more+shots+and+a+video+demo+of+the+last+…&p=bicycle+with+gun&oid=49f864b97e8d33926515504ef86079b1&fr2=sb-top-uk.images.search.yahoo.com&fr=yfp-t-903&tt=Hit+the+jump+for+a+couple+more+shots+and+a+video+demo+of+the+last+…&b=61&ni=192&no=100&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12atfup6p&sigb=157loi65t&sigi=11l5i98o8&sigt=12510dars&sign=12510dars&.crumb=ibKf2gbCdKY&fr=yfp-t-903&fr2=sb-top-uk.images.search.yahoo.com
Something’s Not Quite Right
Something’s Not Quite Right Here
Sorry to say, this isn’t an
Sorry to say, this isn’t an issue they’ll take seriously while it’s only cyclists getting killed.
Another one for the Cyclists’
Another one for the Cyclists’ Defence Fund?
If it is as reported this is
If it is as reported this is warped. Texting while driving should be an immediate fine and 3 points on license and that’s for a 30mph. At any higher speeds it should be a ban. And the police need to enforce it.
Thought’s with Daniel Squire’s family
I’ve done jury service and
I’ve done jury service and the CPS solicitors – no offense meant – were hopelessly out of their depth and unimaginative.
Why not ask him to demonstrate to the jury whether he could drive a simulator and text at the same time?
Why not see if the chap could have cycled on to and off that narrow path as the defendent says?
They just don’t have what it takes. Or they don’t have enough time, more likely. Or any real axe to grind, since they have no stake in the case
By contrast the defence lawyer will have been some sleek City fellow full of the arts of pleading, and doing the ‘jury stuff’ that’s their stock in trade.
The judge will have directed the jury that they must acquit if there is any ‘reasonable doubt’ about the case. It’s the defence lawyer’s job to sow the seeds of that ‘reasonable doubt’ and that’s what they do. Circumstantial evidence (texting, etc) will not be good enough… so you can see why these people get off all the time.
Essentially the problem here
Essentially the problem here is that the public – and therefore the jury – completely approve of texting while driving, as they are all drivers who do this. The loss of the life of a bike rider is not something that most drivers care about, and they carry this attitude into court with them.
The public must be educated to despise this, in the same way that the socially acceptable drunk driving of the 1960s became generally accepted as “a bad thing” by many people by the mid 1990s and by the majority by about 2005.
I predict that texting and driving will be accepted as intolerable by the public by about the year 2040 to 2050 if a consistent campaign begins now, and continues non-stop.
It is probably a generational thing. Also, a lazy selfish thing.
His biggest regret was
His biggest regret was getting caught?
Dear road. Cc this article is
Dear road. Cc this article is shameful in that has happened but you have fallen in to the same trap as all other media reporting these types of incidents. The van didn’t kill the poor bloke on his bike it was the driver. Until we get all media to realise it’s the actions of the individual behind the wheel and not the object that’s responsible for the death and injuries caused how can we expect Juries to convict. We need to get the actions attached to the driver not the vehicle.
To the family of the man who lost his life my condolences to you and I hope that despite the lack of a sense of justice, you can take some heart from the obvious outpouring of disgust at the way your loss had been dealt with in our legal system.
It really is time that we
It really is time that we ended the cult of the sacred driving licence, people are at the controls of a piece of heavy machinery in a public place have to take full responsibility for its safe operation. Using a mobile while driving is illegal for a reason and should not be socially acceptable.
firstly what a disgrace the
firstly what a disgrace the “justice” system is to the family of the rider – i echo everything above.
what we need is a voice…
where are you Sir Chris Hoy, Boardman, Pendleton and all the rest of the “cycling stars” – these people with their publicity and voice can cut deep into this Political tar that covers incidents like this so the general public doesnt see them….
i am not critical of them, by any means, i just think if they loved cycling like we do and they understood what weight them speaking out might carry, if it was me, i’d be marching on Downing Street with a banner held high until the “justice” system was changed for good!
Remember this is Kent, the
Remember this is Kent, the UKIP heartland, daliy Mail readers as far as the eye can see. Next to immigrants, cyclists are they public enemy number 2.
this is where we need a
this is where we need a system where relatives can challenge an obvious unjust verdict.
If you are on the phone texting that is dangerous driving and killing someone is for me manslaughter.
The DPP should call this in
The DPP should call this in for review if he can, especialy if the ‘pavement’ claim is untrue.
Like me, write a letter to
Like me, write a letter to the Attorney General requesting that the sentence is reviewed. At the contact details below:
Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP
Attorney General
Attorney General’s Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF
Email: correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
mcmahonsport wrote:Like me,
Rather of a waste of paper: You can’t ask for his sentence to be reviewed. There was none. The defendant was found not guilty. You cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.
Yes, noticed that thanks.
Yes, noticed that 🙁 thanks. Written for ‘a review’ not sure that will work.
Bez wrote:
Rather of a waste
There may be an opportunity to ask for a retrial in the public interest with the CPS
mcmahonsport wrote:
There may
If the victim’s family, a prominent campaigner or cycling charity seeks support for such a petition, I’m certain the interest will be significant.
bikebot wrote:mcmahonsport
So far ..
He was acquitted of “causing death by dangerous driving” and a lesser charge of “causing death by careless driving”.
This does not exclude the possibility of further prosecutions for ..
a.) Manslaughter
b.) Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (was Daniel ever on the pavement ??)
c.) Use of a hand held phone or similar device, when driving.
Lets just hope the numpties at the CPS that screwed this up the first time are replaced by some real mean prosecuting machines and that the MoFo van driver is carted away and locked up for a very very long time.
PS….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm
Bez wrote:mcmahonsport
It can be appealed if the judge incorrectly directed the jury, got the law wrong or just totally misunderstood the issues which was evident in his directions to the jury. But it would have to be a significant and relevant error on their part.
According to Dan’s mum he
According to Dan’s mum he only stopped after being flagged down by another motorist 125meters down the road. His lack of remorse is most shocking.
Please establish contact via
Please establish contact via Twitter -https://twitter.com/Kent_Cyclist
This could be important evidence that wasn’t aired at the trial.
Please establish contact via
Please establish contact via Twitter (via Kent_Cyclist)
This could be important evidence that wasn’t aired at the trial.
BigglesMeister,
Thank you for
BigglesMeister,
Thank you for clearing up the incident location for me. From the report and the timings (text and emergency call) I had assumed that the incident had occurred almost immediately after Sinden had turned onto the A258.
If his last text received was at 08.39.49 before he joined the A258 and the emergency call (from another driver) was at 08.40.44 then that only gives him 55seconds to go from a near standing start to go about 1.2miles. Now take off the time for the other driver to stop and call the emergency services (say 5seconds at best) and your down to 50seconds.
If you take into account the 0-60mph time of a Vauxhall Vivaro which is about 10seconds (depending on engine) then Sinden’s testimony is clearly not credible.
I know it is wrong to sink into conjecture in these situations, but, I can’t help feeling that Sinden has ploughed into Daniel Squire whilst being distracted by what he was doing inside the vehicle.
How this is not an ‘open and shut case’ of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is beyond me. This is as gross a miscarriage of justice as you will ever find and it must be appealed.
Appalled, no other words
Appalled, no other words necessary.
Utterly tragic for Daniel and
Utterly tragic for Daniel and his family. Just tragic for all cyclists. And a complete tragedy of the legal system.
More:
http://beyondthekerb.wo
More:
this is sickening. the idiot
this is sickening. the idiot was texting. end of. how they could accept he was left hand texting and driving speaks volumes of the jury’s intelligence. no one could defend the victim who is now DEAD and GONE forever, all they had was the murderer’s version and of course he would concoct some nonsense. he couldnt deny the texting but to say it was left handed and separate from his attention is despicable. i detest seeing people texting at the wheel it’s the most idiotic thing to do in a car, right up there with smoking while your kids are in the back. thoughts to the victim’s family who have lost their son while someone’s else’s son lives on. lives on as a murderer with no shame or remorse. pathetic justice system. also, the council could do more and clear the shrubbery blocking that damn pavement, i see it a lot, total lack of maintenance meaning riders are FORCED onto the road because of overgrown hedges. has happened to me countless times and thankfully i’ve not been killed. but they’re probably too busy swigging ale with that throatless guffawing plonker Farage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0iwz3NEC0
Bez has updated his Beyond
Bez has updated his Beyond the Kerb blog on 15 April with further evidence of the wrong verdict.
bit.ly/1FXiYLS
Many thanks for his sterling efforts.