This recently published video shows the moment when a Nottingham cyclist was hit from behind near the BBC roundabout in Nottingham in November 2014. The uploader, who employs the username Reginald Scot, says that despite the shocking nature of the crash, the driver was not prosecuted.
The victim says that he sustained a severe back injury and internal haemorrhaging in the collision and took four months to recover.
Reginald Scot says there was no confrontation with anyone prior to the attack and that he did not know the driver or the car. Nor was he riding his normal route and so doesn’t believe the attack was planned.
Writing in the comments beneath the video, he mentions that the vehicle involved was a courtesy car (he doesn’t explain how he came by that information) and it seems there may have been issues proving the identity of the driver. Suggesting that a combination of factors “came together to create a legal loophole” he adds that he is reluctant to outline the details for fear that someone might try and copy the incident – although he has also suggested he may do a follow-up video to explain the situation better.
Rhia Favero from CTC commented:
“I have a feeling the problems with this case have little to do with whether helmet/handlebar camera footage is permissible evidence, but rather to do with the police’s inability to trace the driver. I’m sure most people will find it incredible that the driver couldn’t be traced when the courtesy car company must have their details on file.
“I really hope we get to the bottom of how this driver managed to get away with running into the back of someone, seriously injuring them, and fleeing the scene. And I hope lessons are learned so that other criminal drivers don’t get away with this sort of downright dangerous behaviour.’
road.cc has contacted both Nottinghamshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service for comment.
78 thoughts on “Video: Shocking Nottingham hit and run – cyclist says driver was not prosecuted”
Surely the owner of the
Surely the owner of the vehicle should be prosecuted, even if that is an entity, maybe even obstruction of justice for failing to supply the driver’s details? At the very least they must be liable for any compensation and such. Someone must be responsible for the keys to the vehicle, apply pressure and people might talk, or at least change their ways?
Frightening footage. And it
Frightening footage. And it really shouldn’t be that difficult to trace the driver. If whoever was supposed to be driving denies it, check their mobile phone records and alibis. Surely other drivers saw what happened – and who was involved?
I’d like to hear the other side of the story – although it’s difficult to see anything other than blatant dangerous driving (and perhaps worse).
How can you not locate the
How can you not locate the driver? Its easy check the details of whoever signed for the car, if fake details were given it may be a bit tougher but im sure the person would be on cctv. It sounds like the police and CPS cant be bothered to do it. Says a lot about thier attitudes towards cyclists if thats the case.
Absolutley redicious, even
Absolutley ridiculous, even with a camera and clear evidence the police are completely useless? The guy could of come off a lot worse than he did.
https://twitter.com/nottspolice if you feel like tweeting them
I hope this is gonna be big.
I hope this is gonna be big. Times and times I said… It will take one fames person to die from cycling and the revolution will start… Right now they look at us as numbers and not reflecting that each of us have families and want to come home safely.
I had a similar problem. The
I had a similar problem. The police will only pursue the driver of a hire car and I assume courtesy car if they decide to prosecute. Bloody daft if you ask me, how much more evidence do they need.
Only possible excuse for no
Only possible excuse for no prosecution is false plates. If they have the car details the owner should be prosecuted. Every hire car or courtesy car requires proof of I’D and records kept.
I’ve never been given a
I’ve never been given a courtesy car without having to sign the usual insurance waivers and provide my driving licence…a stinking cover up by the garage, probably an employee at the wheel. I wonder why Volvo’s City Safety failed to work here. Perhaps you could email Volvo directly to ask?
I fully agree with the poster
I fully agree with the poster on this, we need Education, Education, Education not more segregated cycle lanes. The most frightening thing about this incident is that clearly the driver had seen the cyclist, he gives him plenty of room at the traffic lights and on the roundabout so why the fuck does he then just blatantly run him down? The car should have been impounded until someone admitted being the driver, its just not on.
On another subject I wish car manufacturers would stop adding wasteful gimmicks to cars. Auto Lights, Auto Wipers, Electric Folding Mirrors, Auto Reverse Systems. Why wont they fit in car DVR as standard?
Wow… stunning bit of
Wow… stunning bit of nonchalence from the authorities.
How about we all register our cars as rentals and claim we don’t know who was driving when we get caught by speed cameras?
Sounds like clear obstruction of justice?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce
Surely the car was damaged in
Surely the car was damaged in the incident? Then surely the garage in question would know exactly which one of their customers was in control of the car?
scousegreg wrote:
Here’s a thought. It wasn’t out on loan to a customer but the car was being used by someone at the garage, who can then pretend claim no knowledge of the user.
Well I, for one, am happy in
Well I, for one, am happy in the knowledge that the police are not going to let this lie and will do whatever they can to find the driver.
Wibble!
Wibble, wibble!
Provided the vehicle does not
Provided the vehicle does not have fake plates then the owner & insurer are on the hook for making good the cost of any damage and compensation (loss of earnings, pain & suffering etc), get after ’em I say as it’s no contest with that footage!! I’d even hazzard a guess that the couresty car driver may be related to the company the vehicle belongs to which is why they say “eh ??”.
The cyclist who posted the
The cyclist who posted the video commented “Despite the evidence, the police and CPS failed to bring the driver in this savage attack to justice”.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into that comment but I don’t think CPS would have been involved unless the driver had been identified.
If that’s the case, then why would the CPS not prosecute?
ron611087 wrote:
I agree it sounds like the driver was identified by the registered vehicle owning company, but in the only evidence of the crash that was sourced, ie the cyclists video, there was no way to confirm it was the same person, you cant see who the driver is behind the windscreen.
Which must be the legal loophole for a loan/courtesty car situation as the registered owner has met their legal obligations side, so cant be prosecuted for witholding that info, but the law doesnt then cover the situation that says what happens if that driver then doesnt admit to anything happening and cannot be identified from the video evidence.
normally its not an issue because there would be other angles from other CCTV videos,or speed camera footage which could be used to positively confirm the driver matched.
Awavey wrote:
The cyclist who posted the video commented “Despite the evidence, the police and CPS failed to bring the driver in this savage attack to justice”.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into that comment but I don’t think CPS would have been involved unless the driver had been identified.
If that’s the case, then why would the CPS not prosecute?
— Awavey I agree it sounds like the driver was identified by the registered vehicle owning company, but in the only evidence of the crash that was sourced, ie the cyclists video, there was no way to confirm it was the same person, you cant see who the driver is behind the windscreen. Which must be the legal loophole for a loan/courtesty car situation as the registered owner has met their legal obligations side, so cant be prosecuted for witholding that info, but the law doesnt then cover the situation that says what happens if that driver then doesnt admit to anything happening and cannot be identified from the video evidence. normally its not an issue because there would be other angles from other CCTV videos,or speed camera footage which could be used to positively confirm the driver matched.— ron611087
If that is the case, then the law as it stands is not fit for purpose.
ron611087 wrote:
Yes and no. It is conceivable that the police may have gone to the CPS with the evidence and the CPS would have said (rightly) that there is no evidence of driver ID, without which nobody can be prosecuted.
A lack of ID appears extremely likely to be the reason for no prosecution here. Whether that was because the CPS said so or the police realised it and didn’t take it to the CPS is academic.
I bet the driver would have
I bet the driver would have been identified soon enough had a parking ticket been involved.
Mungecrundle wrote:
No, almost certainly not. The registered keeper is responsible for any parking fines incurred by the car, regardless of who was driving. So there is no need to identify the driver. Whether a similar system should apply here is a different question…
Can’t bring myself to comment
Can’t bring myself to comment!
I bet a large amount of money
I bet a large amount of money that if this same car had been in a hit-and-run with a granny or a young child, the driver would be locked up by now…..
The police and CPS are
The police and CPS are absoluely useless f****rs.
Unbelievable. I would
Unbelievable. I would encourage Reginald ( if he has not already) to raise this with his MP to bring some weight to bear down at a high level. No clear explanation as to why the courtesy car company cannot provide evidence. Disgrace and shame on them, the driver and the police
I hope he sues the company
I hope he sues the company that owned the car for a lot of money. If the driver can not be found, the owner of the car surely has some liability?
Just a thought, it’s not just
Just a thought, it’s not just customers that drive courtesy cars. It might have been any of a number of employees who wouldn’t necessarily been required to sign for it, having already been registered on their insurance. The owner’s insurance company would be interested in such lax control of their vehicles.
I realise the point has
I realise the point has already been made, but this is ridiculous: if my car is caught by a speed camera then I’ll be forced to provide the name of the driver at the time and if I don’t then I as the registered owner will be prosecuted, but in the case of a motor vehicle clearly ramming a bicycle and driving off, the same process isn’t applied. Disgraceful – the police should be ashamed.
I think Charles Dickens has a
I think Charles Dickens has a reply for this.
“If the law supposes that,” “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
It looks like the car driver
It looks like the car driver forgot about the bike in front of him/her. Whilst accelerating may be was looking in their mirror to ready to change lanes. I know that roundabout well and it is a bit of wacky races area , drivers jostling for lane position. Plus it’s a city, drivers are far less tolerant of slow moving vehicles especially at rush hour !
Shocking police didn’t prosecute. They still could really. I believe 14 day rule for notice of prosecution NIP doesn’t apply when accident (I say that with a guarded expression) involves hitting someone, either car, person or wall
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Perhaps, but between leaving the roundabout and the crash were about 5 seconds of straigth road. If they were checking the mirror for 5 seconds and accelerating without looking forward once, it might not have been a deliberate hit, but surely very bad driving?
In any case, is there a reason for not stopping afterwards? Surely they must have noticed that they hit a bicycle?
The BBC says http://www.bbc
The BBC says http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617
Just because the police/CPS
Just because the police/CPS decide not to prosecute doesn’t close the private prosecution route, or a claim against the insurers of the car.
Nothing academic abou it at
Nothing academic abou it at all. Police have a duty to investigate and they would appear to be negligent. So pursue the police via the IPCC and the CPS for failure to process. The courtesy/hire car loophole needs closing.
OldnSlo wrote:
Neither the police nor the CPS can close legal loopholes. Complaining about them won’t mean that they can. And no, the police do not appear to have been negligent.
Publish the details of the
Publish the details of the people who could not be prosecuted and the rest will sort itself out.
Jonomc wrote:
Not that I condone the lynch mob for one moment, but it is certainly odd that nobody has been named.
Jonomc wrote:
Who should publish those details? The law is at fault here – let’s not make it worse by suggesting that other offences be committed to encourage vigilantism.
What needs to happen is shit like this being made more public until enough people get sick of it that the law (or more specifically the way it is applied) is changed
A moment’s search on Google
A moment’s search on Google reveals what happened : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617.
Basically it’s as anybody with knowledge of the law would assume:
1. It’s a hire car.
2. The police did what they should have done and served a s172 notice, requiring the hire company to tell them who hired it.
3. The car had been hired out to a man but with two permitted drivers: him and a female. They were also served with s172 notices requiring them to say which had been driving.
4. They declined to say who had been driving. This is obviously extremely reprehensible. Note that at this point the fact of its being a hire car becomes irrelevant. It is exactly the same situation as if my car hits somebody (or just goes througha red light/speed camera) and my wife and I refuse to say which of us was driving.
5. A few people have said that the failure to find out who it was shows that the police either don’t care or are incompetent. This is simply wrong. It is conceivable (likely, in fact) that the car went outside the view of CCTV. In any event the police would not have gone to CCTV until it became apparent that the car was a hire and the hirer wasn’t complying. Doing so would have been a complete waste of resources as most people do comply. By the time they got that far it is likely that any CCTV other than city council would have been wiped – most provate companies keep their CCTV for short periods only, to save space. You can only check out an alibi if they give one – they may not have done so.
6. The same goes for mobile phone positioning, with the added complication that it is very difficult and very expensive to do a precise triangulation of mobile phone position. The bit that can be done relatively easily is call data. That just shows you which cells were used and this is not sufficient to say exactly where you were (it can be a range of several kilometers). It also only works if you are actually using your phone at the time. Anything beyond that rough position requires very time-consuming and expensive work. By which I mean that police resources are such that it is very rare to get it in cases like organised burglary and drug dealing gangs. This does not mean that the police don’t care about this case or about cycling generally. It means that they do not have infinite resources. Add complications like showing who had which phone at the time (basically impossible in some cases) and the decision not to go down that route is entirely right.
7. Both were summonsed for failing to stop, failing to report and failing to respond to their s172 notices. The CPS (rightly) took the view that there was no prospect of conviction on the failing to stop and failing to report for exactly the same reason that there is no prospect of a conviction for dangerous driving: it is impossible to identify the driver. This, by the way, is not the CPS being incompetent of uncaring or a bunch of car drivers who cyclists. It’s the CPS applying the law.
8. The male (presumably it was he who hired the car) was convicted of failing to answer the s172 notice. The female doesn’t appear to have been convicted, which makes sense – she would only be lawfully required to reply if she was the driver. Since we would only have the male’s word for that, she wouldn’t be convicted (the Prosecution not being able to rely on a Defendant’s word in their case).
9. The male was fined £150. This is shockingly low. The maximum is £1000. This low fine is not the fault of the police or the CPS. It is a decision taken my magistrates. They have sentencing guidelines that they have to pay heed to but are free to excedd in appropriate case. Personally I would have thought that this justified a higher fine but I (like everybody else here) don’t know the details of what led to the decision, so cannot say for certain.
10. The male received 6 penalty points. This is the maximum penalty in terms of driving punishment. The fact that this is the maximum is not the fault of the police, CPS or Magistrates. It is the fault of the Parliament of 1988 that passed the Road Traffic Act and of every Parliament since that has not increased it.
11. Personally I feel that the penalty for willfully failing to provide details should be the same as the penalty for whatever offence the unidentified driver committed. It isn’t. If those who are talking about writing to MPs want to put something useful in their letters, leave aside calls for expensive infrastructure and education that will probably be ignored. Write and suggest an amendment to make wilfully failing to supply driver details punishable with the same penalty as the offence that the driver committed. That’s the actual lesson from this case.
This is not a case, as far as the reports show, where the police have been lazy, incompetent or uncaring about cyclists. Nor have the CPS. The only reprehensible behaviour has been by the driver and possibly by the other eligible driver (I say possibly because it may be that each said it was the other, in which case the non-driver has done nothing wrong). And possibly the court sentenced too low but really would a £1000 fine have reduced the justifiable sense of injustice here?
It is also a case that highlights a problem with the current legislation. That is not something that can be fixed by the police, the CPS or the courts. It needs a Bill in Parliament.
Dan S wrote:
Excellent post. Particularly 11.
Dan S wrote:
Totally agree with point 11. We all love the lazy social media comment (guilty here as well) but this is a well thought out response. MP’s and cycle groups should lobby parliament on this. It won’t make the roads any safer, but it will at least make people accountable.
Maybe we should set up one of those online gov petitions?
Dan S wrote:
Dan, thank you for the very helpful explanation. I had my reply fully formed in my head until I got to your point 11 and discovered you had beaten me to it.
Of course the penalty for willfully witholding information after an offence should be the same penalty as the offence itself would have required. In fact it should be worse – now someone has been driven into *and* there has been an attempt to cover up the details. A higher penalty might encourage people to tell the truth.
But now the trouble is that we can’t blame any individual (or group), no-one can be singled out and ranted at. The fault lies at an insitutional level, with our national legislation (which we know is hopelessly lenient towards drivers). And any change is unlikely to happen, regardless of what each of us does individually. How many times have I written to my (Labour) MP, and he’s replied to say that, essentially he agrees but there’s very little he can do about it under the circumstances.
Maybe I will just move to the Netherlands. Hopefully the momentum of these articles will take this somewhere. Good luck with that petition.
The police not being able to
The police not being able to trace the driver is the lamest excuse known to man. Esepcially as it takes a 2 second search of the MID and a call to the garage. Half arsed policing in full effect. Twats.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
And how do you prove which of the two people registered to drive it was actually driving?
that is horific!
that is horific!
I agree with the comets he put at the end of the video as well.
When I had a near miss the coppers said if it was bad they send it to the America as they have the ability to get more info from the piture.
Has this been done?
good chance with first bit of piture.
Hope he is fit and well again.
jthef wrote:
Wot?
Zebulebu wrote:
I think he was asking if the picture of the Volvo could be enhanced. I actually did try this with Photoshop tools, but although I could make out a vague shape of a head, it was nowhere near good enough to make a positive ID.
£150 fine for a hit and run ?
£150 fine for a hit and run ? That magistrate should be ashamed of himself. £150 is nothing.
I am a bit surprised that the pictures can’t be enhanced enough to work out if it was a man or woman driving – the cyclist had a good few minutes of the car being behind him. Is there no filter that takes a bit of glare out ? (I know CSI has given us wildly optimistic views of what can be done…)
fenix wrote:
Like I said in a previous post-I did try to enhance and there’s not enough there. Would never stand up in court.
fenix wrote:
No £150 for the offence charged, failing to provide details. See the very lenghty post above. As Dan S said, too low for that, too low by far. And that sentence needs changing.
But it’s not £150 for a hit and run.
bendertherobot wrote:
Point taken. But a guy was ‘hit and run’ and the only financial penalty was £150. I agree with you it needs changing.
OK, so I have made a UK
OK, so I have made a UK Government Petition: If we want change we need to act:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120620/sponsors/BgwGd152uLDVpOET9zS
I need five signatures on this for it to go live. Once it does, the link can go to all the cycling forums. It’s about all road users being properly protected, but this is a good place to start.
jimbo2112 wrote:
Signed
Signed it.
Signed it.
No offence, but I’m going to
No offence, but I’m going to put up a differently worded one, putting it into legalese 🙂
The problem is that your suggestion has the title about making reporting mandatory. It already is. And then you say that failure to comply should be deemed as contempt. The point is to increase the penalty for the existing offence rather than to create a new offence. Much easier to get through, for one thing.
I’ll draft a new one and post a link.
Dan S wrote:
None taken, but there’s very few characters allowed in the title.
https://petition.parliament
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623/sponsors/5IZdXnonAMrQNsH6WK6
“My petition:
Increase the penalty for failing to provide driver details under s172 RTA 1988
Failing to provide details of a driver involved in an offence is 6pts and £1000. This can be exploited where the offence alleged carries a higher penalty than that above (e.g. dangerous driving). The penalty for failing to provide should match that of the offence allegedly committed by the driver.
An example is this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617. A driver deliberately hit a cyclist and drive off. There were two possible drivers and they simply refused to say who was driving. This is not uncommon but it is effectively The penalty was 6pts and £150. If the s172 penalty matched the index offence then witholding driver details would cease to be an attractive option. Alternatively, s172 could carry custody where it is wilfully committed.”
Dan S wrote:
Signed!
Can those good people that signed mine, please sign the new one from Dan S please?
🙂
Signed Dan S’ one also
Signed Dan S’ one also
This should go back to court.
This should go back to court. If the pair continue to refuse to identify the driver the Police and CPS have one obvious option; upgrade the offense to Assault and charge them both under Joint Enterprise.
Bill H wrote:
Nope. If anything that’s worse. The case would be self contradictory. The passenger, if passenger there was, would not be guilty. So you would be putting two people in the dock and saying “one of these people is innocent and one is guilty. We don’t know which is which.”. The jury (or magistrates) would have to be sure which was the driver. That’s hardly likely when the prosecution case is that they don’t know which is…
Dan S wrote:
This should go back to court. If the pair continue to refuse to identify the driver the Police and CPS have one obvious option; upgrade the offense to Assault and charge them both under Joint Enterprise.
— Dan S Nope. If anything that’s worse. The case would be self contradictory. The passenger, if passenger there was, would not be guilty. So you would be putting two people in the dock and saying “one of these people is innocent and one is guilty. We don’t know which is which.”. The jury (or magistrates) would have to be sure which was the driver. That’s hardly likely when the prosecution case is that they don’t know which is…— Bill H
Joint Enterprise is a legal tool created for precisely these situations. Most often you will read about it where someone has been seriously injured by a gang or similar group, the legal system cannot identify which offender laid the blow so all are found to be equally responsible.
Bill H wrote:
Joint enterprise was not created for this kind of situation. It was created for situations where two or more people act jointly (hence the name…). It covers situations where you cannot say who did what, but that is not its main purpose, as it also covers situations where you know precisely who did what. The point is simply that you can charge several people with a single offence if they all took part in it. It emphatically does not cover situations where one person did it and one didn’t but you don’t know which. Mere presence is not enough for joint enterprise.
Here there is no suggestion that two acted jointly to assault the cyclist. There is no evidence that this was a joint enterprise assault. Subsequent failure to help the police does not make the assault a joint enterprise.
In a joint enterprise you say to the jury that both did it. In this case you’d be saying that one did it and one didn’t. That’s not joint enterprise.
Bill H wrote:
*duplicate post*
Maximum penalty for fail to
Maximum penalty for fail to identify the driver can include your licence being endorsed with 6 penalty points and a fine up of £1,000. A £150 seems pathetic and I would appeal!
bgw wrote:
How would you do that? There is no power for the prosecution to appeal a lawful but unduly lenient sentence from the magistrates’ court.
Volvo xc90 , the lease hire
Volvo xc90 , the lease hire car of choice of high ranking Nottinghamshire Police officials ( alledgedley!!!!)
Chaps, just spread the word
Chaps, just spread the word of the petition that Dan S did (to replace my lowly effort! – which has 21 signatures!). Get it on all the cycling forums, Facebook, Twitter, lamposts etc… All this rhetoric is pushing on open doors!
MODERATORS: If you are lurking, can you make the petition more public please?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623/
Cheers, ta.
The company I work for has
The company I work for has several pool cars for work use, belonging to Avis that we control ourselves. Any employee (over 21 or something like that) with a licence can drive . we sign them out and take the key….however, it may come as no surprise that on a daily basis some takes the key directly from the last person because they are late or can’t be bothered with the paperwork. Maybe because, so far, there has been nothing serious that happened, we have not considered the lack of recoded traceability.
Lets hope this is resolved.
Comrade wrote:
That’s fairly common and it can be a useful illustration of the process. The registered keeper (either Avis or the company) gets the s172 notice. If it’s Avis then they provide the company’s details and the company is sent a s172 notice. The company either simply checks the records and provides the details of the person who signed it out or they speak to that person.
If the company speak to the person who signed it out and there’s a dispute between two people as to who was driving then the company will probably have to accept that they are unable to provide the details. They can then try to argue that they’ve used due diligence to find out but they’ll almost certainly fail and be fined. I would imagine that the people breakign the rules would hear more about that in the morning.
If the company provides the details of the person who signed it out then they in turn get a s172 notice. They probably supply details of the person who took it from them. When that person gets their notice they return it saying the other guy. By this stage the process has been going on for weeks and almost all private companies would have recorded over their CCTV and people may genuinely not remember who was driving at a particular time. THe outcome might be that the guy who signed it out is charged and has to try to argue that it wasn’t him and he has provided the details or it might be that nobody is charged.
The one time I ever saw the due diligence defence work it was a couple who were moving house. They made literally dozens of trips each between the two houses on that day, with each driving while the other was packing or unpacking. Weeks later they had no way of saying who was driving when they went through a speed camera doing about 47 in a 40. It takes that kind of situation usually. And companies get very little slack, because they should have systems in place.
As an additional question on
As an additional question on this thread, given that the legalities are very constraining, would there be any change in the outcome if the chap on his bike had been killed? Would the CPS settle for 6 pts in this case?
jimbo2112 wrote:
The first point, which I really did think I had made tolerably clear by now, is that the CPS are not settling for 6 points. At no point in this process did a CPS lawyer say “oh well, it’s just a cyclist being injured, 6 points will be fine”. The CPS simply have to work within a system of laws that includes such things as the presumption of innocence.
As to the question, it is difficult to answer without knowing exactly what was said by the two people in their interviews, along with a number of other factors. In general, the fact that a perosn is killed is likely to mean that the investigation will have more resources than a serious injury. This is not a cue for people to scream about not protecting cyclists. The same is true in all kinds of assaults. If you kill somebody with a knife then the police will allocate more resources than if you injure them. The police have limited resources (as do the CPS, although that probably wouldn’t have any effect here) and yes, they will prioritise death cases. The resources are such that I regularly come across robbery, drug dealing and serious assault cases where there are investigations that could have been done but weren’t because there simply aren’t the resources. That’s not the police’s fault, nor is it the CPS’s fault.
This does not mean that more could have been achieved. There are various kinds of investigation that could be tried: mobile phone cell site evidence; fingerprints and DNA from the steering wheel; extensive CCTV searches across the city to try to find somebody getting in or out of the car etc. We do not know which, if any, of these were tried. Anybody complaining that the police didn’t do these things either needs to be quiet or say how they know they weren’t done. Any and all of them might have failed to establish who was driving.
The short version: had the cyclist died then the police may well have had more resources but it is entirely impossible to say whether those resources would have led to a different result. If no more evidence was obtained then yes, the same charge would have been forthcoming. That still wouldn’t be the CPS settling for 6 points, it would be the CPS laying the only charge that had a realistic prospect of conviction (they are legally obliged not to lay charges that do not have such a prospect).
Yes, Dan S, you have been
Yes, Dan S, you have been very clear and informative, I just wanted to get some context on the severity of the situation impacting the expected response. I completely accept that the CPS are bound by existing law.
I guess the issue would have come down to the effort made available to cover the extra dilligence in order to come to a suitable outcome in the case. Given that nobody died, they may feel that the effort was commensurate, but, if he had died, they may have invested much more police time in phorensics and the like.
I seem to remember that criminal deaths/murders cost the state in excess of £1m each in admin/investigation, so this would make sense.
Sorry, getting grouchy and
Sorry, getting grouchy and didn’t check who the question was from!
Unless I’ve missed something
Unless I’ve missed something surely both the man and woman are both guilty of failing to report? Whoever was in the car at the time has the duty to report – even passengers.
You’ve missed two thing
You’ve missed two thing 🙂
1. There is no indication that both were in the car, only that both were allowed to drive it and we don’t know which was doing so. The other may have been the passenger or may have been elsewhere.
2. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act only requires the driver to stop and report an accident, not the passengers.
No lawyer, but if only two
No lawyer, but if only two people could have been driving, and they both collude to hide the identity of the driver, then could there be an offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice being committed?
Yes there could. But there
Yes there could. But there isn’t enough information in the article to say whether there actually has been. It might be that they are each blaming each other, in which case it’s hard to say that they’re conspiring together.
Absolutely shocking, the
Absolutely shocking, the whole saga and certainly the delibrate act of hit n run criminal collision.
Utterly scandalous that cops did NOT treat it as ATTEMPTED MURDER, and worse, that they found it that DIFFICULT to confirm the culprit behind the wheel, when all they needed to know if it was male or female.
>And that they easily could have established who it was by:
1. Checking out their alibis
2. Checking mobile phone data of their movements
3. Locating eye witnesses, whose cars were captured on victim’s cameras, who may have spotted the fleeing suspect
4. Tracked cctv movement of the culprit’s car, b4 n after the collision, and potentially revealing the driver
>Having failed all these leads, all within their power n resources, makes you wonder if cops willfully withheld it from the public and the press, perhaps because the culprit had some connections with cops.