Charlie Alliston potentially facing perjury charge over claim he worked as a courier

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

dottigirl wrote:

Or he could've been working off the books and the firms don't want to own up to it?

If he were supporting himself, have they stated how he was doing it, if not by couriering?

With courier firms is it ever really 'on the books'? Do they not treat all their couriers as 'self employed' anyway? So, apart from the reputational damage of being associated with the hate-figure de jour, do they have any reason to lie? They might just not bother keeping particularly good records, of course, as they generally want to deny all legal liability for their workforce.

You have cases such as this where recently couriers have won 'worker' status:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39377500
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/medical-couriers-doctor...
https://theloadstar.co.uk/cycle-courier-wins-right-treated-worker-employ...

dottigirl wrote:

Or he could've been working off the books and the firms don't want to own up to it?

If he were supporting himself, have they stated how he was doing it, if not by couriering?

Better to lie about this than admit you earn a living selling weed and hippy crack. Sadly the guys clearly an idiot.

Doesn't make the daily mails ruthless campaign to screw him (and the rest of us by association) any less awful though. If they spent half this effort on real news the country would be a significantly better place.

dottigirl wrote:

Or he could've been working off the books and the firms don't want to own up to it?

If he were supporting himself, have they stated how he was doing it, if not by couriering?

Parents are good for that sort of thing.

Sniffer wrote:

Don't get drawn into the Daily Mail's silly game.

I don't think perjury charges are in this case are likely.

I would suspect that many people who are convicted after pleading not guilty have in effect perjured themselves. 

Think about it

'Did you steal xxx' asks the lawyer.  'No I didn't' says the defendant.

.... and then the jury passes a guilty sentence as there is lots of evidence the defendent did steal xxx.

Then precisely nothing happens related to perjury.

The court system won't want to say it explicitly though.

Perjury is much more important if a witness lies.  They may not be on trial, but it is appropriate that they commit a crime if the lie under oath.  Similarly when a defendant was found not guilty based on a lie they told in evidence. 

Now in this case Alliston was found guilty of one charge and not guilty of manslaughter.  It is hard to imagine that his evidence was significant in his aquital and therefore it unlikely that a further prosecution when he is already serving a custodial sentence will be in the public interest, hence you won't hear anymore about it.  Although, none of us can be sure what is in the minds of the jurors.

I know there are people on this forum with much more court and legal knowledge than me, but I doubt the Daily Mail's 'revelation' is likely to add up to much and is not part of the case that matters (whatever your view on Alliston and his behaviour).

I agree.  There's nothing in the article to indicate who is reporting that he might be facing perjury charges.  Based on the judge's statement, she was aware there was potential perjury but chose to let it go.

LastBoyScout wrote:

Never ceases to amaze me how much information the rags can dig up on anyone - how on earth do they manage to get hold of private employment records, unless they themselves are committing fraud in claiming to be employers looking for references or someone at the companies is breaking the law in disclosing the information?

Given that in the course of the phone-hacking affair it was revealed how easy it was for them to get hold of medical records (which most definitely _are_ supposed to be confidential) with a few simple lies, it's not surprising they can get employment histories (which I don't think are confidential anyway).

They probably just rang up his former employers (are courier companies technically 'employers' by the way?) and asked them. It probably is perfectly legal for them to do so.

The whole thing is just another example of how much power the not-at-all-free press has to pursue their partisan agendas. They never put this much effort into investigating Hillsborough or phone-hacking or anything else that didn't fit their agenda.

I can't see what relevance the guy's lies on this are to the case. I suspect he just was in the habit of lying about it (even to himself) because it boosted his ego, and just did so again without even thinking it through. He doesn't seem the type to think anything through, ever.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I can't see what relevance the guy's lies on this are to the case. I suspect he just was in the habit of lying about it (even to himself) because it boosted his ego, and just did so again without even thinking it through. He doesn't seem the type to think anything through, ever.

A very simple explanation for that

Quote:

The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not necessarily at the same rate. That’s why when teens experience overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.

On top of that add the bereavement of his father less than 2 years before and you easily have one messed up young adult that doesn't think things through, or realise the full consequences of his actions.

Whast the worst thing from all this is that this will be used as the bedrock of anti-cyclist diatribes culminating in before the end of Sadiq Khans tenure as mayor, there will be a lot of support to rip out the segregated cycleways. And all those who have waded into this kid wil have helped the arseholes that achieve rolling cycling gains back 30 years bcause to them, giving the kid a kicking is easier than growing a fucking pair and fighting against treating this incident as a tragic accident that was a culmination of the perfect storm of several factors.

Copsframecyclist wrote:

I don't think exaggeration about experience is illegal but what will be facinating is if this judge Wendy Joseph now says Alliston’s experience in riding a fixie is not as he claims n takes action, only suggestes to us that his experience was relevant. So how will she explain convicting him soley on the bases of having no front whilst clearly disregarding his experience claims. If his experience was bought into question now, then that will diminise the lack of front argument and making his conviction unsafe. Some people only need a minimum of experience to qualify in doing things so what experience does Daily Mail (clearly Anti-cylist lynch mob) have in riding a fixie to qualify their comments? This trial was not about his experience and he was not working for any company during the accident so they should remain neutral. He probably has more private experience and credit to him lack of any reported crashes prior to this.

The Judge didn't convict him, a jury did, having heard all the evidence. The Judge summed up before the Jury considered its verdict. There's been no appeal on the basis of her summing up. Her sentencing comments relate only to sentencing. She did not convict him.

Copsframecyclist wrote:

I don't think exaggeration about experience is illegal

I'm no legal expert, but I think exaggeration of experience whilst testifying in a court of law is equal to lying, so therefore, I think it probably is illegal. 

StantheVoice wrote:

Copsframecyclist wrote:

I don't think exaggeration about experience is illegal

 

I'm no legal expert, but I think exaggeration of experience whilst testifying in a court of law is equal to lying, so therefore, I think it probably is illegal. 

The majority of defendants who are found guilty lie in court, but, in cases like this, where the lie is discounted by the judge in their sentencing remarks, there is no public interest in a perjury charge.

The huge hole in the judge's sentencing remarks, I would suggets, is the way they discounted the evidence that he has some mental health issues or a personality disorder. Sidewalk diagnosis is wrong, on every level,  but Alliston was found by police doing acts preparatory to self harm, was confined to hospital, and the judge acknowledged evidence from his ex that he did things suggestive of a personality disorder. That should have been more fully explored, because it's odds on he'll not get better in a YOI.

Copsframecyclist wrote:

I don't think exaggeration about experience is illegal but what will be facinating is if this judge Wendy Joseph now says Alliston’s experience in riding a fixie is not as he claims n takes action, only suggestes to us that his experience was relevant. So how will she explain convicting him soley on the bases of having no front brake when all the while, disregarding his experience claims as irrelevant. If his experience was bought into question now, then that will diminise the lack of front brake as a major factor of accident and making his conviction unsafe. Some people only need a minimum of experience to qualify in doing things so what experience does Daily Mail (clearly Anti-cylist lynch mob) have in riding a fixie to qualify their comments? This trial was not about his experience and he was not working for any company during the accident so they should remain neutral. He probably has more private experience and credit to him lack of any reported crashes prior to this. Don't forget the cop stopping test video needs scrutinising and investigating probably by channel 4 Dispatches.

Apparently, he made those claims about experience whilst under oath, so knowingly lying is illegal in those circumstances.

The judge explicitly stated that his experience level wasn't relevant to her sentencing, so I don't think this will make any difference to his sentence/appeal.

The Daily Heil is just doing it's usual thing of stoking the fires of hatred towards out-groups whilst pretending that there's some idyllic Britain that used to exist and we all want to go back to. They hate cyclists of all types, and this story feeds right into their fear/hatred which is why they are putting so much effort into crucifying this young man.

With regards to the cop stopping test, I'd be interested to know how the defense dealt with it as they should have been able to rip it to pieces. It doesn't have any real bearing outside of that one case due to multiple issues with their methodology.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The Daily Heil is just doing it's usual thing of stoking the fires of hatred towards out-groups whilst pretending that there's some idyllic Britain that used to exist and we all want to go back to.

Ironically, that idyllic Britain is one in which only a few toffs had motorcars and the rest of us travelled by train or ....... bicycle.

Especially vicar's daughters , with baskets of fresh baked bread and dewey roses and honeysuckle plucked from the wild hedgerows.

Zebulebu wrote:

He'll end up on Big Brother, guaranteed

He's probably got a big brother of the type you don't need in prison.

Zebulebu wrote:

He'll end up on Big Brother, guaranteed.

Let me just correct that for you...

He'll end up on Big Bubba, guaranteed.

Fixed. 

tugglesthegreat wrote:

That just doesn't ring true.  I've never worked as a cycle courier but as a motorcycle courier you can walk through the door with no experience and get a job in most places. 

I would suggest he couldn't cut it as a courier. After all he bailed out after one day with one and lasted a week for the other. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't see what he was even trying to achieve by exaggerating his commercial experience. Often professional delivery riders will take any opportunity to go as fast as possible, so I don't see how that was supposed to influence the judge in a good way.

If he was lying about it in court, then he's a complete idiot though I still think there's much more dangerous people out there that should have gotten 18 months before this chump.

He may have been a fantasist, lying about being in what is perceived by some as a trendy job and have built up a persona based around that in his social circle and then come to believe it himself.