A London cyclist — fined for riding no-handed by a police officer, who claimed he had contravened the Human Rights Act — says he is glad the charges were dropped, but has been left frustrated that City of London Police have “wasted my time and taxpayers’ money pursuing something so trivial”.
Last year, we reported that Paul Powlesland had been stopped and fined by a City of London Police officer, the barrister and climate campaigner sharing video footage online of a conversation with the same officer one month later who then claimed his “riding no-handed” was in contravention of the Human Rights Act.
Powlesland disputed that his riding constituted cycling without due care and attention, and he was preparing for a court hearing at City of London Magistrates Court this Friday when, on Thursday, he received a letter from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) stating that the charge had been dropped.
I recently got stopped & ticketed by the City of London Police for, & I kid you not, “cycling no handed”. Even though it’s clearly not an offence, the officer said they were ticketing me under the Human Rights Act as I was infringing other people’s Article 2 ‘Right to Life’, in… https://t.co/LU4BUKZZ4w pic.twitter.com/3DBE6XUgSN
— Paul Powlesland (@paulpowlesland) July 3, 2025
While the CPS claimed this was due to insufficient evidence, Powlesland called this “disingenuous”.
“Whilst I’m glad that I don’t have to go to court tomorrow, I’m annoyed that City of London Police have been able to waste my time and taxpayers’ money pursuing something so trivial and which is clearly not illegal,” he said. “Many people who were not legally qualified may not have had the knowledge or resources to stand up and challenge this and may have given in to their nonsense threats.”
He has asked City of London Police for an apology and also questioned the CPS’s claim that the charge was dropped due to insufficient evidence.
“[The] CPS is being disingenuous in suggesting that they dropped this case due to lack of evidence,” Powlesland continued. “The facts have always been agreed: I was cycling down Bishopsgate without my hands on the handlebars. The only thing in dispute is whether such actions constitute a crime. The fact that it has dropped the case suggests that the CPS has realised that cycling without hands is not a crime: why not just admit this, rather than pretend it is anything to do with lack of evidence?”
When contacted for comment, City of London Police again emphasised that the footage posted to social media of the rider talking with an officer was filmed one month after the initial incident when the fine was issued.
A spokesperson added: “We note the decision from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to discontinue the case against Mr Powlesland for careless cycling on 5 March 2025. A fixed penalty notice was issued after an officer observed him riding with his arms stretched out and not holding the handlebars of his bike during rush hour.”
Riding without your hands on the bars is not an offence, although City of London Police argued, in Powlesland’s case it constituted careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
When sharing the video last summer, Powlesland wrote: “Even though it’s clearly not an offence, the officer said they were ticketing me under the Human Rights Act as I was infringing other people’s Article 2 ‘Right to Life’, in case I fell off and injured them: utterly bonkers stuff.
“With bicycle theft basically legalised in the city due to the complete failure of the police to bother investigating such thefts and people being regularly terrorised in London by e-bike phone muggers, it’s good to see the City of London Police concentrating the resources on what really matters.”
The force’s cycling-specific unit has made headlines for its enforcement within the city in recent times, the Cycle Response Unit in its first year in operation issuing more than 1,200 fixed penalty notices to cyclists for going through red lights “or putting themselves, other cyclists and pedestrians at risk”.
Last month it was revealed that cyclists caught running red lights in London will be given the option of watching a film about a serious collision that left a cyclist in a coma, this as an alternative to a fixed penalty notice.
3 thoughts on “Cyclist told he “contravened Human Rights Act” by riding no-handed has charges dropped day before court date”
You don’t really expect them to enforce something that would require effort (or even the slightest hazard) on their part, do you?
‘Tis Mr Powlesland that’s being disingenuous. As a lawyer he’ll be aware that there are two reasons for dropping a case; either there’s insufficient evidence or the prosecution’s not in the public interest. The overworked, underpaid CPS lawyer dealing with this matter would have finally had the opportunity to read the file in the days leading up to trial at which point he or she would no doubt have had a WTF? moment. Is there sufficient evidence of the offence charged? If not, as in this matter, a discontinuance notice is sent out confirming the reason for the case being dropped. In this instance ‘insufficient evidence’. Of course Mr Powlesland should never have been charged in the first place. However, ‘without due care’ is an offence which falls within the Police’s charging purview so, the blame lies squarely with them and not the CPS for having charged his matter in the first place.
That’s interesting. If I understand you right, you’re saying that ‘insufficient evidence’ simply means that the CPS has decided that the fact that Mr Powlesland was riding no handed, is on its own, insufficient evidence to prove a charge of careless cycling. This leaves open the possibility that riding no handed could still be a contributory factor to a charge if there was additional evidence (such as someone having to take evasive action maybe).
“The facts have always been agreed: I was cycling down Bishopsgate without my hands on the handlebars. The only thing in dispute is whether such actions constitute a crime. The fact that it has dropped the case suggests that the CPS has realised that cycling without hands is not a crime: why not just admit this, rather than pretend it is anything to do with lack of evidence?”
This does seem like very woolly arguing coming from a barrister, maybe it’s the campaigner in him taking over!