Cycling Lawyer infuriated by CPS decision in helmet cam case

Just a line to let you know that the individual has now been charged with a public order offence.

Another cycling QC writes:

Good luck, Martin. I enjoy the blog and share your astonishment that anybody could think there is not enough evidence to prosecute your little motorised friend for a public order offence. Keep us posted and keep the rubber side down.

Hello all!
I noticed this story in The Standard when I was visiting London last week.
May I offer an alternative interpretation (from a position of some insight).
I strongly suspect that this was never formally referred to the CPS at all: it is a stock police excuse "the CPS won't prosecute" and the CPS is widely disliked in the Met so it is easy to blame the faceless lawyers rather than an officers disinclination to folow up an investigation (eg where it isn't proving easy to identify the driver because the vehicle isn't registered to the current owner).
To whom would the officer issue a 'fixed penalty ticket'? Doesn't sound like the officer has identified the driver. Police do not need the authorisation of the CPS to issue a fixed penalty (one reason the police use them, rightly or wrongly).
If an officer consulted a prosecutor, the first question would be "what did the suspect say when he was interviewed". In this case, I understand they haven't even spoken to him...whoever he may be. So, at present there has to be an identification issue (who would get prosecuted) even before the issue of what was said is considered. No prosecutor would consider the case in its present state, nor ought an officer go to the CPS without having completed even a basic investigation (see the CPS website and Guidance by the DPP for pre-charge consultation).
As an aside, a charge of 'threats to kill' is one of the worst charges to select in a case such as this: it can alow a defendant to elect trial in the Crown Court....imagine how much that will cost the taxpayer! Much better would be an offence attracting up to six months imprisonment, either common assault (that means causing someone to fear immediate unlawful violence) or under the Public Order Act (section 4 or 4A). There are also offences under the Road Traffic Act, but they don't carry the potential custodial penalty.
I await the result of the complaint to the area Chief Crown Prosecutor with interest: my money would be on there never having been a referral to the CPS at all, however, if/when the case is properly considered I hope it is not headlined as "CPS Climbdown": one can't climb down from somewhere one hasn't climbed up-to.
It is also worth remembering that a case has to be brought within six months of the incident occuring....
Hope you find some of this 'informative'!

I haven't misinterpreted the video, I can't hear what the driver says.
It matters little what i can hear though, is there a clear audible threat to kill stated by the driver?
I happen to agree with the CPS.
I admire your tenacity and I agree that drivers should not be able to shout/threaten cyclists (something which happens to me on a daily basis) but i think if you really want to push the CPS to charge an abusive driver, you might want to find a better video to champion.

Thanks for the support. I appreciate it and it encourages me to keep at it. For Steve, and others who may have misinterpreted the video, I have added subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFOMLngZ08
I am slurring slightly but you know what it is like on a November day when your face has been in the wind.
Safe pedalling
Martin

The sound on that video isn't very clear to me, but it doesn't really seem to be that much of a threat to kill, just a confirmation that the driver agreed with the cyclists question.
'did you try and kill me?'
To which the driver said yes.
At no point did the drivers actions appear to be likely to put the cyclist in any threat, or in any way likely to kill the cyclist. The driver could easily say he didn't hear what the cyclist said in defence.
I agree with the CPS, it is extremely unlikely that they could prosecute successfully in this case.

Its good to see someone standing up to these macho drivers who aim their metal boxes at cyclists.
There must be a million stories and cases where similar things have happened. Its the summer drunk drivers that are the worst

Would hope that the CPS see sense, in that no prosecution in this case would make the law seem an ass. A serious offence has taken place - threatening to kill, caught on camera, if this was the police then there would be an automatic prosection.
On a lesser note, motorists often get away with bad driving due to lack of bottle from being complained against. There needs to be precedents.

I expect the cycling barrister will eventually force the CPS to do something about this case. It is clear that the CPS in this instance is extremely tardy in its response. I saw the story mentioned in the Evening Standard the other day. I'm curious what the driver thinks of all this. I assume he's been following it too and is now feeling slightly nervous, which is no bad thing. I'd be curious to know if his driving has improved. Martin Porter has the knowledge to push this case through in a way us ordinary mortals could not and in a way it's lucky the cycling QC was the target of this incident as otherwise, it wouldn't have been pursued. It's important the case is taken up because it will have wider ramifications.

Agreed that Mr. Porter is a hero. It's very useful for the rest of us without legal training to have someone that has knowledge of the system take it on. Good luck.

Martin Porter QC is a hero. I am sure Mr. Porter would rather spend his evenings relaxing from a hard days work but he is instead pressing forward and his efforts may very well save someone's life someday.

How the CPS has come to the decision not to prosecute is beyond comprehension.

I applaud you Mr. Porter. Bravo, sir.