A reader has asked me what I think of the widely reported conviction and fine of Jason Howard for dangerous cycling which killed Rhiannon Bennet in Buckingham last year.
It’s always difficult to comment on cases like this. It’s tempting at least for a moment to think charging manslaughter might have been appropriate, but I agree with the Magistrate’s Blog that it’s easy to criticise the CPS (and indeed one of the problems with coverage of criminal justice is that everyone else in the system has reasons for wanting to have a go at them) and magistrates, and that hard cases like this are, well, hard. The inquest did after all give a verdict of accidental death.
There are still some questions about this, was he actually “riding on the pavement” as has been claimed, because there seem to be conflicting statements from witnesses.
There are suggestions from others that actually the group walked out *from the pavement* to move in front of him and the girl then lost her balance.
If I’d been cycling there, the last thing I’d want to do is to stop right next to a bunch of drunken teenagers if I could at all avoid it. I’d also try to avoid hitting them, but if someone’s blocking your path (as may well have been the case) it might not be possible.
Oh, BTW, people might also be interested in this story: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Widow-outraged-at-39ludicrous39-sentence.4268357.jp
where a lorry driver who ignored a Give Way sign and killed a cyclist in Portsmouth only got a 275 pound fine!
Of course “cyclist kills pedestrian” is news because it happens so rarely, whereas “lorry driver kills cyclist” is commonplace…
Head of Legal – you are siding with Bystander too readily.
Lord Atkin said that justice has to be able to withstand that outspoken criticism of ordinary men. A fortiori the CPS.
The CPS always seems to take the path of least resistance by undercharging people – e.g. charge common assault when it is really section 47 or worse! The CPS fails to properly explain its decisions and hides under a mantra such as “there was insufficient evidence” etc. They might rise in public esteem if they explained some of their reasoning particularly in this type of case. As it is they act like a completely unaccountable quango.
Also, if there is good rationale to have new offences like “causing death by inconsiderate driving” then it is far from illogical to bring in an offence of “causing death by dangerous cycling.”
The main issue here is that cyclists seem immune from the laws that control other road users. Despite the cycling lobby’s rush, every time we hear of a case like this, to cry the usual excuse of ‘a small minority’, anyone who walks or drives in London, for instance, will observe that 90% of cyclists do not obey traffic lights, stop on pedestrian crossings, or even follow one-way street restrictions. The highway code tells road users to ‘give way to pedestrians already crossing’ any road we turn into. Clearly this cyclist failed to comply with this piece of the code. Until cyclists are brought to book they will continue to break all the rules of the road whilst bleating about the bad treatment meeted out to them by car drivers. A gaol term should have been the sentence here: the law is out of step with modern road use.
“anyone who walks or drives in London, for instance, will observe that 90% of cyclists do not obey traffic lights, stop on pedestrian crossings, or even follow one-way street restrictions.”
Yeah. And we never see motorists break any laws. They never speed, always give way to pedestrians, never talk on the phone while driving, always obey road signs. If only cyclists could be more like them.
Oh wait, they are exactly like drivers. Who was I thinking of that doesn’t break traffic laws then? Must have been my imaginary friend – he’s really law-abiding.
Graham, where is your evidence that they were drunk? Who are these witnesses who made “conflicting claims”?
“There are suggestions from others…” What weasel words!
“the group walked out *from the pavement* to move in front of him and the girl then lost her balance.”
Is that the perjurous defence he would have offered?
The man committed manslaughter – and got away with it!