On 06/10/2010 09:24, Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 08:30, wrote:
the taxi drivers witness was out of the country, but the cyclist's witnesses
turned up, the taxi driver (on his own) was not found to be credible.

http://road.cc/content/news/25146-lo...led-taxi-drive...

The report in the standard has a slightly different slanthttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23884814-cyclist-is-cl...

the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with cyclists in
London.

And remember JNugent:-

"Something you are likely to hear at some time on any given morning at
your local Mags' Court:
"I'm not guilty, guv, it was all the other bloke's fault, honest, on
my granny's eyes".
"Someone out there must have seen something"?
Well, quite. That appears to be this chap's problem. Advertising on
the internet for a "witness" is more likely to devalue his defence than
strengthen it. It's obvious.
Let's see who the court believes."

Well, well.

Indeed. I am surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that verdict.

Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

Failing to adjourn a case when the only *known* witness is going to be
available (but not on that particular day*) and when the "witnesses" for the
other side have only been produced via a public appeal seems like material
for a setting-aside (igf that's possible in a criminal case).

[*The quickest way to prevent witnesses coming forward in any case would be
to ban them from taking holidays until the case has been heard.]