Oxford St.Cyclist V. cabbie in court, the final result

On 6 Oct, 10:57, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 09:28, 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 you treated the earlier request for witnesses thus:-

"I believe this is one of those attempts to see what memories can be
triggered of a non existent event."

Is there anything to suggest that that was wrong?

The result. But obviously not to you.

Let's hope that the police behaviour in the case is investigated now.

On 6 Oct, 10:56, JNugent wrote:
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.

Good.


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.]

Perhaps this missing witness can be encouraged to stay in the country
if the taxi-driver is charged now.

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

Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 08:30, Mrcheerful 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 slant
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-cyclist-is-cl...
the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with
cyclists in London.

QUOTE:
As reported on road.cc in June, Jared Kelly, aged 39, issued an
appeal via the London Cyclist blog for witnesses to the incident,
which took place in March this year on London’s Oxford Street, to
help him in his defence. Word of his predicament quickly spread via
cycling websites and Twitter, and was also picked up by the Evening
Standard.

[ ... ]

According to one eyewitness, it had been Mr Kelly who had attacked
the cab driver, but that witness was unable to attend the hearing at
South Western Magistrates’ Court due to being out of the country,
and attempts by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to have the case
adjourned were rejected.

[That is hugely important.]

Instead, the Evening Standard reports, Mr Kelly produced two
witnesses, Lee Sattaur, manager at H&M in Oxford Street and Matthew
Gowan, a student at Westminster University, who supported his
version of events, who were described as “Good Samaritans" for
having stepped forward.
ENDQUOTE

Just *imagine* the outcry there would have been from the usual
suspects if tht had been reversed and it had been the driver up on
the assault charge. Just think of a situation where the only witness
known of (who supported the "victim" cyclist) was unavailable, but
the case went ahead anyway and magically, after an appeal in the cab
trade press made by the defendant seeking "witnesses", two
cab-drivers turned up to say that it was all the cyclist's fault.

No. Let's just see what has really happened, instead of your usual
biased swerving. You got fooled. You, the Met, the CPS, Medway,
Mrcheerful and all.

The CPS thought that there was a case to answer, and it is rare that they
pursue something if it is tenuous, the lack of the witness was the crucial
factor. I would think that there are good grounds for an appeal, hopefully
the cab drivers union will fund it.

On 6 Oct, 11:06, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 08:30, Mrcheerful 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 slant
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-cyclist-is-cl....
the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with
cyclists in London.

QUOTE:
As reported on road.cc in June, Jared Kelly, aged 39, issued an
appeal via the London Cyclist blog for witnesses to the incident,
which took place in March this year on London’s Oxford Street, to
help him in his defence. Word of his predicament quickly spread via
cycling websites and Twitter, and was also picked up by the Evening
Standard.

[ ... ]

According to one eyewitness, it had been Mr Kelly who had attacked
the cab driver, but that witness was unable to attend the hearing at
South Western Magistrates’ Court due to being out of the country,
and attempts by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to have the case
adjourned were rejected.

[That is hugely important.]

Instead, the Evening Standard reports, Mr Kelly produced two
witnesses, Lee Sattaur, manager at H&M in Oxford Street and Matthew
Gowan, a student at Westminster University, who supported his
version of events, who were described as “Good Samaritans" for
having stepped forward.
ENDQUOTE

Just *imagine* the outcry there would have been from the usual
suspects if tht had been reversed and it had been the driver up on
the assault charge. Just think of a situation where the only witness
known of (who supported the "victim" cyclist) was unavailable, but
the case went ahead anyway and magically, after an appeal in the cab
trade press made by the defendant seeking "witnesses", two
cab-drivers turned up to say that it was all the cyclist's fault.

No. Let's just see what has really happened, instead of your usual
biased swerving. You got fooled. You, the Met, the CPS, Medway,
Mrcheerful and all.

The CPS thought that there was a case to answer, and it is rare that they
pursue something if it is tenuous, the lack of the witness was the crucial
factor. *I would think that there are good grounds for an appeal, hopefully
the cab drivers union will fund it.

Don't hold your increasingly foul breath.

Perhaps they could extradite the "missing" witness.

JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 09:28, 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 you treated the earlier request for witnesses thus:-

"I believe this is one of those attempts to see what memories can be
triggered of a non existent event."

Is there anything to suggest that that was wrong?

The verdict in a court of law? I believe evidence
is checked quite carefully in such places.

BugBear

On 6 Oct, 11:31, bugbear wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 09:28, 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 you treated the earlier request for witnesses thus:-

"I believe this is one of those attempts to see what memories can be
triggered of a non existent event."

Is there anything to suggest that that was wrong?

The verdict in a court of law? I believe evidence
is checked quite carefully in such places.


I wonder if the court knows the name of the complainant taxi-driver or
of his unfortunate taxi-driver witness. I haven't seen these names
around, tho' I may have missed them. I expect that they are allowed
anonymity as they may feel threatened by the cyclists' mafia.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 03:01:32 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

On 6 Oct, 10:57, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 09:28, 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 you treated the earlier request for witnesses thus:-

"I believe this is one of those attempts to see what memories can be
triggered of a non existent event."

Is there anything to suggest that that was wrong?

The result. But obviously not to you.


You mean that he advertised for witnesses on a cycling forum - and
only then they came forward.

Most odd.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme considered Wed, 6 Oct 2010 03:03:41
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 6 Oct, 10:56, JNugent wrote:
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.

Good.


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

Well, they should of course prosecute the taxi driver for attempted
murder and perjury.
I bet he didn't give his insurance details to the cyclist either, so
that's a hit & run he can be prosecuted for.
Unfortunately, the copper will probably only be subject to some
whitewash style of "disciplinary action", despite the fact that he
apparently deliberately tried to conceal evidence.

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.]

Perhaps this missing witness can be encouraged to stay in the country
if the taxi-driver is charged now.

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

I hope the taxi was not damaged by being rammed by the cyclist, and that the
cyclist was insured against the bill for damages.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:42:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 6 Oct, 09:24, Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 08:30, "Mrcheerful" 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.

The scary thing is that they all can vote and sit on juries!

Do they let the mentally unsound sit on juries?

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Wed, 6 Oct 2010
11:06:10 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 08:30, Mrcheerful 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 slant
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-cyclist-is-cl...
the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with
cyclists in London.

QUOTE:
As reported on road.cc in June, Jared Kelly, aged 39, issued an
appeal via the London Cyclist blog for witnesses to the incident,
which took place in March this year on London's Oxford Street, to
help him in his defence. Word of his predicament quickly spread via
cycling websites and Twitter, and was also picked up by the Evening
Standard.

[ ... ]

According to one eyewitness, it had been Mr Kelly who had attacked
the cab driver, but that witness was unable to attend the hearing
at South Western Magistrates' Court due to being out of the
country, and attempts by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to
have the case adjourned were rejected.

[That is hugely important.]

Instead, the Evening Standard reports, Mr Kelly produced two
witnesses, Lee Sattaur, manager at H&M in Oxford Street and Matthew
Gowan, a student at Westminster University, who supported his
version of events, who were described as "Good Samaritans" for
having stepped forward.
ENDQUOTE

Just *imagine* the outcry there would have been from the usual
suspects if tht had been reversed and it had been the driver up on
the assault charge. Just think of a situation where the only
witness known of (who supported the "victim" cyclist) was
unavailable, but the case went ahead anyway and magically, after
an appeal in the cab trade press made by the defendant seeking
"witnesses", two cab-drivers turned up to say that it was all the
cyclist's fault.

No. Let's just see what has really happened, instead of your usual
biased swerving. You got fooled. You, the Met, the CPS, Medway,
Mrcheerful and all.

The CPS thought that there was a case to answer, and it is rare that
they pursue something if it is tenuous, the lack of the witness was
the crucial factor. I would think that there are good grounds for
an appeal, hopefully the cab drivers union will fund it.

I doubt it - I suspect that the missing "witness" was simply not
prepared to perjure himself on his colleagues behalf.

The list of offences with which the perjurous cabbie can now be
charged should be sufficient to end his cab driving career for good,
and hopefully remove the risk he presents to the public entirely for a
reasonable time.

There's perjury of course, but as he attempted to collude with another
cabbie, that means conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as
well.
Then there's the original offences of dangerous driving, failure to
give insurance details to his victim, attempted murder (or at the very
least GBH), and I'm sure a few more.

The CPS should be at least as enthusiastic about pursuing these
charges as they were about the trumped up original ones.

why? they looked at the facts and decided who to prosecute and for what,
it does not mean that they were incorrect or that the cabbie is guilty of
anything.