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

On 17 Oct, 03:32, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:
Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?
What a bizarre question.
You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.
The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
* I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
* the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
* claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
* truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).

Sigh. At least one of the two witnesses did come forward of his own
accord. The police lost him. (Putting it gently). Why do you think
that the taxi-driver and his witness seem to be unnamed, but we know
the names of the two witnesses on whom you cast aspersions.
The second witness seems to have surfaced thanks to the Evening
Standard (not really a cycling organization) and works in Oxford
Street. Would he risk his reputation for a cyclist whom he did not
know? On the other hand I could imagine the possibility of a
taxidriver supporting a fellow taxidriver, but getting cold feet when
it all snowballed.

The cyclist wrote:-
"When originally charged at the police station, I was informed there
wasn’t any CCTV footage of the incident and also that my witness was a
“figment of my imagination.” A grim few days followed and then this
unfolded:

I contacted www.londoncyclist.co.uk and asked if they would tweet a
witness appeal out to the masses. They subsequently fired my story out
to thousands of followers. Thanks to many wonderful souls the story
quickly went viral in only a few hours. One of those who read the
story was Ross Lydall, Chief News Correspondent at the Evening
Standard (@rosslydall).

Ross got in touch and an article was soon published in the Evening
Standard. To my amazement, the “figment of my imagination” read that
article and contacted me. Not just that, but another witness also read
the article and came forward. Both of them witnessed my argument with
the taxi driver and saw the taxi driver grab me by my scarf and
violently strangle me unconscious.

My witness testified that on three separate occasions he attempted to
explain and give his details to the arresting officer but was
dismissed each time. This same arresting officer assured me, in his
squad car and later at the police station, that he had taken the
details of that witness.

Two months later, when that same officer informed me I was being
charged for assault, I was horrified to discover the police had no
record at all of my witness. My arresting officer denied that he had
ever spoken to me about the witness and then suggested the witness was
a figment of my imagination.

Not only did that witness exist, but he was so moved by what he had
experienced that he wrote detailed notes of the whole incident and the
following day went to his local police station to report his grievance
and put himself forward as a witness.

For whatever reason, that police station did not forward those details
onto the investigation. Thankfully their inaction didn’t prove costly,
and his damning evidence and testimony were crucial in proving my
innocence. As was the other witness, an Oxford Street shop manager,
returning to work at the time, who saw the whole incident. I cannot
thank them both enough"

I assume that this was police incompetence.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that
the way that "witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to
sympathetic individuals on the internet) should have to be declared
to the court by the party calling them,

Do you have any reason to believe they were not?

*and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as
to why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making
a statement to the police in the normal way).

And the witness did precisely that. Twice. Once at the scene, and
once at a police station. And still the police 'lost' the account.

Perhaps the police could be closely examined as to why they first of
all sent the witness away from the scene and then, when the witness
persevered and presented his written account to a police station, why
they neglected to put that account into their investigation.

Perhaps the police could be examined as to why they only admitted to
the existence of a witness after a newspaper published the existence
of the witness?

Since you obviously know so much more about the incident than the
witnesses or the court, perhaps you could explain that to us?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 17/10/2010 13:07, Squashme wrote:
On 17 Oct, 03:32, wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:
Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?
What a bizarre question.
You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.
The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).

Sigh. At least one of the two witnesses did come forward of his own
accord. The police lost him. (Putting it gently).

Report them for attempted perversion of the sourse of justice, rather than
mking snide comments here.

Let us know how you get on.

On 17/10/2010 16:57, Ian Smith wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that
the way that "witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to
sympathetic individuals on the internet) should have to be declared
to the court by the party calling them,

Do you have any reason to believe they were not?

What's the relevance of that?

Can you now tell the difference between a principle and a case?

*and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as
to why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making
a statement to the police in the normal way).

And the witness did precisely that. Twice. Once at the scene, and
once at a police station. And still the police 'lost' the account.

So it is said, by someone with a transparently vested interest in the case.

Exercise a little source-criticism. Not everything said by a cyclist is
automatically correct, and it is unjustifiable to behave as though it were,
particularly where the interests of others are at stake.

Perhaps the police could be closely examined as to why they first of
all sent the witness away from the scene and then, when the witness
persevered and presented his written account to a police station, why
they neglected to put that account into their investigation.

Perhaps the police could be examined as to why they only admitted to
the existence of a witness after a newspaper published the existence
of the witness?

Since you obviously know so much more about the incident than the
witnesses or the court, perhaps you could explain that to us?

I am interested in the principle which is in operation here. Individual cases
are less important than that.

If the case didn't involve a cyclist as the defendant and (your obvious bete
noire) a London taxi-driver as the victim, and if, for instance, it had
involved an alleged street rapist appealing for alibi witnesses anong his
cronies), I suspect that - to your credit - your feelings on the *principle*
involved would have been expressed differently.

On 22 Oct, 12:19, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2010 16:57, Ian Smith wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, *wrote:
* On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:
* The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that
* the way that "witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to
* sympathetic individuals on the internet) should have to be declared
* to the court by the party calling them,
Do you have any reason to believe they were not?

What's the relevance of that?

Can you now tell the difference between a principle and a case?

* *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as
* to why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making
* a statement to the police in the normal way).
And the witness did precisely that. *Twice. *Once at the scene, and
once at a police station. *And still the police 'lost' the account.

So it is said, by someone with a transparently vested interest in the case.

What "vested interest"? Apart from telling what he witnessed? Careful
now.


Exercise a little source-criticism. Not everything said by a cyclist is
automatically correct, and it is unjustifiable to behave as though it were,
particularly where the interests of others are at stake.

Perhaps the police could be closely examined as to why they first of
all sent the witness away from the scene and then, when the witness
persevered and presented his written account to a police station, why
they neglected to put that account into their investigation.
Perhaps the police could be examined as to why they only admitted to
the existence of a witness after a newspaper published the existence
of the witness?
Since you obviously know so much more about the incident than the
witnesses or the court, perhaps you could explain that to us?

I am interested in the principle which is in operation here. Individual cases
are less important than that.

If the case didn't involve a cyclist as the defendant and (your obvious bete
noire) a London taxi-driver as the victim, and if, for instance, it had
involved an alleged street rapist appealing for alibi witnesses anong his
cronies), I suspect that - to your credit - your feelings on the *principle*
involved would have been expressed differently.

On what basis do you accuse the two witnesses of being "cronies"?
Would you accuse the taxi-driver's witness of being a crony?

On 22 Oct, 12:13, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2010 13:07, Squashme wrote:



On 17 Oct, 03:32, *wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:
Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?
What a bizarre question.
You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.
The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
* *I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
* *the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
* *claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
* *truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).

Sigh. At least one of the two witnesses did come forward of his own
accord. The police lost him. (Putting it gently).

Report them for attempted perversion of the sourse of justice, rather than
mking snide comments here.

Let us know how you get on.

You said:-

"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)."

Put your money where your mouth is. You're concerned about the
decision, why don't you offer to help the CPS, rather than making
snide comments here? Let us know how you get on.

They obviously lack your objectivity, skill and knowledge.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:19:33 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2010 16:57, Ian Smith wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is
that the way that "witnesses" have been found (especially by
appeal to sympathetic individuals on the internet) should have
to be declared to the court by the party calling them,

Do you have any reason to believe they were not?

What's the relevance of that?

The relevance is that you are moaning that something should happen
when you have no evidence that it doesn't (or didn't) happen.

I'm observing that your grousing is baseless.

It's relevant to judgements about whether what your saying raises a
matter worthy of consideration.

*and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court -
as to why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by
making a statement to the police in the normal way).

And the witness did precisely that. Twice. Once at the scene,
and once at a police station. And still the police 'lost' the
account.

So it is said, by someone with a transparently vested interest in
the case.

Well, you can continue dismissing everything until you get an original
signed, witnessed statement from the policeman in question that he
deliberately concealed the existence of a witness. Would you even
believe that?

However, you still have no basis for concluding whether or not what
you are proposing should happen actually happened or not.

Exercise a little source-criticism. Not everything said by a
cyclist is automatically correct, and it is unjustifiable to behave
as though it were, particularly where the interests of others are
at stake.

The court seems to have believed that the cyclist's account is true.

Why do you suddenly start bleating that the court should examine
witnesses before reaching that conclusion? Why your presumption that
they didn't? If you don't presume they didn't, why protest that they
should? Do you protest that the sun should rise in the east?

You seem intent on assuming that his account and everything he's said
since (including his reporting of what a witness said during the court
case) must be wrong.

The court, of course, disagrees with you. But do carry on.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 22/10/2010 18:20, Squashme wrote:
On 22 Oct, 12:19, wrote:
On 17/10/2010 16:57, Ian Smith wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:
The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that
the way that "witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to
sympathetic individuals on the internet) should have to be declared
to the court by the party calling them,
Do you have any reason to believe they were not?

What's the relevance of that?

Can you now tell the difference between a principle and a case?

*and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as
to why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making
a statement to the police in the normal way).
And the witness did precisely that. Twice. Once at the scene, and
once at a police station. And still the police 'lost' the account.

So it is said, by someone with a transparently vested interest in the case.

What "vested interest"? Apart from telling what he witnessed? Careful
now.


Exercise a little source-criticism. Not everything said by a cyclist is
automatically correct, and it is unjustifiable to behave as though it were,
particularly where the interests of others are at stake.

Perhaps the police could be closely examined as to why they first of
all sent the witness away from the scene and then, when the witness
persevered and presented his written account to a police station, why
they neglected to put that account into their investigation.
Perhaps the police could be examined as to why they only admitted to
the existence of a witness after a newspaper published the existence
of the witness?
Since you obviously know so much more about the incident than the
witnesses or the court, perhaps you could explain that to us?

I am interested in the principle which is in operation here. Individual cases
are less important than that.

If the case didn't involve a cyclist as the defendant and (your obvious bete
noire) a London taxi-driver as the victim, and if, for instance, it had
involved an alleged street rapist appealing for alibi witnesses anong his
cronies), I suspect that - to your credit - your feelings on the *principle*
involved would have been expressed differently.

On what basis do you accuse the two witnesses of being "cronies"?
Would you accuse the taxi-driver's witness of being a crony?

I don't.

Do you always have such difficulty in understanding plain English?

On 22/10/2010 18:27, Squashme wrote:
On 22 Oct, 12:13, wrote:
On 17/10/2010 13:07, Squashme wrote:



On 17 Oct, 03:32, wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:
Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?
What a bizarre question.
You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.
The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).

Sigh. At least one of the two witnesses did come forward of his own
accord. The police lost him. (Putting it gently).

Report them for attempted perversion of the sourse of justice, rather than
mking snide comments here.

Let us know how you get on.

You said:-

"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)."

Put your money where your mouth is. You're concerned about the
decision, why don't you offer to help the CPS, rather than making
snide comments here? Let us know how you get on.

What assistance could I give them?

They are not ignorant either of the law or of the process for dealing with cases.

They obviously lack your objectivity, skill and knowledge.

It was the court that made the decision, not the CPS.

You ought to read up on the English legal system. Your knowledge of it is hazy.

On 22/10/2010 21:38, Ian Smith wrote:

wrote:
On 17/10/2010 16:57, Ian Smith wrote:
wrote:
On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is
that the way that "witnesses" have been found (especially by
appeal to sympathetic individuals on the internet) should have
to be declared to the court by the party calling them,

Do you have any reason to believe they were not?

What's the relevance of that?

The relevance is that you are moaning that something should happen
when you have no evidence that it doesn't (or didn't) happen.

On that point, and quite separate from the case in point, I am arguing from
principle, regardless of the merits of any particular case.

That criminal defendants can trawl for "witnesses" on the internet should be
of concern to everyone with an interest (interpret that word either way) in
the operation of justice.

I am surprised that you feel able to dismiss that concern so imperiously.

I'm observing that your grousing is baseless.
It's relevant to judgements about whether what your saying raises a
matter worthy of consideration.

So why did you snip my theoretical example of an accused rapist advertising
on the internet for (say, alibi) witnesses?

Or alternatively, what about a driver accused of being in a fatal accident
where a cyclist was killed, looking for witnesses able to give evidence about
it all being the cyclist's fault?

Would they be OK?

If not, why not, if it's OK for others?

*and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court -
as to why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by
making a statement to the police in the normal way).

And the witness did precisely that. Twice. Once at the scene,
and once at a police station. And still the police 'lost' the
account.

So it is said, by someone with a transparently vested interest in
the case.

Well, you can continue dismissing everything until you get an original
signed, witnessed statement from the policeman in question that he
deliberately concealed the existence of a witness. Would you even
believe that?

What I would be interested in is an explanation of why the court admitted
evidence from someone "traced" on the internet but failed to avail themselves
(by declining, as requested by the CPS, to adjourn for the attendance of
witnesses who had come forward in the normal way) countervailing evidence.

Can you think of any principled justification for that?

However, you still have no basis for concluding whether or not what
you are proposing should happen actually happened or not.

Exercise a little source-criticism. Not everything said by a
cyclist is automatically correct, and it is unjustifiable to behave
as though it were, particularly where the interests of others are
at stake.

The court seems to have believed that the cyclist's account is true.

Ah... another poster with a hazy impression of how court cases work and what
verdicts actually mean.

Why do you suddenly start bleating that the court should examine
witnesses before reaching that conclusion?

Because the bona-fides of witnesses - and the reasons they are in court - are
important.

Professional and expert witnesses have to be declared as such.

Can you think why that might be?

Other witnesses can be examined as to their relationship(s) with the defendant.

Can you think why that might be?

Why your presumption that
they didn't? If you don't presume they didn't, why protest that they
should? Do you protest that the sun should rise in the east?

I know no more about the facts of the case than you do (ie, only what has
been reported).

You seem intent on assuming that his account and everything he's said
since (including his reporting of what a witness said during the court
case) must be wrong.

I express concern about selective calling of witnesses and hearing only of
selected evidence.

If, in the case of a lorry-driver up on a charge of "killing" a cyclist, only
defence witnesses (perhaps traced by dubious means) were called, and if
eye-witness prosecution witnesses were not allowed to give evidence (whatever
the mechanism by which that was achieved) - would you be as unconcerned by
the possibility of injustice as you seem in this case?

Or would that be totally different?

IOW, does principle mean anything to you or do you take the line that simply
anything that favours a cyclist is to be preferred?

Take your time.

The court, of course, disagrees with you.

That, of course, is the entire point.

The court failed to hear countervailing prosecution evidence.

Put aside your cyclists's blinkers for a moment and consider - irrespective
of the detail of the case - whether that is a way you want to see courts proceed.