Earlier today an interesting conversation popped up on the social media network formerly known as Twitter. I've reproduced the initial tweet in the image above.
As you can see the tweet says "Magistrates have decided this isn't a close pass", accompanied by an image appearing to show a car and cyclist in close proximity. It does look pretty close, but I decided to play devil's advocate on Twitter as I know how entertaining these conversations can be - particularly with cyclists.
Experience tells me that when people post tweets like this they often have a pretty superficial grasp of both the circumstances and the relevant legislation. They also often have a vested interest in the false impression they are trying to convey. This case is no exception.
Closer investigation revealed that the incident mentioned in the tweet actually happened in Scotland, so Magistrates were not involved at all. Scotland does have Justices of the Peace, so perhaps that's where the misunderstanding arose. Closer investigation also revealed that it was the prosecutor, the Crown Office of the Procurator Fiscal Service, that decided to pull the plug on this particular prosecution. The court hadn't made a determination of the facts at all. So the tweet is wrong on two counts. Anyway, best not to let the facts stand in the way of a good story, eh?
Anyhow, this tweet has reminded me of a case around 5 years ago. Along with many other cases in the Magistrates' Blog case archive it involved two colourful characters - Mr White the cyclist and Mr Black the driver.
The case of Black vs Regina:
Relevant legislation:
Mr Black appeared before the court for trial. He was accused of careless or inconsiderate driving, which is an offence under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This offence is also referred to as driving without due care and attention.
Section 3ZA(2) of the Act defines "driving without due care and attention" in the following terms:
- "A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."
It is for the court to form a view of what the standard of driving of a competent and careful driver should be.
Section 3ZA(4) of the Act defines "inconsiderate driving" in the following terms:
- "A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving."
The offence of careless driving has the following elements:
- Firstly, the accused must be driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place;
- Secondly, the accused must be driving without due care or consideration for other persons using the road or place.
In order to convict the accused the court must be satisfied so that it is sure - e.g. beyond reasonable doubt - that both elements are present.
The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 5 (unlimited). The offence also attracts up to 9 penalty points or disqualification.
The prosecution case:
Mr White was cycling home after work one winter evening. He was cycling on the single carriageway road not far from where he lived. It was a busy road, with traffic lights controlling several junctions. Given the time of year it was dark and the street lights were illuminated. The area was well lit and the road was in good condition - it was dry, well maintained and ice free.
Mr White was a regular cyclist whose bike was in good condition and displaying lights. He was wearing bright coloured clothing with high visibility markings. He was in the habit of recording his journeys using a helmet-mounted camera and had done so on this occasion.
Mr White rode along in the centre of his lane and came to a stop at red traffic lights. A few moments later the car of Mr Black approached and pulled to a stop a short distance behind Mr White's bicycle. Mr Black's car had come to a halt within 3 or 4 feet of Mr White's rear wheel. Mr White objected to proximity of Mr Black's car, so turned and gestured to him that he was too close. He also shouted to Mr Black that he was too close.
The lights changed and Mr White took a couple of seconds to pull away on his bicycle. As soon as the lights turned Mr Black started to edge his car forward and pulled past the hesitant Mr White. The audio of the camera picked up the distinctive thud of something striking Mr Black's car. According to the Crown, Mr Black's car had struck Mr White's bicycle as he had driven past.
Mr Black's car then pulled past the still green traffic lights with Mr White frantically peddling behind. A short distance down the road Mr White got close enough to Mr Black's car to shout a few choice words through the driver's window. Mr Black continued on his journey and ignored the shouts of Mr White.
According to the Crown, Mr Black's actions of pulling his car forward so that it struck Mr White's bicycle amounted to careless driving.
As mentioned earlier the entire episode had been captured on Mr White's helmet camera. We viewed the footage and something immediately stood out to me - a flash of something passing the camera lens just before the thudding sound. I had spotted it, but I wasn't sure if my colleagues had so we asked for the video to be played again. Sure enough, just a split second before the thud there it was - something flying past the lens. Having seen it for a second time I was sure of what I was seeing, but given the brevity I wasn't sure my colleagues had picked up on it.
Mr White gave evidence. His recollection of events tallied with the case as outlined by the prosecutor. Mr White conceded that he was annoyed that Mr Black's car had pulled up so closely behind him at the traffic lights. He conceded that he had turned, gestured and shouted at Mr Black as they were waiting for the lights to change. Mr White said that Mr Black's car had struck his bicycle as it pulled away from the lights. Having concluded his evidence Mr White was released from the witness box and left the court.
The defence case:
Mr Black denied driving his car into Mr White's bicycle.
Mr Black gave evidence. He described pulling up behind Mr White at the red light. He remembered Mr White gesturing and shouting that the car was too close, but he was unfazed by events. Mr Black was a bus driver by trade and was quite confident that he had stopped a safe distance behind Mr White's bicycle. When the lights changed Mr Black said he had pulled slowly forward and maneuvered around Mr White's bicycle, but he didn't collide with it at all - what had happened was that Mr White had leant across and thumped his car bonnet when he had driven past.
Mr Black said he had continued driving because Mr White was giving chase on his bicycle and was angrily shouting at him. Mr Black didn't want matters to escalate.
The Magistrates' decision:
This was one of these cases where there was the word of one person against the word of another. There were no independent witnesses, but there was video footage that corroborated 95% of the prosecution's case. However, the 5% the video didn't corroborate were the events immediately before the thudding sound of Mr Black's car coming into contact with something else.
Mr White had said the thud had occurred when Mr Black's car collided with his bicycle; Mr Black had said the thud occurred when Mr White thumped the bonnet of his car as it had driven by.
The video showed Mr White's hand flashing past the lens in the split second before it clattered down onto the bonnet of Mr Black's car. That was the only audible contact between the two parties. Quite how that significant detail had been overlooked by the Crown remains unclear.
The Bench was of the opinion that the Crown had failed to prove its case to the required standard.
Mr Black was found not guilty of the offence.
An aside:
You would be right in thinking that the conflicting evidence of the parties opens a whole new can of worms.
That wasn't our concern on the day and I don't know if any more came of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment