In the news

jury is out:

Jurors trying a young cyclist accused of killing a mother-of-two by ploughing into her on a bike with no front brake have begun their deliberations.
Former courier Charlie Alliston was 18 years old when he hit Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, east London, on February 12 last year.
The 44-year-old HR consultant, who had been on her lunch break, suffered "catastrophic" injuries when the pair clashed heads and she died in hospital a week later.
Alliston, now 20, later blamed her for the collision in posts online.
He denies causing bodily harm to Mrs Briggs by "wanton or furious driving" under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
In a legal first, he is also accused of the manslaughter of Mrs Briggs, of Lewisham, south London, a charge he denies.
Alliston was riding a Planet X fixed wheel track bike, which he bought as an "upgrade" in January last year, at the time of the crash.
Prosecutors say the collision could have been avoided had a front brake been fitted, a legal requirement Alliston claims he was not aware of.
But the defendant told the jury having a front brake "wouldn't have made a difference" because he would not have had time to pull it.
Judge Wendy Joseph QC, in summing up to the jury at the Old Bailey, said a police expert estimated Alliston was doing between 10 and 14 miles per hour just moments before the crash, which was captured on CCTV.
The same police expert said tests showed a fixed wheel bike similar to Alliston's but fitted with a front brake would have been able to stop in time.
During his evidence, Alliston said he shouted twice after spotting Mrs Briggs, slowed down as he approached and manoeuvred his bike to avoid her before she "stepped back".
He later wrote on a cycling forum that he had twice warned Mrs Briggs to "get the f*** outta my way," and denied he was at fault, the court heard.
One witness, David Callan, told jurors he heard Alliston shout something as Mrs Briggs lay on the ground.
Judge Joseph said: "It's hard to think of a case that's more likely to rouse your emotions.
"A young man who was 18 at the time. A woman in her 40s with her life ahead of her.
"Put to one side feelings of emotion, feelings of sympathy, feelings of revulsion, feelings of prejudice."

In his closing speech before the jury was sent out, Mark Wyeth QC, defending, questioned the manslaughter charge.
He said: "I ask as a matter of common sense and looking across all the evidence, is this really manslaughter? Really?
"We've had an eloquent speech from (prosecutor) Mr (Duncan) Penny, we've had mood music all around this case and, yes, it's a tragedy for the Briggs family.
"It's also a tragedy for the Alliston family.
"The counsel of perfection that the prosecution put forward is so complete, if you reversed the outcome, if Mr Alliston went over the handlebars, had fractured his skull and died and Mrs Briggs got up and dusted herself off, what's to stop her from being prosecuted for manslaughter on the approach the prosecution take, because she should not have been there?
"As hard and unpleasant as that sounds, I'm not criticising Mrs Briggs."
Mr Wyeth suggested it was unlikely that drivers in Alliston's position would face the same charge.
He said: "If you drove your car really dangerously and at very high speed, you might get prosecuted for what's called gross negligence manslaughter. You might.
"But this defendant is not getting prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter, he is getting prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter.
"As drivers the prospects you would be prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter are very slender."
He said Mrs Briggs had not used the pedestrian crossing 30 feet away from where the pair collided and Alliston had right of way.
"This is not a case of somebody jumping the lights," he said.
"This is not a case of an approach speed on this bike that was illegal, it's a 30mph area and the hazards that were in that road were not of Mr Alliston's making."
Mr Wyeth also accused prosecutors of failing to pay attention to his client's claim that Mrs Briggs stepped back slightly and put herself in the way of his bike.
"The crown have run with this no brake point without, you may think, a proper analysis of the stepping back point," he said.
"Their preoccupation with brakes and speed is in contrast with with what the defendant was saying, which was really about the position of Mrs Briggs and she was, in due respect, the hazard."
He added that there was no damage found to the forks, headset or wheels of the bike and Alliston was not wearing a helmet at the time.
Likening the crash to a clash of heads in rugby, he said the results could be "devastating" even at low speed.