E bike killer evades justice

Yes I know that I am going for an evocative conversation title. Feels like it needs one.

So from here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

To me it feels like that a decent (expensive) barrister was used to prove that someone who broke the law, and knew he was doing so, got away with it.

Earlier article has some useful context

Both the prosecution and defence agree that Mr Hanlon did not have a licence or insurance for a motorbike.
But he denies further charges of causing death while uninsured and causing death while unlicensed.
The court heard he is contesting these because they require a fault in the driving which contributed to Ms Cihan's death.

Sounds like a serial killer name

From Yorkshire the ey by killer
Probably a colleague of @General_Lucifer

Sure someone with better knowledge of the law will chip at some point, but I think the tl;dr of this one is that even though he was breaking the speed limit and was uninsured / unlicensed neither of these things contributed to the collision, or rather, had he been travelling at the speed limit or a reasonable speed below it, and had he been either licensed and insured or hadn't fiddled with the bike, the outcome would have been not significantly different. The CCTV illustrates this.

Not that this is any consolation for anyone involved.

Even though these things did not contribute to the accident could/should he be charged with the offences, just not in relation to the accident itself?

Yeah presumably he would be but it’s not newsworthy. Or if it is I’ve missed it.

Presumably a fine and points on his license if he has one.

What about leaving the scene ?
Not nice

I don't understand how he was found not guilty of the charge of driving without a licence.

Earlier reporting said he wasn't contesting those offences, so I guess he was charged?

He probably confessed to the lesser charges knowing the biggy causing death by dangerous driving would be more difficult to prove to be honest I hate these e-bikes they zoom past me on Quietway 1 in the morning regardless of the road conditions and it is clear the riders would not be able to avoid an accident

Ah. Perhaps sentencing for those to follow.

5mph minds operating in a 25mph world is how I tend to think about it.

My thoughts are with those who knew and loved the person who died here, this whole process must be awful for them.

Everybody is entitled to a defense, no matter what and the decision of a jury should be final. He's been found not guilty of the charges brought against him. This is how a civilised society should work, not guilt by inference or opinion after the fact, not Sun Says justice. If ever I'm find myself in court charged with an offence, that's what I would hope for.

The fact the jury took less than an hour to return a verdict suggest to me it was a straightforward decision to make.

Both the prosecution and defence agree that Mr Hanlon did not have a licence or insurance for a motorbike.

All the headlines were scrupulous about not calling him a cyclist.

I wonder if he'll get the bike back.

Presumably, and I've only been on a jury once, albeit for a murder charge, they'll have been given a fairly strict set of criteria to decide upon.

If, as the BBC article mentions, they were deciding whether there was a fault in the driving then that'll have been separate to whether the bike should have been classed as a motorbike or not. And whether it was or wasn't a motorbike wont be conflated with whether it was dangerous driving.

Juries aren't asked to listen to the whole story and come up with a 'does it sound like this person
fucked up and should we punish them for it'. They're given specific criteria and a commentary from the judge about exactly what it is they're deciding on.

A murderer who bumps off online customers. The Ebay killer.

Luckily the case was heard at the Old Bailey, where they tend to listen to evidence and have skilled barristers with experience of these things, and then a jury makes a decision based on what they’ve heard.

Based on that, I’d say your heading is a tad misleading.

I’d say your heading is a tad misleading

I disagree, there is a big difference between justice and the Law.

I repeat my end line-To me it feels like that a decent (expensive) barrister was used to prove that someone who broke the law, and knew he was doing so, got away with it.

He hasn't 'got away with it'.
He was cleared of killing Hackney pedestrian

It’s very much sounds like he’s been judged to the same standard as the vast majority of other killer motorists.

Sounds like something needs to be done to get in top of all the unlicenced vehicles currently on the roads.

There's some bell that passes me (generally very close) on Walthamstow marshes that rides a fat E bike, who must blast through there at 40mph. It's a mixed use area mainly used by dog walkers and runners. I tried to chase him down one day, even at full pelt he was making a get away.

I see where you are coming from, but car drivers seem to get away with killing motorcyclists and cyclists while pedestrians not so much.

there is no immediate connection in law between the causing death by careless driving charge and the no license charge - if he didn't have the license he was supposed to it doesn't follow that he was 1. driving carelessly and/or 2. that caused the death. even if the electric bike wasn't speed limited as it should be, it doesn't follow that the driving was careless or that it caused the death.
careless driving is driving that falls below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver. the concept of causation in the death by careless charge is that the driving has to be more than a trivial or minimal cause of the death and not merely creating the occasion for the accident.
according to the news report the defence case was that the deceased ran out in front of the driver (cyclist), and presumably therefore that it wasn't the speeding that in itself caused the collision and death.
accordingly, the jury would have to be sure that the manner of the driving (more than 30mph in a 20mph zone) fell below the standard required of a reasonably competent driver, and that it it did, that it was this that caused the death.
the notion that it was an expensive barrister that helped him "get away with it" is misguided. the jury had to decide what facts they could be sure of and then apply the law.
juries are always slow to convict in cases such as this as there is inevitably a strong feeling of "there but for the grace of god" amongst those that drive.