In the news

I did see that, I'd think that's reason enough to check phone records though which would help explain things one way or the other.

It does seem crazy that you can lose control of your vehicle and face no repercussions for killing somebody. Feels like somewhat of a loophole that you can swerve and kill somebody but somehow there be no proof that you drove dangerously.

It’s why we need presumed liability- on you to explain why you are not guilty.

I can't find anything besides her account that is evidence of a memory gap. Surely if that's her only defence then the onus is on the defence to prove that it's credible?

You'd think a medical assessment or history would have come up? She can't have just said "can't remember" to every question and got off?

It's even easier to kill cyclists with impunity than I thought.

Could also be an artefact of this being a jury trial too. Juries can be unpredictable.

Also, even if she were found guilty what would her sentence have been?

200 quid, a suspended sentence and an 18 month ban?

I wonder what would have happened if this had been in England where you don't have the Not Proven option.

Also maybe an illustration of why death by dangerous driving often gets downgraded to careless driving when it hits court.

Doesn't the CPS (and, I'm assuming, the Procurator Fiscal) usually choose to prosecute death by careless driving, rather than death by dangerous driving, given the higher level of proof required?

Feels like somewhat of a loophole that you can swerve and kill somebody but somehow there be no proof that you drove dangerously.

It's time cars had black boxes in them. 95% of the technology is already in the car, just needs to be required in the same way speed limiters are coming.

Not sure what a black box would prove in this case...

Audio from inside the car might show if the driver was on the phone for starters.

It would never happen but I think every new car should by law have a camera and it should be a criminal offence to override it and MOT failure if not working.

Yes, that's what I was meaning. This is an illustration of how difficult it is to get that required level of proof.

Scottish law - The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law. A long-standing feature of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before an accused can be convicted of a crime (from Wikipedia).
This may have muddied the water.

The FBI are currently raiding the US home of Oleg Derispaka; oligarch, Putin confidant, KGB operative, Trumpworld connected and current (by proxy) employer of George Osborne.

Thoughts and prayers...

that she kills one of the jurors or the judge with her car thanks to her unjustified driving freedom.

Cunts. Everywhere.

Even if it were true, medically, she should never be allowed to drive again, right?

^ exactly this. Regardless of any verdict, having relied on that defence, the onus should now be on her to prove her ability to be safe to drive and such an event not happening again.

IANAL and have no idea how the Scottish legal system works but is there any recourse to some kind of private prosecution? The case reeks of someone playing a system stacked against a victim (and family) for who in this instance cannot press a prosecution for killing someone due to carelessness - because someone ‘forgot’.
Clearly me typing this is nothing that can help now but someone, somewhere surely could give this a push? Christ.
Guess that next I’ll find out it’s some c*nt lawyer defending the killer who knows how to pull this off for the right fee.

Now adding CANTREMEMBER to SMIDSY as a defence.

Probably not without new evidence. Would be double jeopardy otherwise.

Hah - I didn't see your post before I posted!

It feels surprising that this didn't happen - I haven't read any of the case details, but from the news report alone, it seems like dangerous driving may have been a stretch (given my limited understanding of dangerous driving).

not to say it's still a fucking travesty. As per usual.

The prosecution have some serious questions to answer here

There are two cycling-related goals in today's Net Zero Strategy document https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategy.

"17. We will deliver the Prime Minister’s bold vision for cycling and walking, investing £2 billion over five years with the vision that half of all journeys in towns and cities will be cycled or walked by 2030. We will also deliver thousands of miles of safe, continuous, direct routes for cycling in towns and cities, physically separated from pedestrians and volume motor traffic along with more low traffic neighbourhoods and school streets."

"18. We will deliver a world class cycling and walking network in England by 2040. This will
include comprehensive cycling and walking networks in all large towns and cities, with
measures to enable cycling and walking, such as cycle training for all children and adults
that want it. We will enable behaviour change through targeted personal incentives, such
as GP prescribing of active travel, existing tax reliefs, and rewards programmes."

Very wishy-washy