-
what a complete waste of everyone's time.
I agree, I don't think this should have come to court, but there you go.
nobody involved exactly comes out of it smelling of roses
I think it's important to appreciate how honest the couriers were. They didn't try to conceal anything they did in the situation, being completely open about their use of intemperate language. They didn't try to be saints. On the other hand, there was a distinct whiff (in my non-legally experienced opinion) that the witness testimonies which incriminated the two were just too perfect as recollections, even written down the same evening.
(apart from female witness).
Yes, she played the key role, I think. Her testimony was very convincing precisely because she was very clear on what she did and didn't see. There was a series of about five questions in succession put to her by the prosecutor to which she answered 'I don't know'.
at least the legal team came out of it quids in which is comforting to know.
I may misunderstand you here. The prosecutor initially seemed very convinced that there was a genuine case there, but as he heard more of the evidence from witnesses, he seemed to become (to me) noticeably less enthusiastic about pursuing it, and his closing speech was very short. The defending solicitor was genuinely pleased about the 'not guilty' verdict and said that this sort of case went the other way quite often. There was no sense from either of them that this was positive because it was lucrative.
Again, you're absolutely right that this was a waste of time, but had it not been for the conscientiousness of the independent witnesses and the defending solicitor, the couriers could have ended up with a record.
-
I thought it was Dewy Screwem & Howe.
I've been on the flip side of these outcomes where there was no conscientious independent witness just morally corrupt and cowardly officers and loads of blue lights. It's scary, you watch powerless as the stereotypes are built up and trotted out and superimposed on you.
-
I was on the jury of a case that wasn't so dissimilar though it didn't involve vehicles. 'Nice' middle class couple who started the whole thing got off scot free, the 'thug' got GBH. Most of the jury had made up their minds five minutes into the three day trial.
It's very, very tempting to 'follow up' but the chances are you will be the one that gets done, just as the Defence lawyer commented above.
-
Great write up Oliver, thanks.
Regarding this part by the cabbie, "He also stated explicitly that he had crossed the white line in overtaking them, so was not overtaking within the lane."
Can we expect a CPS prosecution for DWDCA? Or at least a FPN?
Surely the cab driver is a shoe-in for 3 points and a fine - no? -
I didn't plan to read more than a couple of paragraphs of that but couldn't leave it alone. Nice one Oliver!
+1
"those cyclists all rally together". WAC
-
Great write up Oliver, thanks.
Regarding this part by the cabbie, "He also stated explicitly that he had crossed the white line in overtaking them, so was not overtaking within the lane."
Can we expect a CPS prosecution for DWDCA? Or at least a FPN?
Surely the cab driver is a shoe-in for 3 points and a fine - no?Sorry, that was unclear--it was a dashed white line, not a solid white line.
-
Fascinating read, Thank You!
How very peculiar that a crucial statement by the courier was obliterated from the recording by those mysterious electronic sounds, what a truly incredible coincidence, in fact. maybe it was, no no, the idea's too absurd.
It should be stressed that there was a lot of interference on the tape and was by no means limited to that one part of the statement. At any rate, I don't think it had any bearing on the case.
-
Thanks for the thanks, by the way--glad you enjoyed this.
-
Your word against his, Brenda. Innocent until proven guilty. ;P
harrong
deleted
Steff
Skülly
Multi_Grooves
Mirius
walm
ojeffcott
spindrift
Butters
OneLessCardigan
itsbruce
photoben
Puech
hippy-
Post a reply
About
A court case against two cycle couriers
Posted by
@Oliver Schick
I've been meaning to post this for a while, but didn't have the spare time to revise the text again. The court hearings took place in early August. This is a fairly plodding read, so indulge in it if you're interested in minutiae of testimony. The digested read, digested, is at the end of this post, as this is long, and to enable you to keep up your suspense as to the outcome if you want to read the whole thing. :)
A court case against two cycle couriers
Cycling can be a wonderfully civil way of going about your business. Unfortunately, sometimes the best intentions with which you may have set out can be punctured by a poorly-judged overtaking manoeuvre on the part of a motorist, or indeed any other act of driving and cycling that impinges injudiciously upon the space that you consider yours at the time. More often than not, you will want to have words with the offending party.
What follows is a description of an incident that arose from this desire. It seems all too common and seems to take place on London’s streets on a weekly, or perhaps even daily, basis. The difference in this case was that criminal charges arose from the incident, and it was heard at Thames Magistrates’ court in early August. Two cycle couriers, Andrew ‘Bones’ Brown and Mark Durant, were charged under Section 4A of the 1986 Public Order Act. It was said that they acted in a threatening way, causing a taxi driver to ‘apprehend immediate unlawful violence’. The hearing took place over two days: Friday 5th August, all day, and Monday, 8th August, 2011, morning only. The case was heard by District Judge Jane McIvor.
On the evening of the 8th of February, 2011, at around 6:30pm, the two cycle couriers were riding home to East London after a day’s work. Setting off from the lights at the junction of Shoreditch High Street, Commercial Street, Norton Folgate, and Great Eastern Street, to travel north along Shoreditch High Street, they became aware of a black cab behind them, whose driver honked as he couldn’t pass where the carriageway in the contraflow bus lane was narrow. Andrew jumped ahead and Mark, at that point riding on the outside, made a hand gesture to acknowledge the cabbie’s presence. Both were then passed very closely by the cabbie, who additionally cut in sharply in front of Andrew, leaving centimetres between him and his cab. Just behind the two couriers, this was observed by a witness, Brenda Puech, who was likewise riding home at that time. She had earlier been overtaken by both cyclists and the taxi.
Mr Brown and Mr Durant immediately set off in pursuit of the driver and easily caught up with him just moments later at the junction of Shoreditch High Street, Old Street, Kingsland Road, and Hackney Road, just as the driver was preparing to do a U-turn to go back south along Shoreditch High Street. While whether or not the driver actually had passed the two too closely for comfort or safety was also disputed in court, what followed was disputed even more.
The first to give evidence in court was the complainant, the cab driver. He had made a statement four hours after the incident, and in his testimony to the court denied having passed the cyclists too closely, stating that they had ‘persisted’ in riding two abreast, so that he was ‘forced’ to move wide to overtake them. He also stated explicitly that he had crossed the white line in overtaking them, so was not overtaking within the lane, and that one of the cyclists had additionally ‘swerved towards’ him.
At his passenger’s request, he then tried to do a U-turn further up the street, close to the next major junction, but at that point the cyclists had caught up with him. One of them, he said, blocked the front of his cab in the act of turning. While he said that he couldn’t hear what was said over the noise of traffic, ‘they looked threatening, they didn’t look happy’. He said that there had been an offensive hand gesture, giving him the finger, and ‘one came to the window and started ranting and roaring’. A lot of foul language was used, and went on for ‘a period of time’. One of the remarks allegedly made was: ‘Get out of the cab and we’ll kill you.’ In further testimony, it became clear that Mark Durant had initially blocked the front of his cab, while Andrew Brown was at the window speaking to him. Mark Durant then also later came closer to the window.
Crucially, in giving evidence, the driver stated: ‘I felt safe while I was sitting in the cab. I didn’t expect anyone to use violence while I was in the cab. If I’d got out, they might have used violence.’ He also claimed to have been the first to suggest calling the police, with one of the couriers adding ‘call the fucking police, let’s ’ave it’.
He added: ‘They looked menacing, it was fast, it was very violent, the spittle was coming at me.’ He said that they had both got off their bikes by this point and were leaning on his cab, but that he had felt safe in his cab. ‘Incidents like this happen every day.’
He thought that traffic levels had been normal, with nothing out of the ordinary. Visibility was affirmed by all present at the scene to have been good, as it had only just been getting dark, with the streetlights having come on.
Cross-examined by the defence solicitor, Paul Culbert of Wilsons Solicitors LLP, he disagreed that his swerving had been ‘sudden, aggressive, and dangerous’. Mr Culbert also put it to the witness that Andrew Brown had said: ‘You can’t drive like that’, and that, in fact, Mr Brown had first suggested calling the police, to which the driver had replied that he should go ahead.
Questioned on this point, he agreed that there had been a ‘lady cyclist’ present at the scene, who ‘was shouting something about “I saw it all, I’ll be your witness”’, and that, in his experience, ‘those cyclists all rally together’.
Giving evidence after the cab driver was his passenger, an off-duty firefighter. He had hired the cab to be driven to the White Horse pub on Shoreditch High Street. He thought that traffic had been ‘very, very heavy’. The taxi driver, in his recollection, had driven slowly, sounding his horn a lot.
He said he had first become aware of the incident when the cab was U-turning (at his request, as the driver had driven past his destination), and ‘two gentlemen were remonstrating with the taxi driver’. He said that he had not noticed the previous, allegedly injudicious, overtaking manoeuvre which prompted the confrontation.
While he could not hear a great deal of what was said, he said that he could hear a lot of instances of foul and abusive language, used aggressively. He heard the cab driver say that he hadn’t done anything wrong, and ‘don’t spit at me’. He contradicted the driver’s earlier statement that it had been him, the driver, who had first suggested calling the police, stating instead that it had been one of the couriers, with the driver concurring.
Checking against his statement given a week after the incident, he said that he didn’t remember much more beyond that it got more aggressive and then ‘suddenly, the police were there’. Under cross-examination, he said that he remembered a female cyclist, with a ‘European accent’ approaching the taxi driver. He said that he heard her say that she had seen what had happened, and that she thought the taxi driver had been in the wrong. He said that he had not heard any threats to kill from the cyclists, and that he didn’t feel frightened. The driver’s demeanour had been calm (‘I don’t know how he felt, but he certainly seemed calm’), and that he couldn’t remember whether the couriers had been off their bikes.
It had proved unnecessary to call the police, as they had turned up of their own accord. Giving evidence next, the police sergeant explained how they had become involved. Together with a police constable, he had been sitting in an unmarked car, waiting at the head of the queue of cars in the southbound lane at the traffic lights on Kingsland Road, facing south. They had both been in uniform. They spotted a black cab positioned as if it had been doing a U-turn but that was now blocking the southbound carriageway on Shoreditch High Street. After watching it for 20-30 seconds, the sergeant decided that there hadn’t been a collision, but that the cyclists were remonstrating. They were waving their arms around. He said that he could also hear shouting, even from so far away. He had said to the PC with him that he would look at what was going on.
Coming upon the scene, he encountered both cyclists at the driver’s window, ‘shouting, screaming, and threatening’ the driver. He stated that he heard them say: ‘Get out of the fucking cab, I’m gonna fucking kill you’, as well as: ‘You fucking pussy, get out of the cab.’ This was when he had got to within about ten metres of the scene. He then saw that the cab driver was in a ‘surrender’ position, with his hands open near his shoulders, shaking his head slowly from side to side, and that the two cyclists ‘had their fists clenched and their teeth bared’. He stated that Mark Durant then said: ‘I’m gonna fuck you up, get out of the car’ in a threatening manner, and said that he formed a clear impression that the two cyclists were about to do violence to the cab driver, or at least were intent on giving him the impression that they would.
Approaching further, he said that he shouted: ‘Police officer, back off’, in reply to which he said Mr Durant said to him to ‘fuck off’. He then proceeded to arrest Durant ‘for threatening behaviour’. He said his colleague parked the car and then joined him ‘about ten seconds later’, when Durant was ‘aggressive and unpleasant’. He cautioned Durant (who retorted ‘get off me’) and then handcuffed him. The PC then arrested Andrew Brown, who he claimed said: ‘You’re only arresting us because we’re black. You always take the side of cabbies, never of cyclists.’ He said that the cabbie was ‘shaken, but calm’ when his details were taken.
In cross-examination, Mr Culbert suggested to the sergeant that what the cyclists had actually said was: ‘Pull over, get out of the cab, we’ll talk about it.’ This was denied by the witness. It was also suggested to him that he had not announced his presence as a police officer but had in fact said to the couriers to ‘piss off over there’, and that he had not yet put on his police hat at the time. Both suggestions were again denied by the witness. He denied shoving one of the defendants so hard that he nearly fell over. He also stated that he did not believe that Ms Puech saw what the police officers had witnessed, and that she had only come back after she had seen the ‘flashing blue lights’ (as the officers were in an unmarked car, it is likely that ‘the police in action’ was what he meant by this).
Next up in the witness box was the police constable who had been driving the unmarked police car. He said that they had been in a traffic jam and that the sergeant had got out. When the lights had turned green, he had driven the car past the cab and had parked there. Walking to the scene, he had seen the sergeant arrest somebody. As later identified, this was Mark Durant. Andrew Brown had been shouting and had been ‘very animated with his hands’. He had said to the sergeant: ‘Get the fuck off him.’ He stated that he feared the sergeant might be attacked. The sergeant then informed him that Andrew Brown had committed the same offence as that for which Mark Durant had been arrested, and so he arrested him. Mr Brown had been calm after the arrest. They had had a conversation about Mr Brown’s wrist, which he had sprained earlier that day, and so he had been very careful when applying the handcuffs. Mr Culbert asked him if he had not heard Mr Brown say something like: ‘No, no, no, what do you want?’ The officer said that he had not.
This concluded examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, and the court listened to the tapes of the police interviews with the defendants, conducted later that same evening. Unfortunately, the tape quality was very poor, with repeated and prolonged interference by electronic devices. This resulted in sections effectively ‘bleeped out’ and made it hard to hear what was said. The poor acoustics of the courtroom did not help, either. The police officer who had interviewed the couriers was present in the courtroom. As the testimony as given in court was consistent with what was on tape, we can consider both together.
Mr Brown’s interview was played first, and he also gave evidence in court before Mr Durant. In taped testimony, he said that the taxi driver had swerved across them tightly, nearly clipping him. He said that when he spoke to the cabbie at his driver-side window, he was polite at first, trying to explain that the driver had done something wrong, but that the driver’s dismissive and sarcastic attitude had probably provoked them into being rude. To him, the sergeant’s sudden arrival and immediate handcuffing of Mr Durant was a shock, and when the PC turned up, he ‘didn’t have a clue’ and ‘just nicked him’. He also described how Ms Puech had tried to say to the sergeant that she saw what caused the confrontation, but that ‘he didn’t want to know’. Mr Brown alleged that ‘the sergeant handled it unprofessionally’.
Giving evidence in court, Mr Brown stated that he had been a cycle courier since 1993, then with a gap until 1996, and again since then. He had also taught English in Japan and done scaffolding and window-cleaning. As he was giving evidence, it became clear why other witnesses had noticed Mr Brown’s expressive hands. He often explained his evidence by means of acting and gestures.
He gave a comprehensive recollection of the incident from his perspective. After the description of the swerving, he related how both couriers started to chase after the driver. When the cab was stopped, Mr Brown started to speak to the driver. He had wound down his window, and Mr Brown said that his first words to him had been: ‘You nearly killed me.’ He said what annoyed him had been the driver’s reply: ‘I didn’t kill you, but I nearly did, didn’t I?’ At that, he stated, the driver had slapped the side of his cab with his hand. Mr Brown said to him: ‘All you have to say is sorry.’ The judge asked for clarification whether he had actually said this, and Mr Brown said yes.
Mr Durant had appeared just after this initial exchange, as he had been left behind when Mr Brown gave chase.
Mr Brown also said that he had first said: ‘I’ll call the police’ and ‘why don’t you call the police’, thinking that the driver could call from his cab. Then, he said, someone had said ‘piss off over there’. Mr Culbert then asked Mr Brown about the alleged threats, e.g. to kill the driver, that other witnesses had claimed they had heard. He denied them all. He also said that he had neither had his fists clenched nor his teeth bared.
Mr Brown said that when the police sergeant arrived, he didn’t identify himself as a police officer, but said ‘piss off over there’. He saw the sergeant handcuff Mr Durant. When he remonstrated with the sergeant, he said that he was pushed back by him, and that when he staggered backwards, his bike fell into the carriageway. He said Ms Puech then gave him her card. The unmarked police car arrived, and the police constable who got out was fresh on the scene. At this point, Mr Brown said that he wanted to go to Shoreditch Police Station to make a complaint. He claimed that the sergeant then directed the PC to arrest him, too, just as he was getting back on his bike.
Cross-examined by the prosecutor, Mr Brown explained that the hand signal used by Mr Durant was a common one among cycle couriers to let drivers behind know that they were aware of their presence. He said that the road ahead was clear and that the driver was becoming angry. In a noteworthy moment, when asked by the prosecutor why he had not said at the police interview on the evening of the incident that the driver had said ‘I didn’t kill you, but I nearly did, didn’t I?’, he replied that he had, that it was on the tape of the interview, but was hard to hear owing to the electronic interference noise. (This was not followed up.)
The prosecutor tried to establish whether the sergeant had been in hearing distance of the incident, and Mr Brown replied that he had been on the nearby traffic island. He denied most suggestions put to him by the prosecutor, but admitted that spit may have come out of his mouth while talking, and that he had apologised for spitting to the cab driver. He also agreed with the prosecutor’s provocative suggestion that the police sergeant had ‘made up’ the allegations. He denied being off the bike (‘I’m protecting my bike, as well’), and agreed that he had blocked the driver from completing his U-turn, as he ‘didn’t just want the driver to drive away’, but to get an apology. However, he also said that the cab had been blocked from completing the U-turn because of the traffic island close to the junction with Hackney Road. He stated that he had not been out to have it ‘done and dusted’, i.e. in attacking the driver, as was suggested by the prosecutor.
Mr Durant was then called to give evidence. He recalled the incident and described the alleged swerving as Mr Brown had described it. He said that after the close passing, he briefly spoke to Ms Puech before riding ahead to catch up with the driver. He said that when he arrived on the scene, he moved to the front to prevent the cabbie from driving off. When he went closer to the window, he said that he saw the driver ‘tapping the side of his cab’ and saying ‘nearly got you’. Mr Durant admitted swearing. He also stated that drivers often paid less attention than they should because ‘you can run us over, but you won’t feel a damn thing’. He apologised to the court for putting it in this way. He said that the cabbie had shrugged his shoulders when he had accused him of being cowardly. Mr Durant then described how he had been arrested by the sergeant.
Cross-examined by the prosecutor, he said that he could not have moved further to the left on the road, as there had been three or four cyclists on his inside after they had moved off from the lights at the junction of Shoreditch High Street, Norton Folgate, Great Eastern Street, and Commercial Street. He denied the suggestion that he had been angry, saying that he had been too tired to have been angry, and was ‘just upset’. He admitted calling the cabbie a ‘pussy’ and a ‘c***’ and shouting ‘get out, get out’, but denied having wanted to fight him, as his offensive remarks had been caused by his frustration that it hadn’t proved possible to discuss the incident with the cab driver. He also said that he had wanted to call the police, but was suddenly surprised by the police sergeant, whom it took ‘a good few minutes’ to handcuff him because of his courier bag.
The hearing resumed the following Monday, 8th August, with witness testimony from Ms Puech. A light-hearted moment occurred when the police officer who had conducted the interview attended court on the second day of the hearing. When previously he had sat further to the front while the interview tapes were played, he was later present as a mere observer. As there were only five seats for members of the public at the back of the courtroom, he looked for more seating and found it in a small section of the courtroom divided from the main room by a glass wall. He closed the door and sat down there, upon which the judge asked him why he was sitting in the dock. As he could not open the door from the inside, he had to be assisted in leaving the dock again.
Ms Puech then gave evidence. She stated that she was a disability access consultant and narrated the evening’s events from her recollection. She had been overtaken by the two cyclists and the cab, which had swerved violently to the right when overtaking the couriers and had then accelerated away. All the cyclists followed, and Ms Puech was the last to arrive on the scene. She stated that she had seen the incident and had been keen to tell people about it. She had first tried to tell the cyclists, but they hadn’t been listening. They had been gesticulating, but not with clenched fists or bared teeth. She could not remember any threats to kill. She had then walked her bike up to the cab driver’s window, but had only got a ‘grunt’ in reply. After this, she had walked away and had decided to continue on her journey. She had positioned herself at the traffic lights to turn right into Hackney Road, waited until they turned green, and set off, only to notice that the police had arrived. At this point, she went back to tell them what had happened. She saw that the police had handcuffed one of the couriers (it was clear from previous testimony that this had been Mr Durant), and that one of the policemen had given one of the couriers a violent shove (it was clear from previous testimony that this had been Mr Brown).
She stated that when they were remonstrating with the driver, the cyclists had not been close to the window of the cab, as she had been able to wheel her bike up to the window easily. The whole confrontation was not violent, and certainly not as bad as other road rage confrontations that she had seen.
Cross-examined by the prosecutor, she denied his suggestion that she had been unable to see the cyclists close to the cab as she had arrived on the scene too late. He also questioned why she had not had a more precise recollection of events in her statement to police, which she had given on the 15th February, a week after the incident. She said that she couldn’t remember for certain whether the cyclists had been off their bikes. At any rate, she stated that she didn’t think the driver had been in danger, as she had been able to wheel her bike in between his cab and the cyclists. ‘I wouldn’t put myself in harm’s way in between two groups of people fighting.’ Prosecutor: ‘But you weren’t threatened personally.’ Ms Puech: ‘I still didn’t feel as if I was walking into a fight. The prosecutor alleged that Ms Puech was influenced by personal feelings. She denied this, stating that her testimony was about the facts only. The prosecutor suggested that she wouldn’t have known if the situation had escalated while she had been waiting to turn with her back to the incident. Ms Puech said that this could not have been longer than a minute. ‘I saw the police arriving. I didn’t hear the police talk to the cyclists but heard one of the police say: “You threatened the driver.”’
This concluded the testimony from witnesses, and the prosecutor’s and defending solicitor’s closing speeches followed.
The prosecutor stated that ‘almost all’ the cab driver said had been corroborated by the defendants, apart from the defendants standing away from their bikes. The cab driver had felt under immediate threat of violence. Ms Puech had said that voices had been raised in anger. Provocation was not a lawful defence to this type of offence. His closing speech was very short.
Mr Culbert’s closing speech was more detailed. He said that it was not in dispute that tempers had been raised and some unpleasant language used. However, it was contested that the cabbie had believed he was under threat of immediate violence. He said that the police sergeant’s evidence was central to the crown’s case but questioned the reliability of his evidence: of what he heard, what he saw and how he acted at the scene.
Mr Culbert noted that ‘clenched fists and bared teeth’ and other aggressive behaviour of the defendants allegedly seen by the police sergeant had not been corroborated by the independent witnesses. The ‘surrender’ gesture the officer said had been adopted by the cabbie was specifically denied by the driver in cross examination. The police sergeant had also denied pushing Mr Brown. Mr Brown had graphically described the incident from the witness box and Ms Puech had also seen the incident. Moreover, the officer said that even from a distance and above the din of the traffic, he could hear the cyclists “screaming” threats at the cab driver. However, the taxi driver’s fare sitting in the back of the cab did not hear any such threats.
He concluded that the police sergeant’s evidence was “flawed” and was, therefore, not reliable.
The taxi driver’s evidence in respect of the alleged threats was somewhat vague. Throughout the incident he had had his arm out of the taxi, resting on the door, with the window down. He had made no attempt to wind up the window. He had made no attempt to defuse the situation, stating that he had ‘done no wrong’. He said he had felt safe. These were not the actions of a man in fear of immediate violence.
Mr Durant had candidly admitted calling the cab driver a ‘c***’, and there had been talk of killing when Mr Brown said: ‘You nearly killed me’. But at no time had there been any threats to kill or attack the driver. Mr Durant’s suggestion that the driver get out of the taxi to talk about the incident had been just that; it was impossible to talk to the driver eye to eye while he was still in his cab. The cyclists had remained astride their bikes and had made no attempt to strike out or to aim blows at the driver through the open window. The arresting police constable had stated that Mr Brown had been compliant on arrest. The defendants were put forward as reliable witnesses.
The judge’s summing up and verdict which followed was very brief. After explaining that she had to be ‘sure’ that the defendants intended the driver to fear immediate violence to find them guilty, she gave her assessment of the evidence. She said that there were considerable discrepancies in the different versions of the events given by witnesses. Neither of the independent witnesses had heard a threat to kill, but the sergeant had and the driver had heard vague threats. The judge noted that Ms Puech had said that the incident was not violent. However, she added that she had not seen the entire encounter, arriving at the beginning of the incident and turning her back on it towards the end.
The judge added that she could not be sure of the police sergeant’s evidence, as he had denied shoving Mr Brown. Ms Puech had seen this and the judge had no reason to believe she was not truthful and accurate in her account. The district judge therefore concluded that although she was sure there had been an unpleasant verbal altercation, she could not be sure that the defendants intended violence and therefore dismissed the crown’s case.
It was extremely interesting to hear the different recollections of the events. For someone who had not been present at the events and had to laboriously put together what had happened, it was like peeling an onion. New layers constantly emerged and showed how complex situations in which we find ourselves in interaction with others really are. Conflicting witness testimony was dealt with expertly by the lawyers present, who were able to home in on the aspects which were relevant to the case. As the full account emerged, it became clearer which aspects crucial and which ones were only noise.
The acquittal was on the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’—in case of doubt, find in favour of the accused, to avoid wrongful convictions. Or to put it the other way round: a conviction must sit on certainty. As the evidence was inconclusive, the judge could not be sure of what happened or of what was said, making it impossible to infer intention. As the judge couldn’t be sure about the defendants’ intentions, she had to acquit. The very brief summing-up by the judge may have been almost an anticlimax, but it was procedurally correct.
It was also perhaps unusual for such a case to come to court. It illustrated a lot of interesting facets of how cycling is currently perceived in London. During the hearing, I was in no doubt that negative stereotypes were being applied to the cyclists—not racist stereotypes, but stereotypes of lawlessness and aggression. Whereas cyclists used to be seen as mainly poor or eccentric, now their increasing prominence in claiming space in London has led to them being labelled as selfish and inconsiderate, in particular in shared-use situations in parks or on canal towpaths, but also in streets.
The defendants would be the first to admit that their language was offensive, and they did admit to it in court, but they clearly felt that the first act of aggression had been aimed at them. The cab driver’s allegation that ‘those cyclists all rally together’ was particularly telling. There was also an allegation in the evidence by the police sergeant that the defendants had said: ‘You always take the side of the cabbies, never the cyclists’, although the defendants denied that they had said this. At any rate, both statements were irrelevant to the case. It is extremely important to avoid ‘us and them’ attitudes and stereotyping different kinds of road users. The simple fact, however, is that currently many people see and say it in this way. Perhaps another ism—(transport) modism—could be coined to describe this undesirable distraction from good relations between all people using the streets.
Whether or not the allegation of injudicious overtaking was true, with particular relevance to this case we should certainly add the well-known call to drivers to be aware that overtaking often doesn’t buy them a great deal of advantage in a busy city like London, as they generally tend to get stuck stationary in the next queue further up the street, only for the cyclist to pass them again. Most cyclists in London ride at speeds of between 10-20mph that, if followed by drivers during the daytime, and certainly during the peak hour, would cumulatively make traffic, all traffic and not just motor traffic, flow more smoothly.
In any case, good communication is essential. Drivers should be aware that people often ride in the middle lane not to obstruct them, but to be visible and to avoid being hit by opening car doors. Cyclists should be aware that many drivers don’t understand this yet and mistakenly believe that they can gain a great time advantage by speeding. They undoubtedly can sometimes achieve this, but not very often in typical London traffic, and it stands to reason that we would be much better off with more even motor traffic speeds.
So, this was a good outcome; it felt as if justice was served (although it looked as if the charges should never have been brought).
Digested read, digested: