-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PVANkYv0csk
Jenny Jones asks Boris about the tragedy.
-
There is talk of Michael's family starting a private prosecution. There may also be action over the police not following guidelines to refer to Crown Prosecution Service for a fatal collision. LCC and CTC could be asking for donations through the Cyclists Defence Fund to help.
-
The Metropolitan police today revealed it had bowed to a family campaign and asked prosecutors to consider bringing criminal charges against a driver who killed a cyclist in Regent Street.
BBC journalist Anna Tatton-Brown, the daughter of cyclist Michael Mason, will tonight join campaigners at a vigil and “die-in” protest to mark the first anniversary of his death.
Her lawyers had written to the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service asking them to reconsider the decision not to prosecute Gale Purcell over her father’s death from traumatic brain injury after he was hit from behind.
In response to inquiries from the Standard, the Met released a statement saying an internal review had backed its original decision not to prosecute.
An inquest at Westminster coroner’s court recorded a verdict of death by road traffic accident.
But the Met statement added: “Legal representatives of the family of Mr Mason have written to the Met Police to challenge the decision not to refer the matter to the CPS, prompting an investigation by the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards. The DPS supported the Detective Inspector’s original decision, but have referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
-
Apparently the Met has now U-turned. No referral to CPS.
-
Rape victims never seem to wear chastity belts.
-
Excerpt:
In July 2014 DS Edwards states he requested that DI Nick MASON review the investigation. During this meeting he outlined his genuine belief that insufficient evidence existed that would support a charging advice file to the CPS. He states the areas which supported his rationale and that he conveyed to DI MASON were:
Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.
An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything.
CCTV traced corroborated how busy the area in general was, with both motorists and pedestrians.
All witnesses traced could not describe in any detail the lead up to the collision.
Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.
CCTV recovered from 2 independent venues highlighted that Ms PURCELL’S vehicle was travelling at an appropriate speed. This is corroborated by the minor damage caused to the vehicle after impact.
CCTV showed Mr MASON cycling between 1.5 to 2 metres from the kerb line. No CCTV exists depicting Mr MASON moving from his line of travel, i.e. moving out to his right. This is something he must have done in order for the collision to have taken place.
CCTV, physical evidence and Ms PURCELL’S own account prove that she had always maintained her position in the road, adjacent to the central white line.
We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road.Whilst there was always debate as to whether Mr MASON was there to be seen, there was no argument, in my opinion, as to Ms PURCELL’S vehicle being visible.
DS Edwards states that in response to the rationale he put to DI MASON, DI MASON said he would personally review the evidence and make a final written decision. DS Edwards says that on 17/09/2014 DI MASON posted his review on the CRIS and supported his view that the matter be referred to HM Coroner.
DS Edwards goes on to state the report was delivered to Westminster’s Coroners Court on 29/09/2014 and the inquest was heard into the death of Mr Michael Mason on 10/12/2014. A verdict of Accident was returned.
An account was requested from the Reviewing Officer, DI Nick MASON, having been informed of your allegation against him.
For clarification DI MASON commences his account by confirming he is the Inspector MASON that your complaint refers to. He also states at the time the investigation into Mr Michael Mason’s death commenced he was the Detective Inspector with overall responsibility for the Serious Collision investigation unit (West). He says as such he had responsibility for all investigations undertaken by this unit and in particular any matters involving fatality.
DI MASON states the facts of the case involving Mr Mason were known to him as he was in close contact with the SIO DS Edwards. At the conclusion of the investigation he was asked to review the evidence and provide a recommendation as to how the matter should progress.
DI MASON commences his Final Review:
“I have been asked to review the investigation that touches on the death of Mr Michael Mason who died on 14th March 2014 following a collision with a Nissan Juke car driven by Ms Gail Purcell in Regent Street on 25th February 2014.
The circumstances of the incident are that Mr Mason was riding his pedal cycle north in Regent Street having passed through an ATS controlled junction at Mortimer Street. He was not wearing any high visibility clothing, nor was he wearing a safety helmet though his bicycle was displaying a red light at the rear and a white light on the front. He was on the left hand side of the road and was about 1 to 2 metres from the footpath. Ms Purcell the driver of the Nissan Juke was also travelling North in Regent Street, her vehicle being to the right in the carriageway. At some point Mr Mason changed his position in the road moving to the right. He was subsequently in a collision with the Nissan which struck the rear of his bicycle.
Mr Mason who was 69 years old sustained serious injuries. He was taken to St Mary’s hospital where because of the serious nature of his injuries he was in a coma. His condition deteriorated and he died some 17 days later.
The key issue for the investigating officers was whether Ms Purcell, the driver of the Nissan car could have done anything to avoid the collision, was Mr Mason on his pedal cycle there to be seen and was the manner of Ms Purcell’s driving careful and competent. This is determined by the evidence of witnesses, both members of the public and police, CCTV enquires and available Forensic evidence.”
DI MASON makes reference within his final report to Witness evidence, PC Gamble the Collision Investigator, the Vehicle Examination, CCTV evidence, Suspect evidence, Forensic evidence and Telecommunication evidence.
DI MASON conclusions were having read all the material in the investigation and discussed the case with the SIO, DS Edwards and the other Investigating Officers he concluded that there is insufficient evidence to take any criminal action against the driver of the Nissan Juke, Ms Purcell.
DI MASON records the facts as:
Mr Michael Mason was in collision with the Nissan Juke.
Mr Mason died from the injuries sustained during this collision, a head injury.
Ms Purcell was the driver of the Nissan
There are no witnesses that describe the driver taking any action that would cause the collision.
There are no witnesses that describe Mr Mason taking any action that would cause the collision. Initially he was at the nearside of the road and at some point he moved to the offside. No witnesses are available as to why he changed his position in the road or when he did this. He may have had to avoid an obstruction in the road or a pedestrian stepping in front of him. No one person can say for sure.
Mr Mason was not wearing a protective helmet (cause of death given as a head injury) or any high visibility clothing, he was wearing dark clothing.
Mr Mason was displaying lights on the bicycle but these lights could easily be lost to a drivers sight in a busy central London Road in the dark where there are numerous other lights displayed.
The Nissan Juke car and Mr Mason’s bicycle were examined and found to have no faults that contributed to this collision.
Ms Purcell passed all road side tests including an eyesight test in the dark, the legal requirement being to pass this test in daylight.
There is witness evidence from Mr Suber Abdijarim which is at odds with other witnesses and the images shown on CCTV. He states that the Nissan Juke was doing over 30mph but I believe this statement to be inaccurate. I have viewed the CCTV and the Nissan Juke is travelling at the same speed as other traffic which is not excessive for the location. This fact is supported by the evidence of PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator who states that this was not a high speed collision. Mr Adijarim also states that the Nissan did not deviate or brake. Again this statement is inaccurate. It is clear from the CCTV taken from ‘Top Shop’ that the Nissan braked at the point of collision and then put on Hazard warning lights for the vehicle.
PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator states that Mr Mason was run over by the Nissan Juke but he is unable to confirm this for sure. I do not consider this relevant. It is clear Mr Mason died from injuries sustained in the collision.
There is no evidence available to say that Ms Purcell did a deliberate act or did anything that was negligent in relation her driving to cause this collision.DI MASON states, given the available information, his opinion is there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident.
DI MASON says following his review of this case his decision was that there was insufficient evidence to refer this matter to the Crown Prosecution Service and the matter should be referred to Her Majesty’s Coroner only, a decision he communicated to and discussed with DS Edwards.
DI MASON concludes his account into his review of the case by saying when making this decision he referred to the DPP’s Guidance on Charging 5th Edition: May 2013 and in particular;
“The Police are responsible for assessing cases before referral to ensure the Full Code or Threshold Test can be met on the available evidence as appropriate to the circumstances of the case”
“Police should ensure cases are only referred to a Prosecutor where there is sufficient evidence available (or capable of being obtained) to meet the full code test unless the decision requires; the assessment of complex evidence; legal issues; early investigative advice is sought”.
“The Police are responsible for taking ‘no further action’ in any case that cannot meet the appropriate evidential standard, without referral to a prosecutor”.
DI MASON concludes his account by stating that the above effectively summarises the Police Investigation into what was undoubtedly a very sad incident. He has every confidence in the investigation itself and the decision he took following the review of this matter.
Email from Chief Inspector Oldham dated 29/01/2015 states:
“The matter was reviewed by myself and I am happy with Nick Mason's fully documented decision not to refer this matter to the CPS. There is no evidence to indicate that the driver’s manner of driving should be considered a crime.”
Email from CPS dated 03/03/2015 from Ms Sarah Maclaren, Head of Homicide and RASSO states:
“As discussed a fatal RTC will be passed to us if the OIC is satisfied it passes the FCT (Full Code Test) for bail cases or TT (Threshold Test) for custody cases. Where a case doesn’t, they can NFA (No Further Action) the case themselves on evidential grounds.”
In addition to the above accounts, following the Coroners verdict, DS Edwards , DI MASON and DS John Hartfree who is the MPS Road Transport Police Command - RTPC, Single Point of Contact - SPOC for the Serious Collision Investigating Unit - SCIU, in relation to cycle matters, met with Charlie Lloyd who is a senior member of the London cycling campaign (LCC), at his request to discuss the case in relation to the death of Mr Michael Mason.
This meeting took place on 07/01/2015, between all three officers and Mr Lloyd. DI MASON confirmed that during the meeting Mr Lloyd was given information already in the public domain. Mr Lloyd, DI MASON and DS Edwards had a general discussion around all the information shared. In their accounts DS Edwards, DS Hartfree and DI MASON all concur the details discussed during the meeting.
DS EDWARDS concludes his account of the meeting by stating that towards the end of the meeting Mr LLOYD in discussion suggested that what he wanted was for all drivers involved in collisions with pedal cyclists to be charged irrespective of blame and attend court to prove their innocence. His rationale being that by having court cases would heighten the public’s awareness of cyclists and the dangers they encounter. DS EDWARDS suggested that it would be cruel to have a member of the public charged with either a criminal or traffic offence knowing they were innocent or that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.
DS Hartfree corroborates DS Edwards account by saying Mr Lloyd felt any driver in the circumstances described to him should go to court for a jury to decide.
DI MASON also corroborates both DS Edwards and DS Hartfree’s account by stating Mr Lloyd held the opinion that all fatal collisions, no matter what the circumstances should go to Court. DS Edwards asked Mr Lloyd if he felt that was fair on the car driver Mrs Purcell who was blameless. Mr Lloyd took the view that Mrs Purcell was not blameless.
Therefore on the basis of the evidence available to me and in the absence of any to the contrary I am unable to uphold this specific aspect of your complaint. Therefore there is no case for the officer to answer.
-
It is possible that the police believe that a helmet could have prevented death so a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" might not be appropriate. If they think that they should let the judge and jury examine the evidence and make a decision. It does not explain why there was no prosecution for careless driving.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/dead-cyclists-family-let-down-at-every-stage-by-met-policeI have just seen the post from Spindrift sent while I was writing my comment. It is interesting. I do not know if Mrs Purcell is to blame or not but I think it is essential that her driving behaviour is examined and tested in a court of law.
-
Absolutely un-fucking-believable rationale from the police there. If you're on the road without hi-viz or a helmet (peds included) then you're fair game for drivers, as long as they only run you over at 30mph. Of course, if it had gone to court then the jury of fellow motorists would've let her off, while remembering all the close calls they've had when faffing with the radio, glovebox, makeup, mobile phone etc....
-
If you drive into the back of any form of motor vehicle, the responisbility is your own in the eyes of insurers. Shame that doesnt apply to being on a bike and the law. Disgraceful. All this tells me again is that the law needs to change. The police are probably right. it will just get thrown out in court. Rip
spindrift
mikec
helly
charlie_lcc
edscoble
Skülly
Howard
aggi
TRA
dancing james
SCS
Arvy.
hippy
marcopolo
𝔒𝕨𝖑𝘡-
Post a reply
About
2014-02-25 - Rider Down/Fatality, 309 Regent Street
Posted by
@starfish&coffee write to your MP as a starting point.