Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Driver acquitted of killing cyclist after Crown Prosecution Service offers no evidence

Decision taken in light of forensic collision investigators' report into fatal crash in Cumbria last year...

A  driver has been acquitted of killing a cyclist in Cumbria after the Crown Prosecution Service decided to offer no evidence at his trial.

Nathan James Holme, aged 24 and from Kendal, had pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing of causing the death through careless driving of Joseph Eric Park on 7 March 2018.

Mr Park, aged 74 and known as Eric, died in a collision involving Mr Holme’s Audi A3 on the A6 in Church Street, Milnthorpe, reports The Westmoreland Gazette.

Mr Holme had been due to stand trial today at Carlisle Crown Court.

However, Nicola Gatto, prosecuting, told Judge Nicholas Barker that the CPS had decided to offer no evidence against the motorist in the light of a report compiled by forensic collision investigators appointed by both the prosecution and defence.

“As such my instructions are to offer no evidence,” she told the court.

Addressing Mr Holme, Judge Barker said: “In those circumstances I return a verdict of not guilty.

“That results in this matter coming to a conclusion. You are discharged and can leave the dock.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

8 comments

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
2 likes

As they'd got as far as the case, wouldn't it have made sense to at least give a brief summary of the evidence so that the driver and cyclist's family get to hear the facts?

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 4 years ago
0 likes

"C'mon judge, this Audi driver's obviously a complete dick... let's hang him!"

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 4 years ago
0 likes

What a shame that the CPS couldn't be bothered. This isn't just a parking ticket or a late payment of a bill, it's somebodys life!

Avatar
vonhelmet | 4 years ago
1 like

The CPS have ridiculous targets, so if there's a significant risk that the prosecution would have failed they'll have just abandoned it.

Avatar
zero_trooper | 4 years ago
3 likes

My guess is that the driver was charged following a review of the initial completed investigation.

The defence have then commissioned their own forensic review (probably on a certain aspect of the case/collision). CPS will have then asked for a similar review and as a result of one of the reviews has dropped the case. Maybe enough was done by the defence to muddy the waters, or maybe some genuine issue was identified.

Yes, a lot of time and money, I just hope that the family can understand and accept  the decision.

EDIT: From the newspaper article, the defence and prosecution both commissioned forensic reviews, which were presented in a joint report. Suggests that both reviews agreed on the pertinent issue (whatever that was).

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to zero_trooper | 4 years ago
1 like

zero_trooper wrote:

 

EDIT: From the newspaper article, the defence and prosecution both commissioned forensic reviews, which were presented in a joint report. Suggests that both reviews agreed on the pertinent issue (whatever that was).

 

Problem being that in the Alliston case the investigation presented evidence of stopping distances based on a mountain bike heading towards a stop line in a car park rather than a road/fixed bike being surprised by someone stepping out in an urban environment. So maybe the forensic view was completely misleading or car-centric without anyone with the brain cell to challenge it... 

Avatar
StuInNorway | 4 years ago
9 likes

If they are going to present no evidence, why waste everyone's time and money by actually allowing this to get to a court room and in front of a judge.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 4 years ago
8 likes

"However, Nicola Gatto, prosecuting, told Judge Nicholas Barker that the CPS had decided to offer no evidence against the motorist in the light of a report compiled by forensic collision investigators appointed by both the prosecution and defence".

 

So tell us, why was the driver originally charged and what evidence did the forensics come back with? Was it of the standard that plod used against Charlie Alliston?

Latest Comments