- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Michael MasonBreaking News: Driver in Mick Mason case acquitted by jury
A jury at the Old Bailey has acquitted motorist Gail Purcell of causing the death of cyclist Michael Mason through dangerous driving. She stood trial after the Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF) crowdsourced more than £75,000 to bring a private prosecution, in what is believed to be a legal first. Both Mr Mason's family and the CDF have urged the Metropolitan Police to review its investigation of the case.
Mr Mason, known as Mick, died in hospital shortly after his 70th birthday in March 2014, 19 days after he was hit from behind on London’s Regent Street by a car driven by Purcell, who told police afterwards that she had not seen him. He never regained consciousness.
The Cyclists’ Defence Fund, established in 2001 by national cyclists’ charity Cycling UK, raised funds to bring the private prosecution after the Metropolitan Police Service decided not to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.
In a statement released after the verdict this afternoon, Mr Mason's daughter, Anna Tatton-Brown, said: “My family and I respect the decision the jury have reached, although we are obviously disappointed.
"It seems that failing to be aware of what’s in front of you while you’re driving is an acceptable mistake, not careless, and that no explanation for that failure is necessary.
“We do, however, draw some comfort from the fact that the evidence was finally put to a jury, something that should have happened long ago.
"It should not have taken the intervention of CDF, and the support of many members of the public, to bring this case to court.
"Given that the Judge accepted that there was a case which the jury had to consider, we would hope that the Police will now conduct a review into their investigation, their rush to blame the victim, their refusal to seek CPS advice, and consider what lessons might be learned.
“My family would once again like to express our sincere and grateful appreciation for all of the support we have received in our search for justice for my much-loved Dad.”
CDF spokesman Duncan Dollimore commented: “While we accept the jury’s decision, CDF are disappointed and concerned about the message this conveys to the general public regarding driving standards.
"Careless driving is supposed to be driving which falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. If failing to see an illuminated cyclist on a well-lit road is not careless driving, and no explanation for that failure is required, that reinforces the arguments Cycling UK has made through our Road Justice Campaign for many years: namely the definition and identification of bad driving offences needs urgent review.
“Notwithstanding the jury’s decision, we believe it was right to bring this case to court given the Metropolitan Police’s unwillingness to do so.
"We do question why the Police failed to obtain witness evidence from relevant eye-witnesses which the legal team instructed by CDF were able to secure. If they had done so they would have recognised, as the Judge did yesterday, that this was a case which rightly had to be put before a jury. We believe they should review their investigation practices involving vulnerable road users, and their engagement with the victims’ families.
“Both CDF and Mr Mason’s family would like to thank all those people who supported this prosecution. Although we can only be disappointed at the result, we hope that this case demonstrates why we need to look closely at how the justice system serves the victims of road collisions and their families, and whether the standards applied to decide what is, or is not, careless or dangerous driving are fit for purpose.”
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.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 3 sec ago
Hmmm - robotic squirrels. I can't see any problem with them inevitably turning against their creators....
- ktache 1 hour 20 min ago
I had been disappointed not to find Giro highlights on Quest, just seen an ad for it on DMax. Happy now.
- Justanotherhuman 1 hour 49 min ago
What's that crap on the left, been in auckland. Really makes those white lines and foldable plastic wands look like a 3 year thought of the idea
- Simon E 2 hours 1 min ago
She will not get many votes for her pledges or policies. Most of the votes will be simply because she wears a blue rosette. The bollocks she spouts...
- Ride On 2 hours 43 min ago
Replies much appreciated.
- chrisonabike 3 hours 16 min ago
You mean like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkCpA91NqBw
- chrisonabike 3 hours 20 min ago
Thanks to locals for reviews. And obviously the people who got this through!...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 28 min ago
Welcome, hope it works!
- ROOTminus1 6 hours 7 min ago
And if I tried to inspire you that critical thinking isn't just about finding problems with someone else's logic?...
- jonah1961 6 hours 23 min ago
Same here Luca, I subscibed this morning but wonder whether the creaky website takes a while to update?
Add new comment
106 comments
Actually I was picked to do jury service, just like everybody else. Your name is randomly selected for jury service and I was one of the ones picked out.
When you go you are asked straight away if your employment is one of a few they read out and you then have to acknowledge that it is. Once this is done the list of jurors is handed over and my occupation is listed so that the defence can view it and raise objections if required.
The senior prosecutor from the cps came and spoke to myself and another juror who was an officer from Durham stating that we could go home as we wouldn't be selected for any case over the 2 weeks. There may not be an issue as you state but no defence barrister worth his salt will have an officer on the jury.
Yeah, the above quote does seem to be a thread-killer for any discussion as to whether lights are 'too bright'. We have it here from the authorities themselves - if your lights are not brighter than anything else on the road, you can't expect drivers not to drive into you and kill you. Surely that's pretty much the end of the debate?
How are they weeding them out?
Your original statement was that 'you're never going to be picked by the defence.' There is no pick as you acknowledge. The initial selection (to get to Court) is by computer and includes an almost unlimited selection of society including police, lawyers and Judges. Indeed, even senior judges have sat on juries since the law was changed. Any defence barrister worth his salt will know that he can only challenge cause if the circumstances allow it. So you can't really be sent home until being selected for trial and then being considered whether you're suitable (or not) of that trial. Being an officer isn't enough. Knowing other officers in the case may be, and it will certainly be the case if their evidence is being challenged (accused of lying, or procedural).
I have to say I'm a little surprised the CPS sent you home.
Dunno. Perhaps ask them to add 2 + 2, or do they read the Mail, or do they drive a London black cab or a white van with a padlock on the door, something like that...
I think your getting confused with your own arguments. I stand by my point that you will not get picked. You see when you go in for jury service there is over 30 people in your group and that is slimmed down by discussion with the defence barrister for the trial. There are numerous groups within the court and some may sit for the whole 2 weeks and never get selected.
If you ever get picked for jury duty and there are officers in your group you'll realise the error your now making.
Slimmed down where? The defence barrister has no contact with you at all until the 12 are taken into Court. Where did you view these discussions given that the defence barrister (singular) is on one case and the selection is made randomly by the court before the ability to challenge exists?
Now, generally, more than 12 initially go in in case there is a challenge by the defence because for example they know a juror. Bit it's never as many as you cite. And if you dont get on That case then back you go. There's no challenge in law that you're a police officer, judge or lawyer, as you're sitting as a person. Some forces have agreements that you will sit on a different force area but that's a different matter. But only the court service can release you, not the cps
Yes, it does sound as though making every driver squeal in pain is the only way to ensure they see you. At least if she'd done that, this killer wouldn't have had her " oh I nevet saw a thing that was straight in front of me" excuse.
Vaguely a propos of which, the Highway Code says you should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Not expect, think, hope or imagine to be clear. Does this bit not apply to drivers?
Playing devils advocate, Purcell *could* stop in the distance she could see to be clear.
Problem was, that distance *wasn't* clear, was it, because she didn't see the adult human on a well-lit bicycle right in front of her.
Story has been deleted from that website, but is still available here http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/driver-melanie-last-passes-heartfelt-s...
Wow, that's both scary and depressing to read. Institutional bias, ladies and gentlemen...?
That's up there as Helen Measures levels of carelessness (ie. everyone except the jury think it's massively careless to let your car go into the wrong carriageway without noticing...).
Yes, although I suspect mainly from ignorance and incompetence, rather than more sinister motives. People being shit at their jobs, experts not actually being very expert-like...
There has to be some reason she was left unchallenged to spout farcical nonsense about sacks of potatoes falling from the sky. I suppose all we can hope is that eventually her conscience will be strong enough to push her into doing the decent thing.
I was knocked over close to there and ended up literally having to be pulled out, still clipped in, from under the front of the car...
I asked for the drivers details and was refused, and when the police showed up they immediately assumed I was trying to con the driver - although to be fair they did relent somewhat when I told them how much the bike cost.
I get the impression that there are certain boroughs - Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea - where you are bound to get "profiled" due to the type of scum these places attract (and by which I mean both the Bentley drivers and those looking to prey on the Bentley drivers).
But the easy course would have been to refer the case to CPS, it took a lot of effort and special legal advice to not refer it, doesn't appear to be anything to do with ignorance or incompetence. The police haven't given a reasonable explanation of why they didn't refer it, when that is what the guidance says they must do. Why would you not do something which required no effort and there was clearly a case to answer and is your duty according to the guidance?
It is reasonable to assume that one of the reasons that the jury acquitted was because the police had already decided that there was no case by not referring it to CPS.
This is merely one of several strange and concerning aspects of this case.
Having read that report, I have to say that is the craziest thing I have ever come across.
In some ways its refreshing to see that its not just cyclists lives that are being dismissed as immaterial, but honestly, how did this not secure a conviction?
Is a 'lapse of concentration' surely not the very definition of carelessness?
To paraphrase Burke - All that it takes for cyclist killers to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
"bikelikebike [1 post] 12 hours ago
There was no CCTV of the accident. It was clear however...."
So there was no CCTV footage but you know what happened do you? Get back in your car and drive it off a cliff you obnoxious fuckwit!
As most people have said, it appears the onus is now on us to accept cycling as risky activity. No wonder people fear it.
It is now the same as people never getting prosecuted for assaults. Nobody would go out if thugs were given free reign on the streets. The blind are free to drive though.
Strict liability, people. Write to your MP. Be a pain in the arse.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inquest-into-death-of-micha...
As these observations from the coroner inquest state, Mr Mason did not change lanes at all and was basically hit square on from the back while using good quality rear lights.
Clearly the jury had been prejudiced by the fact the police did not pass evidence to the CPS.
Clearly jury trials are not fit for purpose.
As there is no clear explanation as to why the driver didn't see Michael Mason then an undiagnosed or undisclosed medical condition should be considered. As this driver is already responsible for one death then surely, for the safety of other road users, their driving licence should be suspended while a more extensive set of medical tests are carried out. At their insurer's expense.
Re bikelikebike's comments:
You're wrong about helmets (see the chapter in Bike Nation for a summary of the evidence, although you are probably not interested). The only thing to say is that in this case - as in so many others - is that helmet wearing is a stonking great red herring: Mason would have been badly hurt or killed whatever he was wearing. The issue is that he was knocked down from behind with sufficient forcve to send him "flying through the air".
The comment about the Mason family "being used by the CDF" is at best patronising and at worst disgusting. At the very least this episode shows the inadequacy of the law: basically you can be knocked down by someone who can just use SMIDSY as an excuse. Anybody concerned with the well being of cyclists (and pedestrians) should be appalled by this state of affairs. If indeed this is the way the law provides for people travelling about by bike, then the law is fundamnetally flawed.
As for the (emphasised) claim that "Seeing is an involunatry response". Er, no, it is not.
There will always be those like bikelikebike who accept an unjust state of affairs. (And not just unjust, without change there won't be a chance of reducing casualty rates and getting more people cycling for the general good). It's more comfortable that way - but it won't work for those of us who want cyclists to be able to get about without unaccepatbel levels of threat.
Today's decision really does look like you just don't have the right to get about outside a motor vehicle without your life being put at risk by a fellow human being who just happens to be using a motor vehicle.
Absolutely.
Eye-tracking experiment finds drivers don't see more than 1 in 5 riders
The uniformity illusion
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
There are loads more for anyone interested. But we really shouldn't feed the troll.
fine point beezus.
I now believe it is legal to kill a cyclist. You no longer even need the excuse of low sun glare you can just say you didn't see them.
Watch your ass and take no chances.
bikelikebike, go shove that helmet up your fat arse.
Is anyone going to admit to liking his comment.
Well done for your restraint chairRDRF.
I liked it, not because I agreed with it, but because it challenges the consensus here, albeit in a clumsy way...
sure there will be anger and a feeling of injustice when something like this happens, and it does seem to happen an awful lot
- on the one hand we have people talking about violence, on the other, people raising lots of money to take it to an unsympathetic court, both of which seem a bit pointless and even counterproductive to anything resembling a just society...
personally I think the example set by Stop de Kindermoord in the Netherlands would be a better use of our time, energy, and money.
I don't think "challenging the consensus" is in itself neccessarily a good thing. Maybe the consensus just happens to be right, although it is pretty damn uncomfortable to be part of it in this car-obsessed society.
As to what we do next - I have taken part in Stop the Killing protests (which are based on the Dutch example) and that's something to do. But it doesn't mean we give up on changing the current situation which is just inequitable, wrong and won't work for people who want/need to get about by bke and on foot.
Pages