Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

CPS declines to prosecute speeding motorcyclist who killed 13-year-old cyclist

Prosecution deemed to be ‘not in the public interest’

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has concluded that it is not in the public interest to prosecute an Essex motorcyclist who hit and killed a 13-year-old cyclist while travelling at three times the speed limit. The decision was made due to the level of injury sustained by the suspect.

Essex Live reports that on Saturday, June 30, 2018, 13-year-old Samuel Breed was riding along London Road towards Purfleet railway station with three of his friends.

When they reached the junction of Vellacott Close, Breed attempted to cross the road, but halfway across he was hit by a motorcyclist who, according to analysis of CCTV footage, was travelling at between 75 and 87mph.

Breed was thrown from his bike and despite the efforts of paramedics, died at the scene.

The motorcyclist was airlifted to hospital with life-threatening injuries.

At an inquest earlier this week, police said there were no defects on the Kawasaki 2800 motorcycle that could have caused or contributed to the collision.

"Travelling at such excessive speed, the motorcyclist had insufficient time to react and respond to the hazards ahead of him," said Essex Police forensic collision investigator, Steve Perrett.

"If the motorcyclist was traveling at the speed limit the collision may not have occurred."

Explaining the CPS decision not to prosecute, a spokesperson for Essex Police said: "We carried out an extensive investigation into this tragic incident, in which a young boy died and a motorcyclist suffered life changing injuries.

"We liaised with the Crown Prosecution Service and presented our evidence to them for a charging decision.

"The decision was made that due to the level of injury sustained by the suspect it was not in the public interests to prosecute."

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

18 comments

Avatar
AndrewRH | 3 years ago
2 likes

My deepest condolences to Samuel Breed's family and friends.

I wrote to my MP asking about this decision by the CPS and today he forwarded to me a letter from the solicitor general, the RT Hon Michael Ellis QC MP.

In part the solicitor general wrote: "It is my understanding that the CPS reviewed the facts of this case extremely carefully and determined that although there was sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution it was not in the public interest to do so. This decision was made due to the fact that the rider of the motorcycle sustained catastrophic and life changing injuries in the incident and was not fit to attend court."

The SG continued: "In reaching this decision the CPS has assured me that they considered the Director’s Guidance on Charging, the Code for Crown Prosecutors and their own legal guidance for dealing with the types of issues raised in this case. This includes specific guidance on fitness to plead. Following these considerations and consultation with the victim’s family, the lawyer in the case decided that the most appropriate outcome was not to prosecute."

Avatar
macbaby | 3 years ago
3 likes

An issue for me here is that there is no full public disclosure of the facts. Yes, the perp may not be fit to stand trial, but surely it's in the "public interest" that the circumstances are explored and made public? Possibly with a view to reducing the risk of recurrence ...

Avatar
Richard D | 3 years ago
8 likes

It's not easy to tell what happened to the motorcyclist.  Partly because while the press rush to identify victims, they often can't or won't identify potential perpetrators (for fear of prejudicing a future criminal trial?  Possibly.  Much more likely is that they fear a libel action).  And then there are the usual raft of stories that say the boy on the bike was killed when a motorbike collided with him (pesky motorbikes, out on their own, causing death and destruction).  Again, could be sloppy journalism but it's more likely to be fear of being sued.

Anyway, the biker was airlifted to hospital with "life-threatening injuries", and was still in a critical condition the next day.  But I can find no details of what those injuries were, or what sort of recovery the biker did or didn't make.

I can think of a couple of scenarios where it would not in my view be in the public interest to prosecute the biker.  Main one is if he'd suffered the sort of brain injury that meant he was now incapable not merely of recalling the collision (that ought to be no bar to a prosecution), but is incapable of instructing a defence team, incapable of participating in a trial process and/or incapable of understanding what is happening to him.

The fact that the decision is being made two years after the collision suggests that someone has thought about it quite carefully - and there has been plenty of time for the facts to be properly assessed, the decision made, reviewed, reviewed again further up the food-chain, explained to the victim's family (probably at several stages in the process).

Crap result, but without knowing more it's impossible to say it was the wrong one.

Avatar
bobinski replied to Richard D | 3 years ago
1 like

The 2 year delay is not of itself necessarily indicative of a carefully considered decision. I work in the criminal justice system and it is now increasingly common for charging decision to take over a year and longer. Resources, tick boxes etc.  But I agree it's difficult to judge the decsision with so little information.

Avatar
ooldbaker | 3 years ago
4 likes

I once had a discussion with Dorset Police about an accident where a motorcyclist had driven into one of our company cars and caused an accident in which he had one or possibly two legs amputated. The Police told me that it was not in any way our drivers fault but that they would take no action against the motorcyclist because of the severity of his injuries (our driver was physically unhurt).

I quite understood at the time as we were only talking about damage to our car and the other party was never going to ride a motorcycle again.

I think that is the test. If the guilty party has prospects of ever driving or riding again then they should just prosecute to take that away. points on a licence or even short prison sentences are a bit irrelevant compared to the injuries.

Avatar
check12 | 3 years ago
5 likes

no no, the motorcyclist needs to be tried and hopefully convicted and if he's guilty of death by dangerous driving he needs to be branded with that and he can take it to his grave with him. 
that's in the public interest, deter this from happening again 

Avatar
iandusud replied to check12 | 3 years ago
5 likes

I don't think that any sort of vindictiveness is helpful in this or any other case in our justice system. I do however believe the motorcyclist (in this case) should be tried if only to establish a verdict. This is important for both the victims (the family in this case) and the public at large. I fully understand the idea that he has suffered far more than any court might impose upon him but the whole idea of a justice system is that justice should be upheld, i.e. that what is wrong is shown to be wrong. Then and only then can compassion or leniency be shown. 

Avatar
Rick_Rude replied to check12 | 3 years ago
1 like

Can you not read between the lines here. The motorcyclist suffered 'life changing injuries' and is most likely incapable of trial or a prison sentence. In that way justice has already been done as it sounds like they won't be out and about enjoying life.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rick_Rude | 3 years ago
1 like

Not sure I agree here. The trial is only to ascertain guilt or not of the crime, and is irrelevant to the punishment. That is decided separately by the judge considering all mitigating factors.

Whereas the m/cyclist's injuries may result in them being mentally incapacitated such that a trial is not in the public interest. if that is not the case the trial should go ahead. Punishment maybe "you have suffered enough", and this is in the judges gift after consideration of the facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
check12 replied to Rick_Rude | 3 years ago
0 likes

Try them and if Convicted give them a suspended sentence and yes I can read between the lines and after doing so that is my preference.

rick rude, correct me if I am wrong but I have a recollection of you riding a motorbike? As I say that may be a misremembering on my behalf. 

Avatar
ktache | 3 years ago
11 likes

My thoughts are with the poor family of the killed child.

I really hope they had part in the decision not to prosecute.

If not, then they need to be.

Avatar
Capt Sisko | 3 years ago
9 likes

I can appreciate that if there is no point in giving points, disqualifying, sending to prison or otherwise penalising the motorcyclist (assuming he's found guilty of course) if that person was say in a coma and had not prospect of ever coming out of it, but if they're up & about, even if they're now confined to a wheelchair,  justice has to be seen to be done for the sake of the childs family.

Avatar
jova54 | 3 years ago
10 likes

So, provided you injure yourself when killing someone else then that's OK?

Is it F***. His injuries are life changing, his actions were life ending.

If nothing else he should be banned from owning or driving any motorised vehicle for the rest of his injury changed worthless life, just like the apparently worthless life of the innocent 13 year old that he killed.

Avatar
bobinski replied to jova54 | 3 years ago
2 likes

Without knowing the nature and extent of the injuries to the motorcyclist and likely recovery it's difficult to know whether this is the right decision. It may be they are so severe that the prison estate would not be able to look after him. That said there are prisoners in their 80's and more with dementia etc I hope the family exercise the power to have the decision reviewed.

Avatar
kraut replied to bobinski | 3 years ago
5 likes

Whether he gets sent to prison or not is a completely different question as to whether he's guilty of a crime or not.

Yes, the injuries should be taken into account during sentencing, if convicted [And I'm generally not a fan of custodial sentences for most road crimes; I think long, including lifetime bans are better in most cases].

They should not affect the decision to prosecute.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to kraut | 3 years ago
6 likes

Except you need to be fit and compos mentis to be prosecuted. It could be the case that they are unfit to stand trial due to ongoing injuries. I think given the death of a teenager, I'd tend towards there being good reason for not prosecuting.

Avatar
OnTheRopes replied to jova54 | 3 years ago
5 likes

Whilst I would be tempted to say the same and this is tragic for the family of the child, unless you know the extent of the injuries then it may be best not to. For all we know there could be brain injury or permanent disabilty rendering the rider incapable of ever riding or driving again and in no fit state to be prsoecuted.

 

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to OnTheRopes | 3 years ago
3 likes

Or even in any fit state to be in prison.  There is no point jailing him if he would not be aware of his circumstances or able to function at his trial.

Anything less than that he should still have the book thrown at him.

Latest Comments