Re: Oxford St.Cyclist V. cabbie in court, the final result

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" <nbkm57@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> considered Wed, 6 Oct 2010
18:41:32 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme <squashme@xxxxxxxxx> considered Wed, 6 Oct 2010 03:03:41
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 6 Oct, 10:56, JNugent <jennings...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/10/2010 09:24, Squashme wrote:

On 6 Oct, 08:30, "Mrcheerful"<nbk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the taxi drivers witness was out of the country, but the
cyclist's witnesses
turned up, the taxi driver (on his own) was not found to be

The report in the standard has a slightly different

the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with
cyclists in

And remember JNugent:-
"Something you are likely to hear at some time on any given
morning at your local Mags' Court:
"I'm not guilty, guv, it was all the other bloke's fault, honest,
on my granny's eyes".
"Someone out there must have seen something"?
Well, quite. That appears to be this chap's problem. Advertising
on the internet for a "witness" is more likely to devalue his
defence than strengthen it. It's obvious.
Let's see who the court believes."

Well, well.

Indeed. I am surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that


Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

Well, they should of course prosecute the taxi driver for attempted
murder and perjury.
I bet he didn't give his insurance details to the cyclist either, so
that's a hit & run he can be prosecuted for.
Unfortunately, the copper will probably only be subject to some
whitewash style of "disciplinary action", despite the fact that he
apparently deliberately tried to conceal evidence.

Failing to adjourn a case when the only *known* witness is going
to be available (but not on that particular day*) and when the
"witnesses" for the other side have only been produced via a
public appeal seems like material for a setting-aside (igf that's
possible in a criminal case).

[*The quickest way to prevent witnesses coming forward in any case
would be to ban them from taking holidays until the case has been

Perhaps this missing witness can be encouraged to stay in the
country if the taxi-driver is charged now.

Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

I hope the taxi was not damaged by being rammed by the cyclist, and
that the cyclist was insured against the bill for damages.

Given that the court has found the cyclist guiltless, any attempt to
waste anyone's time defending a claim for damages by the cyclist is
likely to be viewed extremely unfavourably.
Of course, the damages available to the cyclist now extend
considerably beyond those due to the original dangerous diving, and I
would expect the total to include a considerable sum for the stress
and inconvenience caused by the false allegations and defamation by
the cab driving scrote.

And I really do hope that the taxi was BADLY damaged, since it's not
allowed to work in that state, and since the police failed in their
duty to take such a dangerous driver off the road, the damage is the
next best thing.

It is certain that the scrote no longer fulfils the necessary
requirements for holding a hackney licence (being of "good
character"), so it must necessarily be withdrawn.

Since the character is unlikely to have changed since he got the
licence (it is only that there was no evidence for his lack of good
character before now), it brings into question the legality of his
having ever held the licence, and therefore the validity of any
insurance he had.

There should be enough offences in there to keep the scrote off the
road for good.

The cab driver was not the one that was charged, and the result from this
case will not change that. Since it was not a private prosecution then any
damages (if any) due to the cyclist will come from the public purse, not the
taxi driver. Not being found to be a credible witness does not mean that he
has committed any offences, either now or in the past. The decision to
prosecute the cyclist was not taken by the taxi driver, but by the CPS. The
taxi driver will walk away from this scot free, and I doubt whether there
could have been any very serious damage from the collision, and he would
have been working either the same day or the next.