In a shocking display of insensitivity the Metropolitan Police yesterday evening (18 March 2015) announced to the media they would not refer the case of Michael Mason to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This followed an announcement made only six days ago, shortly before a vigil marking a year since Michael's death, that the Met would refer the case to the CPS. This u-turn was broadly welcomed by the Cyclists Defence Fund (CDF), Michael’s family and other campaigners for justice.
Michael Mason (70) was hit from behind by a driver on Regent Street on 25 February 2014 and died on 14 March, 19 days after the incident. The police decided not to press charges against the driver, despite the fact that she could not explain why she did not see Michael when many other witnesses had.
Although the police did not break any rules when they failed to consult the CPS on the decision not to charge, their action went against charging guidance, and the CDF has been fighting for answers as to why this decision was made.
Detective Inspector Nick Mason in his final review of the case and reasons for not referring this case to the CPS, stated “He [Michael Mason] 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.”
CTC and the CDF believe the suggestion that the chances of a guilty verdict are somehow lessened because Michael Mason was not wearing hi-viz clothing or a helmet is legally irrelevant and should have no bearing on the charging decision. Furthermore, such a statement can be seen as tantamount to victim blaming.
The Met’s erratic briefings to the media – without informing the bereaved family or their lawyer –shows unbelievable incompetence and insensitivity.”
Rhia Weston, Cyclists’ Defence Fund
Such reasoning by the Met has drawn widespread condemnation on Twitter and other public forums, not just for their decision but also their handling. The first the family and their representation learned about the Met’s sudden reversal was via a circular sent to the media which stated: “We have previously stated that the below matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is incorrect. No referral has been made.”
With the avenue of public prosecution now seemingly closed, there is a real urgency for action to take up a private prosecution. Rhia Weston Coordinator of the Cyclists' Defence Fund said:
“The Cyclists’ Defence Fund will now support Michael Mason’s family in instructing lawyers to build the case for a private prosecution as soon as possible. We are therefore renewing our call for donations to the ‘Justice for Michael’ appeal.”
So far the CDF has raised £9,875 to support the case of Michael Mason’s family, but with a target of £30,000 to cover the estimated legal costs has some way further to go. You can help support the family and their case by visiting https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael
Comments
Lights are a legal
Lights are a legal requirement after lighting up time. HiViz clothing and helmets are a sensible precaution, but they are not a legal requirement. A driver wouldn't be allowed to get away with the excuse that they crashed in to a dark coloured car, on the grounds that they didn't see it 'because it was dark'.
The police are not supposed to decide whether a case "has a reasonable prospect of success", that is the job of the CPS. I can't see any grounds for the police not referring the matter to the CPS for consideration. The CPS might then have decided there was 'insufficient evidence' to pursue a prosecution, but the police shouldn't try to do that job for them. It sounds as though the police just 'couldn't be bothered' with preparing the paperwork when it was 'only' a cyclist who was killed!
can we suggest making heavy
can we suggest making heavy steel cyclists, that can be randomly put out onto road, heavy enough to damage any vehicles that don't see them. maybe then at least some of the motorists will look where they are going.
Such a poor, but predictable,
Such a poor, but predictable, response for such a sad event. The pain for those left behind is amplified by this type of inaction.
The lack of HiViz excuse is disgusting. I am confident there are many examples that prove the nonsense of such a remark, but 'Black' taxis springs to mind immediately! Maybe all vehicles should be fluorescent!
I have tried to engage with the Met Police several, but they have never supported me. The last time involved a van deliberately driving at me - he was on the wrong side of the road - striking me with his wing mirror and throwing a punch out of the driver's window. The Met Police phoned the company registered to the van and when they did not get a reply, they dropped the investigation (I was wearing HiViz).
I wonder how the police would
I wonder how the police would have reacted had Mr. Mason been a pedestrian. Pedestrians seldom wear hi-viz but often wear dark coloured clothing, never wear helmets and don't carry lights in a built up area. This is yet another case of those who choose to ride two wheels being treated by the authorities like an animal if they are killed or injured by a motorist.