Acquittal

Lorry driver ‘didn’t see him’, and therefore acquitted?

One of the few cases where ‘causing death by careless driving’ has resulted in a reasonable length prison sentence – but this is a motorist, not a pedestrian or cyclist.

Once again, however, the preferred charge of ‘causing death by dangerous driving’ has fallen, this time because he was acquitted in court. In most cases prosecutors don’t even bother bringing the ‘dangerous’ charge to court.

Is this a case of ‘there but for the grace of God, go I’ amongst a jury mostly consisting of non-cycling drivers? His claim that he did not see the cyclist because of low sun has often been used to exculpate drivers in similar scenarios.

No doubt there was no intention on Mr Quinn’s part to kill the cyclist, that is not in doubt. But surely driving in such a way that you fail to have a clear view of the road and be able to see your fellow road users must be considered at the very least ‘below the standard of a competent driver’ (test for ‘careless driving’) if not ‘well below the standard’ (the test for ‘dangerous driving’).

The claim that the drivers’ view was obscured by ‘a combination of her cab fittings and windscreen wipers’ is extraordinary.

It is not clear from these reports whether this was ‘death by careless’ or ‘death by dangerous’.

Did not see and therefore not guilty. Surely another reaction when momentarily blinded by sunlight is to slow down and not make a turn?

We are perturbed by news reports of a driver being acquitted of causing the death of cyclist Sharon Corless by dangerous driving. The Crown Prosecution dropped the case against driver Tracy Johnson of Warrington, based on evidence that she apparently fainted at the wheel. CTC does not know the full facts and it may well be that this fainting was both genuine and unforeseeable. However Ms Corless’s grieving husband Peter, who was riding with her at the time, is clearly not satisfied. Natural justice would suggest he should either have received a satisfactory explanation of the evidence or had the opportunity to hear it contested in court. And the driver was apparently using a mobile phone shortly before the collision – surely that at least should have led to a prosecution? We are investigating further.