02Giant 

It depends on the jury(OJ Simpson murder trial).

wphamilton

Charge them both, and whichever one the court believes more the other is found guilty. This is what happens sometimes in cases involving twins who refuse to identify which of them was involved in an incident. It doesn't work - both are charged and one found guilty.

Well, it sometimes works but often the prosecutors just pick one, charge them and make something stick. Or one rolls over and produces something against the other.

genec

Wow, sounds like the perfect setup for a murder... rent a car in two names, both drivers wear similar clothing, go out and run someone down. Even if witnessed, there is not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt... So at best, both are convicted as accomplice to a murder.

unterhausen

I'm curious how they ever prosecute hit and run incidents if this is the way it works.

wphamilton

Or get a dozen people to make it even harder. The problem with this premeditated scheme is the risk and adverse effect on the ones who didn't do the crime. They'd have to be connected in some way, probably something criminal to begin with, so they're really making it easier to prosecute them.

I wonder why it is so difficult to place one of the drivers in the car. There is no evidence of where they drove from, nor the destination? It just seems fishy.

mr_bill

OK, all you Angela Lansburies.....

It wasn't a rental car, nor a hire car, it was a courtesy car - their car was in the garage for repair.

The two in the car are married to each other. So, spousal privilege, neither partner can be compelled to testify against the other partner, except in cases of domestic abuse or violence against a minor or sexual offenses against a minor. (But a partner can be compelled to testify FOR the partner - by the partner.)

And, because of the above, the two can't be charged with perverting the course of justice.

So, there you are.

And somewhat ironically because all this common law nonsense is the logical result of coverture. It was only about 150 years ago the first laws in both England and the US began to allow a married woman to maintain some *limited* rights over her own property, but only after "protecting" the husband's property from suits involving his wife's property and contracts. The other big change was where the husband had exclusive rights over their children, now women were "liberated" to have equal control over their children, which, de facto, still left the husband in control over the children. Children's rights would wait quite a few more decades....

-mr. bill

genec

I think the difficulty is in placing a specific driver in the car at that moment of impact... Apparently both drivers were in the car at that time, but no one can tell who specifically was behind the wheel.

wphamilton

I assumed that neither person could be affirmatively placed in the car. I've never heard of that situation, where both were present, preventing charging someone. There must be more to this story than we're getting here.

Rollfast

Nope. All the occupants are culpable, and if they weren't operating the motor vehicle, they did nothing to stop it and are accomplices.

Generally, all are going to be tried for the crime or a related charge.

This is if they do it like we do.

Digital_Cowboy

It does, doesn't it.

That's a good question. And I'd still would like to know why they haven't subpoenaed CCTV video from the day of the crash. Shouldn't that be able to expose the actual driver? I mean doesn't the UK have the most CCTV cameras deployed of any civilized country in the world?!?!

Digital_Cowboy

That's what I'd like to know, as I've and others have asked why not just subpoena the footage from the various CCTV cameras on that road on that day and time?

Does the UK recognize spousal privilege? Even if it does, and I fully understand that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse, but is there anything in the law to prevent it? Although sadly, in this particular case the two people in the car clearly do not have a conscious, as IF they did you'd think that they'd have done the right thing by now.

That they haven't speaks volumes for their morals. And again, the very sad irony is that IF this had happened to one of their family members they'd probably would be screaming at the tops of their lungs for the guilty party to come forward.

Again, shouldn't the UK's many CCTV cameras be able to help with that?

Digital_Cowboy

From what I gathered from the article they were both in the car at the time that the crash happened and both are now playing SGT Schultz, i.e. "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing." And in his case it's a damned good thing as he'd have been shot as a collaborator.

Agreed, that's how I see it. And also correct me if I'm mistaken, but there is also a conspiracy to cover up the original crime as well. No matter how one slices it, this is one MESSED up case. And for the life of me I do NOT know how either of them can sleep at night.

I wonder if the cyclist was to arrange for a ride of silence up and down their street once a week if it'd have any effect on them or not?

JonnyHK 

A simple 'name and shame' campaign might do wonders as well.

I do get the UK law being designed to ensure only a positive ID being good enough (same in Hong Kong and it has been a problem for me here), but many countries put the onus on the registered owner (e.g. Australia) to take the full heat so that no one is able to play the game of "we don't know" without it still biting someone hard enough to discourage this.

It sounds more like a case of poor police resources to dig hard enough and also a case of some very dull or lazy prosecutors. The conspiracy path should be enough to 'encourage' the driver(s) to come clean. The prosecutors and police should have said "fine, have it your way, but we'll screw you one way or the other..."

Cyclist should still be able to claim everything off the car insurance as it is clearly identifiable.

genec

Sure, but hey, it's just a cyclist...

Digital_Cowboy

Yep, if it can be used in this country for arrests of prostitution, why not for other arrests in other countries?

Again, as others have said I'd think that given the large number of CCTV cameras that the UK is supposed to have deployed I find it incredible that they haven't been identified.

Again, doesn't Europe have a strict liability law? Or is the UK exempt from that?

genec

The liability laws vary from country to country... and the UK likes to be a bit independent from "the continent." I doubt they have said liability laws, and more so, the UK is the home of some VC folks... thus cycling has a similar "not quite tolerated" generality as does the US... where here, police have lied in the face of local video camera truths, apparently because "bikes don't matter" or some such notion. (hence video data and cell phone records are rarely addressed when cyclists die their inevitable deaths while plying streets "made for cars.").

JonnyHK 

The cyclist has put up a series of YouTube videos explaining the accident, the investigation, and then the trial (such as it was). He has a fourth coming where he answers the many questions people have sent in.

In a nutshell (to save you watching 40 mins of video);
- police did an OK, but not sparkling investigation - hamstrung by procedure and budgets, thought it was an easy case until it was too late to follow up on now stale leads (witnesses, other CCTV now gone etc)
- prosecutor was TOTALLY incompetent. We are only getting one reporting of it, but even if that is half true the situation is pretty shocking.

I could have prosecuted this better and I'm not even a lawyer. Seriously.

First vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTks...ion_2636723429

Digital_Cowboy

Gene,

Thank you for the link. As it helps to prove what more than a few of us here have said. That sadly too many times (and once is one time too many) that the cops do NOT do an adequate job of investigating when a cyclist is hit by an automobile. Even when presented with proof that the cyclist was in the right too may LEOs will still take the stance that because they're a cyclist that they are somehow guilty.

And why do they take that attitude? Could it have something to do with all of the cyclists who do things like run red lights, and stop signs and who operate against the flow of traffic and who do not use lights at night and who compound that folly by also wearing dark colored clothing at night?

This is why we as cyclists need to be better then the average motorist. Yes, they speed, yes, they fail to signal turns and lane changes, yes they run red lights and stop signs and/or jump red lights, and fail to allow an appropriate amount of space between them and the car in front of them. And all of the countless things that they as motorists do on a daily basis. But then get mad at either the next motorist who is doing the exact same thing as they are or the cyclist who is obeying the law/rule of the road judging ALL cyclists based on the actions of those that they've seen who have broken this or that law.

This again, is why we need to follow the law/rule of the road. Otherwise we should NOT be surprised when the police are NOT willing to listen to our side, or to automatically place the blame on us.

Seattle Forrest

Sometimes.