UK and Europe · Public discussion

Timothy Sanders has died.

Started by Howard · · Last activity · 13 posts · 574 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
23 November 2004
Last activity
25 November 2004
Original author
Howard
Posts
13
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
574
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–13 of 13
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hi folks,

    This one really has got to me.

    You might recall that on 14 February 2002 triathlete Timothy Sanders
    was cycling past an intersection on the A3 near Guilford when he was
    run down from behind by a driver doing 70 MPH who was in the middle of
    a mobile phone call.

    Sanders was left with catastrophic spinal injuries that means he was
    left with 'Locked in Syndrome'. This means that although his mind was
    alert he had no control over his body and could not even breathe
    unaided. He was looked after in a unit in Germany which specialises in
    such injuries. The court awarded him £8 million to be paid at
    £250,000 a year to pay for his care, despite the 'defence' claiming
    the cyclist should have used another route (even though there isn't a
    direct alternative) or got off and crossed the intersection on foot!

    No charges were brought against the driver even though the driver
    admitted to the police he was using his phone and 'not seen' the
    cyclist until he was only 10 yards away. It was also reported that the
    police had not released the drivers name.

    I was wondering how Timothy was doing and so traced and contacted his
    solicitor, asking how he was doing, why no charges had been brought
    and whether I was right in thinking that this case was perhaps more
    evidence that the legal system is now of the opinion that cyclists
    must use 'A' roads entirely at their own risk. I have just received a
    reply...

    Dear Mr Peel,

    I am sure you will be sad to hear that Timothy died about 2 months
    ago. Once he realised that notwithstanding the excellent treatment he
    was receiving in the German clinic, there was no real chance of a
    significant improvement in his condition whereby he could be self
    sufficient he deteriorated rapidly. He remained wholly dependant for
    all functions and was having increasing difficulty in communicating
    even with an alphabet chart.

    The answers to your questions I believe are as follows, firstly the
    driver's name was not withheld. It was contained in the police report
    and the driver was the named Defendant in the proceedings we issued
    for Timothy. These were settled for the equivalent of 8.5 million
    which was paid by the driver's insurers. The High Court approved this
    settlement which was reached by negotiated agreement, so the courts
    were wholly supportive of Tim's claim. The settlement needed the
    approval of the court because Tim was a patient unable to manage his
    own affairs. With the agreement of Tim's parents and for his
    protection the monies were invested to provide him with enough capital
    to build a specially adapted house, which was in the process of being
    built when he died, and £250,000 for life. The prognosis for his life
    expectancy was 10 years minimum.

    After Timothy's death there was an inquest and the driver gave
    evidence which was simply to the effect that he had not seen Timothy
    until shortly before the impact and he had been using a hands free
    mobile at the time.

    The reason the Crown prosecution service (not the police officers who
    felt there should have been a prosecution) decided not to prosecute in
    the magistrates court was because a woman in a car on the slip road
    had given a statement which said that she felt Timothy was negligent
    simply by being on such a busy road. We spoke to her twice and she was
    obviously hung up about cyclists, we later found out that she had been
    involved and hurt some years earlier in an accident involving a
    cyclist. She was the only witness who had a completely clear view, and
    indeed other motorists were also hostile to Tim and wouldn't give us
    statements, so the CPS decided not to risk a criminal prosecution. We
    were glad of this because if the motorist had been acquitted it was
    have affected Tim's civil claim.

    We remain as always in Cycleaid willing to answer any legal questions
    for cyclists.

    Regards
    Simon Holt
    Snr panel Solicitor Advocate.
    Cycleaid.

    '... other motorists were also hostile to Tim and wouldn't give us
    statements, so the CPS decided not to risk a criminal prosecution.'

    Forget justice, the mob have now taken over...

    I hope that Timothy's parents know just how much this case touched the
    cycling community.

    Howard.

  2. [email hidden] (Howard) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Hi folks,

    This one really has got to me.

    Howard, sad news. Thanks for passing it on.

    --
    Dave...

  3. "Howard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I was wondering how Timothy was doing and so traced and contacted his
    solicitor, asking how he was doing, why no charges had been brought
    and whether I was right in thinking that this case was perhaps more
    evidence that the legal system is now of the opinion that cyclists
    must use 'A' roads entirely at their own risk. I have just received a
    reply...

    And indeed it seems the reply confirmed exactly that:

    Quoted message said:

    The reason the Crown prosecution service (not the police officers who
    felt there should have been a prosecution) decided not to prosecute in
    the magistrates court was because a woman in a car on the slip road
    had given a statement which said that she felt Timothy was negligent
    simply by being on such a busy road.

    So all the main witness could say was her opinion that he was being
    negligent merely by being on the 'A' road and because of this the CPS
    decided not to prosecute? That confirms it doesn't it? Use A roads as a
    cyclist at your own risk.

    Quoted message said:

    We spoke to her twice and she was
    obviously hung up about cyclists, we later found out that she had been
    involved and hurt some years earlier in an accident involving a
    cyclist. She was the only witness who had a completely clear view,

    And so even though her opinion contributed nothing at all to the evidence
    about what happened, there was also scope to discredit it and show there was
    bias.

    and

    Quoted message said:

    indeed other motorists were also hostile to Tim and wouldn't give us
    statements,

    Hostility no doubt being based on the fact that he was a cyclist on an 'A'
    road and got no sympathy from them either.

    Quoted message said:

    so the CPS decided not to risk a criminal prosecution. We
    were glad of this because if the motorist had been acquitted it was
    have affected Tim's civil claim.

    It's a sad state of affairs when a catastrophically injured cyclist/his
    legal advisors have to be glad the driver isn't prosecuted, basically
    because of bias against cyclists on the part of motorist witnesses, and fear
    by the CPS that their views, no matter how demonstrably biased they might be
    shown to be, might be accepted by magistrates, because it might harm his
    civil damages claim if the driver gets off. Makes you sick, doesn't it 🙁

    Rich

  4. On 23 Nov 2004 07:59:41 -0800, [email hidden] (Howard)
    wrote:

    Very sad news.

    Thanks to Simon Holt for such a detailed response.

  5. Howard said:

    The reason the Crown prosecution service (not the police officers who
    felt there should have been a prosecution) decided not to prosecute in
    the magistrates court was because a woman in a car on the slip road
    had given a statement which said that she felt Timothy was negligent
    simply by being on such a busy road.

    Witnesses should only be giving factual evidence in this sort of
    matter. *opinions* such as this should not be for the witness,
    it is for the court to decide this. The average motorist is
    simply not qualified to tell a cyclist where they should ride or not.

    Quoted message said:

    '... other motorists were also hostile to Tim and wouldn't give us
    statements, so the CPS decided not to risk a criminal prosecution.'

    Quoted message said:

    Forget justice, the mob have now taken over...

    Indeed. Side with your own, never mind the rights or wrongs. :-(

    Simon

  6. Howard said:


    Sanders was left with catastrophic spinal injuries that means he was
    left with 'Locked in Syndrome'. This means that although his mind was
    alert he had no control over his body and could not even breathe
    unaided.

    For an insight into his condition I can thoroughly recommend a short
    book "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean Bauby. Bauby was the
    Editor of Elle and went into Locked in Syndrome as a result of a major
    brain stem haemmorhage. He dictated the book by blinking one eye - the
    only movement left to him - before he died. Its both a fascinating
    insight into what the condition means and surprisingly uplifting.

    Quoted message said:

    and whether I was right in thinking that this case was perhaps more
    evidence that the legal system is now of the opinion that cyclists
    must use 'A' roads entirely at their own risk.

    I hope not and I'm not sure that is what it says. With that much money
    on the table why prolong proceedings by taking it to court and risking
    not winning when actually what was needed was to use the money to get
    the support and help that Sanders desperately needed. He could be in
    his own home in the UK instead of stranded in Germany while the Court
    ground through the process. I support the pragmatism of his solicitor
    even though it may leave us disatisfied about some of the issues not
    being resolved. FWIW when I was knocked of my bike the witness
    statement to the police put the blame squarely on me for cycling where I
    was but I won because I showed that the witness did not understand the
    law and my rights. Ultimately the court decides based on the law on not
    on the personal views of witnesses

    Tony

  7. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Howard said:

    and whether I was right in thinking that this case was perhaps more
    evidence that the legal system is now of the opinion that cyclists
    must use 'A' roads entirely at their own risk.

    I hope not and I'm not sure that is what it says. With that much money on
    the table why prolong proceedings by taking it to court and risking not
    winning when actually what was needed was to use the money to get the
    support and help that Sanders desperately needed. He could be in his own
    home in the UK instead of stranded in Germany while the Court ground
    through the process. I support the pragmatism of his solicitor even
    though it may leave us disatisfied about some of the issues not being
    resolved. FWIW when I was knocked of my bike the witness statement to the
    police put the blame squarely on me for cycling where I was but I won
    because I showed that the witness did not understand the law and my
    rights. Ultimately the court decides based on the law on not on the
    personal views of witnesses

    Strictly speaking, in legal terms it doesn't say anything because it didn't
    go to Court. But I think it does say something about the CPS, who
    apparently decided not to proceed for their own reasons, which had nothing
    to do with what suited the convenience of Tim or his advisors - those
    reasons being the presence of a witness who had no evidence to give, only an
    opinion, and which should properly have been disregarded by the Court had it
    gone there. That the CPS can apparently use such flimsy reasons for failing
    to prosecute does indeed suggest to me an institutionalised willingness in
    the 'court system' to accept the idea that cyclists use A roads at their own
    risk.....

    On the otherhand, the insurance co did pay out despite the so called
    'witness' evidence, so to that extent I guess it can't be said to be
    completely accepted that cyclists on A roads are negligent just by being
    there. Thank heavens for that!

    Rich

  8. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:11:20 -0000 someone who may be "Richard
    Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    Strictly speaking, in legal terms it doesn't say anything because it didn't
    go to Court. But I think it does say something about the CPS, who
    apparently decided not to proceed for their own reasons, which had nothing
    to do with what suited the convenience of Tim or his advisors - those
    reasons being the presence of a witness who had no evidence to give, only an
    opinion, and which should properly have been disregarded by the Court had it
    gone there. That the CPS can apparently use such flimsy reasons for failing
    to prosecute does indeed suggest to me an institutionalised willingness in
    the 'court system' to accept the idea that cyclists use A roads at their own
    risk.....

    It is wider than those monkeys. The police will often go to some
    lengths to avoid inconveniencing motorists by making them account
    for their (in)actions. There are postings about this attitude here
    from time to time.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


  9. Quoted message said:


    Strictly speaking, in legal terms it doesn't say anything because it didn't
    go to Court. But I think it does say something about the CPS, who
    apparently decided not to proceed for their own reasons, which had nothing
    to do with what suited the convenience of Tim or his advisors - those
    reasons being the presence of a witness who had no evidence to give, only an
    opinion, and which should properly have been disregarded by the Court had it
    gone there. That the CPS can apparently use such flimsy reasons for failing
    to prosecute does indeed suggest to me an institutionalised willingness in
    the 'court system' to accept the idea that cyclists use A roads at their own
    risk.....

    On the otherhand, the insurance co did pay out despite the so called
    'witness' evidence, so to that extent I guess it can't be said to be
    completely accepted that cyclists on A roads are negligent just by being
    there. Thank heavens for that!

    You seem have a common misconception, confusing the role of criminal and
    civil law. The CPS (or the Procurator Fiscal) has no business at all
    considering the possible civil law repercussions of any decision. Their
    job is to prosecute in the public interest those cases they believe will
    stand up.

    You might find it interesting, for example, to see how the Health and
    Safety at Work Act goes to considerable lengths to avoid so far as
    possible any H&S inspector being involved in, or taking into
    consideration, any potential civil cases that might arise. The Act also
    states that the results of any action taken under it do not prejudice
    civil proceedings.

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

  10. "JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    You seem have a common misconception, confusing the role of criminal and
    civil law. The CPS (or the Procurator Fiscal) has no business at all
    considering the possible civil law repercussions of any decision. Their
    job is to prosecute in the public interest those cases they believe will
    stand up.

    Strictly speaking, in legal terms it doesn't say anything because it didn't
    go to Court. But I think it does say something about the CPS, who
    apparently decided not to proceed for their own reasons, which had nothing
    to do with what suited the convenience of Tim or his advisors - those
    reasons being the presence of a witness who had no evidence to give, only an
    opinion, and which should properly have been disregarded by the Court had it
    gone there. That the CPS can apparently use such flimsy reasons for failing
    to prosecute does indeed suggest to me an institutionalised willingness in
    the 'court system' to accept the idea that cyclists use A roads at their own
    risk.....

    On the otherhand, the insurance co did pay out despite the so called
    'witness' evidence, so to that extent I guess it can't be said to be
    completely accepted that cyclists on A roads are negligent just by being
    there. Thank heavens for that!

    Rich

  11. "Richard Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    You seem have a common misconception, confusing the role of criminal and
    civil law. The CPS (or the Procurator Fiscal) has no business at all
    considering the possible civil law repercussions of any decision. Their
    job is to prosecute in the public interest those cases they believe will
    stand up.

    Strictly speaking, in legal terms it doesn't say anything because it
    didn't


    <snip>

    Duh, I didn't mean to repeat myself - problems with using cut and paste
    between mail clients and cutting and pasting the wrong text, then sending
    without reading!

    Anyway, what I meant to say was, I am very well aware of the difference
    between civil and criminal law. It may not be in the public interest to
    waste costs on unsuccessful prosecutions. I think most of us here would
    agree that is also not in the public interest that motorists who main and
    kill get away with either not being prosecuted at all, or prosecuted for
    less serious charges than seem appropriate, with inappropriate sentencing if
    convicted, so easily. That the CPS feels it cannot get a prosecution in a
    case like this, where a driver strikes a cyclist from behind while driving
    using a mobile 'phone, and the only thing a witness for the defence can say
    is her opinion that the cyclist was negligent for being on the road at all,
    is a sad reflection on the dire state of the criminal justice system on
    motoring offences.

    That the insurers settled the civil claim does not mean there should be any
    scope for complacency. As is well known and often discussed here, they will
    frequently take any opportunity to reduce damages for contributory
    negligence. Any suggestion that there is contributory negligence in being
    on the road at all is a serious matter, and if criminal courts were to start
    accepting that argument it definitely would affect civil claims. One could
    conclude that the CPS might already have accepted it, in their handling of
    this case.

    Rich

  12. Richard Goodman said:

    "Richard Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    You seem have a common misconception, confusing the role of
    criminal and civil law. The CPS (or the Procurator Fiscal) has no
    business at all considering the possible civil law repercussions
    of any decision. Their job is to prosecute in the public interest
    those cases they believe will stand up.

    Strictly speaking, in legal terms it doesn't say anything because
    it didn't

    <snip>

    Duh, I didn't mean to repeat myself - problems with using cut and
    paste between mail clients and cutting and pasting the wrong text,
    then sending without reading!

    Anyway, what I meant to say was, I am very well aware of the
    difference between civil and criminal law. It may not be in the
    public interest to waste costs on unsuccessful prosecutions. I think
    most of us here would agree that is also not in the public interest
    that motorists who main and kill get away with either not being
    prosecuted at all, or prosecuted for less serious charges than seem
    appropriate, with inappropriate sentencing if convicted, so easily.
    That the CPS feels it cannot get a prosecution in a case like this,
    where a driver strikes a cyclist from behind while driving using a
    mobile 'phone, and the only thing a witness for the defence can say
    is her opinion that the cyclist was negligent for being on the road
    at all, is a sad reflection on the dire state of the criminal justice
    system on motoring offences.

    That the insurers settled the civil claim does not mean there should
    be any scope for complacency. As is well known and often discussed
    here, they will frequently take any opportunity to reduce damages for
    contributory negligence. Any suggestion that there is contributory
    negligence in being on the road at all is a serious matter, and if
    criminal courts were to start accepting that argument it definitely
    would affect civil claims. One could conclude that the CPS might
    already have accepted it, in their handling of this case.

    Ok. I read too much into your sentence
    " But I think it does say something about the CPS, who apparently
    decided not to proceed for their own reasons, which had nothing
    to do with what suited the convenience of Tim or his advisors ..."
    because, well, it's the job of the CPS to use its own reasons that have
    nothing to with the convenience of Tim or his advisors.

    You are right about standard of proof, but I don't see the relevance on
    this point.

    The question of what is the "public interest" could keep us going
    forever, but we can cut it short: here is the CPS's own version
    http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/publicinterest.html

    I agree with you that a prosecution appears to be indicated on this
    occasion. However, (in my view) the worst problem with both the Fiscal
    service and the CPS is not an institutional bias. Both are underfunded,
    severely over-worked and cannot attract top quality staff due to
    uncompetetive salaries and career structures. In consequence they are
    disturbingly timid in taking prosecutions, far too ready to plea
    negotiate for any sort of guilty plea (they deny that they "plea
    bargain" but that is playing with words) and they clutch at any excuse
    to drop proceedings.

    In this instance where the only well-placed witness was going to
    denigrate the cyclist and excuse the driver there really would be
    difficulty persuading the court to disregard her to the point of proven
    beyond reasonable doubt when there was nobody to contradict her. (I wish
    I could believe she has trouble sleeping at night.) Who was going to
    call her as a witness? She's no use to the prosecution if she's going to
    argue the driver was not at fault. Calling her as a hostile witness is
    not going to help. She would appear for the defence if she had the
    nerve, and unless she's stupid as well as prejudiced she would put in
    details to back up her version. Imagine her saying she noticed that Tim
    was distracted, not paying attention, had swerved into the car's path...
    With no other witnesses in a position to say otherwise, the only hope
    would be to bring her down on cross examination. This is not infallible,
    and all she has to do to destroy the prosecution is muddy the waters. I
    don't doubt that Tim's legal team were genuinely grateful there were no
    criminal proceedings.

    Since there was no prosecution there was no decision by the court. No
    precedent has been set, and lower courts do not set precedent anyway.
    But, if the question of cyclists having no right to go on A roads is
    going to be put to a higher court, I hope the cyclist's case is as solid
    as possible. Unfortunately, thanks to this woman, this case falls well
    short.

    I know of similar although less serious case where a motorcyclist
    acquaintance was hit by a car that pulled out of a side road into his
    path. The driver immediately summoned a neighbour who had seen nothing,
    gave him a highly prejudicial and imaginitive summary of events and
    obtained his promise to be a witness in any proceedings; all this while
    the biker lay on the road with a broken leg listening to her. How we
    laughed.

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

  13. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:30:16 +0000 someone who may be JLB
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    I agree with you that a prosecution appears to be indicated on this
    occasion. However, (in my view) the worst problem with both the Fiscal
    service and the CPS is not an institutional bias. Both are underfunded,
    severely over-worked and cannot attract top quality staff due to
    uncompetetive salaries and career structures. In consequence they are
    disturbingly timid in taking prosecutions, far too ready to plea
    negotiate for any sort of guilty plea (they deny that they "plea
    bargain" but that is playing with words) and they clutch at any excuse
    to drop proceedings.

    That is what some claim and may sometimes/often happen.

    However, I have seen them do none of these things and thus make them
    appear to be cretins when the cases got to court, wasting our money
    in the process. Instead of maliciously prosecuting people who are
    innocent of the crimes they are accused of the Fiscal rascals would
    be far better employed dealing with those who are not.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.