Telford Case Result

Tim Hall said:

Seen elsewhere:
The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.
Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.
Tim

Thank goodness and hooray!

Robert

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:56:46 +0000 someone who may be Tim Hall
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Also mad police 0.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Following on from David Hansen's message. . .

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:56:46 +0000 someone who may be Tim Hall
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Also mad police 0.

You may recall this was the same judge that let a policeman off scot
free trying out his new car at 140mph. It is quite obvious to me that
judge gets away with failing breath test if he supports the plods.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

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

Quoted message said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Not quite, unfortunately. Daniel Cadden has won a retrial, not quite the
same thing as being proved innocent. Even if we know he was!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 508 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

burt said:

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

Quoted message said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Not quite, unfortunately. Daniel Cadden has won a retrial, not quite the
same thing as being proved innocent. Even if we know he was!

I don't think that is right - I think it is just bad reportage on the
CTC page.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Not quite, unfortunately. Daniel Cadden has won a retrial, not quite the
same thing as being proved innocent. Even if we know he was!

I think he's won _the_ retrial, not the right to "a retrial".

cheers,
clive

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Not quite, unfortunately. Daniel Cadden has won a retrial, not quite the
same thing as being proved innocent. Even if we know he was!

Oooops, must learn this comprehension thingy. Sorry everyone, please ignore
my post above.

Quoted message said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 508 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 508 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 508 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Not quite, unfortunately. Daniel Cadden has won a retrial, not quite the
same thing as being proved innocent. Even if we know he was!

No. Daniel has won his case. When the case went to appeal and that appeal
was heard today. The prosecution case against Daniel was thrown out by the
judge. Daniel won. The original verdict was overturned. How it works is that
Daniel's case was originally heard in the Magistrates' Court. Today it was
heard in the Crown Court. How it is heard is that it ignores the decision of
the Magistrates' Court and listens to the evidence again to reach a fresh
decision. The judge heard the prosecution case and threw it out of court due
to inconsistencies in the police evidence and the fact that there is no law
in the UK *requiring* a cyclist to use cycle facilities instead of the road.
There simply was no case to answer.

http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2007/01/cyclists-conviction-thrown-out/

Peter Fox said:

You may recall this was the same judge that let a policeman off scot
free trying out his new car at 140mph. It is quite obvious to me that
judge gets away with failing breath test if he supports the plods.

159mph, IIRC.

wafflycat said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Quoted message said:

[] Daniel has won his case. When the case went to appeal and that
appeal was heard today.
http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2007/01/cyclists-conviction-thrown-out/

And also buried deeply on the BBC news site at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/6303427.stm

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

wafflycat w*a*ff?y?cat*@?btco*nn?ect.com said:

decision. The judge heard the prosecution case and threw it out of court due
to inconsistencies in the police evidence and the fact that there is no law
in the UK *requiring* a cyclist to use cycle facilities instead of the road.
There simply was no case to answer.

Isn't it the CPS's job to avoid that sort of thing happening ?
What's their excuse ?

-adrian

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

Quoted message said:

wafflycat w*a*ff?y?cat*@?btco*nn?ect.com said:

decision. The judge heard the prosecution case and threw it out of court
due
to inconsistencies in the police evidence and the fact that there is no
law
in the UK *requiring* a cyclist to use cycle facilities instead of the
road.
There simply was no case to answer.

Isn't it the CPS's job to avoid that sort of thing happening ?
What's their excuse ?

-adrian

One would have thought so, and 'tis not my place to make excuses for the CPS
;-)

Adrian Godwin wrote on 26/01/2007 18:55 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it the CPS's job to avoid that sort of thing happening ?
What's their excuse ?

Not necessarily. Sometimes they will run a case so as to clarify how
the law is to be interpreted. I don't think that can be the case here
though.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Peter Fox said:

You may recall this was the same judge that let a policeman off scot
free trying out his new car at 140mph. It is quite obvious to me that
judge gets away with failing breath test if he supports the plods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6302333.stm this judge
has let someone off from drink driving even though the accused admitted
he was guilty, wonder if they're related.

peter

Tony Raven said:

Adrian Godwin wrote on 26/01/2007 18:55 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it the CPS's job to avoid that sort of thing happening ?
What's their excuse ?Not necessarily. Sometimes they will run a case so as to clarify how

the law is to be interpreted. I don't think that can be the case here
though.

Firstly, That is encouraging. Well done to the accused.
Congratulations.

In response to the last post.

No, no no no no.

Well I know nothing of this really.

However, my understanding is that the CPS' job is
to prosecute if there is a realistic prospect of a conviction.

In this case there was a conviction so they were exactly
correct to prosecute. They are not in the least concerned
with whether any crime has actually been comitted.
That's the job of the police, firstly and the judge/jury
secondly.

We have an adversarial system of Criminal Justice
and once a charge has been made the CPS put all
required resources into endeavouring to secure a
conviction.

Whether Mr Caden's behaviour was within or
outside the law is not their concern. That is what the
judge/jury are for.

In general:-
- Police make charge
- CPS do their absolute best to secure conviction

More specifically
- If it's motorist vs (poor) person on foot or on bike
then justice will take it's natural course and convict the
poor person. The rights of the motorist to issue threats
and to cause death and destruction at their whim
must be preserved.

My view is that the Criminal Justice System
is institutionally motorist.

Seems a little unreasonable for one man to cause a tailback. I'm
guessing he doesn't pedal at 40-60mph, so isn't keeping up with the
traffic anyway. Keeping to the left and letting the drivers pass
wouldn't have been so bad would it?

Out of interest, how much does the CDF have to pay John Franklin to
appear in court?

Regards,

Duncan.

Tim Hall said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Common sense 1, Mad District Judge 0.

Tim

Duncan Smith said:

Tim Hall said:

Seen elsewhere:

The judge in the Daniel Cadden appeal has thrown out the Prosecution
case.

Seems a little unreasonable for one man to cause a tailback. I'm
guessing he doesn't pedal at 40-60mph, so isn't keeping up with the
traffic anyway. Keeping to the left and letting the drivers pass
wouldn't have been so bad would it?

As unreasonable as top posting? Surely that's worse.

Quoted message said:

Out of interest, how much does the CDF have to pay John Franklin to
appear in court?

I imagine it wouldn't break the bank. His says his fees are low as expert
witness fees go, and his preliminary reports free. Given that the CDF raised
£25k for this case, I'd imagine they have funds and expertise to fight
similar cases.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/expert_fees.html

A

Duncan Smith wrote on 27/01/2007 15:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Seems a little unreasonable for one man to cause a tailback. I'm
guessing he doesn't pedal at 40-60mph, so isn't keeping up with the
traffic anyway. Keeping to the left and letting the drivers pass
wouldn't have been so bad would it?

Except that even if he had kept to the left there was not enough room to
pass safely without crossing the solid white line. I rather liked the
Judge'd comment:

"Allowing the appeal, Judge Onions said there was no requirement in law
to force Mr Cadden to use the cycle path. He said a fast-moving cyclist
might well decide it would be safer to use the road, rather than come
into contact with pedestrians on the cycle path.

Using the narrow strip between the carriageway edging line and the kerb
would have been unsafe due to drain covers and road debris and probably
illegal because it was not officially part of the carriageway, he added."
http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2007/01/cyclists-conviction-thrown-out/

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ambrose Nankivell wrote on 27/01/2007 15:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Duncan Smith said:

Out of interest, how much does the CDF have to pay John Franklin to
appear in court?

I imagine it wouldn't break the bank. His says his fees are low as expert
witness fees go, and his preliminary reports free. Given that the CDF raised
£25k for this case, I'd imagine they have funds and expertise to fight
similar cases.

And what is keeping our right to cycle on the roads worth?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy