On 01/03/2023 14:07, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE: After three times, both Mrs Strachan and the wider public are entitled to think that the matter has been closed,’ he argued. ENDS
>
> "public are entitled to think" - IS THIS SOME SORT OF TRIAL BY PUBLIC OPINION?

It's a good job for fairy-cyclists that it isn't, eh?

Everyone hates them.

QUOTE: THE driver of a vehicle which collided with a teenage cyclist in St Martin in 2020 is asking for proceedings against her to be halted, saying it would be impossible to get a fair trial.ENDS

Poor love - don't drive like a twat and there would be no trial in the first place.
SIMPLE.

On 01/03/2023 02:03 pm, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> QUOTE: THE driver of a vehicle which collided with a teenage cyclist in
>> St Martin in 2020 is asking for proceedings against her to be halted,
>> saying it would be impossible to get a fair trial.ENDS
>>
>> Even Mr Arsehole hasn't thought of that ridiculous "excuse".
>>
>> "Mr Burak argued that the reason the prosecution had changed its mind was
>> new evidence which suggested that Mrs Strachan had been accessing her
>> phone at the time of the crash."
>>
>> FANCY THAT.
>
> Does the phrase ‘stitch up’ spring to mind here?
>
> …failing to allow a defence expert to examine the bicycle
>
> …Attorney-General had previously decided three times that she should not be
> prosecuted
>
> …allegedly, an accident investigator ‘had been acting not as an expert
> witness but as prosecution advocate’
>
> …a bicycle scuff mark in the road ‘not included in evidence’
>
> …evidence from a police accident investigator had not been included
>
> …the defence advocate stated ‘You should not have to force a prosecutor to
> disclose information,’ he said. ‘It has taken this whole process today to
> get one relevant piece of information.’
>
> The Magistrate, Bridget Shaw, said she would present her decision as to
> whether there had been an abuse of process or not on Friday 10 March.

Any update, I wonder?

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2023 02:03 pm, Spike wrote:
>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> QUOTE: THE driver of a vehicle which collided with a teenage cyclist in
>>> St Martin in 2020 is asking for proceedings against her to be halted,
>>> saying it would be impossible to get a fair trial.ENDS
>>>
>>> Even Mr Arsehole hasn't thought of that ridiculous "excuse".
>>>
>>> "Mr Burak argued that the reason the prosecution had changed its mind was
>>> new evidence which suggested that Mrs Strachan had been accessing her
>>> phone at the time of the crash."
>>>
>>> FANCY THAT.
>>
>> Does the phrase ‘stitch up’ spring to mind here?
>>
>> …failing to allow a defence expert to examine the bicycle
>>
>> …Attorney-General had previously decided three times that she should not be
>> prosecuted
>>
>> …allegedly, an accident investigator ‘had been acting not as an expert
>> witness but as prosecution advocate’
>>
>> …a bicycle scuff mark in the road ‘not included in evidence’
>>
>> …evidence from a police accident investigator had not been included
>>
>> …the defence advocate stated ‘You should not have to force a prosecutor to
>> disclose information,’ he said. ‘It has taken this whole process today to
>> get one relevant piece of information.’
>>
>> The Magistrate, Bridget Shaw, said she would present her decision as to
>> whether there had been an abuse of process or not on Friday 10 March.

> Any update, I wonder?

Our usual source must be otherwise occupied…

“THE driver of a van which knocked a 14-year-old boy off his bicycle at a
junction in St Martin in March 2020 has failed in her bid to halt criminal
proceedings against her.

[…]

However, giving her decision on Friday, the Magistrate, Bridget Shaw,
rejected all defence arguments. The case will therefore go to trial.

[…]”

<https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2023/03/11/driver-fails-to-have-trial-halted/>

--
Spike

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 6:07:41 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: THE driver of a vehicle which collided with a teenage cyclist in St Martin in 2020 is asking for proceedings against her to be halted, saying it would be impossible to get a fair trial.ENDS
> Poor love - don't drive like a twat and there would be no trial in the first place.
> SIMPLE.

"PLEASE" don't prosecute me.
Pathetic wriggling.

On 11/03/2023 04:45 pm, Spike wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/03/2023 02:03 pm, Spike wrote:
>>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> QUOTE: THE driver of a vehicle which collided with a teenage cyclist in
>>>> St Martin in 2020 is asking for proceedings against her to be halted,
>>>> saying it would be impossible to get a fair trial.ENDS
>>>>
>>>> Even Mr Arsehole hasn't thought of that ridiculous "excuse".
>>>>
>>>> "Mr Burak argued that the reason the prosecution had changed its mind was
>>>> new evidence which suggested that Mrs Strachan had been accessing her
>>>> phone at the time of the crash."
>>>>
>>>> FANCY THAT.
>>>
>>> Does the phrase ‘stitch up’ spring to mind here?
>>>
>>> …failing to allow a defence expert to examine the bicycle
>>>
>>> …Attorney-General had previously decided three times that she should not be
>>> prosecuted
>>>
>>> …allegedly, an accident investigator ‘had been acting not as an expert
>>> witness but as prosecution advocate’
>>>
>>> …a bicycle scuff mark in the road ‘not included in evidence’
>>>
>>> …evidence from a police accident investigator had not been included
>>>
>>> …the defence advocate stated ‘You should not have to force a prosecutor to
>>> disclose information,’ he said. ‘It has taken this whole process today to
>>> get one relevant piece of information.’
>>>
>>> The Magistrate, Bridget Shaw, said she would present her decision as to
>>> whether there had been an abuse of process or not on Friday 10 March.
>
>> Any update, I wonder?
>
> Our usual source must be otherwise occupied…
>
> “THE driver of a van which knocked a 14-year-old boy off his bicycle at a
> junction in St Martin in March 2020 has failed in her bid to halt criminal
> proceedings against her.
>
> […]
>
> However, giving her decision on Friday, the Magistrate, Bridget Shaw,
> rejected all defence arguments. The case will therefore go to trial.
>
> […]”
>
> <https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2023/03/11/driver-fails-to-have-trial-halted/>

It is indeed a great shame that the lower courts in Jersey seem to be of
the opinion that it doesn't matter whether or not a potential defendant
can get a fair trial.

QUOTE: After three times, both Mrs Strachan and the wider public are entitled to think that the matter has been closed,’ he argued. ENDS

Whatever gave you that idea - you've been watching too many US cop shows.
THEY'RE NOT REAL LIFE.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> QUOTE: After three times, both Mrs Strachan and the wider public are
> entitled to think that the matter has been closed,’ he argued. ENDS
>
> Whatever gave you that idea - you've been watching too many US cop shows.
> THEY'RE NOT REAL LIFE.

One might think that the Attorney-General’s pronouncements on the matter
might have carried some weight.

--
Spike

QUOTE: Julia Strachan, of Rue de Flicquet in St Martin, denies causing serious injury while driving a motor vehicle without due care or attention. ENDS

How does she explain causing said injury then? She has provided no explanation at all.

On 12/03/2023 11:23 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE: Julia Strachan, of Rue de Flicquet in St Martin, denies causing serious injury while driving a motor vehicle without due care or attention. ENDS
>
> How does she explain causing said injury then? She has provided no explanation at all.

Have you got the whole file there with you?

What does it weigh?

QUOTE: On her behalf, Advocate Howard Sharp argued that Mrs Strachan could not receive a fair trial because the Crown had failed to fully disclose information when the defence had asked for it. ENDS

Is he implying that the judge and jury would be "bent"?
A terrible assertion with no basis in fact.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Julia Strachan, of Rue de Flicquet in St Martin, denies causing
> serious injury while driving a motor vehicle without due care or attention. ENDS
>
> How does she explain causing said injury then? She has provided no explanation at all.
Who said Ms Strachan caused the injury?

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: On her behalf, Advocate Howard Sharp argued that Mrs Strachan
> could not receive a fair trial because the Crown had failed to fully
> disclose information when the defence had asked for it. ENDS
>
> Is he implying that the judge and jury would be "bent"?
> A terrible assertion with no basis in fact.

Ask Derek Bentley what he thinks of judges.

--
Spike

QUOTE: He questioned why an initial report by another police accident investigator, who had identified glass and a bicycle scuff mark in the middle of the main road at the junction where the accident had happened, had not been included as evidence. ENDS

Probably as the defence attempted to cover up such damning evidence?
No wonder they don't want the case to proceed.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: He questioned why an initial report by another police accident
> investigator, who had identified glass and a bicycle scuff mark in the
> middle of the main road at the junction where the accident had happened,
> had not been included as evidence. ENDS
>
> Probably as the defence attempted to cover up such damning evidence?
> No wonder they don't want the case to proceed.

The ‘police accident investigator’ was supposed to
be looking for evidence for prosecution!

These are the things that the defence are claiming:

…failing to allow a defence expert to examine the bicycle

…Attorney-General had previously decided three times that she should not be
prosecuted

…allegedly, an accident investigator ‘had been acting not as an expert
witness but as prosecution advocate’

…a bicycle scuff mark in the road ‘not included in evidence’

…evidence from a police accident investigator had not been included

…the defence advocate stated ‘You should not have to force a prosecutor to
disclose information,’ he said. ‘It has taken this whole process today to
get one relevant piece of information.’

--
Spike

QUOTE: The lawyer argued that the Crown had decided to prosecute last year due to ‘speculation and pressure from the boy’s family’. ENDS

How bloody selfish of the boy's family to seek justice for their son.
JEEZ!