What to do about disgraceful decisions like this:
Clearly, the magistrate erred seriously in matters of both fact and law - all the prosecution had to prove was that the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
Equally clearly, it did - nobody who could possibly be described as "competent and careful" would run over something the size of a cyclist without even being aware of it. He even admitted that he was talking on the phone at the time.
It staggers the mind to think what on earth the magistrates were thinking - or what with. Maybe they slept through the case, so didn't hear the prosecution, but were woken up for the defence (how there can be any defence for that is beyond me). Maybe they are dangerous drivers themselves, so sympathise with others of the same ilk instead of adequately discharging the responsibilities they are charged with? Mark Tyler also deserves complete contempt for not pleading guilty, and so preventing this gross miscarriage of justice. He should have been thanking his lucky stars that the police and CPS are so incompetent as not to pursue Dangerous driving, which it equally clearly was.
How can we get rid of incompetent idiots like Phil King (the lead magistrate in this case) who asserted that "there were “significant gaps” in the evidence". It is obvious to me that this dangerous idiot is perverting the course of justice by remaining in his position.
Presumably his colleagues on the bench conspired with him in this perversion - they could (and should) have over-ruled him unless they were parties to the conspiracy, surely?
The evidence was all there - there was a cyclist in front of him - whether the cyclist was upright or on the ground is irrelevant. Mark Tyler drove over him. Neither of those facts were in dispute. That is not the action of a competent and careful driver, and it should be beyond question that a person being in front of the vehicle is something which the driver should be expected to be aware of, which means the test in s3ZA of the Road Traffic Act is satisfied, and the accused is guilty.
The evidence also meets the test in s2A (Meaning of dangerous driving) so there is no excuse whatsoever for clearing him of even the lesser offence of careless driving. With driving like that, it is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that he should not be in possession of a driving license, and the magistrates failed in their duty to relieve him of it.
As long as dangerous criminals like Phil King are allowed on the bench, the roads will never be safe for anyone.
As a footnote, from the report is appears that this dangerous character commutes from Whitchurch, Hampshire to Clifton Way, Cambridge. What length does that make his effective working day?
It's about 120 miles each way, so at least 4 hours driving (considerably more if in the "rush hour") on top of a full workday. It's utterly moronic to make a commute like that - when I worked anywhere near that far away, I commuted weekly. But this happened on a Wednesday.