'Take David Bartholomew death crash case to court' - call for charges to be brought against ex-special constable (From Thisisdorset)

The Criminal Protection Service say insufficient evidence, despite the pathetic girl finally admitting she was using her phone! It's no wonder that nobody has faith in the judicial system in this country! Even the police want to prosecute her, yet the law protects her from law. Mad!

Pity she wasn't being prosecuted for non-payment of council tax or a TV licence evasion charge!

Until this women is taken to court and punished for her actions the family will have no closure. Just resigning from her job is not enough justice has not been done.

I don't know the full story behind this case, so perhaps I shouldn't be adding a comment, BUT isn't it reasonable to assume that this driver must have handled her phone at some time during her journey, either to make or receive the call before placing the phone on her lap? If it's proved to be the case, then surely, she has broken the law!!

Richard Head wrote:
I don't know the full story behind this case, so perhaps I shouldn't be adding a comment, BUT isn't it reasonable to assume that this driver must have handled her phone at some time during her journey, either to make or receive the call before placing the phone on her lap? If it's proved to be the case, then surely, she has broken the law!!

Apparently,she took the call BEFORE getting in her car.Whilst driving she alledgedly had the phone on 'speaker' sitting on her lap!

This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

Frank Sidebottom wrote:
This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

Bang on. Some of the comments here are crazy. If she had handled the phone sometime while driving that makes her guilty of using a mobile. It doesn't mean it was directly responsible for what caused this accident, which is what the cos would have to prove.

Frank Sidebottom wrote:
This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

I cannot possibly agree this is a shameful witch hunt.

Let us get to basics, the public reaction here arises from the perception, rightly or wrongly, that this individual is being somehow 'protected' from normal legal process.

This feeling has arisen because of her position at the time within what is viewed as a Police/CPS 'establishment'. A lot of people do comprehend this as still being one single influence - historically it used to be.

But with very tragic consequences the law may have been broken in this case, and lies have apparently already been admitted.

I am certainly of the opinion that this matter should be heard in a court of law, in the best interests of all the parties involved.

Not a witch hunt, just justice for all, so then we CAN indeed all move on.

Frank Sidebottom wrote:
This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

This is about somebody who had absolutely NO EXCUSE for using a mobile phone whilst driving after being responsible for explaining the law to other whilst carrying out her job. The law states to use a phone hands free it must be in a specifically designed holder not rolling around in your lap. To have a conversation of a significant duration whilst carrying out complex maneuvers is unexcusable. The CPS have the evidence of phone use - not in a phone cradle and an admission to this. The CPS now need to do an acceptable job.

Frank Spencer wrote:

Frank Sidebottom wrote:
This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

This is about somebody who had absolutely NO EXCUSE for using a mobile phone whilst driving after being responsible for explaining the law to other whilst carrying out her job. The law states to use a phone hands free it must be in a specifically designed holder not rolling around in your lap. To have a conversation of a significant duration whilst carrying out complex maneuvers is unexcusable. The CPS have the evidence of phone use - not in a phone cradle and an admission to this. The CPS now need to do an acceptable job.

So they have evidence of phone use and she gets 3 points and a fine? The CPS need to prove she caused the death not just used her phone.

This is not a witch hunt. It clearly seems she broke the law but it should be left for a court to finally prove this beyond reasonable doubt, not the likes of the rest of us.

I cannot think of anything more disturbing than legal action being taken just because a petition has been compiled.
What a dangerous precedent that would set.

Frank Sidebottom wrote:
This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

Is that your advice for Mr Bartholomews family then Mr Sidebottom? Your husband/brother/son is dead, move on? Looking at your post, I assume you believe there is no point in having courts and punishing people, as the deed is done, so whats the point?
The CPS is only interested in cost. If they think the trial will cost to much, they bin the case. Other posters are right when they say the Courts should hear the evidence.If you look at the Road Traffic act, you will see that having a phone on your lap, and not in a holder etc is indeed an offence. The Police themselves disagree with you too, so it's not a witch hunt. You call it retribution, others will call it justice.

apart from being on the phone, didnt she pull out from a side road into the path of the motorcyclist? surely thats dangerous driving?

Frank Sidebottom wrote:
This is a shameful witch hunt. I would urge people to read the full circumstances of the accident and to consider what benefit further charges and prosecution would achieve.

Mr Batholomew's death was tragic; retribution will not change that.

Think hard...move on!

Agreed.

live-and-let-live wrote:
apart from being on the phone, didnt she pull out from a side road into the path of the motorcyclist? surely thats dangerous driving?

..as is filtering on approach to a junction.

The facts of the matter are, whether you like it or not, that 2 witnesses at the scene at the time of the accident testified in a coroners court that Ms. Carpenter pulled out safely and correctly. This would indicate that her driving was not of a standard a resonable person would deem dangerous / careless(the point to prove dangerous driving).
By all means prosecute her for using her phone, give her a 60 quid fine and 3 points and let everyone move on.

People here need to be very careful about making uninformed comments. For example, ragj195, the CPS does not have to prove the driver caused the death. Their code states a) they have to decide whether a court is more likely than not to convict, ie a balance of probabilities, and b) they have to prosecute in the interests of justice not just the likelihood of a conviction.

Having listened to the inquest evidence I am persuaded that a court will be more likely than not to convict and that it is certainly in the interests of justice to put the matter to a judge and jury. Proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt will then be up to the court, not the CPS. It is certainly not retribution - it is justice, a diminishing feature of our modern society.

Finally, Sheriff Payne, the coroner, described the car driver's statement and responses to his questions as 'total rubbish'. Prosecuting counsel might reveal more than rubbish.

Even if she was posecuted she'd only get a six month ban and £200 fine.

Gordon Clifton wrote:
People here need to be very careful about making uninformed comments. For example, ragj195, the CPS does not have to prove the driver caused the death. Their code states a) they have to decide whether a court is more likely than not to convict, ie a balance of probabilities, and b) they have to prosecute in the interests of justice not just the likelihood of a conviction.

Having listened to the inquest evidence I am persuaded that a court will be more likely than not to convict and that it is certainly in the interests of justice to put the matter to a judge and jury. Proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt will then be up to the court, not the CPS. It is certainly not retribution - it is justice, a diminishing feature of our modern society.

Finally, Sheriff Payne, the coroner, described the car driver's statement and responses to his questions as 'total rubbish'. Prosecuting counsel might reveal more than rubbish.

When I said the CPS have to prove she caused the death, I meant the CPS lawyers in court i.e the prosecution lawyers. Their decision to prosecute will be based partly on whether they believe if this will be possible.