Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death

[Snoopy]

9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand

Astrid Anderson, director of the 'LeRace' cycling event over a challenging 100km winding hill
course over two hill ranges between Christchurch City and Akaroa was today found guilty of a
'criminal negligence' charge. The event catered for a wide range of cyclists, from
'semi-professional racing cyclists' right down to 'weekend wheelers'. The charge was laid followed
the death of an inexperienced cyclist who had crossed over the centre line of the road, while
starting to overtake two other cyclists on a downhill section. The cyclist collided with an
oncoming car, with fatal results.

Competitors had signed a waver to the effect that they were competing at their own risk. However,
while this waver can legally cover civil litigation, it cannot exhonerate the race director if the
police decide to bring a criminal charge against him/her.

The charge was brought by the police because there was doubt that the literature of the event
clearly indicated that a section of the course called the 'summit road', where the accident
occurred, was not closed.

Both the pre-race literature, and briefing, made reference to a 'road closure' on the 'summit road'
to weed out so called 'sneaky cyclists' who had not paid to enter the event. This 'road closure' was
in fact a check point to stop support vehicles and unentered cyclists from following event cyclists
over the road. The road was not closed to other traffic. Nevertheless 'road closure' was the legally
correct term for this check point, according to local council regulations.

Equally importantly for the case there were two completely separate 'summit roads' (the legally
correct name for both roads was the same), corresponding to each of the two hill ranges crossed. The
accident occurred on the second 'summit road' where there was no check point.

The police alleged that the inclusion of the phrase 'road closure on the summit road' both in ther
pre-race literature and the pre-race briefing was confusing. They further went on to say that the
race director had identified 'competitors not getting the right information' as a hazard correctly
identified in the health and safety plan for the event. This health and safety plan was written and
signed off by the race director. Finally the police identified that 'there is a culture within bike
racing of using all of the road' when a road is closed, and by not making the information of the
road closure clear (there were no 'road open' signs placed along the route) the event organizer had
contributed to the death of the competitor.

The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of their own carelessness or even
recklessness by attempting a passing maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility. Furthermore
the defence contended that the written pre-race information was not misleading when read in context.
The phrase 'road closure' occurred only in the section of the pre race pamphlet under the sub header
of 'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road closure', had an adjunct phrase
linked by a dash that made this contextual meaning perfectly clear. Furthermore the defence produced
evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three vehicles (one of which was a logging
truck) come out of the summit road before they entered it. The defence also produced evidence that
the dead competitor would have passed a milk tanker and possibly two or three additional vehicles
between the start of the summit road and the accident site. The contention here was that even if the
competitor had misread the instructions and believed the road to be closed the presence of
occasional vehicles on the road would have dispelled this myth. The defence also contended that
other phrases used in the pre-race documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep left'
and 'obey the road rules at all times') should have meant that any reasonable competitor should not
have placed their bicycle on the road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that
'road open' signs were not required because 'the road is always open'.

Further details are available at these links

http://www.lerace.co.nz/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html

Comments anyone?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--

 

[Davey Crockett]

Send it to Pantani. He might want to have his lawyers check out the 1995 Milano-Torino race
promotion literature and race bible.

It would be nice to see him on the attack again instead of having to weave and dodge the seemingly
never ending enquiries and investigations that the Italian authorities seem to be deluging him with.

(Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' writes:

> 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand
>
> Astrid Anderson, director of the 'LeRace' cycling event over a challenging 100km winding hill
> course over two hill ranges between Christchurch City and Akaroa was today found guilty of a
> 'criminal negligence' charge. The event catered for a wide range of cyclists, from
> 'semi-professional racing cyclists' right down to 'weekend wheelers'. The charge was laid followed
> the death of an inexperienced cyclist who had crossed over the centre line of the road, while
> starting to overtake two other cyclists on a downhill section. The cyclist collided with an
> oncoming car, with fatal results.
>
> Competitors had signed a waver to the effect that they were competing at their own risk. However,
> while this waver can legally cover civil litigation, it cannot exhonerate the race director if the
> police decide to bring a criminal charge against him/her.
>
> The charge was brought by the police because there was doubt that the literature of the event
> clearly indicated that a section of the course called the 'summit road', where the accident
> occurred, was not closed.
>
> Both the pre-race literature, and briefing, made reference to a 'road closure' on the 'summit
> road' to weed out so called 'sneaky cyclists' who had not paid to enter the event. This 'road
> closure' was in fact a check point to stop support vehicles and unentered cyclists from following
> event cyclists over the road. The road was not closed to other traffic. Nevertheless 'road
> closure' was the legally correct term for this check point, according to local council
> regulations.
>
> Equally importantly for the case there were two completely separate 'summit roads' (the legally
> correct name for both roads was the same), corresponding to each of the two hill ranges crossed.
> The accident occurred on the second 'summit road' where there was no check point.
>
> The police alleged that the inclusion of the phrase 'road closure on the summit road' both in ther
> pre-race literature and the pre-race briefing was confusing. They further went on to say that the
> race director had identified 'competitors not getting the right information' as a hazard correctly
> identified in the health and safety plan for the event. This health and safety plan was written
> and signed off by the race director. Finally the police identified that 'there is a culture within
> bike racing of using all of the road' when a road is closed, and by not making the information of
> the road closure clear (there were no 'road open' signs placed along the route) the event
> organizer had contributed to the death of the competitor.
>
> The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of their own carelessness or even
> recklessness by attempting a passing maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility.
> Furthermore the defence contended that the written pre-race information was not misleading when
> read in context. The phrase 'road closure' occurred only in the section of the pre race pamphlet
> under the sub header of 'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road closure',
> had an adjunct phrase linked by a dash that made this contextual meaning perfectly clear.
> Furthermore the defence produced evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three
> vehicles (one of which was a logging truck) come out of the summit road before they entered it.
> The defence also produced evidence that the dead competitor would have passed a milk tanker and
> possibly two or three additional vehicles between the start of the summit road and the accident
> site. The contention here was that even if the competitor had misread the instructions and
> believed the road to be closed the presence of occasional vehicles on the road would have
> dispelled this myth. The defence also contended that other phrases used in the pre-race
> documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep left' and 'obey the road rules at all
> times') should have meant that any reasonable competitor should not have placed their bicycle on
> the road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that 'road open' signs were not
> required because 'the road is always open'.
>
> Further details are available at these links
>
> http://www.lerace.co.nz/
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> SNOOPY
>
>
> --
> Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details
>
> --

--
le vent a Dos

Davey Crockett

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:49:58 +1200, (Snoopy) wrote:
> pre-race documentation ('keep left'

This is very confusing. Left when looking in which direction...? Better to use some non-ambiguous
term like port or starboard.

Bloody lefthand side drivers.

 

[Falkon]

"Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand
>

I'm surprised that the prosecution thought they needed to establish that the instructions were
confusing as to whether the road was closed or open to traffic during the race. If I was on the
jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so negligent as to
organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not. What if the
cyclist managed to kill someone else as well? What a **** (the director). He should be gaoled just
to protect the rest of humanity from his stupidity. Imagine what other stupid stuff this **** got up
to before this event. Reminds me of that drag race meet that raced the wrong way down the strip
towards a concrete wall. The outcome is entirely predictable (if not inevitable).

--
Falkon

 

[Kyle Legate]

Falkon wrote:
> "Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand
>>
>
> I'm surprised that the prosecution thought they needed to establish that the instructions were
> confusing as to whether the road was closed or open to traffic during the race. If I was on the
> jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so negligent as to
> organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not.
>
Every single road race (with the exception of Nationals) I have participated in has taken place on
open public roads. At the amateur level it's the norm.

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>"Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand
>
>I'm surprised that the prosecution thought they needed to establish that the instructions were
>confusing as to whether the road was closed or open to traffic during the race.

That was the whole case. If the competitor knew the course was open to traffic and then crossed the
center line, he is completely at fault.

>If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so
>negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not.

Why would a race on a public road be dangerous? It safely happens all the time. As long as there are
course marshalls properly placed, it is a safe way to have a race.

>What if the cyclist managed to kill someone else as well?

Highly unlikely.

>What a **** (the director).

pot, kettle, black.

>Reminds me of that drag race meet that raced the wrong way down the strip towards a concrete wall.
>The outcome is entirely predictable (if not inevitable).

You can't compare a car race with a bike race. bike race speeds are substantially slower and the
mass of a car is usually 150 times more than the weight of a car. In this instance, as in most, it
is usually the participants in the race, not spectators, that get hurt in accidents.
--------------
Alex

 

[Joe]

Am I wrong? I thought the cyclist crossed over the centre line against the race instructions. If the
cyclist failed to follow instructions - therefore that person is guilty. If the regulations said the
cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who drafted these rules and approved
them guilty.

Makes me think of the police who allowed a public nuisance and said it was all-right for protesters
at Lyttelton to stand in the middle of the road and impede legal travel. The police who allowed and
arranged the protesters to stand in the way of law abiding citizens should have been found guilty.
Placard molesters who abuse and impede people who are obeying the laws of the land should be charged
with obstruction. Rules are rules and should be obeyed. People who break the rules should pay the
consequences. Still the women who aided Gay Oakes in burying her husband who she MURDERED were never
even charged, so why should I expect the innocent not to be abused by the CHCH police. They are too
busy arresting and abusing the innocent. Segeant Joker is still waiting to be given the royal femalr
command "Arrest Peter Ellis". Just waiting until Fool Goof has to finally give in to pubic
embarrassment and allow an INDEPENDENT FULL INQUIRY because the Eichelbaun bribe failed to appease
the people. Pontious Pilate only washed his hands, Fool Goof paid out $400,000 or whatever. Still he
can always ask for the blinkers to be returned. Or failing that he could arrange conducted tours
through the various SECRET CAVATIES at 404 Hereford Street that the police paid $12000 to have the
plans for the jury to see. Does anyone know if these secret cavaties are still able to be viewed.
Perhaps they could be put on view alongside the CCC ladder that was long enough to stretch between
two buildings and support the children as they travelled across out of sight up in the clouds and of
course the cages that the children were kept in and subjected to the horrible indecencies that were
only in the mind of the sensational Sally's. Perhaps someone would like to pay for Andrews tombstone
and then the coffin as well could all be put in Christchurch's 'waxworks' of horror. Roger McClay
could give guided tours and his account of events. He could then of course be employed by the CCC as
the CHCH joker. Who needs a town crier with Roger McClay venting forth. Defective Colin Eade could
be employed again to give his account of events, but a warning would need to be given to all
females. This warning would be necessary so the council would not be sued for the consequences
employing a person who believed that anyone was fair game

Perhaps we could have the Sally corner, not to be confused with the Salvation Army, and Gen Crossan
could show the tripe from "Breaking the circle of 'Satanic Ritual abuse' and Pamela Hudson's 'Ritual
Child's Abuse.' Perhaps the City Council could copy the laundry chute into their QE2 entertainment.
Gary Moore could have a field day organising this museum. Think of the revenue that could be gained,
and its daily entry would far surpass Te PAPA. All our own talent, he could claim. Liars
incorporated, liars protected.

The innocent beware because if you are wanting an apology you can be sure even if one is given it
will be posthumously. Fears *

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Falkon wrote:
>> "Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand
>>>
>>
>> I'm surprised that the prosecution thought they needed to establish that the instructions were
>> confusing as to whether the road was closed or open to traffic during the race. If I was on the
>> jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so negligent as to
>> organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not.
>>
>Every single road race (with the exception of Nationals) I have participated in has taken place on
>open public roads. At the amateur level it's the norm.

 

[never_doped]

"Am I wrong? I thought the cyclist crossed over the centre line against the race instructions. If the cyclist failed to follow instructions - therefore that person is guilty. If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who drafted these rules and approved
them guilty."


Individual responsibility is a thing of the past. Responsibility always falls now on those with the deepest pockets.

 

[Jkpoulos7]

>If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so
>negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not.

>What a **** (the director). He should be gaoled just to protect the rest of humanity from his
>stupidity

Maybe the dead cyclist thought the road was closed but he still crossed the line and got hit. The
race director bears minimal responsibility. The rest of the course was on open roads so all
participants should use their noggins and be extra careful. Even when roads are "closed" it pays to
be alert for pedestrians and vehicles who may want to disregard the closure. I guess the lack of
personal responsibility has taken hold in Australia too.

 

[Sam]

"Jkpoulos7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact
that
> >the director was so negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open
public
> >road - whether competitors knew it or not.
>
> >What a **** (the director). He should be gaoled just to protect the rest of humanity from his
> >stupidity
>
> Maybe the dead cyclist thought the road was closed but he still crossed
the
> line and got hit. The race director bears minimal responsibility. The
rest of
> the course was on open roads so all participants should use their noggins
and
> be extra careful. Even when roads are "closed" it pays to be alert for pedestrians and vehicles
> who may want to disregard the closure. I guess
the
> lack of personal responsibility has taken hold in Australia too.

It happened in NZ--there is a difference. Ask any Aussie or Kiwi!

 

[Panama Lewis]

never_doped wrote in message <[email protected]>...
>"Am I wrong? I thought the cyclist crossed over the centre line against the race instructions. If
>the cyclist failed to follow instructions - therefore that person is guilty. If the regulations
>said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who drafted these rules and
>approved them guilty."
>
>
>Individual responsibility is a thing of the past. Responsibility always falls now on those with the
>deepest pockets.

The article makes it clear that this was not a case of civil liability, so that deep pockets are
not an issue.

It was a criminal case brought by the public prosecutor.

 

[Seppo Renfors]

Snoopy wrote:
>
[..]
> The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of their own carelessness or even
> recklessness by attempting a passing maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility.
> Furthermore the defence contended that the written pre-race information was not misleading when
> read in context. The phrase 'road closure' occurred only in the section of the pre race pamphlet
> under the sub header of 'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road closure',
> had an adjunct phrase linked by a dash that made this contextual meaning perfectly clear.
> Furthermore the defence produced evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three
> vehicles (one of which was a logging truck) come out of the summit road before they entered it.
> The defence also produced evidence that the dead competitor would have passed a milk tanker and
> possibly two or three additional vehicles between the start of the summit road and the accident
> site. The contention here was that even if the competitor had misread the instructions and
> believed the road to be closed the presence of occasional vehicles on the road would have
> dispelled this myth. The defence also contended that other phrases used in the pre-race
> documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep left' and 'obey the road rules at all
> times') should have meant that any reasonable competitor should not have placed their bicycle on
> the road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that 'road open' signs were not
> required because 'the road is always open'.
>
> Further details are available at these links
>
> http://www.lerace.co.nz/
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html
>
> Comments anyone?

Troublesome is the fact that Police elected to prosecute - and therefor it is a crime and that
attaches it to an individual when this wasn't an individual "crime" - it is committees that run
these sort of things and decisions are collective, not individual and are often inherited from past
events - sometimes may even be governed by rules/requirements from outside the organisation putting
on the particular event. It also has the burden of proof to be BEYOND reasonable doubt. I cannot see
that such can have been achieved with the defence details left intact above. If a road is deemed
open, it simultaneously also requires users to obey the road rules. The cyclist did not. Quite
frankly in that situation I don't know how the hell it is possible to hold ONE single person as
being "guilty" for collective decisions. The Jury should have acquitted on that ground alone.

Further to that it is fairly common knowledge in the community that road racing on bikes IS on open
roads. This knowledge isn't exactly exclusive to the racing community - but they would be intimately
familiar with this. It doesn't appear to have ben considered.

To quote the second URL in part: "Judge Abbott addressed jurors in the Christchurch District Court
shortly after 9pm, reminding them they had taken an oath to try the case to the best of their
ability. "A view which is honestly held can equally be honestly changed," he said."

This was after the jury had told the judge they could not reach a verdict. In my view this is also a
legitimate finding by the jury. I don't see that the Judge had a right to overrule and NOT ACCEPT
the "verdict" given. The sentence quoted from Judge Abbott, is not correct. How on earth is it
possible to HONESTLY hold TWO POV's - GUILTY and NOT GUILTY simultaneously? It isn't but that IS
what the Judge would infer with the statement, and further to that, it tends to also support, give
ammunition to verbal bullying in the Jury room! I suspect this is what happened, the hour was late,
and people wanted to go home - the case itself became of lesser importance to jurors the later it
got. After all the Judge had said it is "HONEST" to change your mind, even if you don't necessarily
agree with the change! Bullying tactics work well in such an environment.

Further I would say this was a very bad case to be tried by a Jury.... there was far too much
emotive baggage for the prosecution to play with. A trial by Judge alone (if available in NZ)
may well have produced a different outcome totally. This looks like having grounds for an
appeal as well.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Fred Marx]

> What difference? Same people.

don't want to ever say that to a memeber of either of those two countries.... 'specially an aussey.

 

[Gordon]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 02:53:52 +0000, Seppo Renfors wrote:

> - SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

The one who is educated from only one type of book is not educated. ;-)

 

[Snoopy]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 22:50:18 +1000, "Falkon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so
>negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not.
>
>
Falkon, I see you are replying from an Australian address. Would you be good enough to give us some
insight into your background so that we can understand where you are coming from on this issue? TIA

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--

 

[Snoopy]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Every single road race (with the exception of Nationals) I have participated in has taken place on
>open public roads. At the amateur level it's the norm.
>

Whereabouts are you posting from?

What is the situation regarding road closures with professional cycling events where you come from?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--

 

[Snoopy]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:21:41 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Why would a race on a public road be dangerous? It safely happens all the time. As long as there
>are course marshalls properly placed, it is a safe way to have a race.
>

What country and region are you posting from Alex?

What power do you consider marshalls should have? How would you decide if they are
'properly placed'?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--

 

[Snoopy]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:40:17 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:

>Am I wrong? I thought the cyclist crossed over the centre line against the race instructions. If
>the cyclist failed to follow instructions - therefore that person is guilty.
>

The crown case is that the 'culture of cycling' allows people to ride all over the road, if the road
is closed.

This means that a cyclist who *believes* the road is closed may consider that they may legitmately
ride all over the road, if there is not enough information in the race instructions to dispell such
a false belief. The crown argued that there was sufficient ambiguity in the pre race printed
material and verbal briefing that a reasonable person might conclude that 'the Summit Road' (the
second one) was indeed closed. The Crown produced a series of credible witnesses who testified that
by their reading of the race publicity material they believed the Summit Road (the second one) to be
closed. Of course, the defence was able to produce an equal number of witnesses that believed the
pre race instructions were not ambiguous.

The fact that several competitors 'misread' the instructions and that their misinterpretation of the
rules was not dispelled by the 'on the day' briefing, was enough to convict Astrid Anderson.

>
>If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who
>drafted these rules and approved them guilty.
>

Legally if a road is closed, you *are* allowed to disobey the road rules.

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--

 

[Snoopy]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 02:53:52 GMT, Seppo Renfors <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Troublesome is the fact that Police elected to prosecute - and therefore it is a crime and that
>attaches it to an individual when this wasn't an individual "crime" - it is committees that run
>these sort of things and decisions are collective, not individual and are often inherited from
>past events
>

Since the revival of this event after several years of not holding it, the current race director
has been 'in charge'. So in this case none of the pre-publicity material was inherited from
someone else.

>
>- sometimes may even be governed by rules/requirements from outside the organisation putting on the
> particular event.
>

In this instance the rules/requirements were determined by the organization , 'The Events Company'
which organized the event. 'The Events Company's' Principal is race director Astrid Anderson. The
event is not part of any wider series. Anderson was not required to be registered with Cycling New
Zealand as a cycle race promotor. Anderson apparently, had full control over all aspects of the 'Le
Race' event.

>
>It also has the burden of proof to be BEYOND reasonable doubt. I cannot see that such can have been
>achieved with the defence details left intact above. If a road is deemed open, it simultaneously
>also requires users to obey the road rules. The cyclist did not.
>

Yes, but the fact was that several cyclists *believed* the road was not open. The basis of the
conviction was that such a belief was reasonable. The fact that the road always was open became
irrelevant to the trial.

>
>Quite frankly in that situation I don't know how the hell it is possible to hold ONE single person
>as being "guilty" for collective decisions. The Jury should have acquitted on that ground alone.
>

You are correct in that if any alleged deficiency of the event could not have been pinned down to a
single person, then the police charge would have collapsed. Anderson never attempted to deny that
she had overall responsibility and control of the event. In hindsight, perhaps that was a mistake?

>
>Further to that it is fairly common knowledge in the community that road racing on bikes IS on open
>roads. This knowledge isn't exactly exclusive to the racing community - but they would be
>intimately familiar with this. It doesn't appear to have ben considered.
>

Is it reasonable to assume that a first time competitor would know this though? The competitor who
died was indeed a first timer.

>
>To quote the second URL in part: "Judge Abbott addressed jurors in the Christchurch District Court
>shortly after 9pm, reminding them they had taken an oath to try the case to the best of their
>ability. "A view which is honestly held can equally be honestly changed," he said."
>

Yes that was certainly an odd statement by the judge. Given that the trial had taken almost three
weeks and was obviously very expensive to conduct, perhaps the judge considered that a
deliberation time of fifteen hours plus was not out of line, and that 180 degree switches in views
could be expected?

>
>This was after the jury had told the judge they could not reach a verdict. In my view this is also
>a legitimate finding by the jury. I don't see that the Judge had a right to overrule and NOT ACCEPT
>the "verdict" given.
>

I think the jury foreman said that they were having 'difficulty reaching a verdict'. He didn't
actually say they could not reach a verdict. A subtle difference?

>
>The sentence quoted from Judge Abbott, is not correct. How on earth is it possible to HONESTLY hold
>TWO POV's - GUILTY and NOT GUILTY simultaneously?
>

It isn't. The judge suggested that after 15 hours deliberation it is OK to change your mind.

>
>It isn't but that IS what the Judge would infer with the statement, and further to that, it tends
>to also support, give ammunition to verbal bullying in the Jury room! I suspect this is what
>happened, the hour was late, and people wanted to go home - the case itself became of lesser
>importance to jurors the later it got. After all the Judge had said it is "HONEST" to change your
>mind, even if you don't necessarily agree with the change! Bullying tactics work well in such an
>environment.
>

Wouldn't 'bullying' be a factor to some extent in all long jury deliberations?

Are you saying that the conduct of the judge as reported is in itself enough evidence to declare the
trial a mistrial?

>
>Further I would say this was a very bad case to be tried by a Jury.... there was far too much
>emotive baggage for the prosecution to play with.
>

The judge instructed the jury to put any baggage, that a young pregnant woman in the prime of life
had died. There was also emotive baggage that could be played on the side of the accused. Astrid
Anderson it came out during the proceedings was a very well respected event organizer. Her general
standard of health and safety planning for the event was way in excess of any legal requirements in
force at the time of the race (March 2001).

>
>This looks like having grounds for an appeal as well.
>

On what specific basis?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--

 

[Joe]

Thanks for the elucid replu, Snoopy. Cheers *

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:30:39 +1200, (Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:40:17 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Am I wrong? I thought the cyclist crossed over the centre line against the race instructions. If
>>the cyclist failed to follow instructions - therefore that person is guilty.
>>
>
>The crown case is that the 'culture of cycling' allows people to ride all over the road, if the
>road is closed.
>
>This means that a cyclist who *believes* the road is closed may consider that they may legitmately
>ride all over the road, if there is not enough information in the race instructions to dispell such
>a false belief. The crown argued that there was sufficient ambiguity in the pre race printed
>material and verbal briefing that a reasonable person might conclude that 'the Summit Road' (the
>second one) was indeed closed. The Crown produced a series of credible witnesses who testified that
>by their reading of the race publicity material they believed the Summit Road (the second one) to
>be closed. Of course, the defence was able to produce an equal number of witnesses that believed
>the pre race instructions were not ambiguous.
>
>The fact that several competitors 'misread' the instructions and that their misinterpretation of
>the rules was not dispelled by the 'on the day' briefing, was enough to convict Astrid Anderson.
>
>>
>>If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who
>>drafted these rules and approved them guilty.
>>
>
>Legally if a road is closed, you *are* allowed to disobey the road rules.
>
>SNOOPY
>
>
>
>--
>Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details