fat and old wrote:The ACTUAL offense he was charged with."Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty
By riding an illegal cycle did Charlie engage in "wilful misconduct or wilful neglect"? I'm happy for somebody to give me a legal reason why that is wrong, and will gladly change my outlook on the fairness of the conviction on its legal merits when that is done.
The only thing I will note is that, by my reading, the crime requires the bodily harm to be done as a consequence of the wilful misconduct or neglect.
Removing some of the conditional clauses from the law and concentrating on the misconduct aspect:
"Whosoever, having the charge of any vehicle, shall by wilful misconduct, do any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty...
In this case it is appropriate to argue a scenario that even if the rider had a front brake they could not have avoided the collision when the pedestrian allegedly stepped back in front of them and therefore the bodily harm was not caused by the misconduct. Under the Australian Road Rules you could also make a case that the vehicle had no duty to give-way to the illegally crossing pedestrian so a lack of brakes is immaterial when he had no duty to use them.
I give up on understanding the application of the UK Highway Code as in this case a section of the road rules that appears advisory has been seemingly been used in the sentencing remarks to establish that the cyclist had a duty of care to avoid the pedestrian despite there being numerous advisory sections of the Highway Code that the pedestrian has ignored in choosing to cross where they did which have seemingly been ignored in determining the cyclist's liability. The ruling in this case appears to treat every bit of the road as if it was a zebra crossing with pedestrians free to step out whenever they want.
For what it is worth, from the evidence I have seen reported I think he was probably guilty of the offence, and had it occurred where the pedestrian had right of way I would find the sentencing appropriate I just feel the sentence is excessively high when the pedestrian has created the risk event by stepping out into the roadway without yielding to vehicles.