His Parents Must Be So Proud...

Today in her court in Reading assistant coroner Alison McCormick said the killings of Mr Shackley and Mr Imi were not an appropriate case to provide an unlawful killing verdict because she could not be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Coopey was speeding at the time of the collision or that the cannabis he had smoked impaired his ability to drive.

Instead, the coroner provided a verdict of 'road traffic collision' in respect of both deaths - and added that she would be sending a report to the Highways Authority to see if future deaths could be prevented on the road.

Well, if parents did some parenting....yes.

Today outside the inquest into the men's deaths Coopey allegedly assaulted a press photographer, swearing and spitting at him before trying to rip the camera from his neck, before going on to tell the court to 'Google it' when claiming the cannabis in his bloodstream would not have impaired his driving.

Who is this yob? What sort of upbringing has he ha...

Oh! His parents are both police officers.

Adrian White, a police collision investigator, told the inquest his reconstruction of the incident led him to the view that the accident could not be avoided.

He was immediately challenged by lawyers for both victims' families who told him his science was wrong, to which Mr White countered 'science isn't wrong.'

Really?

The inquest heard Mr White's accident investigation reconstruction report said Mr Shackley would have been walking to the right of Mr Imi and would have been obscured from Mr Coopey's view at the time of the collision - significant because Mr Shackley was wearing a brightly coloured top and so would have been more visible.

Mr Buckett, representing the Shackley family, said: 'You make the assumption that Mr Shackley was to the right of Mr Imi at the time. Why did you make that assumption?'

Mr White replied: 'I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the driver.'

Mr Buckett said: 'Why is that? You're looking at this presumably in an impartial manner, not looking to give the driver any special treatment.'

But was he, we muse...?

Mr White said he had to consider whether a prosecution would follow his report and for the benefit of a theoretical defence team, he had to consider the worst case scenario and he said his report had been peer reviewed when it was suggested it was misleading.

Peer reviewed by other police officers, naturally!

The lawyer told him his accident reconstruction test had been flawed because it involved one police officer wearing dark clothing standing still at the side of the road - whereas in this case there were two people, moving and one of them had light coloured clothing on. He added: 'So, all three variables on the evidence that is now before the coroner, demonstrate that your scientific approach does not fit the facts of this case.'

Heh! I quite like this lawyer. He's outwitted the plod nicely/

Mr White conceded that based on the evidence given by Mr Coopey during the inquest, that was correct but he contested that Mr Coopey's evidence was unlikely to be correct, based on his calculations.

Wha..?

Mr Hinchliffe said to Mr Coopey: 'You asked to borrow your father's car. Your father gave you strict instructions as to when you were to return it.'

Mr Coopey replied: 'Which I don't normally obey.'

Lovely! And yet, knowing that, they still let him drive the car.

The magistrates put Coopey on a new youth rehabilitation order including supervision for 24 months, a 20-day 'thinking skills programme', a safe driving course, 100 hours of unpaid work, and a six month curfew.

I think that's something the whole family needs. And the police farce, too, for employing such hopeless people.