You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Without the video footage, I doubt it would have ended up in court
I agree, but I would add to that to say that I think the recorded audio on the CCTV was critical here.
Define assault ?
https://www.iwgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+assault+law&l=1
"An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence."
Am I allowed to raise my voice at a burglar climbing through a window?
It would appear so.
However IANAL so you may wish to take legal advice on that.
hightensionline
If there’s footage of path or trail sabotage being committed, identifying the perpetrator, with the victim being killed or seriously injured, then that would be the equivalence. Otherwise it’s a huge task to prove who did what, and how & why.
This is my point.. why do we have to wait for someone to be killed or seriously injured ??
That's simply chance.
Isn’t this needing a trial to apply the law to to, then that outcome will be used in future to become the precedent that gets applied in subsequent court cases.
where it could be forseen that those actions would result in someone dying,
.. and I am far from convinced that it was forseen or even would be by a “reasonable person”.
I think there we have to agree to differ. I was taught at primary school not to be a dick on a pavement next to traffic precisely because of the risk of an outcome like this.
through a random freak occurrence then died
An old lady dieing after being pushed into oncoming traffic isn't really a random freak occurrence.........
This is my point.. why do we have to wait for someone to be killed or seriously injured ??
That’s simply chance.
Except it's not, is it. I can say with a reasonably high degree of confidence that I'm unlikely to shove a pensioner under a car in the near future.
The "it could have been me" argument is compelling. Someone earlier was talking about how a person might thump someone in the heat of the moment or in self-defence, the punchee goes down unfortunately badly and doesn't survive the encounter. But there is nothing in the footage of this confrontation that - to my eyes at any rate - would suggest that this was an isolated incident. I'd bet good money that she's been yelling at cyclists for years, maybe even at that particular one, and unfortunately for all concerned her luck eventually ran out.
If you're spoiling for conflict and eventually it bites you back then that's not 'chance,' it's inevitability.
Sad case, a disabled women's momentary actions lead to an elderly women dying. And the car driver who's car actually did the damage is the innocent party.
Isn’t this needing a trial to apply the law to to, then that outcome will be used in future to become the precedent that gets applied in subsequent court cases.
there was a trial. Generally it would need the appeal court to really become a precedent that you could expect to be applied to other cases as an authority.
I was struck by the case of a teenager on an unlicensed escooter who sadly struck and killed a pedestrian as they got out of a car. Whilst totally different from this case the sentencing was interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64892358
Sad case, a disabled women’s momentary actions lead to an elderly women dying. And the car driver who’s car actually did the damage is the innocent party.
The driver was the innocent party in this for a change. There’s nothing in the public domain, as far as I can tell, that would prove otherwise.
Whilst totally different from this case the sentencing was interesting
In what way was it interesting?
Sad case, a disabled women’s momentary actions lead to an elderly women dying. And the car driver who’s car actually did the damage is the innocent party.
Indeed. Just like if someone got shoved off a platform into the path of a train the train driver would be the innocent party. Is there a problem with a car driver not being at fault?
Questions can be asked about the street layout. A wider pavement may not be possible. A fence between the pavement and road would mean the cyclist would still be alive for example.
Questions can be asked about the street layout.
The judge pointed out that in shared spaces we have a duty to look out for each other. There’s probably nothing wrong with the path. This is just “rule one” ending horribly
Cougar
Except it’s not, is it. I can say with a reasonably high degree of confidence that I’m unlikely to shove a pensioner under a car in the near future.
The “it could have been me” argument is compelling. Someone earlier was talking about how a person might thump someone in the heat of the moment or in self-defence, the punchee goes down unfortunately badly and doesn’t survive the encounter. But there is nothing in the footage of this confrontation that – to my eyes at any rate – would suggest that this was an isolated incident. I’d bet good money that she’s been yelling at cyclists for years, maybe even at that particular one, and unfortunately for all concerned her luck eventually ran out.
If you’re spoiling for conflict and eventually it bites you back then that’s not ‘chance,’ it’s inevitability.
Going off the trail summary there was no evidence the pensioner was "shoved under a car".
The charge of unlawful manslaughter REQUIRES she was engaged in a criminal act that could lead to "some" physical harm .. and however bizarre the circumstances this leads to death. The death doesn't need to be a RESULT of the risk of the physical harm, they merely need to have been doing one at the time.
Sentencing Council
Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm. It doesn’t matter whether or not the offender knew that the act was unlawful and dangerous or whether harm was intended. This is by far the most common type of manslaughter with around 100 offenders being sentenced annually.
But there is nothing in the footage of this confrontation that – to my eyes at any rate – would suggest that this was an isolated incident. I’d bet good money that she’s been yelling at cyclists for years, maybe even at that particular one, and unfortunately for all concerned her luck eventually ran out.
Erm so she and a load of DM readers have been doing it for years but noone died as a result.
Compare that to a deliberate "punishment" close pass - which do you think is more likely to result in physical harm and/or death yet UNLESS the victim dies this is a far less serious offence.
[This is the point.. the charges and sentencing are based on random, often pretty freak if tragic events]
The “it could have been me” argument is compelling. Someone earlier was talking about how a person might thump someone in the heat of the moment or in self-defence
So you are riding home late with a mate .. you and your mate have a load of good lights on the bike and are lit up like an XMAS tree when a pedestrian jumps out into your path (literally).
You are of course devastated that the pedestrian dies due to a freak set of circumstances ... then you realise that despite the all the lights you don't have pedal reflectors and you are now charged with manslaughter.
As written the lack of pedal reflectors doesn't need to be related, merely you were in the processes of an illegal act and every time you jump on a bike there is a tiny chance someone might come to "some" physical harm.
In what way was it interesting?
Well in one way
District Judge Leo Pyle said: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."
then you realise that despite the all the lights you don’t have pedal reflectors and you are now charged with manslaughter.
That seems like a flight of fancy frankly, and at odds with how the justice system actually works vs the abstract version you have in your head. You seem upset about the outcome and keep on worrying away at this sentence, but I can’t work out why?
So you are riding home late with a mate .. you and your mate have a load of good lights on the bike and are lit up like an XMAS tree when a pedestrian jumps out into your path (literally).
You are of course devastated that the pedestrian dies due to a freak set of circumstances …
Well that wouldn't be a freak set of circumstances. They "jumped" out in front of you and a collision happened.
@stevextc, thank god your not a judge, reading the judges summing up and the arguments your coming up with are non comparable. Not sure what your point is anyway, it went before a jury the woman was found guilty in accordance with the law. And a judge has passed sentence, I know this is a discussion forum but the points your raising are nonsensical.
I think a lot of people including myself got the wrong impression from the CCTV that this pavement was narrow which (although not in my view) may have provided [i]some[/i] mitigation for the guilty party. Now we know it was almost 8’ wide this is surely not the case and I don’t know how anyone can possibly defend what was an antagonistic action in trying to deliberately force the cyclist into the road on a shared path clearly wide enough for at least 2 people to pass safely.
I was struck by the case of a teenager on an unlicensed escooter who sadly struck and killed a pedestrian as they got out of a car. Whilst totally different from this case the sentencing was interesting.
Indeed, the scooter operator was a minor on what is essentially an illegal vehicle (even if you can buy one in Currys).
The sentencing extended to his parents, but yep there are limits to what you can sentence a kid to, it's reasonably straight forward had he been 18 or so it potentially could have been a manslaughter charge.
E-scooters need to be un-invented IMO but that's a separate discussion...
Well in one way
District Judge Leo Pyle said: “Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type.”
In a different case not involving a bicycle and not on a shared use path, right?
In a different case not involving a bicycle and not on a shared use path, right?
And of course, in accordance with the law and Highway Code, even if the Police only pull you up if you break Rule 1.
That seems like a flight of fancy frankly, and at odds with how the justice system actually works vs the abstract version you have in your head.
The justice system obviously DOESN'T work.... unless you mean from the perspective of being a career criminal.
If you think the police not being arsed to go and arrest someone with a stolen car/bike with a tracker and video evidence of them stealing it including a vehicle registered in their name because they either "can't get off their arses" or "its not a priority to them" (pick your reason) is "working" sorry, I disagree.
Real local example someone had a bike nicked and it was filmed... their registration is clearly visible.
The people filming tried to stop them but failed and the driver got away...so uninterested/worried they'd been filmed in the act they didn't bother to just dump the evidence.
The police are going to "interview the victim" over 3 weeks after the theft... if they do catch someone I have no confidence they will be charged or given any sentence even deters them in the future.
You seem upset about the outcome and keep on worrying away at this sentence, but I can’t work out why?
Because this is quite simply a distraction ... a headlines "make an example to show we are doing something"
Not sure what your point is anyway, it went before a jury the woman was found guilty in accordance with the law.
I'd like to see the direction given to the jury by the judge... because from what the judge wrote there is no evidence that "she shoved her under a car"...
I don’t know how anyone can possibly defend what was an antagonistic action in trying to deliberately force the cyclist into the road
Because these are 2 completely separate things.... I don't think anyone is defending her action however there is no evidence in the summary by the judge that she was
deliberately force the cyclist into the road
This is the summing up...
“The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money".
She may or may not have made contact and Mrs. Ward FELL into the road.
Because this is quite simply a distraction … a headlines “make an example to show we are doing something”
Yes, they* badly wanted to make an example, it took them three years to get the conviction.
* Whoever "they" are.
Comparing property theft to killing someone is nonsense, sorry.
We're not in America (yet); property is, for the most part, insured and replaceable. Lives aren't, even if it 'just' results in serious injury. This is about that. A person was killed as a result of someone not observing rule #1.
She may or may not have made contact and Mrs. Ward FELL into the road.
But she fell into the road because of the pedestrian’s actions. (Who admitted that she came into contact with her) It was that behaviour that caused the death.
imnotverygood
But she fell into the road because of the pedestrian’s actions. (Who admitted that she came into contact with her) It was that behaviour that caused the death.
and had she fallen away from the road and grazed her shin were the pedestrians ACTIONS (not outcome) less "bad"?
Or as jonv said earlier (reworded) .. walking into a mall with a gun and being a bad shot.
To me the fact someone fails to injure someone FATALLY whilst shooting at them is not the point.
As written the lack of pedal reflectors doesn’t need to be related, merely you were in the processes of an illegal act and every time you jump on a bike there is a tiny chance someone might come to “some” physical harm.
The law was tested here with regards to having two functional independent means of braking. Despite the likelihood that nothing would have prevented the accident, the absence of a second brake sent the cyclist to prison. Disobedience of Rule 1. All my fixed wheel bikes have a front brake. My trike has TWO front brakes! Pedal reflectors would not feature in an assessment of legality. You are welcome to find case law where they have played a role in any conviction.
The same for the scooter. As I reminded Son2 with an e-skateboard (now sold), the consequences of any outcome, like this one, would be prosecuted where for an obvious and material illegal act took place. Had the boy been running at speed and knocked her over, there would be no prosecution (she stepped onto the pavement between vehicles and was obscured by a parked van). Likely the same had he been riding a bike.
and had she fallen away from the road and grazed her shin were the pedestrians ACTIONS (not outcome) less “bad”?
Or as jonv said earlier (reworded) .. walking into a mall with a gun and being a bad shot.
To me the fact someone fails to injure someone FATALLY whilst shooting at them is not the point.
Again, you're confusing Manslaughter and murder.
She didn't intend to kill anyone, but her actions directly lead to their death.
Fictional gunman intends to scare/wound/kill (dunno) and is prosecuted based on likely intent and outcome.
I’d like to see the direction given to the jury by the judge
and had she fallen away from the road and grazed her shin were the pedestrians ACTIONS (not outcome) less “bad”?
Yes, obviously. In this case the jury decided that Mrs Grey's actions led directly to the death of Mrs Ward. That's what they were trying to decide.
Again I don't understand what point you're trying to make apart from a polemic about "the system" not working the way you think it should.
To me the fact someone fails to injure someone FATALLY whilst shooting at them is not the point.
Maximum sentence for dangerous driving : 2 Years
Maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving: 14 years
It's a well established principle in law that the effect of the criminal action play a part in the sentencing. You may not like it, but that IS the law. I suggest that the vast majority of people agree with this as evidenced by the complaints on here that drivers who kill & injure cyclists are treated too leniently. IIRC correctly 'the causing death by careless driving' law was brought in relatively recently in recognition that the penalty of '3 points and a £200 fine' was inadequate when you've just killed someone.
TiRed
The law was tested here with regards to having two functional independent means of braking. Despite the likelihood that nothing would have prevented the accident, the absence of a second brake sent the cyclist to prison. Disobedience of Rule 1.
This being my objection ... especially the "likelihood that nothing would have prevented the accident", the two were not even connected. If we both assume the absence of the brake had no bearing on the accident then "let's send this dick to prison for not being a sheep and having a front brake" is being more of a dick than he was.
All my fixed wheel bikes have a front brake. My trike has TWO front brakes! Pedal reflectors would not feature in an assessment of legality. You are welcome to find case law where they have played a role in any conviction.
Absence of a front brake hadn't before they decided to "make an example" or "appease the howling DM wolves" so looking for case law isn't productive. To give an example from a recent thread it's like the insurance assessor finding one of the locks wasn't BS certified when the burglars came in through a window.
Going off the trail summary there was no evidence the pensioner was “shoved under a car”.
The accused admitted pushing her. But even if she didn't physically touch her, her aggressive actions were sufficient to cause the 77-year old victim to lose control of her bicycle next to the road with tragic consequences.
Erm so she and a load of DM readers have been doing it for years but noone died as a result.
Compare that to a deliberate “punishment” close pass – which do you think is more likely to result in physical harm and/or death yet UNLESS the victim dies this is a far less serious offence.
... until someone does.
I'm not sure what your point here is. Whether you've pointed a car at someone or you're a large, intimidating woman with mental health issues, the outcome was the same. Whilst I don't doubt that it happens occasionally, I'd like to hope that the vast majority of "punishment passes" aren't intentionally murderous.
So you are riding home late with a mate .. you and your mate have a load of good lights on the bike and are lit up like an XMAS tree when a pedestrian jumps out into your path (literally).
You are of course devastated that the pedestrian dies due to a freak set of circumstances … then you realise that despite the all the lights you don’t have pedal reflectors and you are now charged with manslaughter.
The bike I take on roads has reflectors on the pedals precisely to avoid this sort of abject bollocks.
Does it actually matter? If I was mincing along at walking pace on a fully road-legal bike and one of these hypothetical teleporting pedestrians "appears out of nowhere" like cyclists seemingly often do, they fall and die, it's still manslaughter isn't it? Is it possible to accidentally kill someone and it not be manslaughter? (I genuinely don't know.)
nickc
Yes, obviously. In this case the jury decided that Mrs Grey’s actions led directly to the death of Mrs Ward. That’s what they were trying to decide.
Again I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make apart from a polemic about “the system” not working the way you think it should.
The point seems so simple .. prosecute and sentence people according to their actions. (Justice) vs prosecute and sentence people according to chance outcome. (Revenge)
imnotverygood
It’s a well established principle in law that the effect of the criminal action play a part in the sentencing. You may not like it, but that IS the law.
I've never said it wasn't the law and that is what I'm objecting to...
I suggest that the vast majority of people agree with this
I suggest most people haven't considered an alternative.
as evidenced by the complaints on here that drivers who kill & injure cyclists are treated too leniently. IIRC correctly ‘the causing death by careless driving’ law was brought in relatively recently in recognition that the penalty of ‘3 points and a £200 fine’ was inadequate when you’ve just killed someone.
Firstly, not the same as the "dangerous driving" has to be part of the reason they got killed...
BUT... and my WHOLE point is ‘3 points and a £200 fine’ is totally inadequate whether the cyclist (pedestrian) dies or not if someone does a deliberate close pass/hits a cyclist/pedestrian.
Whether the victim is lucky and escapes with a few bruises, is in a coma or dies they did the SAME thing.
BUT… and my WHOLE point is ‘3 points and a £200 fine’ is totally inadequate whether the cyclist (pedestrian) dies or not if someone does a deliberate close pass/hits a cyclist/pedestrian
So what you are effectively saying is that if you punch someone, your sentence should be the same whether they die or they just get a black eye. This would mean that either a lot of people end up with a long prison term for inflicting a minor injury, or that the penalty for killing someone would be a few hundred quid fine. I don't think many people would agree with that logic.
BUT… and my WHOLE point is ‘3 points and a £200 fine’ is totally inadequate whether the cyclist (pedestrian) dies or not if someone does a deliberate close pass/hits a cyclist/pedestrian.
Whether the victim is lucky and escapes with a few bruises, is in a coma or dies they did the SAME thing.
And the point you're ignoring is that they probably shouldn't have done that SAME thing in the first place. If I stroll into a shopping mall with an assault rifle but I happen to be a terrible shot and miss everyone, is that a lesser crime?
The accused in this case deliberately went out of her way to cause conflict. You can see in the video, she moves across the pavement to get up in the victim's grill. That shared-use pavement is 2.4m wide, that's about ten feet in old money. I have no way of knowing of course but I would be absolutely astonished if this was a totally out-of-character isolated incident. And unfortunately for all three parties involved, this day her luck ran out.
The point seems so simple .. prosecute and sentence people according to their actions. (Justice) vs prosecute and sentence people according to chance outcome.
The bit you miss is that folks bear responsibility because a normal person can easily determine that what they do could reasonably have an impact on other people. In this case, the jury unanimously decided that Mrs Grey could've foreseen that shouting and waving your arms/ pushing at an elderly lady on a bicycle may cause her to fall off.
As the Judge concludes, on shared spaces we have a duty not to be a dick. Mrs Grey was a dick, she compounded that dickish action by walking away, not showing any remorse (until she realised that she might go to prison) and continually lying to the cops.
So, in this case. Not chance, but reasonably foreseeable.
BUT… and my WHOLE point is ‘3 points and a £200 fine’ is totally inadequate whether the cyclist (pedestrian) dies or not if someone does a deliberate close pass/hits a cyclist/pedestrian.
Whether the victim is lucky and escapes with a few bruises, is in a coma or dies they did the SAME thing.
So, the teenager on the electric skateboard who hit me square in the chest last summer, just leaving bruises, should face prison time because he might have killed me?
As should his father for just being on an electric skateboard, regardless of whether he hit someone - he might hit and kill someone?
Again I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make apart from a polemic about “the system” not working the way you think it should.
Which is a very good reason, having made our points, to step back from the debate.
Cougar
Is it possible to accidentally kill someone and it not be manslaughter?
Yes... and my objection is how it is manipulated by making examples.
This is a specific type of manslaughter (actually the most common according to the sentencing council) "unlawful manslaughter".
In order to prosecute for unlawful manslaughter they just have to prove you were doing something illegal at the time that could possibly lead to **any** physical injury WHETHER OR NOT that contributed to the accident (See TiRed) and I posted the
sentencing council criteria earlier.
I’m not sure what your point here is. Whether you’ve pointed a car at someone or you’re a large, intimidating woman with mental health issues, the outcome was the same. Whilst I don’t doubt that it happens occasionally, I’d like to hope that the vast majority of “punishment passes” aren’t intentionally murderous.
… until someone does.
My point is the outcome is irrelevant to what they did ... its' highly emotive and a terrible thing but
I’d like to hope that the vast majority of “punishment passes” aren’t intentionally murderous.
I'm sure you are correct but lets say 99% are not that doesn't make 3 points and £100 fine suitable IMHO.
I'd also say they have a much higher potential to end in serious injury or death...
See other responses...
My point is the outcome is irrelevant to what they did … its’ highly emotive and a terrible thing but
I understand where you're coming from I think, it's the "there but for the grace of god" argument isn't it. Many otherwise innocuous actions have the ability to go sideways, a roofer dropping a hammer or some such.
But again: her actions were clearly deliberate and (I'm speculating now but) likely habitual. She attacked an old woman next to a busy road. Based on that footage I'd go as far as to say that forcing the victim into the road where she 'should be' was her intention. Even to someone with mental health issues it should be readily obvious what the potential outcome might be in doing that.
idlejon
So, the teenager on the electric skateboard who hit me square in the chest last summer, just leaving bruises, should face prison time because he might have killed me?
Ignoring the fact they were a minor... hit you in the chest with what, The electric skateboard or their body?
Was it deliberate or an accident and how realistically might he have killed you?
Without more info my thoughts are not to conflate the two things:
Was this assault or an accident? If it was assault then it should be treated as assault (common, ABH, GBH)
Was the e-skateboard being used illegally ... if it was treat as such seperately
If they had attached blades to the skateboard and jumped off a wall trying to impale you then custodial (I guess they didn't - just for completeness) and that is regardless of it being an e-skateboard or non e.
But again: her actions were clearly deliberate and (I’m speculating now but) likely habitual. She attacked an old woman next to a busy road. Based on that footage I’d go as far as to say that forcing the victim into the road where she ‘should be’ was her intention. Even to someone with mental health issues it should be readily obvious what the potential outcome might be in doing that.
Yes, I was going to point this out. It is difficult to be certain what someone's motives are, but when you look at the vid: The cyclist has virtually stopped, they are passing abeam each other. There is no danger of the two of them colliding. The pedestrian clearly has no need to 'protect themselves' at this point. What is the intention of the pedestrian when they turn aggressively towrads the cyclist whilst flinging their arm out and making 'light contact'? To me, that is an attack & an intentional attack (& I'm struggling to see it as anything but an attempt to force the cyclist into the road, even if only by intimidation) . It results in the cyclist's death: Manslaughter. Correct verdict.
Cougar
I understand where you’re coming from I think, it’s the “there but for the grace of god” argument isn’t it. Many otherwise innocuous actions have the ability to go sideways, a roofer dropping a hammer or some such.
To extend that analogy it's this conflation of the two things I find very OT and only a step away from an "eye for an eye".
I'm not merely saying totally innocent innocuous actions though...
But again: her actions were clearly deliberate
She was very clearly in the wrong... I just don't believe she would have done what she did if she thought there was a possibility she was going to cause her death (or even serious injury)
The thing that I object to is the "unlawful manslaughter" part... that as written says the defendant just needs to be doing something illegal (and however trivial) and it doesn't need to be material to the death.
and (I’m speculating now but) likely habitual.
and this is the other part ... I'm not disagreeing here any more than I think many deliberate close passes are habitual but the "do nothing until someone dies" is to me equally unacceptable and not the way a justice system should be in a developed country in 2023.
She was very clearly in the wrong… I just don’t believe she would have done what she did if she thought there was a possibility she was going to cause her death (or even serious injury)
I think she was reckless: She was in a rage & was determined to force the cyclist off the path. The fact that the road contained motor vehicles passing at speed should have been obvious to her. The judge didn't think her disabilities excused her from ignoring the evident risk involved in acting the way she did.
Ignoring the fact they were a minor… hit you in the chest with what, The electric skateboard or their body?
Was it deliberate or an accident and how realistically might he have killed you?
It was an e-skateboard being ridden on a public cycle-path. He bruised me. He might have done more damage to an elderly user of that path. But there's no need for you to ask 'how realistically he might have killed you' because
but the “do nothing until someone dies” is to me equally unacceptable
Your last quote.
So you are happy to wreck a teenagers life based on a stupid accident? And, as I said, his father should be charged with the maximum for the same reason.
I just don’t believe she would have done what she did if she thought there was a possibility she was going to cause her death
I think you're probably right, but you could assume the same thing about everyone who's actions are reckless and end up causing death. the Selby rail crash springs to mind.
But in this case, Mrs Grey didn't get three years just for possibly shoving Mrs Ward off the pavement, she got three years because she did that, then walked off to go shopping, lied to the cops on a number of occasions, refused to testify in three court cases and showed a total lack of remorse until the very last minute.
I just don’t believe she would have done what she did if she thought there was a possibility she was going to cause her death (or even serious injury)
If that is the case then hopefully she now knows that she was completely wrong. This thoughtlessness probably applies to a lot of dangerous driving, too.
I just don’t believe she would have done what she did if she thought there was a possibility she was going to cause her death (or even serious injury)
I suspect that's true. I suspect that it's also true of people who string up barbed wire at neck height on shared-use trails.
I’m not disagreeing here any more than I think many deliberate close passes are habitual but the “do nothing until someone dies” is to me equally unacceptable and not the way a justice system should be in a developed country in 2023.
Well, OK. But what do you propose instead?
Consider:
Scenario 1: The incident played out as it did.
Scenario 2: There wasn't a car coming and the rider merely fell off, sustaining minor injuries (though 77-year olds tend not to bounce too well).
Scenario 3: The cyclist dodged her attacker and rode off unscathed.
The assailant's actions were identical in all cases. Should the sentencing be the same for all of them? And if so, then what should it be?
that is literally the difference between a manslaughter, and a murder charge, though surely?She was very clearly in the wrong… I just don’t believe she would have done what she did if she thought there was a possibility she was going to cause her death (or even serious injury)
The thing that I object to is the “unlawful manslaughter” part… that as written says the defendant just needs to be doing something illegal (and however trivial) and it doesn’t need to be material to the death.
No, needs to be illegal and dangerous. and the test is not whether the person acting illegally thinks it's dangerous, but whether a "sober and reasonable bystander" would.
Scenario
I think theres also a Scenario 4- where the cyclist hits the pedestrian, who tumbles backward, hits her head off the pavement and dies of a brain hemorrhage.
We know that scenario has happened before, so shouldn't rule out the possibility that Miss Grey has seen such on TV news etc.
Im not saying that is foremost in her mind, but possibly a subconscious fear of cyclists in her close proximity should be taken into account.
Idlejon
So you are happy to wreck a teenagers life based on a stupid accident?
Me? Nope... if it was clearly an accident I wouldn't have done anything except to explain if he'd hit someone else they might have been seriously hurt and someone else might pursue it further. In a different time I'd possibly have given him a good shouting at but well, we can't do that anymore.
I'm just pointing out how I think a fair justice system should work.
non sequiter
But there’s no need for you to ask ‘how realistically he might have killed you’ because
I was asking to determine an idea of how reckless ...
And, as I said, his father should be charged with the maximum for the same reason.
Where have I stated "the maximum" ??? Had you started out saying it was an accident I'd have replied differently.
I don't really see why his father has anything to do with it? Were they together?
From my perspective the e-skateboard part is all but irrelevant. I'm not a fan but he'd probably have done more damage on a bike.
What I am advocating is the difference between an accident and not. If he'd thought to "give you a punishment knock" different to accident different to deliberately aiming at you.
What I am advocating is the difference between an accident and not.
Honestly, I don't know wtf you're advocating for because it changes every time you type.
nickjb
If that is the case then hopefully she now knows that she was completely wrong.
I think it's at least plausible that she did something really stupid ... when she tried to help she got told to sod off .. she has mental health issues and went shopping (other than turning herself in at that point seems as valid as anything)...
When the police found her she was told she was facing a minimum 1yr prison sentence and she basically went to shit.
Everything post that ...?? Mentally ill person feels they are being screwed over?
This thoughtlessness probably applies to a lot of dangerous driving, too.
Totally agree.... I just think the chance of major injury/death is greater.
Cougar
I suspect that’s true. I suspect that it’s also true of people who string up barbed wire at neck height on shared-use trails.
Before I do "the scenarios" I think they are at least fully aware their actions are going to and meant to lead to serious injury.
Scenario's
The assailant’s actions were identical in all cases. Should the sentencing be the same for all of them? And if so, then what should it be?
IMHO Scenario 2 with the normal sentencing criteria (If you read a few you'll see how they are set out) but there is provision for "though 77-year olds tend not to bounce too well" (e.g. vulnerability of victim)...because Scenario 3 is "but by the will of god"
No, needs to be illegal and dangerous. and the test is not whether the person acting illegally thinks it’s dangerous, but whether a “sober and reasonable bystander” would.
The subtly is in the definition of dangerous which in the definition means any physical harm whatsoever
I think theres also a Scenario 4- where the cyclist hits the pedestrian, who tumbles backward, hits her head off the pavement and dies of a brain hemorrhage.
Have you seen the video? This is a 77 year old cyclist. She is barely moving at the point of contact. If the pedestrian is fearful she makes no attempt to move even slightly out of the way.
I think she was reckless
Most importantly, so did a jury who convicted her unanimously based on the full evidence provided.
she has mental health issues and went shopping (other than turning herself in at that point seems as valid as anything)…
Did you read the judge's summary? He thinks that there's no mental health issue, Mrs Grey stated in police interviews that she has no intellectual impairment.
The subtly is in the definition of dangerous which in the definition means any physical harm whatsoever
the definition is "exposed to the risk of some harm not necessarily to the person who died" so no; not any physical harm whatsoever, and it's not down to "subtlety", it's down the direction of the judge based on the evidence presented and directions to the jury in each case. I think we all get that you don't like how you think the law works, but the wise words of Inago Montoya seem to be appropriate.
Did you read the judge’s summary? He thinks that there’s no mental health issue, Mrs Grey stated in police interviews that she has no intellectual impairment.
But in this case, Mrs Grey didn’t get three years just for possibly shoving Mrs Ward off the pavement, she got three years because she did that, then walked off to go shopping, lied to the cops on a number of occasions, refused to testify in three court cases and showed a total lack of remorse until the very last minute.
Not sure why we're still arguing.
This is a 77 year old cyclist. She is barely moving at the point of contact. If the pedestrian is fearful she makes no attempt to move even slightly out of the way.
the witness stated she'd actually stopped and then was pushed/suddenly flinched and fell into traffic. I don't think that's backed up by the video, but she's certainly going very slowly
The point seems so simple .. prosecute and sentence people according to their actions. (Justice) vs prosecute and sentence people according to chance outcome. (Revenge)
It wasn’t a chance outcome that she was prosecuted for. It was her actions before, during and after combined with said actions leading to the death of another human being. That’s pretty much the description of justice right there.
Not sure how you’re getting revenge from this. Who, exactly, is seeking to avenge the ladies death? That’s not what our legal system does. Yes it has its faults, but that’s not one of them.
Did you read the judge’s summary? He thinks that there’s no mental health issue, Mrs Grey stated in police interviews that she has no intellectual impairment.
Non sequiter...
Erich von Däniken or David Icke would say they had no intellectual impairment but they quack like a duck.
The bloke in the park who rants at people feeding pigeons... or the woman who screams at cyclists?
Totally ignoring the "what happened next after the confrontation" ... her behaviour is not consistent with someone without mental health issues. The following that she simultaneously refuses to help herself by giving evidence whilst showing no remorse seems a bit of a giveaway to me?
I get that dancing on the head of a pin is your idiom, you seem to be straying into moving the goal posts as a side gig. I’ll leave you to it
her behaviour is not consistent with someone without mental health issues. The following that she simultaneously refuses to help herself by giving evidence whilst showing no remorse seems a bit of a giveaway to me?
Do you have all the evidence and her medically history to hand to come to that conclusion? People with short tempers, a reluctance to cooperate with figures in authority and having little to no empathy don’t necessarily have mental health issues.
Non sequiter…
Yeah, it's not like the legal system has a process to establish the suitability of an individual's competency to stand trial or anything.
JFC, I thought you merely a mild irritant like chlamydia, now I realise you're more persistent like super-gonorrhea.
JFC, I thought you merely a mild irritant like chlamydia
More like thrush tbh.
Knows bugger all about anything but is evidently too stupid to realise and will argue with those who do until they get bored. Repeat ad nauseum.
Did you read the judge’s summary? He thinks that there’s no mental health issue, Mrs Grey stated in police interviews that she has no intellectual impairment.
… her behaviour is not consistent with someone without mental health issues.
That's not what he said, is it? He said that he didn't believe that her actions could be attributed to her mental health issues, not that she didn't have any. Or words to that effect, unless I'm misremembering.
Have you seen the video?
Of course I have. I know you did, but you dont appear to be that observant.
And are you aware of what Cerebral palsy does to its victims ?.
Affects walking and ability to move in general. And we do see her hobbling along. So we have a pedestrian who cannot jump clear, or move quickly enough to get clear of anything she sees coming towards her, and a cyclist, probably moving about 8mph. So at least the chances of Miss Grey knowing her own condition sees a cyclist heading directly towards her, and the fact she isnt able to jump clear.
The width of the pavement was noted at 2.4m or a little under 8'. Take another look and at the point they meet thee pavement is considerably less than that, and in fact i'd say it looks closer to 5' or a bit less.
And theres a lamp post at that exact point there is no room for the pedestrian to pass the cyclist.
This is a still from the BBC report. The cyclist ain't hanging about and the reporter isn't at the fence edge of the pavement. She doesn't even flinch.
She's standing well in front of the lamp post. So heres my capture, to which I've added some black lines so you can see approximates.
Bottom of this thread.
https://www.retrobike.co.uk/threads/angry-pedestrian-who-scared-cyclist-riding.458316/page-3#post-3381488
Jesus ****ing Christ, the mental gymnastics people go through on here sometimes to try and prove they know more than the 12 people on the jury who had all the facts and legal guidance, and the judge who also had medical reports.
Yeah, but there’s a thread on retrobike with a picture innit.
As I said above. You read the judge's summing up & then you read the crap people come up with on the internet..
She’s standing well in front of the lamp post.
So was Grey when she started yelling and flailing her arm about, she covered a couple of metres at least whilst she was ranting. She's slap in the middle of the pavement and doesn't even attempt to step aside, quite the opposite if anything, she moves closer over. That was not a woman who was scared of being unable to "jump clear" of an approaching pensioner, not while I've got a hole in my arse.
Having rewatched the video, I'm more convinced that she did push her. It's blink-and-you'll-miss-it, but just before the video cuts off she appears to turn towards her. Out of terror, obvs.
<div id="post-12749124" class="bbp-reply-header d-flex justify-content-between w-100">
<div class="bbp-reply-author d-flex align-items-center flex-wrap"></div>
</div>
<div class="p-0 loop-item-13 user-id-14213 bbp-parent-forum-180317 bbp-parent-topic-12741282 bbp-reply-position-174 even topic-author post-12749124 reply type-reply status-publish hentry">
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Whilst totally different from this case the sentencing was interesting
In what way was it interesting?
</div>
</div>
I think there were three interesting things for me:
1. the parents were also penalised; that’s not something I’ve seen before unless prosecuted for causing/permitting but I would assume they’d have been in adult court.
2. I think many people would see a 12 month referral order as getting off lightly for the outcome; I’m not criticising it. He was young, he’d didn’t see the victim (v’s the original case in this thread), there was no intent to cause harm/alarm. If anyone deserves punishment it was presumably his father who bought it (or whoever sold it to him).
3. But despite this there’s a driving ban which most people here would consider lengthy if it was a car v cyclist. I’m not sure that banning him from learning to drive until he is almost 20 is sensible. It felt to me like he might have been sentenced as though he was joy riding a car rather than an escooter.