Forum menu
That reads like a very fair and balanced decision. The judge appears to have weighed a _lot_ of things before making the sentencing decision and it is difficult to see how the decision can be criticised for not being fair.
That is a subjective opinion though.
I know judges aren’t perfect, but you read that rational, balanced, impartial & logical summing up then you compare it to what the press & social media come out with…
+1 - the same was said after the Battersby case, the time, care and thought that went into these judgements is immense and yet can be totally undermined by a headline writer looking to create clicks.
Just seen this, the judge’s summing up remarks.
The judge is following the sentencing - I'm more put off by people's reactions to what is essentially an accident for what without it would be at best a very minor offense. The law as it stands merely asks if a death is from either an action that was illegal or they failed a duty of care...
So she may or may not have touched the cyclist who may or may not have been illegally cycling on a pavement who through a random freak occurrence then died??
I'm not excusing the aggressor here I'm trying to point out had the cyclist not fallen, not fallen into a car and died the sum total of what she actually did was get angry and shout and wave her arm at someone possibly (or probably her belief) illegally cycling on a pavement. I'm amazed neither of these has been determined to a criminal level.. as in beyond a reasonable doubt and that a fairly minor offense of shouting and waving at someone aggressively is a threshold.
[Two reasons for these two IMHO - 1 is assault by shouting and gesticulating wildly really a threshold should be applied to manslaughter and 2 - is shouting and gesticulating wildly not appropriate to someone breaking the law]
Far from this discouraging this behaviour the sense of othering in this makes me feel it will have entirely the opposite effect
I find it hard to believe that a reasonable person (let alone DM reader) would have thought that this ending as it did in death would be beyond a remote possibility whereas I think most reasonable people would have thought Matt Hancock knowingly sent people to their death in care homes.
If we look at Duty of Care being failed we have Matt Hancock still walking about after taking deliberate actions he absolutely knew were going to kill thousands/tens of thousands...
Hopefully it sends a message to those wandering about fuelled by DM rage, to wait a moment before barging their righteous way into a manslaughter charge…
I don't think/believe people fuelled with DM (or other) rage are really thinking rationally.
Oxford definition
noun
violent uncontrollable anger.
"her face was distorted with rage"
verb
feel or express violent uncontrollable anger.
"he raged at the futility of it all"
Anyway... the role of the DM in this is a little speculative but either way I think her anger/rage was at least in part due to her experiences with other cyclists who probably genuinely scared the shit out of her and this will have less than no effect on anyone else shouting and gesticulating wildly at a cyclist that either scares them or they think is acting illegally and no DM reader is likely to actually stop and consider before they verbally assault a cyclist they think is riding illegally on a pavement.
So she may or may not have touched the cyclist who may or may not have been illegally cycling on a pavement who through a random freak occurrence then died??
The what, now?
Someone clearly hasn't read the bit about it being (in the judge's opinion - and therefore the law in this case) a shared path.
From the footage the victim was not riding aggressively. The pedestrian was indeed being aggressive. It wasn't a random freak accident, in the sense that the cause was someone losing their temper, gesticulating and (as admitted) making probable contact with the victim, resulting in death.
I'm concerned that riding on a shared path/pavement is either being used as an equivalence of wrong-doing, or at worst, as a justification of causing someone's death.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding regards the duty of reasonable care required to be proven on the balance of probability in a civil court, and the fact that an independent jury, after hearing all the evidence and legal thresholds, have found her guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, as required in a criminal court.
It's a tragic case. Tragic actions have tragic consequences for all involved.
cyclist who may or may not have been illegally cycling on a pavement
in their Summary the judge calls it a shared path, and I’m not sure that the legal status of where she was riding makes a difference in a case where the ped was acting needlessly aggressively
an independent jury, after hearing all the evidence and legal thresholds, have found her guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, as required in a criminal court.
You left out unanimously. The only thing that appears not proven beyond reasonable doubt is the contact with the deceased (which likely would constitute a murder charge for pushing a cyclist into traffic). I think the judgement is very well written and the sentence appropriate.
I’m concerned that riding on a shared path/pavement is either being used as an equivalence of wrong-doing, or at worst, as a justification of causing someone’s death.
That isn't what I'm saying... (I'm aware that there may well be DM readers saying that)
What I'm saying is shouting and waving (“it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. ) at someone in the midst of a what you believe to be criminal act isn't IMHO unreasonable act and unless some accident happened as a consequence doesn't seem would have led to a 3yr sentence.
in their Summary the judge calls it a shared path,
Key words here "I think"
“This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.
I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding regards the duty of reasonable care required to be proven on the balance of probability in a civil court, and the fact that an independent jury, after hearing all the evidence and legal thresholds, have found her guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, as required in a criminal court.
Not all all, I'm questioning the system of sentencing on outcome .. the judge seems to have followed the guidelines.
Putting razor wire across trails or sharpened stakes is an act far more likely to cause death and with a far greater (IMHO) knowledge that outcome is reasonably likely ... yet UNLESS someone dies it's barely even considered a crime worth bothering the courts.
It seems to me that in 2023 having a legal system based on random outcomes is a fairly backwards system.
So how would you have summed it up and what sentence would you have given if it were up to you? (god help us)
@stevextc you appear to be barking at the clouds, virtually every RTC is sentenced based on outcome because more often than not road users get away with bad driving on the meer fact that no collision occurs & no investigation into their actions or inactions is carried out.
So how would you have summed it up and what sentence would you have given if it were up to you? (god help us)
Firstly I think the judge should have actually either found out if it was a shared path or not mentioned what they "think" but I am not saying they otherwise didn't follow the letter of the guidelines.
My view isn't that they misapplied the law/guidelines but that it's 2023 and we have a legal system based on outcome not acts.
To take my above example with razor wire across trails I think it should be dealt with and sentenced as attempted** murder...not wait for someone to die
**OK I realise that's outcome a bit...
What I’m saying is shouting and waving (“it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. ) at someone in the midst of a what you believe to be criminal act isn’t IMHO unreasonable
For most people looking at this scenario; a 77 year old woman slowly cycling on a wide, probably shared path doesn't warrant being shouted at let alone run the risk of possibly being assaulted regardless of the level of criminality.
I think most people would conclude that in the round; Mrs Grey has acted unreasonably (walked away and continued to shop, offered no remorse until the very last minute, lied continually to the police on investigation, offered no defence in trails 1 and 2 etc etc etc)
Perhaps the reason the nature of the pavement wasn't clarified was that it isn't relevant to the criminal charge. You aren't entitled to assault a cyclist even if they are cycling on a pavement where they have no right to be.
Putting razor wire across trails or sharpened stakes is an act far more likely to cause death and with a far greater (IMHO) knowledge that outcome is reasonably likely … yet UNLESS someone dies it’s barely even considered a crime worth bothering the courts.
I'm not aware of anyone being caught for these type of offences, but happy to be given examples.
Firstly I think the judge should have actually either found out if it was a shared path or not mentioned what they “think” but I am not saying they otherwise didn’t follow the letter of the guidelines.
For what it's worth, I drove through there yesterday, there is fairly definite shared path signage on that section now.
Presumably it was always a shared path, there just wasn't a sign on that specific section.
For most people looking at this scenario; a 77 year old woman slowly cycling on a wide, probably shared path doesn’t warrant being shouted at let alone run the risk of possibly being assaulted regardless of the level of criminality.
My guess on the balance of probability is both thought the were in the right because I'm struggling to understand how the judge cannot say with absolute 100% certainty if it was or wasn't unless it was ambiguous.
I'm not condoning it I'm asking if 3yrs is a reasonable sentence regardless of outcome or based on "probably outcome".
I think most people would conclude that in the round; Mrs Grey has acted unreasonably (walked away and continued to shop, offered no remorse until the very last minute, lied continually to the police on investigation, offered no defence in trails 1 and 2 etc etc etc)
“You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.
Again acting unreasonably doesn't seem consistent with a 3yr sentence had no one died.
and being "evasive and telling lies to the police doesn't seem to warrant 3yrs"... putting razor wire across trails however probably does REGARDLESS of outcome.
I’m not aware of anyone being caught for these type of offences, but happy to be given examples.
https://road.cc/content/news/pensionsers-admit-laying-traps-cyclists-n-yorks-path-273489
"spoken to by police"
There have been a couple of other similar cases with similar outcomes. Informal warning at best it seems.
I’m not aware of anyone being caught for these type of offences, but happy to be given examples.
So it seems the police aren't taking these very seriously unless someone dies
they won't because we are in an "outcome based system"...
catch-22
but I see crazy-legs posted the link was posted here not long ago...
Take another example of (deliberate/punishment) close passes if you like... plenty of those with video
My point is in these the driver did the EXACT same thing regardless of the cyclist getting away, suffering minor injuries or dying. Not "some stern words"
To me there is some middle ground where the driver realises there is a potential for serious injury/accident and the charge and sentencing should be exactly the same regardless of what is essentially chance.
Both these are deliberate attempts to injure someone seriously... one premeditated the other perhaps less so?
IMHO both of these are more serious regardless of if someone is or isn't injured/killed.
From what I've read I don't believe that serious injury or death was the intention or even considered a possibility
Not all all, I’m questioning the system of sentencing on outcome
Arguably that's all manslaughter is though. It's killing someone by the consequence of your actions, where it could be forseen that those actions would result in someone dying, without nesecerily having intent.
Which is why the sentence is 3 years not 30. You could get comparable sentencing for ABH/GBH for pushing someone off a bike?
Without the video footage, I doubt it would have ended up in court, let alone with the sentence that was handed down. But there is footage, so it resulted in that sentence. Conversely, if the camera was closer or pointing directly at the incident, it might have resulted in a murder charge.
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.
My view isn’t that they misapplied the law/guidelines but that it’s 2023 and we have a legal system based on outcome not acts.
I understand what you're saying and I agree to an extent but it is unworkable. At extreme we'd be sentencing people to prison time for RLJing because they 'could have' hit a pedestrian or another car and killed them. A reasonably foreseeable outcome if you don't stop at a traffic light, no?
Instead, 3 points and £100 fine.
But much as I detest RLJers, or phone users, or people who speed and then mount the pavement outside the school just up the road because they refuse to wait for oncoming traffic, we don't have the wherewithal to give them act based sentences.
OTOH, taking a weapon into a shopping centre but being a shit shot - clearly that does deserve to be sentenced based on the act rather than the outcome.
IDK the answer.
thisisnotaspoon
apologies for cut/paste ...
Arguably that’s all manslaughter is though. It’s killing someone by the consequence of your actions, ..... without nesecerily having intent.
Agree...
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".
Which is why the sentence is 3 years not 30. You could get comparable sentencing for ABH/GBH for pushing someone off a bike?
Assuming she did. push her off not just shout and wave her arm.. which seems undetermined
As I said ^^^^
The judge is following the sentencing – I’m more put off by people’s reactions to what is essentially an accident for what without it would be at best a very minor offense.
Reading the summing up her pushing her off the bike doesn't seem to have evidence and that IMHO should be what is being sentenced (realising that this isn't how manslaughter law is written).
thecaptain
Perhaps the reason the nature of the pavement wasn’t clarified was that it isn’t relevant to the criminal charge.
Then why was it mentioned in the summing up ???
You aren’t entitled to assault a cyclist even if they are cycling on a pavement where they have no right to be.
Define assault ?
Am I allowed to raise my voice at a burglar climbing through a window?
Perhaps the reason the nature of the pavement wasn’t clarified was that it isn’t relevant to the criminal charge.
The one notable thing from this was that the pavement was measured as 2.4 metres wide. It looks narrower on the video. It will have definitely been measured with care! It has been ruled that the nature of the pavement is a shared use path. And at that width, this seems a reasonable judgement too.
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.