Manslaughter of a cyclist

you don’t think someone who kills someone else should be punished?

That’s outcome based sentencing – what she did or didn’t do is the same regardless of chance.
If you look from the other side someone does a close pass and a cyclist comes off.. by some remarkable chance and unknown to either party someone fly tipped a mattress and a load of mulch the day/week before and they are miraculously unhurt… or someone fly tipped a 8′ long sharpened stake that goes through their head

In this we now have 2x manslaughter if they dumped the sharpened stake…

You can view the same with razor wire and stakes on trails… just because someone didn’t die doesn’t change what they did…

As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians.

Cycling home a couple of weeks ago I was cut up by a driver and had to hit the brakes to avoid a collision. Just a little further up the road a lady with toddler and pushchair were waiting to cross at the zebra crossing.
As I had already slowed down, I stopped to allow them to cross when a car drove into my back wheel forcing me forwards narrowly missing the pushchair. Fortunately, no injuries or damage to the bike.
How the driver missed my Trace R on daybright setting is now in the hands of the Police. My guess is that he was on the phone.

As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians.

Doesn’t take me any effort at all.

“a little further up the road a lady with toddler and pushchair were waiting to cross at the zebra crossing.
As I had already slowed down, I stopped to allow them to cross ”

erm…….because otherwise you would have just cycled into them? Surely you would have stopped whatever speed you were doing? I know you only have to give way by law if they are actually on the crossing but as they were waiting…..

…….because otherwise you would have just cycled into them?

If I’m being honest, due to just having a near miss with the car that cut me up my mind wasn’t as focused as maybe it should have been and stopping to let the pedestrians cross gave me a few seconds to calm down.
The lady joked afterwards that it would have been better for everyone if I’d just carried on.
Before making judgement, you really need all of the facts or witnessed the event to understand. To claim that I would have cycled into a mother and toddler is way off the mark.

“Before making judgement, you really need all of the facts or witnessed the event to understand”

You provided all of the facts first time around, or clearly enough for me to relate to anyway (probably because I’ve had similar happen to myself…)

Good point about being in shock after a near miss, always good to stop for a minute or two to collect your thoughts.

You provided all of the facts first time around

Come now. It was an anecdote, not a witness statement in preparation for cross-examination by The Prosecution.

erm…….because otherwise you would have just cycled into them? Surely you would have stopped whatever speed you were doing? I know you only have to give way by law if they are actually on the crossing but as they were waiting…..

…the OP had no obligation to stop. What’s your point?

Either the highway code applies or it doesn’t, which is it?

The highway code isn’t law. But, from the govt website:
Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing

So yes the OP had an obligation to stop but would not of broken the law if he hadn’t. The highway code applies as does the law.

My point such as it was, was only that assuming the OP hadn’t been cut up by a car he would not of stopped.

As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians.

I was making the point that by being courteous led to a situation which could have had a completely different outcome. Fortunately I didn’t receive any injuries from being struck by a car and my front wheel narrowly missing the pushchair carrying a baby.
Thankfully, not like the tragic outcome of the incident in the OP.

The highway code isn’t law.

The bits in capitals are.

would not of

“have”

If the highway code rule says MUST or MUST NOT it’s law.
The relevant law is quoted underneath.
e.g.

Rule 69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD schedule 3 part 3, schedule 7 part 4, schedule 9 parts 4 and 6, schedule 13 part 6, schedule 14 part 2

Jeebus H Christ are you lot quibbling over the HWC and stopping for Peds at a crossing? Did you not read the first page?

Anyway back on the actual topic, I’m honestly surprised a custodial sentence was handed down and TBH glad. The tabloid froth will subside the untimely death of someone’s Wife/Mum/etc isn’t in anyway made up for, but at least a wrong has been recognised.

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…

She’ll be out with most of her 50s ahead of her and a story to tell. Hopefully she gets access to anger management councillors inside.

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…

Totally agree with this and I do think this applies to public life in general, not just disputes that happen to involve a bike. I haven’t seen the judges reasoning (though I’m sure its available somewhere) but I do wonder if he or she passed the sentence they did because they’re tired of seeing this sort of thing happening due to turbo charged media/internet hate campaigns infecting all of our lives.

Just seen this, the judge’s summing up remarks.

“You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.

“Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.

“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.

“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 have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.

“You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities. Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.

“I have been referred to the guidelines on unlawful act manslaughter issued by the Sentencing Council and have heard submissions from both parties.

“In terms of the guidance, looking at these matters in the round, culpability C is made out, but towards the lower end of the scale.

“A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to whether harm would be caused.

“I reject the submission that this is best framed in terms of category D for reasons I have indicated.”

Aggravating factors

“The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.

“The effect on Mrs Carla Money (in so far as her first statement extends). Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable.”

Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation

“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.

“You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years old. This stands to your credit.

“Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.

“Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.

“As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.

“Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your disabilities and do not hold it against you.

“There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.

“I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.

“Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment.”

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.