Manslaughter of a cyclist

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………

Joshua Rozenberg has posted the judge’s sentencing notes on his blog.

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.

@mefty did you not notice I posted those notes a page back?

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 some 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

Here you go. 

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.