Manslaughter of a cyclist

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?

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)

that is literally the difference between a manslaughter, and a murder charge, though surely?

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.

View post on imgur.com

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 **** 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.