Manslaughter of a cyclist

Cougar

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.

I’m just saying she walks and quacks like a duck.(and in that context I don’t disagree with you this wasn’t her first time).. see the circular argument below.

What concerns me is:
1) that the justice system is a (increasingly) populist/political and that the summary underneath (not mine, don’t disagree) is not and should not be relevant to sentencing. Satisfying the DM reading braying should not be guiding sentencing.

with short tempers, a reluctance to cooperate with figures in authority and having little to no empathy.

The whole idea that many seem to support of an “attitude test” is totally nauseating and middle ages..
The idea of outcome based sentencing to me is an indication we don’t have a working justice system…

2) In terms of her mental health or whatever we term “a reluctance to cooperate with figures in authority and having little to no empathy” I am concerned this has been used and leveraged by the prosecution to try and achieve a desired outcome.

3)

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.

I am reading the LITERAL summing up and the LITERAL sentencing guidelines.

Did she push/hit her? The issue I have is it doesn’t matter as the definition of common assault is a very low bar.

Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.

There is a guy in our local park, sleeps in one of the homeless shelters who rants and chases people feeding his pigeons .. if one of them falls and by some freak dies he’s straight into manslaughter and a 1yr minimum sentence. I don’t have access to his medical records etc. buy my (unpopular) opinion is he needs some help not waiting until he does something he can be locked up for.

I don’t disagree with what you said that the defendant has probably been doing this on more than one occasion and in retrospect she is IMHO to some extent being having the book thrown at her when a civilised society would have given her the help and support she needed and hopefully this wouldn’t have happened.

Veteran Judge, Dame Janet Smith concluded Shipman had no mental health issues…

Harold Shipman, Serial Killer: Mad, Bad or … What? Our righteous horror revisited

however a later perspective?

But labelling Shipman as a ‘psychopath’ gives us merely a tautological so vacuous designation, but not a human explanation. [ie Why did he do what he did? Because he is a psychopath. How do we know he is a psychopath? Because he did what he did …]

We could go round in circles .. like this. What I am questioning really is was someone “with short tempers, a reluctance to cooperate with figures in authority and having little to no empathy” given help or exploited?

There is a guy in our local park, sleeps in one of the homeless shelters who rants and chases people feeding his pigeons .. if one of them falls and by some freak dies he’s straight into manslaughter and a 1yr minimum sentence

In that scenario, for appropriate equivalence; if that person is pushed into an icy lake at the park by the pigeon feeder (who has a history of similar aggressiveness), and then watches as the victim drowns, then goes off to buy more bread from the shops to feed the pigeons, followed by 3 years of not co-operating with the authorities, passing the required tests to show whether their mental faculties are at an appropriate level for trial, and (crucially) not showing any remorse whatsoever until a brief points out that it’s probably jail time, then yes.

If your point is that people like him need help, then of course. But that’s not the utopia we live in, is it.

There is a guy in our local park, sleeps in one of the homeless shelters who rants and chases people feeding his pigeons .. if one of them falls and by some freak dies he’s straight into manslaughter and a 1yr minimum sentence.

That’s not how it works. The “guidelines” bit is the giveaway. That’s why in his summary of Mrs Grey the Judge starts at 4 years (the guidelines) and taking into account her health issues, as well as the offence reduces her sentence to 3. In your park example, his mental health condition would also be taken into account. And I dare say the body/bodies responsible for his care would have some questions to answer in the case.

Your use of the word “literal” when it comes to how you think the justice system works should reveal to you that the justice system doesn’t work they way you think it does.

[insert picture of Inago Montoya here/]

In that scenario, for appropriate equivalence; if that person is pushed into an icy lake at the park by the pigeon feeder (who has a history of similar aggressiveness), and then watches as the victim drowns, is pushed into an icy lake at the park by the pigeon feeder (who has a history of similar aggressiveness), and then watches as the victim drowns,

In that scenario, for appropriate equivalence; if that person is pushed into an icy lake

So we should DETERMINE if they were pushed or just ran? (For equivalence) because the law doesn’t require that if he shouted and shook a fist because that is common assault. Regardless of what you/I etc. think from a video in the summing up the judge has not determined if she was pushed or not. I understand the judge doesn’t NEED to because she shouted and raised an arm… that’s common assault and she clearly does that.

they get told to sod off when trying to help the drowning person and do….

not showing any remorse whatsoever until a brief points out that it’s probably jail time

And if the police point out it is definitely jail time in the first interview because they have enough evidence of common assault to make this unlawful manslaughter? What I’m saying is if their line on questioning starts off by “We have you for common assault whether you touched her or not we don’t care we are putting you in prison whatever you say or do”

There are numerous mental health conditions would mean she can’t FEEL remorse… just as there are conditions would prevent someone faking it.

If your point is that people like him need help, then of course. But that’s not the utopia we live in, is it.

No but I don’t think retrospectively trying to pin a more serious charge on them is a step towards that utopia.
What I’m missing is other than political reasons and populist braying what is actually positively achieved by her charge and sentence?

Assuming the pigeon guy has access to TV/papers…. and see’s this I honestly don’t think this is a deterrent to him.
He’s not IMHO going to suddenly think “oh what if I shout at someone and raise my fist and they run into the pond and die”…

In your park example, his mental health condition would also be taken into account.

What mental health condition? Do you know him and have access to his health records or are you doing what I am and saying he’s walking and quacking like a duck?

Your use of the word “literal” when it comes to how you think the justice system works should reveal to you that the justice system doesn’t work they way you think it does.

I think the prosecution and judge don’t CARE if she pushed her or not… because it doesn’t matter they have common assault and they can escalate that into unlawful manslaughter and use that threat and her “quacking” to manipulate her.

I know how the justice system works… they lie and pressure people into confessing. I’ve been on the receiving end of this to the point I almost confessed to something I couldn’t possibly have done because I wasn’t in the country and as it happened had my passport stamped.

I know how the justice system works… they lie and pressure people into confessing. I’ve been on the receiving end of this to the point I almost confessed to something I couldn’t possibly have done because I wasn’t in the country and as it happened had my passport stamped.

You’ve talked about your issues before, but I’m afraid that just because the system **** up sometimes, it doesn’t mean it **** up every time. Obviously we all view the world through the prism of our experience.

There is a guy in our local park, sleeps in one of the homeless shelters who rants and chases people feeding his pigeons ..

Sounds like the line from a Cat Stevens song.

What mental health condition

The condition of the individual’s mental health; similarly, their physical condition. Not to be confused with any illness they suffer from, which may be labelled as a condition. I’m not labelling anyone I see with ‘X’,’Y’ or ‘Z’ in a strawman argument.

Why are you all still engaging? You may as well debate with your toilet brush.

It’s a fair point. At least that might have a pair of tweezers as a bonus

Why are you all still engaging? You may as well debate with your toilet brush.

Maybe their toilet brush made more coherent arguments so they have gone back to this thread instead?

I know how the justice system works… they lie and pressure people into confessing. I’ve been on the receiving end of this to the point I almost confessed to something I couldn’t possibly have done because I wasn’t in the country and as it happened had my passport stamped.

So because you had a bad experience the entire system is broken? That’s not how it works. Actions have consequences, sometimes very serious ones. The judge in this case seems to have made a sound decision. He has weighed up all the evidence. Likely has access to things we don’t know about and come to a conclusion. I’m glad the outcome is what it is.

What mental health condition? Do you know him and have access to his health records or are you doing what I am and saying he’s walking and quacking like a duck?

Eh? The judge prosecution and defence would have access or have him evaluated. What’s your point exactly?

Your quacks like a duck comment is frankly insulting. I know people with mental health conditions and you wouldn’t have a clue about them. I also know people with physical impairments and it doesn’t affect their mental faculties at all.

MoreCashThanDash

You’ve talked about your issues before, but I’m afraid that just because the system **** up sometimes, it doesn’t mean it **** up every time. Obviously we all view the world through the prism of our experience.

funkmasterp

So because you had a bad experience the entire system is broken?

This is 2 parts…. both influence the other in catch-22

1/ The “system” is what enables individuals to be stitched up/framed
2/ Having had these experiences in the past I/we/she are expected to respect the system just because?

unlawful manslaughter is a definition that is either designed or accidentally allows for the exploitation of those classed as undesirable

I can’t really work out if I repeat what happened to me first or what I see from my experience for the defendant.
Short version of what happened to me is a DS decided I’d forged some signature on a giro and cashed it.
I was 13/14? at the time but the first thing they did was put me in a room alone separate to my mother.
The next thing he did was say how he had proof I had done it (and made a load up) and that I was going to be convicted of this whatever BUT unless I cooperated and signed a confession (he had already written) I would be taken and put into care.

This went on for an hour? maybe 2 hours but what started off as me thinking I didn’t do it so you have no evidence simultaneously began to go between me doubting myself and me signing the confession to avoid going into care.

Whatever the reason or combination of the above I remember thinking I should just sign his confession… until he made the mistake of showing the fake signature on the giro… as soon as I saw the post office date stamp I knew 100% I was in Switzerland at that time and I had a stamp in my passport to prove it.

When I informed him I was told to go and get my passport… and whilst I was doing this he joined his partner and told my mother I’d confessed and would be taken into care unless she signed the pre-written statement they had already written.

Quite obviously all this “evidence” they had was made up or coerced .. I 100% wasn’t in the country a whole week either side of this so any witness statements of me going into the post office and being recognised were false….

BUT .. that’s not what shakes my belief in the system. What does that is my cousin is/was a solicitor and strongly advised my mother not to pursue this if she didn’t want to be persecuted and that they were just going to lie in any case.

I haven’t seen anything wider that leads me to believe unlawful manslaughter is being sought in any sort of fair or even handed way when for example Ian Tomlinson’s killer was not charged with unlawful manslaughter (or indeed has ANY officer EVER) … or was his assault on Ian Tomlinson enough to even cause those officers observing it or any of the other assaults he committed as worth bothering about.

He has weighed up all the evidence. Likely has access to things we don’t know about and come to a conclusion.

He’s come a conclusion based on a law that is either designed or by accident to allow one charge to be escalated to another for political or individual reasons.

Despite all these internet lawyers on here keep saying “that’s not how the law works” Blackbelt Barrister has summed this up so feel free to watch on his channel.
Unlawful manslaughter has a minimum 1yr custodial sentence so regardless of how trivial/serious the “unlawful act” is that allows this to be brought the judge has no leeway on the custodial sentence they can move the length up/down but there is no option other than a custodial sentence.

However, the judge is not the one decided HOW this would be investigated or what charges were brought.

Your quacks like a duck comment is frankly insulting.

You can choose to find anything insulting… her lack of defending herself, failure to even fake remorse not to mention her actions do not seem to be the actions of someone who is not vulnerable.
Her lack of respect for “a system” I find equally irrelevant/concerning ?? Why would she have respect for a system that has failed her in the past but that being the case why wouldn’t she simply fake it?

If I take my interrogation as my experience then this started off by “we have proof and you are going into care unless you cooperate” .. I see no reason to believe why she wasn’t told “we have proof and you are going to prison one way or another” . who and why was it in the public interest to investigate as unlawful manslaughter

Actions have consequences, sometimes very serious ones.

and all I have said is the sentence should be based on actions not outcomes.
Had the victim fallen the other way… not fallen etc. or been deferent to authority or not the defendants actions were the same.

If you remove the outcome then all the evidence I have seen (and that reviwed by blackbelt barrister) but MORE IMPORTANTLY the judges summing up is the only thing beyond a reasonable doubt she did is common assault.

Did she as some on here have said “shove her into the road deliberately”? Regardless of what people might want to see neither the eyewitness or video show this beyond a reasonable doubt NOR does the summing up

Did she touch her ? It LOOKS like it in the video but I couldn’t say beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither does the eye witness … or summing up. All we have is the confession and for the reasons above I find that hard to trust.

Someone gave an example of an electric skateboard earlier… asking if “the teenagers life should be ruined” (sic) because of a stupid act?
I didn’t answer but the question is the same isn’t it? Had the person died or just had bruises why should that determine the charges if it was an accident? Obviously its horrific if they had died … but the kid did the same thing.

Your ‘duck’ analogy holds up only in so far as it assumes that the observer is unaware of the existence other birds. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a moorhen.

Did she as some on here have said “shove her into the road deliberately”? Regardless of what people might want to see neither the eyewitness or video show this beyond a reasonable doubt NOR does the summing up

Did she touch her ? It LOOKS like it in the video but I couldn’t say beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither does the eye witness … or summing up. All we have is the confession and for the reasons above I find that hard to trust.

Does it matter?

She forced her into the road, whether that was through physical contact or intimidation. I think we can say “beyond reasonable doubt” that this was a deliberate action. Even if for the sake of argument we accept your flight of fancy that she was coerced into a confession, it changes nothing.

Cougar

Your ‘duck’ analogy holds up only in so far as it assumes that the observer is unaware of the existence other birds. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a moorhen.

Or a coot… but what I can read in the summing up doesn’t make me thing she was really not having MH issues because nothing in there (including your she’s probably done it before) sounds like a healthy MH state. My point really here is she was/is certainly “something” and her lack of defence (even faux) don’t make me think someone in interrogation thought “she’s a bit <<insert phrase least likely to offend>> – we shouldn’t take advantage of that and quite possibly the reverse.

I’m not excusing the crime on this .. (really) … I’m offering what to me is a plausible explanation as to why she didn’t even try and help herself and at least faux cooperate or show faux remorse when her brief would/should have informed her this was in her best interests. I have no respect at all for the system – but I think I could manage some fake respect and fake cooperation if I was told by a solicitor it was going to reduce my sentence.

Does it matter?
She forced her into the road, whether that was through physical contact or intimidation. I think we can say “beyond reasonable doubt” that this was a deliberate action.

She ended up in the road but the evidence I saw video, the summing up and the same video reviewed by a barrister (who is incidentally saying legally it’s correct) I’m honestly struggling with beyond a reasonable doubt or that being the only outcome. You said earlier ^^^ something like “shoved into the road where she thought she belonged” – and whilst she ended up in the road I absolutely can’t see that being deliberate as the cyclist wobbles … I’ll freely admit I can’t say she didn’t but that IS reasonable doubt.

This is the question I’m raising and this is IMHO something that can be OPINION in how laws are written and guidelines around them. To use your earlier phrase should what someone is charged with be subject to “but for the will of god(s)” and IF so then for what purpose?

Do you really think this is an effective deterrent to some rage riven DM reader trying to intimidate a cyclist? Are they really going to stop and think “if this goes wrong I’m being done for unlawful manslaughter”? –
I can’t see that because they aren’t thinking “if it goes wrong” or for that matter thinking.

Like the kid on the e-skateboard… if for some reason it had all gone wrong in a terrible and tragic way I just can’t see how “it going wrong” is the point?

Obviously I can see the deceased friends and family are going to see this differently in most cases but I’m missing how it’s “in the public interest” and by whom and why (what criteria) that is determined.
(For example the death of Ian Tomlinson – it was decided it wasn’t “in the public interest”)

The general sequence is :
Police called – > Police investigate and decide what charges they are “pushing” -> CPS in public interest -> Court
There is a little “do you have evidence for the charges” but the judge doesn’t decide what the charges are.
CPS

The public interest stage
If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both stages.

The question really is if you/I/we are happy that the laws are written such that the CPS decide if it is in the public interest and if they are doing that based on balanced evidence or biased evidence looking to screw someone over.

As an example of something I see as more progressive the sentencing guidelines for burglary have been updated from an overwhelming emphasis on the VALUE in ££££ of the items to including harm.

Even so the category (determining sentencing) is still based on:

Category 1 Very high value goods stolen (above £100,000) or high value with significant additional harm to the victim or others
Category 2 High value goods stolen (£10,000 to £100,000) and no significant additional harm or Medium value with significant additional harm to the victim or others
Category 3 Medium value goods stolen (£500 to £10,000) and no significant additional harm or Low value with significant additional harm to the victim or others
Category 4 Low value goods stolen (up to £500) and little or no significant additional harm to the victim or others

I don’t know about you but I don’t happen to have any possessions in the Cat 1 or Cat 2 categories… other than my house which for obvious reasons can’t be picked up and stolen.

Even if for the sake of argument we accept your flight of fancy that she was coerced into a confession, it changes nothing.

I’m looking at this the opposite way… that is you don’t/shouldn’t need to accept this is what happened rather you need to be absolutely sure it didn’t (UNLESS you think that its acceptable).

Or a coot…

Point was, your opinion is biased because of your negative experiences. You’re likely not the only one, this is a quite astonishing read:

So here it is. My full account of how I ended up being arrested for being a pedestrian. And unlike the Police Officer's statements, it actually bears some resemblance to the facts!

https://t.co/VJnOIrFGvx

— Harry (@Harry_is_human) March 12, 2023

https://medium.com/@harrythetallcyclist/how-i-got-arrested-for-being-a-pedestrian-a66bd3c86472

… but is it fair to assume that either case is representative?

but what I can read in the summing up doesn’t make me thing she was really not having MH issues because nothing in there (including your she’s probably done it before) sounds like a healthy MH state.
…
we shouldn’t take advantage of that and quite possibly the reverse.

Well, quite. The judge concluded that her mental health wasn’t relevant to the case. But following your train of thought here, even if she wasn’t locked up there surely had to be some form of intervention because she’s a clear and present danger to others.

whilst she ended up in the road I absolutely can’t see that being deliberate as the cyclist wobbles … I’ll freely admit I can’t say she didn’t but that IS reasonable doubt.

In isolation I’d agree with you, but the several seconds previous to the altercation where she’s screaming to “get off the **** pavement” and flailing her arm about is pretty conclusively damning IMHO.

Do you really think this is an effective deterrent to some rage riven DM reader trying to intimidate a cyclist?

Well, it’s an effective deterrent to her doing it again.

Are they really going to stop and think “if this goes wrong I’m being done for unlawful manslaughter”?

You keep saying this as though there’s a lawful manslaughter, so I looked it up. Manslaughter is either: intent to murder but there are mitigating circumstances (eg “diminished responsibility”); death due to gross negligence; or death due to an unlawful act. In this case it’s presumably the latter, the unlawful act being common assault.

I’m looking at this the opposite way… that is you don’t/shouldn’t need to accept this is what happened rather you need to be absolutely sure it didn’t (UNLESS you think that its acceptable).

There’s CCTV footage. For practical purposes it matters not a fig what she may or may not have confessed to and how that confession was obtained, you can go see watch the incident for yourself. If anything, a contrite confession might actually have worked in her favour here.

… but what I can read in the summing up doesn’t make me thing she was really not having MH issues because nothing in there (including your she’s probably done it before) sounds like a healthy MH state. My point really here is she was/is certainly “something” and her lack of defence (even faux) don’t make me think someone in interrogation thought “she’s a bit <<insert phrase least likely to offend>> – we shouldn’t take advantage of that and quite possibly the reverse.

Here’s what the judge said in his sentencing remarks:

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. … …. 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.

The reason the police have asked that question is because they know that if she was a vulnerable person she needed to have an Appropriate Adult there, I don’t think your experiences (which presumably were some time ago) are really reflective of modern police interview techniques.  In cases like this the interviews are all videod and recorded and the police know they have to keep everything 100% “by the book” because otherwise the defence team will get the judge to make the whole process inadmissible.  If her solicitor thought there should be an appropriate adult there then even if the police thought it probably was overkill, they’d almost certainly have done it.  If her Barrister thought that she had a mental health issue either at the time of the incident or the interview it would have been a factor at trial, with evidence to support it and lengthy debate on the admissibility of the police interview.  Post conviction she will have been interviewed by a social worker for the pre-sentence report.  Your assumption, having watched 30s of video and read a press report is that you are better at spotting mental health issues than:

– police officers

– crown prosecutors

– defence solicitors

– criminal barristers

– criminal justice social workers

– a judge

All of who see people with cognitive difficulties all the time, and have had extensive time with the lady in question and able to ask questions and hear answers, as well as talk to other people who know her.

I assume the judge and jury saw more than the short video clip we saw.  The jury gave a unanimous verdict – 12 people saw and heard all the evidence, had very detailed instructions from the judge on the various ways that she could be found not-guilt and ALL concluded she was guilty.

I’m not excusing the crime on this .. (really) … I’m offering what to me is a plausible explanation as to why she didn’t even try and help herself and at least faux cooperate or show faux remorse when her brief would/should have informed her this was in her best interests.

Her solicitor and barrister can’t tell her to plead guilty.  They can only make her aware of the options, the evidence against her and the benefits that would be expected from pleasing guilty.  They also shouldn’t tell her to present to have remorse if she has none.  But if she believable had said, “look I’m devastated she’s dead, but I really don’t think its my fault” I’d be very surprised if they didn’t find a way to get that message across in court.

I have no respect at all for the system – but I think I could manage some fake respect and fake cooperation if I was told by a solicitor it was going to reduce my sentence.

She plead not-guilty.  You can’t really plead not-guilt and then expect a discount for cooperation!

I’m honestly struggling with beyond a reasonable doubt

OK but you’ve got 30s clip and a press article.  The jury will have seen more.  They heard evidence from multiple witnesses.  All 12 of them agreed that they were sure she was guilty of manslaughter.  Your view with a fraction of the evidence is really irrelevant.

Do you really think this is an effective deterrent to some rage riven DM reader trying to intimidate a cyclist? Are they really going to stop and think “if this goes wrong I’m being done for unlawful manslaughter”? –
I can’t see that because they aren’t thinking “if it goes wrong” or for that matter thinking.

I think you actually need to ask the question the other way around.  Had the judge come to the conclusion that I think you have, that whilst technically she may be guilty, it was mostly bad luck and a harsh sentence would be pointless – what message would that send to the persistently angry footpath user who feels tempted to challenge a cyclist?  Crack on – the courts are on your side and even if convicted you’ll get a suspended sentence.

There are two key differences between a kid on a skateboard and a 49 year old woman.  First by the time you are 49 the law expects you to be smart enough to understand consequences and secondly the prospects for rehabilitation of kids is much better.  At 50 Ms Grey will still likely be an angry woman who believes she did no wrong and bikes should keep off the path whereas by the time the kid leaves school he may have matured enough to have a whole “positive” life ahead of him.

The general sequence is :
Police called – > Police investigate and decide what charges they are “pushing” -> CPS in public interest -> Court
There is a little “do you have evidence for the charges” but the judge doesn’t decide what the charges are.
CPS

Actually you are wrong.  Whilst the police may have some influence of the charges, the decision which charges are levied (for serious offences) is a CPS one taken on the law, the evidence and the public interest.  If they had said “not enough for manslaughter” it would have stopped.  Even having charged there would have been multiple opportunities for Crown Counsel to send it back for review.  ie. lots of people have touched that file and all agreed either explicitly or implicitly that Manslaughter was an appropriate charge.  Then its gone to court, and 12 jurors have agreed.  After all that the judge still had a degree of discretion on sentencing.  If he was looking at it thinking “why has this even come to court” or “but a conviction here achieves very little” then he had options ranging from an absolute discharge to a lower sentence than he adopted, including suspending sentence.

The question really is if you/I/we are happy that the laws are written such that the CPS decide if it is in the public interest and if they are doing that based on balanced evidence or biased evidence looking to screw someone over.

Why do you believe CPS are looking to screw people over?  CPS are lawyers looking at files, for first offenders like this the person is just a name, there’s no vendetta.  In fact, if anything CPS are under budget pressures where you might expect the opposite approach – a senior manager to ask “can we really justify the cost of this prosecution which isn’t about a hardened criminal, and which there’s a chance the jury will have enough cycle haters to reject it”.

Even if for the sake of argument we accept your flight of fancy that she was coerced into a confession, it changes nothing.

I’m looking at this the opposite way… that is you don’t/shouldn’t need to accept this is what happened rather you need to be absolutely sure it didn’t (UNLESS you think that its acceptable).

The one thing we can be 100% certain of – is that she was not coerced into a confession.  Because she pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Point was, your opinion is biased because of your negative experiences. You’re likely not the only one, this is a quite astonishing read:… but is it fair to assume that either case is representative?

I’ll try and catch the read later but it isn’t difficult to find hundreds …

Watch this (sound off if you prefer not to listen to the narration). If you sound off then the guy who is crippled and tortured has an outstanding warrant for an council tax rebate overpayment he got as a carer.
IPCC and CPS found nothing of any concern at all, not even worth investigating… “not in the public interest”
In fact they put forward a charge of him being armed with a dangerous weapon as a counter and in this case the judge dismissed due to lack of evidence but they all got away scot free. PC Musto finally got done for multiple rapes of a vulnerable victim…
Does this seem to you like we have a “working criminal justice system”. Not only that it can happen but that when it does it’s not considered in the public interest to charge the officers?

You keep saying this as though there’s a lawful manslaughter, so I looked it up. Manslaughter is either: intent to murder but there are mitigating circumstances (eg “diminished responsibility”); death due to gross negligence; or death due to an unlawful act. In this case it’s presumably the latter, the unlawful act being common assault.

OK so now you looked it up … hence why I’m qualifying what she was charged with. (Unlawful manslaughter)
I’m not naming the charge because there is a lawful version… but because of what she was charged with, the criteria and the sentencing guidelines around this SPECIFIC charge.

Unlawful act manslaughter requires proof that the defendant committed a relevant crime, with the mens rea for that crime. The unlawful act must therefore be criminal in nature and must also be dangerous – R v Larkin [1943] KB 174.

What amounts to “must also be dangerous” is a VERY low bar. (minimal threshold for common assault)

Transferred malice – An act is dangerous if (in the opinion of the sober and reasonable bystander) it exposed someone to the risk of some harm not necessarily the person who subsequently died – Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) [1997] Crim LR 829.

So no reflectors, riding on a pavement, using a illegal scooter/skateboard or a modified pedelec even if not exceeding the 25kph cutoff … etc. etc.

I must have seen 10 instances of this in the last couple of days… I rode a couple of miles to the supermarket earlier and saw 3… woman riding on pavement, kid on electric scooter and a bunch of people parked on double yellows

I think you’d agree all 3 of these are as “dangerous” and “exposed someone to the risk of some harm” as deined by sentencing guidelines for common assault

Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.

Non of that is nice… but really what doesn’t wash with me is the transferred malice where the illegal act doesn’t even need to be directly related to the death and this goes directly to the below but PLEASE read that as well…

Poly

All 12 of them agreed that they were sure she was guilty of manslaughter. Your view with a fraction of the evidence is really irrelevant.

All 12 of them agreed that they were sure she was guilty of UNLAWFUL manslaughter.. I have never claimed otherwise because all they need is the 2 criteria above yet non of them saw her even touch the victim with a measure of beyond reasonable doubt.

Cougar

In isolation I’d agree with you, but the several seconds previous to the altercation where she’s screaming to “get off the **** pavement” and flailing her arm about is pretty conclusively damning IMHO.

So from the summing up and with all this evidence we don’t have, 12 jurors can’t agree she touched the victim… yet you are “sure beyond a reasonable doubt”?????
This is really the nub… they don’t have to because all they need is she was engaged in ANY criminal activity that could at it’s wildest stretch be said to have a possibility of causing harm (tick) not directly to the victim so move onto the next level.

poly

The reason the police have asked that question is because they know that if she was a vulnerable person she needed to have an Appropriate Adult there,

I don’t disagree …but that’s tick the box not IMHO because they CARE. they are then free to screw her over and use her character, insecurity, MH issues against her.

Your assumption, having watched 30s of video and read a press report is that you are better at spotting mental health issues than

So the same people assessed Shipley (did you see the earlier link)
I’m not excusing what either did … I’m pointing out the catch-22 here.
The fact she “went to a mainstream school” etc. is beyond irrelevant. Why would he even mention it. Has no-one who goes to a “mainstream school” EVER developed mental health issues

and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect

Another bit of irrelevance. Quite obviously Shipley had no “impairment of intellect” to get into medical school… the two are barely related. As I said earlier David Eike would SAY he has no mental impairment and he is self evidently off with the fairies (or aliens)

I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle.

Again… very very disturbing to me if he’s implying that had she been a model citizen working a 60hr week with a mortgage and and then volunteering at a charity it changes how this would have played out.

A criminal JUSTICE system shouldn’t be IMHO punishing people who don’t conform to a society they didn’t choose to live in.

Actually you are wrong. Whilst the police may have some influence of the charges, the decision which charges are levied (for serious offences) is a CPS one taken on the law, the evidence and the public interest.

CPS can only assess the evidence and “the evidence” is what the police choose to collect, not hide or delete

If they had said “not enough for manslaughter” it would have stopped.

But this is the point.. the “evidence” for manslaughter is a VERY VERY low bar (I quoted the two above) its a tickbox and then moves onto “in the public interest” – CPS have seen over 400 cases of people dying after contact with the police in the last decade… not a single one has been “in the public interest”.

Why do you believe CPS are looking to screw people over? CPS are lawyers looking at files, for first offenders like this the person is just a name, there’s no vendetta.

Either they have the information or not… in the case of the death of Ian Tomlinson for example how would a double blind “in the public interest” work based purely on his actions?

“The victim was quietly walking along when struck from behind with a long stick” or do they know it was a police officer using a truncheon?

I’d have a little more confidence in “in the public interest” if the public interest didn’t seem politically biassed.

I think you’d agree all 3 of these are as “dangerous” and “exposed someone to the risk of some harm” as deined by sentencing guidelines for common assault

The key word you’ve bleeped past is “reasonable.” You could argue all of those things yes, but would that be a reasonable thing to do?

So from the summing up and with all this evidence we don’t have, 12 jurors can’t agree she touched the victim… yet you are “sure beyond a reasonable doubt”?????

I’m not sure beyond reasonable doubt that she touched her, no, but that isn’t what I said. I am sure B.R.D. that her intention was to force her into the road.

The key word you’ve bleeped past is “reasonable.” You could argue all of those things yes, but would that be a reasonable thing to do?

It’s not bleeped, I copied and pasted the guidelines… (and refs to case law)

This is the CRUX … the JURY are the ones beyond reasonable doubt (in a criminal case) BUT based on what they are presented with for a charge.

I’m not sure beyond reasonable doubt that she touched her, no, but that isn’t what I said. I am sure B.R.D. that her intention was to force her into the road.

and if that mattered regarding the verdict and you were in the jury you would need 11 people to agree BUT the point is it DOESN’T MATTER as to the charge of unlawful manslaughter or verdict IF there is proof she was committing ANY criminal act (related to the death or not) that could at any stretch be said to have a remote possibility of causing harm to anyone.

The point here IMHO is “someone” decided it was “in the public interest to present” a set of charges… the same people that decided not to charge the officers in the video I linked… the same ones decided it wasn’t in the public interest to charge Ian Tomlinson’s killer with unlawful manslaughter…. the same ones that lied deliberately about there being no cameras etc.

I personally don’t trust that process that decides what is and what isn’t in the public interest and I’m not sure you do.
Would the same process have happened if the defendant was a Lord who gives money to the Tory party for example?

stevextc, it feels like I’m wasting my time – but I don’t want you going away thinking, “see I was right”.

You keep wanting to mix other cases with this one.  Shipley (?), Tompkinson and even hypothetical cases for David Icke.  Your belief is clearly that every decision the CPS has ever made is wrong.  I’m not saying they never get cases wrong, or even that they won’t have their own inherent bias.  Certainly, there’s a problem with holding police officers to account, whether that is for deaths in custody, sexual misconduct or prioritising protecting their own over the accused, or even victims.  BUT none of that is relevant to whether they were right to pursue a prosecution in this case.

As I said earlier David Eike would SAY he has no mental impairment and he is self evidently off with the fairies (or aliens)

I genuinely can’t say if David Icke has a mental health issue or not.  Clearly a lot of what he says is nonsensical, but I don’t know whether he believes it or just enjoys the attention.  I don’t even know that if he does believe it that it inherently makes him mentally impaired.  I think you are the one saying that if people don’t fit in your “social norms” box we should treat them as mentally impaired.  I don’t subscribe to that.  That doesn’t mean the justice system needs to assume everyone who doesn’t have a mental impairment should be treated the same (if they were we wouldn’t need judges to determine sentences, civil servants could do it following a set of strict rules like a benefits claim).  In this case lots of people have been involved with the offender and none seem to have said to the judge that she was unable to understand what is right or wrong nor what the judicial process was about.  I don’t want to live in a society where people can push or intimidate people from a place of relative safety to one of extreme danger and we just dismiss it because “they are a bit different”.

The fact she “went to a mainstream school” etc. is beyond irrelevant. Why would he even mention it. Has no-one who goes to a “mainstream school” EVER developed mental health issues

As someone who hates the system so much you should probably spend a little time learning how the system works.  Its not the judge’s job (or even privilege) to investigate the facts, we have an adversarial legal system in this country (many other countries have inquisitorial systems where it is the judge’s job to investigate).  If he is mentioning something in his report it’s because one or other of the parties before the court brought it up.  So presumably in mitigation, the defence barrister has highlighted the cognitive difficulties from the past surgery.  He’s saying, “yes, but the report says that impact was not that big”.  I think you are conflating mental health and mental impairment.  The two are not the same thing.

I’ve met a lot of cops.  Some clearly enjoy confrontation and perhaps even get off on the power of wearing the uniform.  I’d say the vast majority though are actually pretty decent people who would gain no pleasure from backing someone with mental capacity issues into a charge that was unjustified.  Pretty much all of them like to be “banging up real criminals” rather than making up charges for vulnerable people like you suggest.

A criminal JUSTICE system shouldn’t be IMHO punishing people who don’t conform to a society they didn’t choose to live in.

Society works because we all (mostly) conform to its “rules”.  In large parts you can “opt out” of following the rules, but its clearly not acceptable to cause the death of others and hide behind a mask of “the rules shouldn’t apply to me”.  Its a bit simplistic to say “didn’t choose to live in” – her argument was this was a pavement: a footway constructed by society for the benefit of people walking.  Were she not living in society there would be no pavement for her to walk along or shop for her to be going to, and certainly no notion that there might be types of pavement where bicyles were not permitted.

Again… very very disturbing to me if he’s implying that had she been a model citizen working a 60hr week with a mortgage and and then volunteering at a charity it changes how this would have played out.

I don’t think for one moment that that was the implication from the statement (read it in full).  I inferred he was saying, “you manage to go about life quite successfully despite your disabilities, so I don’t put much weight on this being a mitigating factor”.  I think had she been the person you describe the punishment would have been at least as severe – the judge clearly doesn’t think its OK for angry pedestrians to intimidate people into traffic regardless of their background.

All 12 of them agreed that they were sure she was guilty of UNLAWFUL manslaughter.. I have never claimed otherwise because all they need is the 2 criteria above yet non of them saw her even touch the victim with a measure of beyond reasonable doubt.

I think this is what you are really upset about.  They didn’t need to see physical contact.  There didn’t even need to be physical contact.  There didn’t even need to be an intent for physical contact (only recklessness that the victim would perceive risk of physical violence).  All that was needed was that her actions were aggressive enough for the victim to take avoiding action, and that it was foreseeable that the avoiding action would place her into danger and that ultimately she died as a result.  That is the law.  I think that law is entirely reasonable, its not some new fangled law, its been that way all of your and my lives and much longer.  If it worries you that if you get angry at someone and they die through a series of unlucky domino effects and the “police” might through the book at you as a result, I’d suggest you need to look at the first link in that long chain – you getting angry.  Its the bit you can control, and its the bit where it all goes wrong.  Most of us manage to pass people on the pavement, even people we think shouldn’t be on the pavement, without needing to shout and wave our arms.

Does anyone else think this thread has stopped progressing in any meaningful way?

Does anyone else think this thread has stopped progressing in any meaningful way?

Ages ago, there’s definitely one poster who seems to have lost his way badly. But you don’t have to read his posts, I stopped a few pages back. Only come back to it for Poly’s insightful contributions.