Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

[maomao]

By not being able to stop safely in time.

Read the verdict. She had come to a halt. You can tell there was very little forward momentum in the bike from the way it fell.

 

[BigTom]

I disagree. I’ve shouted at scores of pavement cyclists and not one has swerved into the road. Most just ignored me and a few told me to fuck off.

For reckless manslaughter there has to be an obvious disregard of the potential consequences of an action. If all the woman did was to shout and gesticulate at the rider, it’s quite a stretch to conclude that it was clear that shouting and gesticulating could lead to death or serious injury. All of that is bolstered by the fact that she’s partially blind and of a “childlike” disposition.

If reckless gesticulating had unintentionally knocked her into the path of an oncoming car, that would be different but the prosecution didn’t argue that.

It's good to see the full judgement posted just above.

If it was just shouting I'd tend to agree with you but it was more than that and contact was made though it wasn't a push. If you're getting close enough to touch then it should be reasonable to think the cyclist will try to avoid you.

In the judgment the judge says she does not have an intellectual disability that would be considered a factor here. Really we do not have enough information to understand how her visual impairment or other disabilities world affect the situation but the jury and judge did, so i think we have to defer to that.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Read the verdict. She had come to a halt. You can tell there was very little forward momentum in the bike from the way it fell.

You can see the footage. The cyclist is slowing and you can see her try to steady herself as she leaves the bike before falling off

 

[Tones]

Read the verdict. She had come to a halt. You can tell there was very little forward momentum in the bike from the way it fell.

She did not stop safely.

 

[magneze]

She did not stop safely.

Oooh, edgy.

 

[maomao]

She did not stop safely.

You obviously have a picture of what happened in your head that is very different to what the evidence presented to court or the cctv suggests.

 

[Orang Utan]

She must have really wound up the rest of the court, for whatever reason

 

[Serge Forward]

She did not stop safely.

Just fuck off.

 

[2hats]

Shared Path: I was amazed to read that both council officials and police could not establish that this was
a shared cycle - way or not!
So it was not clearly signed as such - one would assume?

If Google Street View is anything to go by (images captured both before and after the date of the incident) there is no shared route signage apparent for that particular footpath for hundreds of metres (indeed 'blocks') either side of where the incident took place. The footpath on the opposite side of the road is indicated as being for shared use and even has a toucan crossing at at least one side junction (there are none evident on the incident side of the carriageway).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is also clearly woefully inadequate as a shared path. Judge said it was 2.4 metres wide. Doesn't look like 2.4 metres of usable space there, though. I presume that includes the kerb.

 

[magneze]

For some reason councils don't see lampposts as impediments.

 

[Spymaster]

Murder by car is legal on the UK.

Don't be silly.

 

[Spymaster]

It's good to see the full judgement posted just above.

If it was just shouting I'd tend to agree with you but it was more than that and contact was made though it wasn't a push. If you're getting close enough to touch then it should be reasonable to think the cyclist will try to avoid you.

In the judgment the judge says she does not have an intellectual disability that would be considered a factor here. Really we do not have enough information to understand how her visual impairment or other disabilities world affect the situation but the jury and judge did, so i think we have to defer to that.

That's not the full judgement. It's the judges sentencing notes to the defendant, posted on JR's blog. There's an obvious mistake in the very first paragraph where he says that according to William Walker, the two women had come to a halt in front of each other, when even a cursory look at the video shows this not to be the case and they are both moving when the incident occurs. Gray doesn't break her stride from the beginning to the end of the clip. He goes on to suggest that she offered no remorse prior to the hearing but I've read an "expert" elsewhere saying that part of her disability could manifest as seeming to not care about others. This begs the question; what medical evidence was produced at the trial?

The best bit though, is this:

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

"I acknowledge that prison will fuck your life to pieces, but despite that, and despite the fact that you pose no risk to others and didn't intentionally harm this woman, I'm sending you to prison anyway"!

Astonishing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Am I right that she didn't testify (as is her right)? If so, I don't know how the judge can be 'sure' that she knew it was a shared path. Given the absence of signs plus her disabilities, I don't see how that can be taken as a given.

 

[surreybrowncap]

Am I right that she didn't testify (as is her right)? If so, I don't know how the judge can be 'sure' that she knew it was a shared path. Given the absence of signs plus her disabilities, I don't see how that can be taken as a given.

Correct - she did not testify.

 

[BigTom]

That's not the full judgement. It's the judges sentencing notes to the defendant, posted on JR's blog. There's an obvious mistake in the very first paragraph where he says that according to William Walker, the two women had come to a halt in front of each other, when even a cursory look at the video shows this not to be the case and they are both moving when the incident occurs. He goes on to suggest that she offered no remorse prior to the hearing but I've read an "expert" elsewhere saying that part of her disability could manifest as seeming to not care about others. This begs the question; what medical evidence was produced at the trial?

The best bit though, is this:

"I acknowledge that prison will fuck your life to pieces, but despite that, and despite the fact that you pose no risk to others and didn't intentionally harm this woman, I'm sending you to prison anyway"!

Astonishing.

sorry yeah it's the sentencing notes, and we don't know what evidence was produced at trial.

The thing about that last bit is that 1 year is the minimum possible sentence and looking at the guidelines he gave her the minimum range for category C of this offence:

Unlawful act manslaughter – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

and explained that he rejected category D
So it's not really astonishing. Those are reasons why he went for the lowest end of the range sentencing guidelines allow, without that recognition he should have gone for a longer sentence. Even if he'd gone for cat D he would still have had to send her to prison for a year. Once the jury made their decision, prison was inevitable.

Also the judge did not say she was no risk to others did he? That's editorialising on your part. If she's not shown proper remorse, why should we assume she would not repeat her actions?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also the judge did not say she was no risk to others did he? That's editorialising on your part. If she's not shown proper remorse, why should we assume she would not repeat her actions?

Of previous good character as they say - 49 years of no convictions or cautions. Plus the judge accepted that her cerebral palsy was the reason for the delay in showing 'proper' remorse.

There is a separate issue here regarding the verdict and indeed the nature of the charge. So-called 'one-punch manslaughter' can lead to a longer sentence than if you beat someone up badly but didn't kill them. The law is a bit of an arse in this matter, imo. The sentence is disproportionate to the act.

 

[Spymaster]

sorry yeah it's the sentencing notes, and we don't know what evidence was produced at trial.

The thing about that last bit is that 1 year is the minimum possible sentence and looking at the guidelines he gave her the minimum range for category C of this offence:

Unlawful act manslaughter – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

and explained that he rejected category D
So it's not really astonishing. Those are reasons why he went for the lowest end of the range sentencing guidelines allow, without that recognition he should have gone for a longer sentence. Even if he'd gone for cat D he would still have had to send her to prison for a year. Once the jury made their decision, prison was inevitable.

No. That’s the sentencing range for custodial sentences. He’s under no obligation to impose a custodial sentence and can suspend it or make a community order.

 

[xenon]

sorry yeah it's the sentencing notes, and we don't know what evidence was produced at trial.

The thing about that last bit is that 1 year is the minimum possible sentence and looking at the guidelines he gave her the minimum range for category C of this offence:

Unlawful act manslaughter – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

and explained that he rejected category D
So it's not really astonishing. Those are reasons why he went for the lowest end of the range sentencing guidelines allow, without that recognition he should have gone for a longer sentence. Even if he'd gone for cat D he would still have had to send her to prison for a year. Once the jury made their decision, prison was inevitable.

Also the judge did not say she was no risk to others did he? That's editorialising on your part. If she's not shown proper remorse, why should we assume she would not repeat her actions?

Yes, but I believe he could’ve made it as a suspended sentence.

 

[xenon]

Interesting that this was a retrial though. The third if I read above correctly. What happened in the first two.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Interesting that this was a retrial though. The third if I read above correctly. What happened in the first two.

Not British justice at its finest, is it? For a number of reasons, including this.

 

[Pickman's model]

sorry yeah it's the sentencing notes, and we don't know what evidence was produced at trial.

The thing about that last bit is that 1 year is the minimum possible sentence and looking at the guidelines he gave her the minimum range for category C of this offence:

Unlawful act manslaughter – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

and explained that he rejected category D
So it's not really astonishing. Those are reasons why he went for the lowest end of the range sentencing guidelines allow, without that recognition he should have gone for a longer sentence. Even if he'd gone for cat D he would still have had to send her to prison for a year. Once the jury made their decision, prison was inevitable.

Also the judge did not say she was no risk to others did he? That's editorialising on your part. If she's not shown proper remorse, why should we assume she would not repeat her actions?

You haven't heard of Aidan McAnespie I see

 

[BigTom]

No. That’s the sentencing range for custodial sentences. He’s under no obligation to impose a custodial sentence and can suspend it or make a community order.

ah, my misunderstanding in that case, I thought the sentencing council site included all possibilities not just custodial.

 

[BigTom]

You haven't heard of Aidan McAnespie I see

Not until now, but in any case NI law is different to England and Wales so no reason to assume it would be the same.

 

[Spymaster]

Interesting that this was a retrial though. The third if I read above correctly. What happened in the first two.

Could be a few things. Most usual is the jury failing to reach a verdict but if that happens twice they don’t usually go for a third trial.

 

[emanymton]

Do we know of the jury knew she was facing jail if convicted? I wander of any of them feeling a bit sick if they thought guilty was the right verdict but she would get a suspended sentence.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Do we know of the jury knew she was facing jail if convicted? I wander of any of them feeling a bit sick if they thought guilty was the right verdict but she would get a suspended sentence.

Not sure that guilt should be established on the basis of expected sentencing?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure that guilt should be established on the basis of expected sentencing?

I've never been on a jury but if I were, this would be a consideration for me for sure. I can think of various circumstances in which I would refuse to convict if I thought it would lead to an unjust prison sentence. An abused woman accused of murder, for example. It's been done before. Maybe it was done in the mistrials here?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I've never been on a jury but if I were, this would be a consideration for me for sure. I can think of various circumstances in which I would refuse to convict if I thought it would lead to an unjust prison sentence. An abused woman accused of murder, for example. It's been done before. Maybe it was done in the mistrials here?

I’m sure juries possibly do it. But aren’t really supposed to. Their job is to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt without taking into account aggravating or mitigating factors.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I’m sure juries possibly do it. But aren’t really supposed to. Their job is to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt without taking into account aggravating or mitigating factors.

Juries not doing what they're supposed to can be an extremely good thing. We saw that most recently with the Colston six.