Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

[maomao]

Only if they cause the intended recipient to fear physical assault.

I'm quite comfortable with my standard "IT'S A PAVEMENT!"

You mentioned gestures earlier.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Surely her having been brain damaged from birth mitigates her form of aggressive communication when stressed? The judge didn’t seem to think so but I think it’s a mistake.

 

[Cid]

Ok, that makes a huge difference because the contact satisfies recklessness. I didn't know that and it's also not what people on here have been arguing.

She still shouldn't have been imprisoned.

The judge doesn't rely on the contact being established:

He [witness] 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”.

It's sufficient that she was 'sweeping at' her.

You need to break this down... First element is an unlawful act, whether you agree with the jury/judge or not, that is what is established above. Second is that the act is dangerous; would a reasonable bystander think that the act could result in a reasonably foreseeable harm (the recklessness element here is that she was reckless as to that). Then whether the act caused the death... I don't know the exact test for this offence, but usually it's a 'but for' test. Would the victim have died (in the same way) but for the defendants actions? I think in this case it's pretty obvious that no, she would not. Then you've got defences, which are ruled out in the remarks.

There is a lot here that's questionable; appropriateness of sentencing, appropriateness of custody (I can't remember the standards for presuming non-custodial sentences, and they've probably changed), general problems with the criminal justice system (though in this case she was represented by a KC) and the carceral state in general. But the basic offence seems to be pretty well established.

There's a lot going on here we don't have access to; the jury attended the scene, they saw the whole video, they had a lot of expert testimony etc... But a lot of the stuff you're quibbling over is basically just because you've misunderstood things.

 

[Spymaster]

You mentioned gestures earlier.

No I didn't.

 

[maomao]

No I didn't.

I am mistaken, please excuse me. Though you're still wrong about assault.

At what point do you diverge from the judge's directions here: ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Surely her having been brain damaged from birth mitigates her form of aggressive communication when stressed? The judge didn’t seem to think so but I think it’s a mistake.

I'd have thought as a minimum, it ought to have been considered when thinking about the meaning of her arms waving around. She doesn't have full motor control, so it's not necessarily so easy to discern intention, even if there was contact. Just yet another reason why shared paths like that are shit - they're no good for people with disabilities who may need more space, such as people with cerebral palsy.

 

[Spymaster]

The judge doesn't rely on the contact being established:



It's sufficient that she was 'sweeping at' her.

You need to break this down... First element is an unlawful act, whether you agree with the jury/judge or not, that is what is established above. Second is that the act is dangerous; would a reasonable bystander think that the act could result in a reasonably foreseeable harm (the recklessness element here is that she was reckless as to that). Then whether the act caused the death... I don't know the exact test for this offence, but usually it's a 'but for' test. Would the victim have died (in the same way) but for the defendants actions? I think in this case it's pretty obvious that no, she would not. Then you've got defences, which are ruled out in the remarks.

There is a lot here that's questionable; appropriateness of sentencing, appropriateness of custody (I can't remember the standards for presuming non-custodial sentences, and they've probably changed), general problems with the criminal justice system (though in this case she was represented by a KC) and the carceral state in general. But the basic offence seems to be pretty well established.

There's a lot going on here we don't have access to; the jury attended the scene, they saw the whole video, they had a lot of expert testimony etc... But a lot of the stuff you're quibbling over is basically just because you've misunderstood things.

No. Those judge's comments are on sentencing. That's nothing to do with the verdict, which was found by the jury before he made those comments. The jury, having heard that reckless contact was admitted by Grey, effectively knocking her into the road, changes everything.

The judge, in your opinion as well as mine, has made several mistakes here but he didn't find her guilty.

 

[Spymaster]

I am mistaken, please excuse me. Though you're still wrong about assault.

At what point do you diverge from the judge's directions here: ?

What part of that are you trying to argue?

 

[Cid]

No. Those judge's comments are on sentencing. That's nothing to do with the verdict, which was found by the jury before he made those comments. The jury, having heard that reckless contact was admitted by Grey, effectively knocking her into the road, changes everything.

The judge, in your opinion as well as mine, has made several mistakes here.

Jesus fucking christ. Do I need to explain standards of proof to you? If the offence was contingent on her actually hitting Ward the prosecution would have to have shown that that happened beyond a reasonable doubt (or these days 'so that you are sure'). That would be reflected in the judges remarks; it wouldn't be vague waffle about 'the sweep of the arm', it would have been 'it has been shown that you struck Mrs Ward'.

 

[Cid]

It's a shame they couldn't get Peter Faulding in to analyse the video, I hear he was trained by the CIA and the FBI and Mi5 and he has a special video scanner that makes it widescreen and he's amazing.

 

[maomao]

What part of that are you trying to argue?

I'm asking you that. I agree with the verdict.

 

[Spymaster]

If the offence was contingent on her actually hitting Ward the prosecution would have to have shown that that happened beyond a reasonable doubt ...

And if the jury was shown a police interview video in which Grey admitted making reckless contact, this would be satisfied.

That would be reflected in the judges remarks; it wouldn't be vague waffle about 'the sweep of the arm', it would have been 'it has been shown that you struck Mrs Ward'.

Rubbish. The judge sees the same evidence as the jury. The fact that we now know that they were shown a video of her admitting contact and the judge hasn't mentioned that in sentencing is just yet another question mark over the judge, who you've admitted you disagree with on other aspects but now want to rely on on this one.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm asking you that. I agree with the verdict.

Well I agree with the verdict now, just not the way you've got there.

 

[Cid]

At this point I think I am done... fill yer boots spy.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well I agree with the verdict now, just not the way you've got there.

That's a pity because as the ancient poet homer said its the journey that's the thing

 

[Spymaster]

At this point I think I am done

I don't blame you.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't blame you.

Magnanimous as ever

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I am mistaken, please excuse me. Though you're still wrong about assault.

At what point do you diverge from the judge's directions here: ?

These directions strike me as seriously flawed. I'm surprised she is only appealing her sentence and not her conviction. As people have already noted, you need three elements for unlawful act manslaughter:

(1) an unlawful act

(2) that is dangerous

(3) and causes the death

The route to verdict instructions are fine on (2). There is no mention of (3) which strikes me as bad, but not necessarily giving rise to an unsafe verdict because causation is fairly clear cut here. What is most alarming is that there is no identification of (1) - what the unlawful act is supposed to be here. As far as I can tell that are two potentially plausible offences:

(1) assault

and

(2) battery

Battery requires the application of unlawful force. It is not at all clear to me that Grey even touched the victim so the more likely option is assault, which requires causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful force. It is far from clear that the cyclist did fear the application of force, but even if she did that would not suffice. It would also need to be shown that grey intended or was reckless as to causing her to fear immediate unlawful force. This seems even less likely to me. It seems more likely that she was gesturing at her to get her off the pavement not make her fear violence.

At any rate, leaving speculation aside, the main issue is none of this is in the judge's guidance to the jury. Some glaring omissions. It seems far from a safe conviction.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Did she wait until the cyclist was close up then wave in her face. or whilst the cyclist was at some distance?

There's a bit of a difference intent wise if you make a sudden gesture or shout at someone as they're drawing up next to you as opposed to as they're coming towards you. I still don't think she should be inside though even if the former.

She started shouting about 10-15 seconds before the cyclist passed her then very clearly waves right next to her causing her to veer and what looks like just clip off the edge of the kerb which resulted her becoming unbalanced and stumbling off into the road.

I posted the video earlier and it’s not quite clear enough to determine if physical contact was made but bet your ass I’m flinching if someone starts swearing and waving next to my head

 

[Serge Forward]

These directions strike me as seriously flawed. I'm surprised she is only appealing her sentence and not her conviction. As people have already noted, you need three elements for unlawful act manslaughter:

(1) an unlawful act

(2) that is dangerous

(3) and causes the death

The route to verdict instructions are fine on (2). There is no mention of (3) which strikes me as bad, but not necessarily giving rise to an unsafe verdict because causation is fairly clear cut here. What is most alarming is that there is no identification of (1) - what the unlawful act is supposed to be here. As far as I can tell that are two potentially plausible offences:

(1) assault

and

(2) battery

Battery requires the application of unlawful force. It is not at all clear to me that Grey even touched the victim so the more likely option is assault, which requires causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful force. It is far from clear that the cyclist did fear the application of force, but even if she did that would not suffice. It would also need to be shown that grey intended or was reckless as to causing her to fear immediate unlawful force. This seems even less likely to me. It seems more likely that she was gesturing at her to get her off the pavement not make her fear violence.

At any rate, leaving speculation aside, the main issue is none of this is in the judge's guidance to the jury. Some glaring omissions. It seems far from a safe conviction.

Section 4 of the Public Order Act would probably do it (that's the causing fear or provokation of violence bit).

 

[Colin Hunt]

the more likely option is assault, which requires causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful force. It is far from clear that the cyclist did fear the application of force,

They don't have to fear it, just think that it's coming, which is a different thing entirely. If I move my fist towards Tyson Fury's face he won't fear my touching him, but I will still have assaulted him if he thinks I'll make contact. If the pedestrian's hand was close enough to the cyclist that witnesses didn't know if contact was made, then it's pretty likely that the cyclist thought she was about to be touched, especially given what the pedestrian was shouting, and the aggressive manner in which they were behaving.

It would also need to be shown that grey intended or was reckless as to causing her to fear immediate unlawful force. This seems even less likely to me. It seems more likely that she was gesturing at her to get her off the pavement not make her fear violence.

So you deal with intent here but don't deal with recklessness at all. To meet the requirement of recklessness all that has to be shown is that the defendant foresaw that the harm that occurred was possible, but continued with their actions regardless of the risk. So did the defendant here foresee that gesturing in that manner at a cyclist while shouting may cause them to think you're about to touch them?

It seems far from a safe conviction.

On the contrary, it seems like the defendant's own lawyers accepted that she had committed a dangerous act (whether assault or battery or both) and therefore tried to argue self-defence (hence the judge's directions not dealing with the elements of the offence and focusing solely on self-defence). It also seems that they are appealing solely on sentencing (having tried to argue for culpability D), and not on a matter of law relating to the judge's directions. Given that they were the ones in the trenches dealing with the case from the start, I'm more inclined to trust their judgement on grounds for appeal than random forum users who don't have the full facts as presented at trial.

 

[Pickman's model]

They don't have to fear it, just think that it's coming, which is a different thing entirely. If I move my fist towards Tyson Fury's face he won't fear my touching him, but I will still have assaulted him if he thinks I'll make contact. If the pedestrian's hand was close enough to the cyclist that witnesses didn't know if contact was made, then it's pretty likely that the cyclist thought she was about to be touched, especially given what the pedestrian was shouting, and the aggressive manner in which they were behaving.

So you deal with intent here but don't deal with recklessness at all. To meet the requirement of recklessness all that has to be shown is that the defendant foresaw that the harm that occurred was possible, but continued with their actions regardless of the risk. So did the defendant here foresee that gesturing in that manner at a cyclist while shouting may cause them to think you're about to touch them?

On the contrary, it seems like the defendant's own lawyers accepted that she had committed a dangerous act (whether assault or battery or both) and therefore tried to argue self-defence (hence the judge's directions not dealing with the elements of the offence and focusing solely on self-defence). It also seems that they are appealing solely on sentencing (having tried to argue for culpability D), and not on a matter of law relating to the judge's directions. Given that they were the ones in the trenches dealing with the case from the start, I'm more inclined to trust their judgement on grounds for appeal than random forum users who don't have the full facts as presented at trial.

Tbh most lawyers are bloody awful. They shouldn't have argued self-defence in the first place and seem to be doing their client few favours with their new tack imo.

 

[Spymaster]

These directions strike me as seriously flawed. I'm surprised she is only appealing her sentence and not her conviction. As people have already noted, you need three elements for unlawful act manslaughter:

(1) an unlawful act

(2) that is dangerous

(3) and causes the death

The route to verdict instructions are fine on (2). There is no mention of (3) which strikes me as bad, but not necessarily giving rise to an unsafe verdict because causation is fairly clear cut here. What is most alarming is that there is no identification of (1) - what the unlawful act is supposed to be here. As far as I can tell that are two potentially plausible offences:

(1) assault

and

(2) battery

Battery requires the application of unlawful force. It is not at all clear to me that Grey even touched the victim so the more likely option is assault, which requires causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful force. It is far from clear that the cyclist did fear the application of force, but even if she did that would not suffice. It would also need to be shown that grey intended or was reckless as to causing her to fear immediate unlawful force. This seems even less likely to me. It seems more likely that she was gesturing at her to get her off the pavement not make her fear violence.

At any rate, leaving speculation aside, the main issue is none of this is in the judge's guidance to the jury. Some glaring omissions. It seems far from a safe conviction.

At last!

 

[Artaxerxes]

They don't have to fear it, just think that it's coming, which is a different thing entirely. If I move my fist towards Tyson Fury's face he won't fear my touching him, but I will still have assaulted him if he thinks I'll make contact. If the pedestrian's hand was close enough to the cyclist that witnesses didn't know if contact was made, then it's pretty likely that the cyclist thought she was about to be touched, especially given what the pedestrian was shouting, and the aggressive manner in which they were behaving.

So you deal with intent here but don't deal with recklessness at all. To meet the requirement of recklessness all that has to be shown is that the defendant foresaw that the harm that occurred was possible, but continued with their actions regardless of the risk. So did the defendant here foresee that gesturing in that manner at a cyclist while shouting may cause them to think you're about to touch them?

On the contrary, it seems like the defendant's own lawyers accepted that she had committed a dangerous act (whether assault or battery or both) and therefore tried to argue self-defence (hence the judge's directions not dealing with the elements of the offence and focusing solely on self-defence). It also seems that they are appealing solely on sentencing (having tried to argue for culpability D), and not on a matter of law relating to the judge's directions. Given that they were the ones in the trenches dealing with the case from the start, I'm more inclined to trust their judgement on grounds for appeal than random forum users who don't have the full facts as presented at trial.

The problem we have here is the woman who died is a cyclist. If say a jogger had pushed a woman out of the way on the pavement as one did a few years ago in London there would be unambiguous cries to lock them up and hunt them down.

 

[BigTom]

. It is not at all clear to me that Grey even touched the victim

It has been reported by the BBC that she said she did:

Huntingdon: Cyclist death accused was 'anxious' for her own safety, jury told

Auriol Grey is accused of gesturing in a "hostile" way to a cyclist who fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.

 

[Pickman's model]

It has been reported by the BBC that she said she did:

Huntingdon: Cyclist death accused was 'anxious' for her own safety, jury told

Auriol Grey is accused of gesturing in a "hostile" way to a cyclist who fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

People's memories of traumatic events may of course be at odds with what happened.

 

[BigTom]

The problem we have here is the woman who died is a cyclist. If say a jogger had pushed a woman out of the way on the pavement as one did a few years ago in London there would be unambiguous cries to lock them up and hunt them down.

That's a pretty poor comparison as in that case the CCTV is very clear, it's obvious that the pedestrian intentionally pushed the jogger into the path of the bus, whereas in this case the pedestrian didn't push or shove the cyclist though they did make contact, nor does it seem that she intended to actually put her in the road.
I've no idea if there is something similar to this but tbh I just don't think it's worth going down this particular conversational path.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's clear that Grey hasn't helped herself throughout this. I wouldn't necessarily trust her lawyers, though. Defence lawyers can and do get things badly wrong on occasion. And on this occasion, I don't think they have helped her to help herself.

How much of her not helping herself is down to her disabilities? At least some of it by the looks of things. If, as her lawyers said, she finds it hard to express herself verbally, why was it not until the third trial that they got her to produce a written apology? Lawyers sound pretty shit to me.

 

[BigTom]

People's memories of traumatic events may of course be at odds with what happened.

So you are going to discount what she has said because you want it to be different? Like if the cctv was really clear I'd agree with you, but it's not. She could easily have made, or not made, contact based on the CCTV. Given the lack of any other evidence, I'll be taking her word for it rather than deciding I know better because her memory might not be right.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you are going to discount what she has said because you want it to be different? Like if the cctv was really clear I'd agree with you, but it's not. She could easily have made, or not made, contact based on the CCTV. Given the lack of any other evidence, I'll be taking her word for it rather than deciding I know better because her memory might not be right.

What, her unequivocal 'I might have done this unintentionally'?