Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

[BigTom]

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

well nobody has suggested she intentionally pushed the cyclist into the road so I assumed you meant the making contact bit. Are you saying you think she did that intentionally?

 

[Pickman's model]

well nobody has suggested she intentionally pushed the cyclist into the road so I assumed you meant the making contact bit. Are you saying you think she did that intentionally?

I don't know whether she did it at all.

 

[maomao]

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.

What the fuck has whether she feared the use of violence got to do with it when she got pushed in the road and died? Her physical actions clearly caused the cyclist's death. You and the other fella seem to be suggesting she's responsible for her own death.

 

[Colin Hunt]

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.

What should they have argued then? It's a pretty clear-cut case of constructive manslaughter, where in my opinion the best bet would've been to plead guilty, show lots of remorse and try and spend as little time inside as possible. But if their client wanted her day in court it puts them in a bind.

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.

My comment above shouldn't be read as absolving her lawyers of blame for the conduct of the case as I simply don't know enough about it. But I don't think it's at all helpful when random people who don't know the law get involved at this stage and start taking apart the judge's directions to the jury and suggesting grounds of appeal. There is after all a reason why you pay lawyers to conduct cases even if sometimes they go wrong, rather than getting advice from internet leftists (myself included).

 

[BigTom]

What the fuck has whether she feared the use of violence got to do with it when she got pushed in the road and died? Her physical actions clearly caused the cyclist's death. You and the other fella seem to be suggesting she's responsible for her own death.

and even if there wasn't contact, doesn't the fact that that mean she swerved into the road to avoid the pedestrian and isn't that in itself pretty good evidence that she feared the use of violence? Why would you swerve away from someone gesticulating at you if you didn't fear they would push/hit/whatever you if you let them get close enough.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and even if there wasn't contact, doesn't the fact that that mean she swerved into the road to avoid the pedestrian and isn't that in itself pretty good evidence that she feared the use of violence? Why would you swerve away from someone gesticulating at you if you didn't fear they would push/hit/whatever you if you let them get close enough.

Jerky, clumsy movements are characteristic of cerebral palsy. Might part of the reason she might have feared the use of violence be the poorly controlled manner of Grey's movements? How do you weigh that in with everything else?

 

[Spymaster]

What the fuck has whether she feared the use of violence got to do with it when she got pushed in the road and died?

That's not what you were arguing yesterday though. You were saying that her actions (without any contact) constituted assault. Jeff is disagreeing with that.

 

[maomao]

and even if there wasn't contact, doesn't the fact that that mean she swerved into the road to avoid the pedestrian and isn't that in itself pretty good evidence that she feared the use of violence? Why would you swerve away from someone gesticulating at you if you didn't fear they would push/hit/whatever you if you let them get close enough.

It's not even a specific fear of something happening, if you go waving your arms in the face of someone approaching on a bicycle they're going to swerve.

 

[andysays]

We don't actually know whether the dead cyclist feared the use of violence or not, and obviously she isn't in a position to testify either way.

The fact that she swerved could simply be because she was trying to avoid the pedestrian once it became clear they weren't moving out of the way.

 

[BigTom]

Jerky, clumsy movements are characteristic of cerebral palsy. Might part of the reason she might have feared the use of violence be the poorly controlled manner of Grey's movements? How do you weigh that in with everything else?

I have no idea, none of us really have any idea what her disability is actually like. Does it matter if the legal question hangs on the perception of the cyclist? She couldn't have known that the pedestrian had cerebral palsy.

 

[Spymaster]

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.

The only witness mentioned wrt the contact was the fella who said they stopped in front of each other before Grey swung her arm. That clearly did not happen, so that's questionable, yet the judge found him 'credible'.

 

[Spymaster]

It's not even a specific fear of something happening, if you go waving your arms in the face of someone approaching on a bicycle they're going to swerve.

She didn't wave her arms in her face. She was gesticulating towards the road.

 

[maomao]

She didn't wave her arms in her face. She was gesticulating towards the road.

So it was her own fault and she would have fallen in the road if Auriol Grey had not shouted or moved her arms?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have no idea, none of us really have any idea what her disability is actually like. Does it matter if the legal question hangs on the perception of the cyclist? She couldn't have known that the pedestrian had cerebral palsy.

She has cerebral palsy. We have some idea what her disability is like. It's the kind of disability that means you require a bit of space around you when you're walking on a pavement because you're not in full motor control of your body.

I'm not trying to excuse Grey here but her disability is surely a factor.

 

[Cid]

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.

She was represented by a KC to be fair.

Where is the three trials thing coming from? The most info I could find on the trial was from a random BBC journo's twitter (which says two):

Thread by @PShepka on Thread Reader App

@PShepka: The sentencing of a pedestrian for killing a cyclist who had angered her by riding on a pavement has caused much debate. In light of the officer’s comments, I thought a brief thread of some facts...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[Spymaster]

So it was her own fault and she would have fallen in the road if Auriol Grey had not shouted or moved her arms?

Probably not, but waving her arms in her face likely constitutes assault, whilst gesticulating towards the road probably doesn't, so it matters. What you're not understanding is that there are several elements to this, whereas you are conflating everything and saying it all happened so she's guilty. That's why you've got the right result for the wrong reasons.

 

[Colin Hunt]

The only witness mentioned wrt the contact was the fella who said they stopped in front of each other before Grey swung her arm. That clearly did not happen, so that's questionable, yet the judge found him 'credible'.

I think the best judges of what happened in this case are the people who heard the evidence and the people who had a hand in the conduct of the case. Any attempts to retry the case on new grounds (such as by denying that a dangerous act happened) are doomed to pointless loops. Ultimately the judge, defence, and prosecution all agreed that there was a dangerous act present in the case (whether that is assault or battery is not mentioned but in reality it was probably both). I was simply posting to correct Jeff Robinson because they were misstating the law and suggesting spurious grounds of appeal which is just not helpful.

I mean shit, people are still talking about fear of the use of violence being elements of the crime of assault even after I said he was wrong, so I don't think there's any point in me continuing to post.

 

[BigTom]

She has cerebral palsy. We have some idea what her disability is like. It's the kind of disability that means you require a bit of space around you when you're walking on a pavement because you're not in full motor control of your body.

I'm not trying to excuse Grey here but her disability is surely a factor.

Yes absolutely. But cerebral palsy has a wide variance of severity and that's what we don't know.


The only bit I'm questioning is the legal question of manslaughter or not and if that's based on the cyclists perception of events then there's no way they could have known or taken that into account so I don't think it matters purely in the context of that question.

 

[Spymaster]

I was simply posting to correct Jeff Robinson because they were misstating the law and suggesting spurious grounds of appeal which is just not helpful.

I mean shit, people are still talking about fear of the use of violence being elements of the crime of assault even after I said he was wrong, so I don't think there's any point in me continuing to post.

He is a lawyer, to be fair. I understand you are too, so I'll watch this with interest.

 

[cesare]

He is a lawyer, to be fair. I understand you are too, so I'll watch this with interest.

Jeff Robinson's a lawyer?

 

[Spymaster]

Jeff Robinson's a lawyer?

Solicitor, I believe.

 

[Cid]

Yes absolutely. But cerebral palsy has a wide variance of severity and that's what we don't know.


The only bit I'm questioning is the legal question of manslaughter or not and if that's based on the cyclists perception of events then there's no way they could have known or taken that into account so I don't think it matters purely in the context of that question.

It's an objective test I think; whether or not a reasonable person in the same situation would apprehend unlawful use of force.

 

[kabbes]

if that's based on the cyclists perception of events …

It’s based on the mens rea of the defendant, not the victim.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It’s based on the mens rea of the defendant, not the victim.

Yeah it has to be surely. Otherwise you could be done for manslaughter for an action that was completely (though sincerely) misunderstood by someone else. In this case, your cerebral palsy could be weaponised against you in court.

 

[Pickman's model]

i love threads like this, it's what makes urban the special place it is

 

[Cid]

Yeah it has to be surely. Otherwise you could be done for manslaughter for an action that was completely (though sincerely) misunderstood by someone else. In this case, your cerebral palsy could be weaponised against you in court.

No, because the mens rea of assault is intention (or recklessness) as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate physical violence. So you need to actually intend to do that, or be reckless as to doing it. Is it possible that you could be reckless as to an action resulting from a disability? Maybe... This is going to be specific case law and people who actually know about criminal law, and tbh we're not off page 1 at this point. I would guess you'd need quite a high degree of awareness of a very predictable action, but this is speculation. But basically you need to know that there is a risk that your actions could cause someone to apprehend etc.

The victim's apprehension is a separate element, and it is from the victim's pov. It's just that, where a subjective test doesn't really fit, you can sub in the 'reasonable person'.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s based on the mens rea of the defendant, not the victim.

Trying to relate it to the victim would be absurd.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I think the best judges of what happened in this case are the people who heard the evidence and the people who had a hand in the conduct of the case. Any attempts to retry the case on new grounds (such as by denying that a dangerous act happened) are doomed to pointless loops. Ultimately the judge, defence, and prosecution all agreed that there was a dangerous act present in the case (whether that is assault or battery is not mentioned but in reality it was probably both). I was simply posting to correct Jeff Robinson because they were misstating the law and suggesting spurious grounds of appeal which is just not helpful.

I mean shit, people are still talking about fear of the use of violence being elements of the crime of assault even after I said he was wrong, so I don't think there's any point in me continuing to post.

So I said ‘fear’ instead of ‘apprehend’, big deal! It was a deliberate decision on my behalf btw. Whilst ‘apprehend’ is more accurate, fear is a more common word and I thought, ‘surely no one would be pedantic enough to correct me on this, particularly because the distinction between the two terms is utterly irrelevant in the context of this case’. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Pickman's model]

So I said ‘fear’ instead of ‘apprehend’, big deal! It was a deliberate decision on my behalf btw. Whilst ‘apprehend’ is more accurate, fear is a more common word and I thought, ‘surely no one would be pedantic enough to correct me on this, particularly because the distinction between the two terms is utterly irrelevant in the context of this case’. I guess I was wrong.

There's a crop of posters taking pedantry to new levels, something to be cheered many would say

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

"District Judge Leo Pyle said: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."

So if one judge can say this with certainty where does this leave the lady in this thread?

Linda Davis: E-scooter rider, 14, sentenced over woman's death

Linda Davis, 71, died after being hit by the teenager, who was riding a privately-owned scooter.

www.bbc.co.uk