Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

[Sum]

I presume the following is an accurate report of the appeal against conviction

There was an update on the BBC website yesterday regarding the "Huntingdon cyclist killer":-

Huntingdon cyclist killer given leave to appeal against her conviction
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-68606255

(Edited for brevity)

I'd only summarised the BBC news article, and I didn't quote it in all it's entirety. The news article did also say elsewhere:-

The court in London heard the 50-year-old was charged with unlawful act manslaughter - which requires an unlawful action to take place that caused death.

Grey's lawyers told appeal judges that no such action was considered by the jury at the trial.

I had taken this to mean that Grey's lawyers thought the unlawful act aspect had not been covered at the trial. However Judge Enright's directions of law given to the jury did seem to go over the unlawful aspect quite a bit, so I'd assume it had been covered: https://www.scribd.com/document/6301563 ... ons-of-Law

Noting TC's and Jdsk posts above, I may be completely off the mark (or missing the subtleties) as to what the appeal is about.

[cycle tramp]

That is your prerogative. I prefer the correct application of the law without fear or favour. We shall see whether the Court erred in this case in due course.

Your knowledge of modern history fails you. Where was the 'fear or favour' when during the miners strike, those who were falsely accused of rioting sought to bring complaints against the police or those injured during the battle of the Blanefield sought also to make complaint. The law exists to protect the status quo....

..er, not the band

A woman lost her life. Another lost her liberty. All ends up it's a tragic set of circumstances. It's not the time or place for either levity or politicking.

It's always about politics. When this appeal is heard, the exact price for causing a cyclists death will be known, and this appeal will be watched by those who seek to limit or repeal the current wish for people to travel by bike..

The one thing which appears to have been forgotten is whether this was a shared use path - if it was shared use then there was no reason for the defendant to swear or gesticulate... indeed doing so may have been a criminal offence in itself.

[thirdcrank]

Sum

For my part, I've found your posts very helpful.

I do find it annoying to put it at its mildest that to access information which should be in the public domain that it's necessary to sign up and pay for online digests which are only available for a short period and subject to subscription.

As it is I fear that whatever the results of these appeals they will be distorted by partial reporting. As we have seen on this thread.

[cycle tramp]

Sum

For my part, I've found your posts very helpful.

I do find it annoying to put it at its mildest that to access information which should be in the public domain that it's necessary to sign up and pay for online digests which are only available for a short period and subject to subscription.

As it is I fear that whatever the results of these appeals they will be distorted by partial reporting. As we have seen on this thread.

Absolutely... it is more than possible that the defendant either by accident or deliberately may have struck the cyclist. This would not have been mentioned in the press release of the appeal and there is no cctv footage to either confirm it..
It is possible to conclude that both the defendant and cyclist past each other, a moment before the cyclist swerved out into the road.
However if the defendant had either made a move to strike the defendant or had done so, even through gesticulating - then the link provided by Sum to the court paper makes more relevance... that is the jury was asked whether or not they acted out of self defence, and if the defendant had swung an arm out towards the cyclist this may have been viewed as an illegal act which would then allow the court to consider manslaughter.

At this point I would like to make it clear that whether the defendant did or did not strike out at the cyclist is pure conjecture on my part. i have seen no evidence either way.

[mjr]

We know I'm not skewing anything. This group of solicitors isn't about justice or fairness or the truth, but rather the publicity and the advertising if they win....

You believe so, we do not. It's for others to look at this and determine their own pov.

I don't know anything about their motivation. But *justice depends on everyone having access to legal representation.

Yes, even if it is from a firm of Mr Loopholes trying to advertise their services to bike-hating motorists.

[Jdsk]

...
I had taken this to mean that Grey's lawyers thought the unlawful act aspect had not been covered at the trial. However Judge Enright's directions of law given to the jury did seem to go over the unlawful aspect quite a bit, so I'd assume it had been covered: https://www.scribd.com/document/6301563 ... ons-of-Law
...

Thankyou: this probably contains the crux of the appeal.

Jonathan

[mjr]

The one thing which appears to have been forgotten is whether this was a shared use path - if it was shared use then there was no reason for the defendant to swear or gesticulate... indeed doing so may have been a criminal offence in itself.

It was shared use and signed as such in the typical half hearted way usually done by Cambridgeshire outside of their two largest cities. Near Cambridge, there's usually dashed white lines by the kerbs, but I don't recall seeing that in Fenland or Huntingdon. Only the blue signs and not even full sets of those. It's not unusual to cross side roads and not have a confirmation blue sign, then arrive at a Toucan, which implies the path was still a cycleway.

[ChrisButch]

Reading some of these comments I'm tempted to wonder if it might not be a bad thing to extend sub judice restrictions to appeals.

[Jdsk]

Reading some of these comments I'm tempted to wonder if it might not be a bad thing to extend sub judice restrictions to appeals.

The principle is that judges, unlike juries, can't be improperly swayed by information gained or comments made outside the court's process, no matter how ignorant or tribal.

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

...
I had taken this to mean that Grey's lawyers thought the unlawful act aspect had not been covered at the trial. However Judge Enright's directions of law given to the jury did seem to go over the unlawful aspect quite a bit, so I'd assume it had been covered: https://www.scribd.com/document/6301563 ... ons-of-Law
...

Thankyou: this probably contains the crux of the appeal.

Jonathan

The decision path to the verdict doesn't on my reading contain the key determinant/'enabler' which is whether the accused did in fact commit an illegal act that day.

[cycle tramp]

Reading some of these comments I'm tempted to wonder if it might not be a bad thing to extend sub judice restrictions to appeals.

The principle is that judges, unlike juries, can't be improperly swayed by information gained or comments made outside the court's process, no matter how ignorant or tribal.

Jonathan

...do they mean me?

If no one here is a solicitor and no one was part of the original jury, then noone is any less ignorant than anyone else.... the bit we can't see is what happened when both parties passed one another.. and that's the bit which will be at the crux of the appeal.

[Bonefishblues]

Reading some of these comments I'm tempted to wonder if it might not be a bad thing to extend sub judice restrictions to appeals.

The principle is that judges, unlike juries, can't be improperly swayed by information gained or comments made outside the court's process, no matter how ignorant or tribal.

Jonathan

...do they mean me?

If no one here is a solicitor and no one was part of the original jury, then noone is any less ignorant than anyone else.... the bit we can't see is what happened when both parties passed one another.. and that's the bit which will be at the crux of the appeal.

I don't think that you understand.

The reason for the appeal is on the grounds that the Jury wasn't asked to consider the offence correctly and so their verdict was unsafe.

It is not a re-trial of the evidence.

[cycle tramp]

It is my understanding that the conviction of manslaughter was unsafe because the defendant had not acted in a way which was deemed to have caused the decease to think that they intended harm (or the threat of harm).
However, in the link which Sun was kind enough to provide there was direction from the judge to the jury asking whether they believed the defendant acted in a way which they considered would be self defence, to which their verdict was no.
It is possible that an event happened between the deceased and the defendant of which we the general public is unaware - and that this further event was referred to as 'the defendant's action'
If this is the case then this event forms the crux as to whether the defendant intended to cause harm.
However, if the pavement was infact a shared path then the defendants blocking or obstructing it, together with the public order offence of swearing may be enough to find that the defendant had intended to cause harm or the threat of harm to the elderly cyclist.

[Bonefishblues]

The appeal will not consider other charges not laid.

The appeal will be considering the narrow point of law regarding the Judge's alleged failure to correctly instruct the Jury such that the verdict was unsafe.

[Jdsk]

...
It is not a re-trial of the evidence.

Precisely.

Jonathan