Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

[mjr]

As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.

Assault. If not, why not?

[rareposter]

As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.

Other than the minor one of (inadvertently) killing a person.

[Bonefishblues]

As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.

Other than the minor one of (inadvertently) killing a person.

Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.

[Bonefishblues]

As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.

Assault. If not, why not?

Equally, what that you have seen satisfies you than an assault was committed?

[cycle tramp]

As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.

Other than the minor one of (inadvertently) killing a person.

Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.

We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise.

If I find that I am supporting any charity which lends assistance or comfort to the defendant, I will cut all payment.

[Bonefishblues]

Other than the minor one of (inadvertently) killing a person.

Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.

We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise...

Your post illustrates better than I could why those individuals are needed to facilitate the determination of guilt or innocence by a correctly instructed Jury of our peers, I would strongly suggest.

[cycle tramp]

Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.

We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise...

Your post illustrates better than I could why those individuals are needed to facilitate the determination of guilt or innocence by a correctly instructed Jury of our peers, I would strongly suggest.

I was a jury member once. Neither the defence nor the prosecution appeared to be interested in the definite truth, only their version of it. The lawyers themselves seemed less interested in the outcome and more of their payment. It was a waste of time, the only things which grew were tge wallets of those involved. Chess, but with real people as the playing pieces

In this case, the definite truth is there to see. The forum members can make their own mind ups. It matters not. This thread could run until it was so large, God himself would have to notice it, and even then that wouldn't bring back the beloved family member who was taken due to the foolish actions of someone who perhaps was better off in care, and only allowed out under supervision.

[Bonefishblues]

We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise...

Your post illustrates better than I could why those individuals are needed to facilitate the determination of guilt or innocence by a correctly instructed Jury of our peers, I would strongly suggest.

I was a jury member once. Neither the defence nor the prosecution appeared to be interested in the definite truth, only their version of it. The lawyers themselves seemed less interested in the outcome and more of their payment. It was a waste of time, the only things which grew were tge wallets of those involved. Chess, but with real people as the playing pieces

In this case, the definite truth is there to see. The forum members can make their own mind ups. It matters not. This thread could run until it was so large, God himself would have to notice it, and even then that wouldn't bring back the beloved family member who was taken due to the foolish actions of someone who perhaps was better off in care, and only allowed out under supervision.

So was I. Perhaps coincidentally I found the Jury took its job very seriously, and considered a detailed and very technical case at length. The arguments of counsel were helpful, albeit the Prosecution seemed to be rather taking a conviction for granted, I thought. Similarly the Judge's summing up & Instructions framed our conversations as a Jury. Seemed to me to be the antithesis of a waste of time.

The definitive truth isn't there. One aspect of a very great deal of evidence is there. Considering anything less than the whole of the evidence is likely to result in injustices.

[Sum]

Reading between the lines, I presume the unlawful act alleged was common assault. Before directing the jury to consider the question of whether the force used by the defendent was reasonable and thus a defence to a charge of common assault, the judge should presumably have directed the jury to consider first whether what happened was indeed common assault. If it was not common assault, then there could be no conviction for manslaughter.

However, the defence solicitors' comments about a failure to identify the correct test at the beginning of the trial seems to suggest that this is about more than the judge's directions at the end of the trial. Presumably the prosecution did make the case during the trial why the defendent's actions did indeed constitute common assault, and likewise the defence presumably made the case why the defendent was not guilty of common assault.

Thanks for the succinct explanation. Grey was represented at the hearing by Adrian Darbishire KC et all of QEB Hollis Whiteman, and Chris Henley KC of Mountford Chambers, instructed by Ben Rose of Hickman and Rose, all acting pro bono for Auriol Grey. I've quoted below their various summaries for the basis of appeal as given on their websites. The summary from Mountford Chambers mentions that no base offence was identified, which seems consistent with what you said regarding common assault.

Speaking after the decision Ben Rose said: “[Auriol Grey] was charged and convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. In a case such as this, the prosecution is required to prove to the jury that she intended to cause Mrs Ward harm or fear of harm.

“We say this did not happen, and as a result will ask the Court of Appeal when the case is heard in May to quash Ms Grey’s conviction.“

The essence of the appeal is that the legal directions given at the trial were wrong. Had the correct legal test been identified at the start of the trial process, it would have been apparent that the actions of Ms Grey were incapable in law of amounting to the offence of manslaughter.

The basis of the appeal is that the Judge misdirected the jury on unlawful act manslaughter; no base offence was identified. It will be argued at the full hearing, which is scheduled for May, that Ms Grey’s actions were incapable of amounting to the offence of manslaughter.

Note that I've snipped out the rest of the articles in the quotes above, but have provided links for reference and further reading.

[cycle tramp]

The definitive truth isn't there. One aspect of a very great deal of evidence is there.

If you write to convince others, then this is your concern. If you write to convince me, then you waste your time. His holiness the Pope could bless the defendant himself, and still my mind would not change

[Nearholmer]

There’s been a properly constituted trial, and the defendant was found guilty.

As I understand things, there is to be an appeal against the conviction. That will go to court, and the court will decide.

Courts aren’t perfect, they do occasionally make errors, but they are far better equipped to decide these things than a forum on the internet. And, BTW, matters of “intent” seem always to be difficult for courts to decide, and often become the subject of appeals.

Let’s wait to see what the court decides.

[Bonefishblues]

The definitive truth isn't there. One aspect of a very great deal of evidence is there.

If you write to convince others, then this is your concern. If you write to convince me, then you waste your time. His holiness the Pope could bless the defendant himself, and still my mind would not change

You've made your view abundantly clear. That's not necessarily synonymous with either the truth, or objectivity.

[mattheus]

Reading between the lines, I presume the unlawful act alleged was common assault. Before directing the jury to consider the question of whether the force used by the defendent was reasonable and thus a defence to a charge of common assault, the judge should presumably have directed the jury to consider first whether what happened was indeed common assault. If it was not common assault, then there could be no conviction for manslaughter.

An unlawful act doesn't have to be a crime.
Going back to the CPS webpage:

Unlawful Act Manslaughter
For the relevant law and jury directions for unlawful act manslaughter, see the Judicial College's Crown Court Compendium, Part I, at 19-5. The prosecution must prove an intentional act (not omission); that the intentional act is unlawful; that it is an act which all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to at least some risk of harm.

(Now, please don't ask me to explain the difference between "criminal" and "unlawful", but someone clever did explain it to me recently, and I believe them!)
EDITED with some bold

[Bonefishblues]

There’s been a properly constituted trial, and the defendant was found guilty.

As I understand things, there is to be an appeal against the conviction. That will go to court, and the court will decide.

Courts aren’t perfect, they do occasionally make errors, but they are far better equipped to decide these things than a forum on the internet. And, BTW, matters of “intent” seem always to be difficult for courts to decide, and often become the subject of appeals.

Let’s wait to see what the court decides.

The Appeal Court rejected an earlier submission of appeal on the grounds that the sentence was excessive, so these alternative grounds were put forward. Notwithstanding its earlier rejection, I think the CofA still has the ability to reduce the sentence in this hearing (alternatively it can reject the appeal, or uphold it and quash the conviction)

I completely agree with your other point - we have only a fraction of the information needed to determine this (albeit it's now being taken forward on different, narrower grounds) so we would be wise not to make definitive statements.

[slowster]

An unlawful act doesn't have to be a crime.

The unlawful act does have to be a crime for a charge of unlawful act manslaughter. An unlawful act would be a breach of either criminal law or civil law, but a breach of civil law would not give rise to a charge of unlawful act manslaughter. There is a separate offence of gross negligence manslaughter, but as the term suggests it applies to unlawful acts of negligence that are so egregious that they reach a level of criminal cupability.

This website explains in detail, and cites relevant case law (R v Franklin) - https://www.lawteacher.net/lectures/cri ... slaughter/