mattheus wrote: ↑25 Mar 2024, 11:42am
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.
Reading your link, it seems to contain quite a few typos etc. I'm left wondering if that's some sort of strategy to tackle plagiarism or a sign that the author is not so bright as they'd like to think they are
Both murder and manslaughter are fatal offences against the person, known as homicide offences, and carry the same actus reus. This is not set out formally in statue and instead is taken from the Sir Edward Coke definition and identified as ‘the unlawful killing of a human being in rerum natura under the queen’s peace’.
For those who want to dig deeper into the offence then the Crown Court's own 'bible' is here. It includes prototypical Jury Instructions and much else:
Bonefishblues wrote: ↑25 Mar 2024, 4:50pm
For those who want to dig deeper into the offence then the Crown Court's own 'bible' is here. It includes prototypical Jury Instructions and much else:
Bonefishblues wrote: ↑25 Mar 2024, 4:50pm
For those who want to dig deeper into the offence then the Crown Court's own 'bible' is here. It includes prototypical Jury Instructions and much else:
Bonefishblues wrote: ↑25 Mar 2024, 4:50pm
For those who want to dig deeper into the offence then the Crown Court's own 'bible' is here. It includes prototypical Jury Instructions and much else:
Part 1 19-5 onwards refers to this offence. On the criminal act element, I thought this was a helpful guide:
A useful rule of thumb is to begin by asking what would have been charged if noone had died.
A lot to go at but I've begun reading
You really only need to look at that section, which isn't too onerous. It's pretty well written, I think.
Yes. But perhaps the big issue here relates to the evidence heard by the jury and incomplete reporting means we don't know the extent of that evidence.
Anyway, thanks for the link. Above all, it seems much more coherent than the Law Teacher stuff
Thanks for the link to the Crown Court Compendium, Bonefishblues. The bit I read (part 1 sec. 19-5) was written well as you say. Para. 4&5 in sec 19-5 clearly mentions that the 'base offence' must be specified and all elements of it proven. I don't recall the base offence being mentioned in the reporting of Grey's trial, but perhaps I missed it or it wasn't reported. We'll have to wait and see what the court decides in May.
I did note that the route to verdict given in the example at the end of sec. 19-5 (Example 1: Punch by D followed by death of W – D had been drinking) was similar in layout to Judge Enright's route to verdict in their directions of law to the jury. The example has the same questions regarding self-defence and reasonable force but no explicit mention of what the base offence is and has it been proven. Perhaps Slowster is right and the alleged misdirection to the jury occurred at the beginning of the trial, rather than with the directions of law given to the jury at the end.
thirdcrank wrote: ↑25 Mar 2024, 5:58pmYes. But perhaps the big issue here relates to the evidence heard by the jury and incomplete reporting means we don't know the extent of that evidence.
Which, of course, is almost always an insurmountable obstacle to trying to second-guess a verdict or sentence.
Unless you have sat in the public gallery throughout a trial, you are never going to be able to put yourself in the place of a jury member.
You really only need to look at that section, which isn't too onerous. It's pretty well written, I think.
Yes. But perhaps the big issue here relates to the evidence heard by the jury and incomplete reporting means we don't know the extent of that evidence.
Anyway, thanks for the link. Above all, it seems much more coherent than the Law Teacher stuff
According to a source on the web, during the police interview the defendant admitted that she 'made light contact with the deceased' however during her trial she advised the courts 'I can't remember'. Coaching from the solicitors, perhaps?
Further to this her autism has been diagnosed after the incident... as for being partially blind? Perhaps without her glasses she is. Certainly her solicitors are making the best case to cast the defendant as a victim of circumstance rather than perpetrator.
cycle tramp wrote: ↑26 Mar 2024, 7:53am
...
According to a source on the web, during the police interview the defendant admitted that she 'made light contact with the deceased' however during her trial she advised the courts 'I can't remember'.
...
cycle tramp wrote: ↑26 Mar 2024, 7:53am
...
According to a source on the web, during the police interview the defendant admitted that she 'made light contact with the deceased' however during her trial she advised the courts 'I can't remember'.
...
cycle tramp wrote: ↑26 Mar 2024, 7:53am
...
According to a source on the web, during the police interview the defendant admitted that she 'made light contact with the deceased' however during her trial she advised the courts 'I can't remember'.
...
Please could you share that source.
Thanks
Jonathan
This is where it becomes slightly tricky, because I used the Google search function which finds text. I typed in 'Auriol Grey contact cyclist' just to see if any details about the case had made it onto the web and could be attrubited to a reliable source. Google found the text and attributed it to an article in the Times, which is hidden behind a request to enrol in a free subscription.
However I am indebted to Mattheus who found the same quote under a BBC news article. It's more than possible at this stage, the press are not giving any other variances of the situation, other than what has been presented by the appeals team, until the appeal is over, simply to protect themselves against any complaints
cycle tramp wrote: ↑26 Mar 2024, 7:53am
...
According to a source on the web, during the police interview the defendant admitted that she 'made light contact with the deceased' however during her trial she advised the courts 'I can't remember'.
...
IMO it's worth noting that as well as the specific stuff about individual offences such as the different types of manslaughter we have been discussing there is a lot of general guidance covering all trials in indictment in the earlier sections. I'd summarise this as being that various rules must be followed but tailored to the needs of each trial. Unfortunately, I cannot now find something which seemed relevant when I first read it yesterday but my layman's summary would be that the judge should discuss all their proposed directions to the jury with prosecution and defence advocates and if possible gain their.agreement in the absence of the jury before giving those directions.
If I've understood and remembered this correctly, there should then be no appeals based on trawling the law books for ingenious grounds for appeal long after the trial. The only points which would then normally go to appeal would be those where defence submissions had been rejected by the judge.
thirdcrank wrote: ↑26 Mar 2024, 11:11am
Re The Crown Court Compendium linked above.
If I've understood and remembered this correctly, there should then be no appeals based on trawling the law books for ingenious grounds for appeal long after the trial. The only points which would then normally go to appeal would be those where defence submissions had been rejected by the judge.
Thanks - in your opinion, having read much more of the rules than myself, could that include if the judge had rejected the earlier defence claims that the defendant did not intend to harm the deceased, if the defendant had (attempted) to make physical contact with them before the collision, but only sought to protect themselves?
