Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

[Bonefishblues]

In 6 months she will get early release anyway, as of right.

Someone who carried on shopping after this incident, who has well-documented issues of cognition, and has lived most of her life in sheltered accommodation is highly unlikely to provide the apology you feel important. Perhaps it will come after release, who knows, but as I commented earlier, she will in any event be advised by counsel not to make any comment whilst the appeal is pending.

The convicted is estranged from her remaining parent, it was reported at the time, and her mother was quoted as having spent all her money on medical interventions for her youngest daughter. It seems highly unlikely that there's a family intervention, unless you have some knowledge you can share?

Your final sentence is hyperbole. The outcome of this appeal will have no effect on the safety of cyclists on shared paths. It turns on the right of every citizen to a fair trial, correctly conducted, and is specific to the conduct of her trial.

[cycle tramp]

Your final sentence is hyperbole. The outcome of this appeal will have no effect on the safety of cyclists on shared paths. It turns on the right of every citizen to a fair trial, correctly conducted, and is specific to the conduct of her trial.

Well, let us hope so - however reference to previous case law remains a corner stone to in any legal dispute (i.e the defendant wishes to draw the court's attention to whom ever vs whatever court, followed by the year - I seem to remember it as 'legal presidency'' or something, but it's been a while, and it might refer to nothing or something else entirely).

If it is found that the accused while acted in a way to prevent the cyclist from continuing to use the path - but did not intend to cause injury or fear of injury, despite causing their death, then this becomes an unfortunate point of reference, and will no doubt be used as a reference for any future cases.

As for the former, is there any statement that the solicitors are acting pro bond in this appeal?

[Bonefishblues]

Your final sentence is hyperbole. The outcome of this appeal will have no effect on the safety of cyclists on shared paths. It turns on the right of every citizen to a fair trial, correctly conducted, and is specific to the conduct of her trial.

Well, let us hope so - however reference to previous case law remains a corner stone to in any legal dispute. If it is found that the accused while acted in a way to prevent the cyclist from continuing to use the path - but did not intend to cause injury or fear of injury, despite causing their death, then this becomes an unfortunate point of reference, and will no doubt be used against us.

As for the former, is there any statement that the solicitors are acting pro bond in this appeal?

Pro bono representation.

https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/sit ... ghter-case

[DaveReading]

Well, let us hope so - however reference to previous case law remains a corner stone to in any legal dispute (i.e the defendant wishes to draw the court's attention to whom ever vs whatever court, followed by the year - I seem to remember it as 'legal presidency'' or something, but it's been a while, and it might refer to nothing or something else entirely).

Precedent has no relevance in this instance.

[cycle tramp]

Your final sentence is hyperbole. The outcome of this appeal will have no effect on the safety of cyclists on shared paths. It turns on the right of every citizen to a fair trial, correctly conducted, and is specific to the conduct of her trial.

As for the former, is there any statement that the solicitors are acting pro bond in this appeal?

Pro bono representation.

https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/sit ... ghter-case

Except not quite, according to their own websites 'Hickman & Rose have a long experience of defending people charged with motoring offences....' and go on to boast that 'have achieved significant success in pursuing investigators to not to bring charges or to halt procedures'.
What we have isn't a case for justice for the family of the deceased but a rather a cold and cynical poly for a group of solicitors to manipulate the situation, for their own gains... publicity.... 'hey, we got this person off of an manslaughter charge, when she caused a cyclist to fall in front of a car - if you're drunk and have run someone over - we might be able to do the same for you'
Gosh who would have thought that about a bunch of solicitors - eh?

[cycle tramp]

Well, let us hope so - however reference to previous case law remains a corner stone to in any legal dispute (i.e the defendant wishes to draw the court's attention to whom ever vs whatever court, followed by the year - I seem to remember it as 'legal presidency'' or something, but it's been a while, and it might refer to nothing or something else entirely).

Precedent has no relevance in this instance.

Because....? Its no use saying that Precedent has no relevance in this instance, because that's like saying that this event will never happen again. I hope it won't but the future doesn't make any promises for this...

[Bonefishblues]

As for the former, is there any statement that the solicitors are acting pro bond in this appeal?

Pro bono representation.

https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/sit ... ghter-case

Except not quite, according to their own websites 'Hickman & Rose have a long experience of defending people charged with motoring offences....' and go on to boast that 'have achieved significant success in pursuing investigators to not tobring charges or to halt procedures'.
What we have insist a case for justice for the family of the deceased by rather a cold and cynical poly for a group of solicitors to manipulate the situation- publicity - for their own gains.
Gosh who would have thought that about a bunch of solicitors - eh?

Except it's exactly that, no matter how you attempt to skew it.

[Bonefishblues]

Well, let us hope so - however reference to previous case law remains a corner stone to in any legal dispute (i.e the defendant wishes to draw the court's attention to whom ever vs whatever court, followed by the year - I seem to remember it as 'legal presidency'' or something, but it's been a while, and it might refer to nothing or something else entirely).

Precedent has no relevance in this instance.

Because....? Its no use saying that Precedent has no relevance in this instance, because that's like saying that this event will never happen again. I hope it won't but the future doesn't make any promises for this...

Precedent already says that the correct instruction should be given to one's peers who are determining one's guilt or innocence. That's what this appeal is about.

[cycle tramp]

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....

[Bonefishblues]

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.

[cycle tramp]

Precedent has no relevance in this instance.

Because....? Its no use saying that Precedent has no relevance in this instance, because that's like saying that this event will never happen again. I hope it won't but the future doesn't make any promises for this...

Precedent already says that the correct instruction should be given to one's peers who are determining one's guilt or innocence. That's what this appeal is about.

What that despite being able to go shopping for herself, cross the road with being a risk to herself and the public, and all the other tests that social services do.. she somehow couldn't understand that by forcing a cyclist into the road, might cause them injury or death?

[cycle tramp]

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.

Is that like the royal 'we'.... are you a solicitor? Do you get into trouble for bad mouthing other solicitors.. even the very stooopid ones which loose their customer's wills and deeds to their property?

Is it like one of the rules for being... what... the institute of criminal lawyers, or frame work of solicitors...'You shall not bring other solicitors into disrepute' or something like that.

[Jdsk]

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.

Jonathan

* Despite the appalling recent language on this from the Prime Minister.

[cycle tramp]

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.

Jonathan

* Despite the appalling recent language on this from the Prime Minister.

No such thing as justice, not for any of us.....
There's rules.. and if they are broken, usually hurt or dead people, then some sort of circus is played out.. and the world turns on... the dead people stay dead and are mourned, those otherwise involved live out their lives the best they can.... but at no point should we ever think 'oh, justice is being served.. cause its rules we're making up as we go...

As Agatha Once wrote - everyone remembers the names of the villains. No one remembers the names of the judges...

[Bonefishblues]

Because....? Its no use saying that Precedent has no relevance in this instance, because that's like saying that this event will never happen again. I hope it won't but the future doesn't make any promises for this...

Precedent already says that the correct instruction should be given to one's peers who are determining one's guilt or innocence. That's what this appeal is about.

What that despite being able to go shopping for herself, cross the road with being a risk to herself and the public, and all the other tests that social services do.. she somehow couldn't understand that by forcing a cyclist into the road, might cause them injury or death?

Precedent already says that the correct instruction should be given to one's peers who are determining one's guilt or innocence. That's what this appeal is about.