Cycling UK Forum

I don't recall self-defence being mentioned from the news reports. The news reports were sketchy though.

The judge's directions of law does go into it in some detail for the jury's benefit. The route to verdict asks the jury to consider self-defence and reasonable force, so presumably they did consider it.

The judge's sentencing notes mentions it once:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240108155404/https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years wrote:You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.

NB The archived version of the sentencing notes circumvents the substack pay wall. I mention this in case people object and don't want to click on it.

Edited 27/03/24 (after Thirdcrank replied below) for completeness and accuracy: I should have said above more specifically that I don't recall there being any mention of "self-defence" being used by Grey as a defence during the trial. However, some of the BBC news articles did say that Jurors were shown a recording of her police interviews, during which Grey said that said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. I got the impression from the news articles the police interviews were shown during the prosecution's case. I didn't see any mention of the defence barrister making anything of this in the news, although that doesn't mean it wasn't.

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.

slowster wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 11:24pm
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.

https://www.hickmanandrose.co.uk/ben-rose-on-decision-to-grant-auriol-grey-leave-to-appeal-her-manslaughter-conviction/ wrote: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.“

https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/site/library/recent-cases/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-pavement-cyclist-manslaughter-case wrote: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.

https://www.mountfordchambers.com/leave-to-appeal-granted-to-in-pavement-cyclist-manslaughter-case/ wrote: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.

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 10:19pm

Sum wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 10:18pm Regarding Judge Enright's directions of law to the jury not containing the unlawful act: I thought it did. It mentions it several times in the explanation of manslaughter and self defence.

I referenced his 'decision tree' of questions to the Jury such that they can reach their verdict. I don't see a relevant question/decision point in that.

You mean specifically the section headed "route to verdict"? I took the relevant question(s)/decision point(s) here as being the list of questions establishing whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. Admittedly it doesn't mention the latter, it seems to rule out the lawful use of force i.e. by accident, in self-defence, and with reasonable force and other aspects covered in the previous sections e.g. being mistaken and reacting on the spur of the moment etc.

I don't know if the list of questions are correct or complete though, or if this is the correct way of doing things. Grey's lawyers seem to think that something is wrong here.

Regarding Judge Enright's directions of law to the jury not containing the unlawful act: I thought it did. It mentions it several times in the explanation of manslaughter and self defence.

I believe this is the BBC footage:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-64824436
It appears in several BBC news articles on the same subject.

Sky news had a slightly longer (and more distressing) version but without the audio and expletives:
https://news.sky.com/video/auriol-grey- ... d-12823966

thirdcrank wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 12:02pm I presume the following is an accurate report of the appeal against conviction

Sum wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024, 9:35pm 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:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68606255 wrote: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.

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

Auriol Grey is to appeal against her manslaughter conviction. At a hearing on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal gave Grey the go-ahead to challenge her conviction. The full appeal is expected to be heard in May.

Ben Rose, of Hickman & Rose solicitors, who are representing Grey, said: "Auriol Grey is an autistic, disabled person with impaired vision... 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."

Psamathe wrote: ↑6 Mar 2024, 10:29pm Any regulations about the max. speed of horses? ...

Not in general that I'm aware of. Whilst perusing through the Royal Parks regs I did note

"Acts prohibited in a Park
3. Subject to the provisions of regulation 6, no person using a Park shall—

(1) intentionally or recklessly interfere with the safety, comfort or convenience of any person using a Park in accordance with these Regulations;
...
(10) (a) ride any animal,
(b) drive or ride any vehicle, or
(c) use any pedal cycle, roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
in any manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person;"

So endangering any person by horse, cycle, 'vehicle' etc. is prohibited (obviously). I think it is these particular regs that are now used to crack down on bad cycling behaviours.

NB it is settled law that a pedal cycle is a vehicle Ellis -v- Nott-Bower (1895) but the legislation here makes specific separate provision for cycles in the above regs, and seems to distinguish them from vehicles. The same is true in para (11) prohibiting riding/driving at night, or in seriously reduced visibility during the day, without lights. It does seem that the legislators did not intend cycles to be treated as vehicles here.

I also see the same point was made by Thirdcrank in 2008 (in fact I've just plagiarised some of their words): viewtopic.php?p=117590#p117590

Speed limits in Richmond Park, Bushy Park, The Green Park, Greenwich Park, Hyde Park, St James’s Park, and The Regent’s Park are governed by The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 (as amended up to 2020), not by byelaws.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639

The speed limits are laid out in Schedule 2 of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 and refer to vehicles, not motor vehicles or mechanically propelled vehicles e.g.:-

"Acts in a Park for which written permission is required
4. Unless the Secretary of State’s written permission has first been obtained, no person using a Park shall—
...
(28) drive or ride any vehicle on a Park road in excess of the speed specified in relation to that road in Part II of Schedule 2 to these Regulations;"
...

SCHEDULE 2
THE DRIVING AND RIDING OF VEHICLES ON A PARK ROAD
...
PART 2
Speeds at which a vehicle may be driven or ridden on a Park road
1. On a Park road in Bushy Park, The Green Park, Greenwich Park, Hyde Park (other than the Serpentine Road), St James’s Park, The Regent’s Park or Richmond Park, at a speed not exceeding 20 mph.
2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. On the Serpentine Road in Hyde Park, and on the Park road from Kingston Gate leading to the Home Park Golf Club in Hampton Court Park, at a speed not exceeding 15 mph.
4. On a Park road (other than one mentioned in paragraphs 1 ... or 3), at a speed not exceeding 10 mph."

NB An amendment to the regs in March 2010 had included the definition: '“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.' https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ion/1/made

However the definition was revoked in the November 2010 amendment: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ion/2/made

Edit: NB for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that the Royal Parks speed limits apply to cyclists. Indeed the current position is that they do not. The police do however enforce a regulation stipulating that you must not ride in a manner that would endanger the safety of other park visitors or yourself, and speeding can form part of that.

I've noticed that The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 has had the definition of a vehicle removed e.g. from the March 2010 amendment (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ion/1/made): “vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road." This excluded pedal cycles, however the definition was revoked in the November 2010 amendment: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ion/2/made

As a result the speed limits in Schedule 2 of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 (as amended up to 2020) seem to apply to all vehicles, not just motor vehicles or mechanically propelled vehicles.

"Acts in a Park for which written permission is required
4. Unless the Secretary of State’s written permission has first been obtained, no person using a Park shall—
...
(28) drive or ride any vehicle on a Park road in excess of the speed specified in relation to that road in Part II of Schedule 2 to these Regulations;"
...
SCHEDULE 2
THE DRIVING AND RIDING OF VEHICLES ON A PARK ROAD
...
1. On a Park road in Bushy Park, The Green Park, Greenwich Park, Hyde Park (other than the Serpentine Road), St James’s Park, The Regent’s Park or Richmond Park, at a speed not exceeding 20 mph." etc.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639

ericoutdoors wrote: ↑1 Mar 2024, 7:52pm ...
OK so they're 50-584, but I'm still confused. I take it the tires are definitely too big then?
As the radius is good, can't I just install the fender so it's a bit further away from the tyre?

The reason I'm asking about this particular fender is because I just found them on offer for about £23, which seems like a good price.

Are you sure the tyres are 50-584 (27.5×2.00)? If the tyres are marked 56-584 or 57-584 (27.5×2.20 or 27.5×2.25) then they will be wider than 50mm. If the fender doesn't fit then it's not a good deal regardless of the price.

tentman wrote: ↑2 Mar 2024, 8:16am I tried to take advantage of a link sent to me in CycleClips to pay for 12 months membership for the price of 9. It would not let me put in my credit card details, does anyone know why? I have therefore missed the offer.

The Cycling UK website would not let you enter your payment details? Was that because your card details were wrong? I've just had a go and I can enter digits for the card number, expiry dates & CVC. It tells me that the "... card number is invalid" but that's because I made it up.

The offer in Paulatic's link expires at midnight tomorrow, so I'd suggest you have another go and see what error messages you get.

The rear fender is intended for tyres that are 44mm wide. Your tyres are 50mm wide. Fenders are sometimes wider than the tyre they are intended for so they may work but then again they may not. You could try asking the seller to measure the actual width of the fender.

Pinhead wrote: ↑1 Mar 2024, 11:20am I am sick of having to buy a set of brushes
Does anyone have an alternative to this set I only want ONE brush x 5 of it thanks
zzz.jpg

If you're looking for a narrow brush for cleaning the cassette, like the one you've circled in that photo, then try searching online for "narrow brush", "groove brush", "crevice brush" etc. e.g.:-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CTGBWSWY/
https://thedustpanandbrushstore.co.uk/p ... ff-bristle
These are just examples, I don't know if they're any good. Your local DIY shop may have some to inspect and see if they meet your needs. Park Tool also sell these individually (Park Tool GSC-4) but you'll be paying Park Tool prices.
Edit: added Park Tool GSC-4