Search found 36207 matches

by thirdcrank
26 Mar 2024, 2:03pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Sum

Thanks for going to the trouble of digging that out and posting it.
by thirdcrank
26 Mar 2024, 1:09pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

cycle tramp

Re "self defence" which you mentioned and I overlooked and so did not answer. AIUI, The (legal) defence of "self defence" is available to any defendant charged with any offence of violence - unlike Unlawful Act Manslaughter which is itself a defence against a charge of murder or other homicide. Self defence is covered in detail in the Crown Court Compendium already linked. An important point is that self defence must be proportionate, although that's not a precise measure, of course.

I don't know if self defence was mentioned during the trial
by thirdcrank
26 Mar 2024, 12:14pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Walking the wrong way

I originated this thread but it has been chopped and changed a lot since I did so. Manslaughter is way, way above my pay grade but based on the BBC link including that CCTV footage I posted this:-
thirdcrank wrote: 2 Mar 2023, 5:12pm The current CPS Guidance is here - scroll down to Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/h ... Toc3812588

It's summarised thus:-
The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.
A more detailed explanation follows that.
I've seen nothing to change my opinion.
by thirdcrank
26 Mar 2024, 11:11am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Re The Crown Court Compendium linked above.

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.
by thirdcrank
25 Mar 2024, 5:58pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 5:03pm
thirdcrank wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 5:00pm
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:

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-r ... ompendium/

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
by thirdcrank
25 Mar 2024, 5:00pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

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:

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-r ... ompendium/

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
by thirdcrank
25 Mar 2024, 3:17pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

slowster wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 12:09pm
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.

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

=============================================================================
eg:
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’.
by thirdcrank
24 Mar 2024, 1:56pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

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.
by thirdcrank
24 Mar 2024, 1:00pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Jdsk wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 12:30pm
thirdcrank wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 12:24pm
Jdsk wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 12:18pm
The solicitors' statement with the grounds is here, as cited upthread:
https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/sit ... ghter-case
Is there anything in your link which differs significantly from my post?
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.

Yes, the stated grounds are wider than "the CPS's definition of the offence". They could include a mistake in the judge's directions such as the meaning of the words in the Act or the required burden of proof. Neither of those would have anything to do with the CPS.

Jonathan
It does seem to me that it's more than "wider" but a quite different definition of the offence.

FWIW, the appellant was reportedly represented by King's Counsel who told the judge that her client had been convinced by comment on social media that her disabilities meant she could not be sentenced to imprisonment.
by thirdcrank
24 Mar 2024, 12:24pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Jdsk wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 12:18pm
thirdcrank wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 12:02pm
...
It seems to me that the grounds of appeal against conviction are a challenge to the Crown Prosecution Service's definition of the offence.
The solicitors' statement with the grounds is here, as cited upthread:
https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/sit ... ghter-case

Jonathan
Is there anything in your link which differs significantly from my post?
by thirdcrank
24 Mar 2024, 12:02pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15222

Re: Walking the wrong way

I think it's worth remembering that this was a criminal trial for manslaughter. This means it's not what I believe might be described as a "zero sum game." As I understand it, the appellant was convicted by a jury. I have already linked the Crown Prosecution Service's definition of this offence:
thirdcrank wrote: 2 Mar 2023, 5:12pm The current CPS Guidance is here - scroll down to Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/h ... Toc3812588

It's summarised thus:-
The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.
(my bold)
A more detailed explanation follows that.
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

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.
(My bold)

"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."
It seems to me that the grounds of appeal against conviction are a challenge to the Crown Prosecution Service's definition of the offence.
by thirdcrank
20 Mar 2024, 10:46am
Forum: Health and fitness
Topic: Dental Implant Cost (vs Problem Root Canal)
Replies: 40
Views: 6042

Re: Dental Implant Cost (vs Problem Root Canal)

This seems weird. Bear in mind the last post on this thread was in December 2016.

Yesterday evening a first post - that is from a new member - was displayed with a link to a recommended provider. I successfully reported it as possible spam. A few seconds later when I returned to this thread that post had disappeared but borisface had posted.
by thirdcrank
18 Mar 2024, 12:39pm
Forum: Using the Forum - request help : report difficulties
Topic: Academic surveys
Replies: 8
Views: 366

Re: Academic surveys

I see a difference between the type of "poll" attached by the original poster of a thread and the type of academic survey I'm referring to.

I think the comment from graham helpfully linked above by gaz was referring to the former, the point being that a new forum member needs approval for their first post to try to ensure they are genuine but inclusion of a poll may point to spamming. For example, asking posters to rank anything and give comments in support is a warning sign.

I think genuine academic surveys are quite different although it's possible that a would-be spammer might try to disguise their motive.

This is the rationale for what I'm suggesting, based on my memory of graham's rule. Then, if somebody produced an arguably poor survey respondents would be replying only to the survey and could still offer their supplementary (?) advice directly to the creator of the survey and with no motivation to parade their knowledge to the entire forum.

My memory is that in the days of NVQs (?) surveys were typically a part of the work required to gain the relevant qualification and we did seem to get quite a lot. I think we should help and encourage academic research at any level but that help should be limited to pointing forum members towards the online link for such surveys.

I presume that most people conducting academic research which includes "cycling" in its terms does not want that to be mired in people displaying their "expertise" in conducting surveys.
by thirdcrank
17 Mar 2024, 6:13pm
Forum: Using the Forum - request help : report difficulties
Topic: Site response is slow
Replies: 31
Views: 6308

Re: Site response is slow

Perhaps the Forty Thieves have found a way back in.

:lol:
by thirdcrank
17 Mar 2024, 4:52pm
Forum: Using the Forum - request help : report difficulties
Topic: Academic surveys
Replies: 8
Views: 366

Re: Academic surveys

gaz

Thanks for that but it's not what I had in mind but it's time to let go