Cycling UK Forum

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 8:46pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 6:21pm

ChrisButch wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 6:15pm Reading some of these comments I'm tempted to wonder if it might not be a bad thing to extend sub judice restrictions to appeals.

The principle is that judges, unlike juries, can't be improperly swayed by information gained or comments made outside the court's process, no matter how ignorant or tribal.

Jonathan

...do they mean me?

If no one here is a solicitor and no one was part of the original jury, then noone is any less ignorant than anyone else.... the bit we can't see is what happened when both parties passed one another.. and that's the bit which will be at the crux of the appeal.

I don't think that you understand.

The reason for the appeal is on the grounds that the Jury wasn't asked to consider the offence correctly and so their verdict was unsafe.

It is not a re-trial of the evidence.

Jdsk wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 6:09pm

Sum wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 1:26pm ...
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
...

Thankyou: this probably contains the crux of the appeal.

Jonathan

The decision path to the verdict doesn't on my reading contain the key determinant/'enabler' which is whether the accused did in fact commit an illegal act that day.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 12:52pm

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 12:45pm That is your prerogative. I prefer the correct application of the law without fear or favour. We shall see whether the Court erred in this case in due course.

Your knowledge of modern history fails you. Where was the 'fear or favour' when during the miners strike, those who were falsely accused of rioting sought to bring complaints against the police or those injured during the battle of the Blanefield sought also to make complaint. The law exists to protect the status quo....

..er, not the band

A woman lost her life. Another lost her liberty. All ends up it's a tragic set of circumstances. It's not the time or place for either levity or politicking.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 12:25pm

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

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:47am

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.

No I am not.

I will leave the rest of your words to speak for themselves.

Thank you for your reply..

..thank you.. its appreciated. Let it be clear and in no doubt I have no love for those who seek to disinhert the actions of their clients which have brought injury or death, through the weasel words of humanity nor the arguement of courts.

That is your prerogative. I prefer the correct application of the law without fear or favour. We shall see whether the Court erred in this case in due course.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:47am

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:43am

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:40am 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.

No I am not.

I will leave the rest of your words to speak for themselves.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:45am

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:39am

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:31am

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.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:40am 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 wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:31am

DaveReading wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:29am

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:09amWell, 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 wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:30am

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:14am

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:09am

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.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑24 Mar 2024, 9:09am

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 10:05pm
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

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 wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 9:18pm

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 4:16pm

cycle tramp wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 3:54pm

It is possible that may be the case - However if these are the facts this does not diminish her potential danger to the public.
Had the person who had been riding the bike been a child then I can imagine that both her original sentence and the public perception of the situation would be harsher.
As it stands there is nothing to indicate that she will not behave in the same way should the same situation arise.

Is there evidence that she will though? Do we know anything at all about her incarceration and its effect on her? People are released all the time who have served their sentences, should she be treated any differently to them? (Leaving aside the issue that's just been sent to appeal)

Except.... she's not served her sentence, only appealed it

I know. I thought we were indulging in mutual whataboutery.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 3:54pm

Valbrona wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 1:04pm Being autistic it is possible she lacked the mental capacity to show remorse/empathy, or even understand the consequences of her actions. Depending on the severity of her condition, that is.

Likewise, she may not have in any way forseen the possible consequences of her actions because of her condition.

It is possible that may be the case - However if these are the facts this does not diminish her potential danger to the public.
Had the person who had been riding the bike been a child then I can imagine that both her original sentence and the public perception of the situation would be harsher.
As it stands there is nothing to indicate that she will not behave in the same way should the same situation arise.

Is there evidence that she will though? Do we know anything at all about her incarceration and its effect on her? People are released all the time who have served their sentences, should she be treated any differently to them? (Leaving aside the issue that's just been sent to appeal)

Cowsham wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 2:02pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 1:23pm

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑23 Mar 2024, 1:03pm It's being contended that she didn't have a fair trial though. She clearly has issues with empathy - who carries on with their shopping in those circumstances, for instance, but in any event she would certainly have been advised by counsel not to comment. The Court of Appeal will rule on it, which may involve a retrial with correct instruction to the Jury, assuming the Judge erred.

Yes, the reason for this application being successful is the evidence and directions on the specific category of manslaughter. As discussed in the initial pages of this thread.

https://www.hickmanandrose.co.uk/ben-ro ... onviction/

Jonathan

And loads a money for the lawyers judges etc milking a high profile case for all it's worth.

It's clear she is a danger to the public. A lioness has no empathy for it's dinner just a hungry belly and big teeth but it's still a danger to the public so needs to be separated from them.

What are you proposing?

It's being contended that she didn't have a fair trial though. She clearly has issues with empathy - who carries on with their shopping in those circumstances, for instance, but in any event she would certainly have been advised by counsel not to comment. The Court of Appeal will rule on it, which may involve a retrial with correct instruction to the Jury, assuming the Judge erred.