Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

[cycle tramp]

If one goes all the way back to the first bbc news report, the defendant stated that 'she may have put out her arm to defend herself'... I believe that this is the part which is missing from the footage, and I believe that this is the action to which the court paper's refer.
If this has been covered in the original court case then what we have may be a physical connection or an attempt thereof with the cyclist which sends them off the pavement. In which case there is the intent to harm, wrapped in a statement to suggest self defence.

[Sum]

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

[Bonefishblues]

If one goes all the way back to the first bbc news report, the defendant stated that 'she may have put out her arm to defend herself'... I believe that this is the part which is missing from the footage, and I believe that this is the action to which the court paper's refer.
If this has been covered in the original court case then what we have may be a physical connection or an attempt thereof with the cyclist which sends them off the pavement. In which case there is the intent to harm, wrapped in a statement to suggest self defence.

That might emerge if she won her appeal and the state determined that a re-trial would be in the public interest.

It will not form part of the appeal.

[Sum]

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.

[Bonefishblues]

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.

[cycle tramp]

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

Thank you Sun. It is appreciated and confirms that I had presumed. Here's person walking confidently, not scared or frightened towards a cyclist and act in a way which intends them harm by seemingly push them from their bike into the road. The defendant can be seen to have stopped walking as the bike passes her and there is a twist to the defendant's torso. Regardless of the actions of the appeal, the camera reveals the defendant for what who they are. Not scared, not frightened but someone who was prepared to use their own size against an elderly cyclist who was cycling along a shared use pavement.

Whether the appeal goes the defendant's way or not, through that video footage anyone can witness the defendant's actions and need no further lawyers or judges to know what she is.

[Bonefishblues]

You have formed an opinion based on an aspect of the evidence presented at trial. Please stop saying we.

[cycle tramp]

You have formed an opinion based on an aspect of the evidence presented at trial. Please stop saying we.

I'd actually watch the clip from sky before you make any further comment. That's not my opinion, in the post above - it's my witness statement from having seen the footage.

Again my thanks to Sun for this clip. As difficult as it is to witness, I hope everyone watches it. We owe the deceased that much.

[Sum]

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.

[slowster]

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.

[Valbrona]

As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.

[Bonefishblues]

You have formed an opinion based on an aspect of the evidence presented at trial. Please stop saying we.

I'd actually watch the clip from sky before you make any further comment. That's not my opinion, in the post above - it's my witness statement from having seen the footage.

Again my thanks to Sun for this clip. As difficult as it is to witness, I hope everyone watches it. We owe the deceased that much.

I have watched it many times.

Thank you for removing 'we'

[Bonefishblues]

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.

That seems to me to be at the heart of things, yes. If a Judge (quite correctly in a complex case) gives a decision tree to a Jury such that they can reach a verdict, then it must be completely watertight.

[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.

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...

Sorry, I had assumed that you were using the term in the legal sense.

In the Crown Court, only previous judgments in the higher courts (e.g. the Appeal Court) can constitute Precedent. Obviously that doesn't apply in this instance.

[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...

Sorry, I had assumed that you were using the term in the legal sense.

In the Crown Court, only previous judgments in the higher courts (e.g. the Appeal Court) can constitute Precedent. Obviously that doesn't apply in this instance.

Thank you for the explanation. It is appreciated. Thanks to Sun, the thread has now evolved, and whatever the court's decide, it is now immaterial to the fact that the defendant's actions have become clear for all to see. Each of us can make our own judgement. I have made mine