Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post Reply
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Stevek76 »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 2:33pm
awavey wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 2:29pm5 people died on the roads yesterday, 5 people will die today, 5 people will die tomorrow...
Yeah, but how many of them were pretty, young blondes?
What with the phone use etc i wonder if you're conflating the briggs case with the (Civil) case of Brushett v Hazeldean


Re the alliston sentence, not sure i agree it was particularly out of kilter with those handed down to drivers despite claims otherwise. These usually involve comparisons to materially different cases without the multitude of aggravating factors that alliston added (abuse of the victim before and after collision, subsequent online rants, abject lack of remorse in court). A rather more contrite attitude would have likely saved time significant jail time or avoided it altogether.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Bonefishblues wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 9:13amThe important distinction between Priority and 'Right of Way' is not 'pedantic semantics'. You have NO 'right of way' if someone is in your way, irrespective of your introduction of the concept of their 'jaywalking' - also one that doesn't exist in the UK.
A pedestrian does has right of way on a side street, e.g. when a vehicle is turning in (few car drivers actually know that), but they don't have a right of way to walk straight across a main road expecting traffic to stop for them.

In English, jaywalking just means walking in or across a road that has traffic, other than at a suitable crossing point. I did not infer any legalistic meaning. "Woman" is the politest way in which I could address the person. Had she only taking half a dozen more steps along the road and used the pedestrian cross, none of what happened would have had.

Unfortunately, bad behaviour replicates just as much as among pedestrians as with cyclists.

I've had a number of close calls from other pedestrians doing precisely the same and seen it spread to those entirely unsuited to jaywalking, e.g. the elderly or infirm, who seem rationalise, "if they can do it, I can do it too" expecting traffic to accommodate them.

No idea what you think "right of way" means but it's normally used interchangeably with the more legalistic priority (which few people would understand if you used it). Judges even use it in related court cases, so if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Last edited by Albrecht on 7 Aug 2022, 3:22pm, edited 1 time in total.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

My suggestion of replacing "manslaughter" with "unlawful killing" was in response to the historic view that juries are reluctant to convict on a charge of involuntary manslaughter. We see coroners' juries returning a verdict of "unlawful killing" and if there's subsequently a criminal trial the jury then acquits. It's not that straightforward, of course, because the rules governing admissible evidence are stricter at a criminal trial and also, there's a difference between giving a verdict in the abstract and giving one when there's somebody in the dock facing imprisonment.

I do think, however, that "unlawful killing" is easier to understand because if something isn't "lawful" then it's almost inevitably "unlawful."

Some of the posts above seem to imply dissatisfaction with our legal system as a whole. As I've posted before, that ship sailed on the brexit tide. It's robes and wigs for the forseeable, I predict.
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 3:10pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 9:13amThe important distinction between Priority and 'Right of Way' is not 'pedantic semantics'. You have NO 'right of way' if someone is in your way, irrespective of your introduction of the concept of their 'jaywalking' - also one that doesn't exist in the UK.
A pedestrian does has right of way on a side street, e.g. when a vehicle is turning in (few car drivers actually know that), but they don't have a right of way to walk straight across a main road expecting traffic to stop for them.

In English, jaywalking just means walking in or across a road that has traffic, other than at a suitable crossing point. I did not infer any legalistic meaning. "Woman" is the politest way in which I could address the person. Had she only taking half a dozen more steps along the road and used the pedestrian cross, none of what happened would have had.

Unfortunately, bad behaviour replicates just as much as among pedestrians as with cyclists.

I've had a number of close calls from other pedestrians doing precisely the same and seen it spread to those entirely unsuited to jaywalking, e.g. the elderly or infirm, who seem rationalise, "if they can do it, I can do it too" expecting traffic to accommodate them.

No idea what you think "right of way" means but it's normally used interchangeably with the more legalistic priority (which few people would understand if you used it).
Bonefishblues is correct.

The Highway Code is very clear on this:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 103-to-158

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

And in the case of Alliston the judge emphasised this exact point in the sentencing remarks:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... liston.pdf

"On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’."

"On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way."


Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 6 Aug 2022, 1:57pm I'm sure I've posted before on a thread about this broad subject, that a good first step would be to rename the various forms of manslaughter as "unlawful killing." "Manslaughter" is such a blood-curdling expression that I'm not surprised that juries sometimes have problems with it. OTOH, inquest juries seem to have little problem with a verdict of unlawful killing.
This is a very interesting point. It's often said that there's an aversion to conviction for manslaughter but I haven't seen anything that shows that the nomenclature is part of the problem.

It's amenable to testing.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

The Law Commission on "Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide" from 2008:
https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/document/murd ... fanticide/

"Providing a clear structure for charging murder offences. Our recommendations on partial defences have been implemented in large part by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The remainder of our recommendations have been rejected by Government"
https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/murder/

...

"Department for Transport Cycle Safety Review" from 2018:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.PDF

This includes discussion of the Alliston case and of Porter's subsequent commentary.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

Albrecht wrote: 6 Aug 2022, 4:23pm...
How and why on earth did killing someone with a car because more acceptable than using a gun, steel pipe or a knife?
The two principles on which those are commonly treated differently existed in English law long before cars were invented.

They are:

1 The various offences which cover homicide include factors such as intention (malice aforethought), recklessness, criminal negligence and "unlawful acts". They don't rely on unqualified proof of "killing someone".

2 Jury trial.

For motoring offences the threshold for manslaughter is analysed in the Department for Transport Cycle Safety Review cited above. And, to save time, exceeding the speed limit falls well below that threshold.

Taken together these mean that we shouldn't expect much change in the prosecution of driving-related homicide unless Parliament changes the law.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

Manslaughter is something of a complicated subject and way above my pay grade but AIUI - voluntary manslaughter is murder but with some mitigation like "diminished responsibility." This isn't what we are discussing here, unless the evidence is of an intent to kill.

Also AIUI, Involuntary manslaughter can be through either gross neglect or doing something unlawful which results in unintended death. (It's worth remembering that if the unlawful conduct amounted to a felony, then implied malice could lead a a murder conviction leading to capital punishment.)

A lawyer may see faults in that simple explanation, probably that it's too simple. AIUI, research into jury trial has been limited: if its true operation were to be revealed, I fancy a lot of thespians would be "resting."
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 5:16pm Manslaughter is something of a complicated subject and way above my pay grade but AIUI - voluntary manslaughter is murder but with some mitigation like "diminished responsibility." This isn't what we are discussing here, unless the evidence is of an intent to kill.

Also AIUI, Involuntary manslaughter can be through either gross neglect or doing something unlawful which results in unintended death. (It's worth remembering that if the unlawful conduct amounted to a felony, then implied malice could lead a a murder conviction leading to capital punishment.)

A lawyer may see faults in that simple explanation, probably that it's too simple. AIUI, research into jury trial has been limited: if its true operation were to be revealed, I fancy a lot of thespians would be "resting."
The current definitions: "Homicide in English law":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_ ... nslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter is a homicide offence but it isn't a type of murder.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 5:16pmAIUI, research into jury trial has been limited: if its true operation were to be revealed, I fancy a lot of thespians would be "resting."
Many types of research into juries are forbidden.

That leaves:
• Trying to reconstruct and explain what happened
• Simulation studies.

Your idea about the effect of the "manslaughter" label could be studied by simulation.

Jonathan

PS: I suspect that much of the misunderstanding of what happens comes from many of us having watched many more hours of fictional portrayal than the real thing. And the limited exposure to the real thing being in very stressful situations.
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Jdsk wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 3:27pmBonefishblues is correct.
You don't read what I wrote. He's only "correct" if you think right of way means an absolute right to carry on a highway. Most of us just think it means the same as the legal use of the "priority".

Referring to the 'Brushett v Hazeldean' case, another bad case setting a bad precendent, District Judge Mauger found both parties equally to blame for the incident saying that,
“even where a motorist or cyclist has the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way”.
Ergo, if a judge can use it relating to the law, so can I.

It's an interesting case to read up on, with many implications for cyclists.
Mr Hazeldean initially defended the case as a litigant in person and decided not to bring a counterclaim as he quite admirably did not approve of “claim culture”. Unfortunately, he is now responsible for the entirety of Ms Brushett’s legal costs and estimates the case could cost him nearly £100,000 and lead to his bankruptcy.
So, someone walks into the road where cyclist has clear right of way, without waiting for the lights to be in their favour and while reading her phone, gets hit and is award £4,000 in damages (half of what they wanted); then cyclist is landed with £104,000 bill PRECISELY AND ONLY BECAUSE they were too ethical not to call some other ambulance chaser to countersue the pedestrian.

Put me on the list for those dissastified with legal system in general. My bet would be the pedestrian had legal cover in their house insurance and their appointed lawyers were the ones who ran up the bill. The cyclist's punishment was, in essence, a punishment from the legal system for not paying over the top for their services, i.e. you pay us or else you pay 14 times more (if they'd counterclaimed, the costs would have been limited to circa £7,000).

Note Ms Brushett’s key witness was another cyclist, while 3 other witnesses, all pedestrians, stated it was her fault.
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Stevek76 »

The judge's finding in that case did not set any sort of precedent. The precedent that pedestrians established in the road have priority is long established in English case law (quite possibly also Scottish)

Jaywalking is an American term of American invention (the motor lobby mostly) and has no basis, legal or colloquial in the use of British roads. Pedestrians can largely walk where they please (barring motorways) providing they are going somewhere and not deliberately obstructing other traffic and it is absolutely your responsibility to not hit them.

And that includes passing with sufficient clearance that you don't bit them if they suddenly freak out and do something daft. Just as motor vehicles are expected to leave sufficient clearance when passing cyclists and horse riders.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

Stevek76 wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 6:13pm The judge's finding in that case did not set any sort of precedent.
...
I think that's right. When the judgment was issued there was a fair bit of surprise, but as I recall not from experts.

Hazeldean said
"This verdict brings to a close four years that have taken a great toll on my mental health. I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome, reeling from the impact it will have on my life, and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists."
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... one-428027

But that's quite different from a legal precedent.

Jonathan
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Stevek76 wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 6:13pmJaywalking is an American term of American invention (the motor lobby mostly) and has no basis, legal or colloquial in the use of British roads.
Funny how everyone knows what it means. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, if it's in the Oxford and Cambridge English Dictionaries, it's good enough for me. Says in one word what it would take a paragraph to do.

Now can everyone who is not being paid £600 an hour stop pretending to be the claimant's barrister?

At the very least, they could make it illegal for pedestrians to cross on a zigzag adjacent to a pedestrian crossing.
Last edited by Albrecht on 7 Aug 2022, 7:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10978
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Bonefishblues »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 5:40pm
Jdsk wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 3:27pmBonefishblues is correct.
You don't read what I wrote. He's only "correct" if you think right of way means an absolute right to carry on a highway. Most of us just think it means the same as the legal use of the "priority".

Referring to the 'Brushett v Hazeldean' case, another bad case setting a bad precendent, District Judge Mauger found both parties equally to blame for the incident saying that,
“even where a motorist or cyclist has the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way”.
Ergo, if a judge can use it relating to the law, so can I.
The Judge's use of the term was incorrect. So is yours. There are many on the forum who value facts and precision when debating. Others take a more broad -brush approach. I prefer the former, hence my contributions today in response to your posts.

Just by way of a polite request, casual sexism is also rightly deprecated on the forum, so please would you desist.
Post Reply