Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

[thirdcrank]

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:-

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.

[Jdsk]

Re The Crown Court Compendium linked above.

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.

Thanks - in your opinion, having read much more of the rules than myself, could that include if the judge had rejected the earlier defence claims that the defendant did not intend to harm the deceased, if the defendant had (attempted) to make physical contact with them before the collision, but only sought to protect themselves?

That intent is a matter of fact, not law, and would be decided by the jury, not the judge.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

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

[Sum]

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:

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.

[thirdcrank]

Sum

Thanks for going to the trouble of digging that out and posting it.

[thirdcrank]

I found this an interesting bit of insight into trial by jury

Men in jury confusion lose High Court battle over detention

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68675672

The short version is that the jury forewoman made a mistake when delivering the verdict and when the judge was informed, he told the jury to return to their deliberations. This went to appeal

But in a 20-page written ruling on Wednesday three judges rejected their case, concluding the jury's forewoman suffered "a form of stage fright" amid the "stressful environment" of court proceedings.

[Pinhead]

Pavements are for pedestrians, not cars or cyclists, it was a pavement NOT a dual use pavement/cycleway, Ia m sick of selfish cyclists passing me at 1 foot speeding past on a pavement, watch the video again and SEE the moron speed past the presenter, on his bike,

[Jdsk]

Pavements are for pedestrians, not cars or cyclists, it was a pavement NOT a dual use pavement/cycleway...

The judge sat through the trial, listened to the evidence, and concluded that it was "a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians". https://web.archive.org/web/20240108155 ... hree-years

Why do you think that it wasn't, please?

Jonathan

[DaveReading]

The judge sat through the trial, listened to the evidence, and concluded that it was "a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians".

And indeed, a little bit further up the road, was signposted as such in the usual way.

[Pinhead]

The judge sat through the trial, listened to the evidence, and concluded that it was "a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians".

And indeed, a little bit further up the road, was signposted as such in the usual way.

If that is the case then throw the book at her

[Nearholmer]

All off down the wrong track, chewing over matters that the court already decided, and which nobody seems to be challenging through the appeal process.

SFAIU, the appeal revolves around the question of ‘intent’, and nothing else.

[Cowsham]

All off down the wrong track, chewing over matters that the court already decided, and which nobody seems to be challenging through the appeal process.

SFAIU, the appeal revolves around the question of ‘intent’, and nothing else.

From the video it looks like she fully intended to do what she did. The only reason she fled the scene and went on about her shopping was because at the time she didn't know the whole incident had been filmed WITH SOUND. There'll probably be other footage from dash cameras etc and other evidence the public aren't privy to but the solicitors, judges, media and other vultures haven't had their fill yet.

[Nearholmer]

What’s interesting is that the test isn’t “intent to kill/harm”, but whether or not the unlawful action was intentional, so I guess in this case whether it was an intentional shove, rather than an involuntary flinch.

“For the relevant law and jury directions for unlawful act manslaughter, see the Judicial College's Crown Court Compendium, Part I, at 19-5. The prosecution must prove an intentional act (not omission); that the intentional act is unlawful; that it is an act which all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to at least some risk of harm.”

[Cowsham]

What’s interesting is that the test isn’t “intent to kill/harm”, but whether or not the unlawful action was intentional, so I guess in this case whether it was an intentional shove, rather than an involuntary flinch.

“For the relevant law and jury directions for unlawful act manslaughter, see the Judicial College's Crown Court Compendium, Part I, at 19-5. The prosecution must prove an intentional act (not omission); that the intentional act is unlawful; that it is an act which all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to at least some risk of harm.”

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that it was intentional because unfortunately for Grey she was recorded shouting expletives telling Ward to " get off the ffing pavement " before shoving her off the pavement. She didn't think she'd be caught so she acted as if nothing had happened and carried on with her day.

[Jdsk]

What’s interesting is that the test isn’t “intent to kill/harm”, but whether or not the unlawful action was intentional, so I guess in this case whether it was an intentional shove, rather than an involuntary flinch.

“For the relevant law and jury directions for unlawful act manslaughter, see the Judicial College's Crown Court Compendium, Part I, at 19-5. The prosecution must prove an intentional act (not omission); that the intentional act is unlawful; that it is an act which all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to at least some risk of harm.”

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that it was intentional because unfortunately for Grey she was recorded shouting expletives telling Ward to " get off the ffing pavement " before shoving her off the pavement. She didn't think she'd be caught so she acted as if nothing had happened and carried on with her day.

What was intentional?

Thanks

Jonathan