"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
They all come round to my thinking in the end!
Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey: footway 'not shared'' thread:
NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t defined under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an unlawful,
criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death of the victim.
"The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."
"Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the plague
on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."
SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."
NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.
How can you be so sure there was one?"
Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
On 18/03/2024 13:50, GB wrote:
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the
way to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on
someone's driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to
avoid a collision.
I can't find the Times report that Norman refers to, online. Maybe it
was only in the print version.
I suppose it might be argued that although there was an arguably
unlawful act, the jury was not properly directed by the judge to
consider whether in fact it was an unlawful act.
Odd, though, that it has taken this long. And there seems to be no
transcript of the CA's decision on sentencing and one might expect the
judges to comment on the conviction when saying that it was an
appropriate sentence for such a heinous crime etc.
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
They all come round to my thinking in the end!
Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey:
footway 'not shared'' thread:
NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t
defined under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an
unlawful, criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death
of the victim.
"The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."
"Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the
plague on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."
SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."
NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.
How can you be so sure there was one?"
Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
There was a rather odd piece in The Times on 19 May 2023.
Woman jailed for causing cyclist’s death loses appeal
A partially blind woman with cerebral palsy who was found to have killed
a 77-year-old cyclist will not have her conviction overturned, appeal
judges have ruled.
At the appeal court, Grey’s barrister, Miranda Moore, KC argued that the three-year jail sentence was “arguably manifestly excessive”, pointing out that a psychologist’s report showed that she suffered from autism in addition to her other conditions.
unquote
The phrase "will not have her conviction overturned" implies that it was
an appeal against conviction as well as sentence but presumably it
wasn't. Sloppy Times editing, then.
I don't think it's possible to go to the CA to appeal against conviction twice, unless fresh evidence is produced etc.
I thought her conviction and sentence were both unjust. I expect she
will lose, though, and the CA will say that the unlawful act was an
assault, a threatening gesture from her and a threatening shout.
I thought her conviction and sentence were both unjust. I expect she
will lose, though, and the CA will say that the unlawful act was an
assault, a threatening gesture from her and a threatening shout.
On 18/03/2024 16:01, The Todal wrote:
I thought her conviction and sentence were both unjust. I expect she
will lose, though, and the CA will say that the unlawful act was an
assault, a threatening gesture from her and a threatening shout.
So, it would have been wrong of me to shout a warning at the scooterist
who was recklessly heading straight at me?
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter' >>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are >>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal >>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter' >>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro >>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are >>>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually happened.
There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow pavement, have been
tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and the main thing that stops us
is probably the fear of being driven into by the cyclist, or punched.
That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby car, when
she swerved into the road.
Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held legally
to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an oncoming cylist
on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road and had been run over?
Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?
Since the Auriol Grey case, (Warning: Correlation is not Causation!),
both the Crown Court Compendium, Part 1, (Issued June 2023, Updated
February 2024) [1] and the CPS Guidance on Manslaughter (Reviewed and
Updated October 2023) [2] have been updated.
Section 19-5 of the former, which starts on page 19-36, covers Unlawful
Act Manslaughter and should be required reading for anybody that wishes
to comment on the case. (Ed: We should add that to the "Moderation
Policy" :-))
The current appeal is on the basis that the offence was not identified
during the trial, so all the elements of it could not have been
considered, and the jury was not asked to decide this crucial element of
what Ms Grey was charged with.
Pending a full appeal, Ms Grey will be able to make an appeal for bail.
Regards
S.P.
On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal >>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter' >>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro >>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are >>>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
happened.
There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort
of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe
wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow pavement, have been tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and
the main thing that stops us is probably the fear of being driven into
by the cyclist, or punched.
That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby
car, when she swerved into the road.
Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held legally to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
They all come round to my thinking in the end!
Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey:
footway 'not shared'' thread:
NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t
defined under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an
unlawful, criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death
of the victim.
"The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."
"Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the
plague on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."
SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."
NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.
How can you be so sure there was one?"
Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mr Justice Calver
has granted Ms Grey leave to appeal.
"We are satisfied that the ground of appeal now advanced is arguable,"
Dame Victoria said.
The full appeal is now expected to be heard in May.
Pending a full appeal, Ms Grey will be able to make an appeal for bail.
On 19/03/2024 12:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/03/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
For my part, I will quote Message-ID:
<kjbodfFhio5U16@mid.individual.net>, a message of mine with which you
must be familiar as you have selectively quoted from it earlier in this thread, although out of context, but let's ignore that for now.
I was replying to a message from you, in which you made the following statement:
"When I asked you several times when we previously discussed this, you refused many times to specify what her illegal act was. You even
declined to accept that it was 'assault'."
You are now claiming that, rather than 'refus[ing] many times to specify
what her illegal act was' I contradicted the claim that an *unlawful*
act was required, which would be something of a shocking claim for me to
have made given that I had quoted the CPS Guidance in force at the time
for what constituted "Unlawful Act Manslaughter" and that it was this
very definition from which you drew the necessity for an unlawful act.
You then continued, in your own unique style, by asking: "So, do be clear. What was her 'unlawful act' exactly and what law made it
unlawful? You see, for a proper conviction of manslaughter, she would
have to have committed an illegal act which you have so far failed to identify."
Again, it is clear that your objection is that I have "failed to
identify" "an illegal act" (Ed: *unlawful* act) not claimed that no
unlawful act was necessary or was not identified in court.
By way of response to the above statement and question, which I have
quoted in full, I said the following, which I also quote in full:
<Begin Quote>
Point of Order: Ms Grey was found guilty of *unlawful* act manslaughter
not *illegal* act manslaughter.
This is ULM and it should be expected
that a self-proclaimed "erudite poster" such as yourself should use the correct legal terminology or risk losing that self-appointed definition
of "erudite poster".
As I've said in another post recently, my powers of telepathy are weak
at present and my crystal ball is away being recharged so I am unable to state definitively what happened in court as I wasn't present. (Although
I note others do not limit themselves by such constraints.)
However, you could do worse than have a read of Message-ID: <kanamvF703uU3@mid.individual.net>
That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see.
My position is, as it always has been:
I am not Simon Spence KC. I was not in court. I did not listen to the cases advanced by the prosecution and defence. I cannot accurately say
what was and what was not stated in court, beyond that which has been reported by others. I am not prepared to speculate about the "unlawful act".
OTOH, you, despite not having been on court felt confident to state what
was and what was not stated in court.
That your claim has subsequently been found to be true is no more
remarkable than the fact that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
"4. It is clear that a crime (sometimes referred to as the ‘base
offence’ on which the manslaughter is constructed) must be committed.
... All elements of the offence must be proved, and any
defences that have been advanced must be disproved."
The current appeal is on the basis that the offence was not identified
during the trial, so all the elements of it could not have been
considered, and the jury was not asked to decide this crucial element
of what Ms Grey was charged with.
Now that we know the result of the appeal, I will say that I am
astonished, given that even the Court of Appeal in its refusal to grant permission to appeal the sentence referenced Ms Grey's "unlawful act".
On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal >>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
manslaughter'
as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro >>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we
are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
happened.
There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort
of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe
wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow pavement, have been tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and
the main thing that stops us is probably the fear of being driven into
by the cyclist, or punched.
That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby
car, when she swerved into the road.
Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held legally to blame.
How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an
oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?
In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continueDo you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continueDo you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
Do you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?
On 19/03/2024 18:37, GB wrote:
On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
Do you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?
I mean possibly legally too.
A verdict under appeal, for which unanimous leave has been given by
three Appeal Court judges, is clearly highly dubious. If that verdict
is eventually quashed, it's clear that calling her the 'Huntingdon
cyclist killer' will be a serious and illegal defamation. I happen to
think it quite likely also is now, but I don't know if there is any
binding authority on cases under appeal.
On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal >>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter' >>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro >>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are >>>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
happened.
There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort
of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe
wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow pavement, have been tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and
the main thing that stops us is probably the fear of being driven into
by the cyclist, or punched.
That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby
car, when she swerved into the road.
Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held legally to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?
On 19/03/2024 19:08, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/03/2024 18:37, GB wrote:
On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
Do you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?
I mean possibly legally too.
A verdict under appeal, for which unanimous leave has been given by
three Appeal Court judges, is clearly highly dubious. If that verdict
is eventually quashed, it's clear that calling her the 'Huntingdon
cyclist killer' will be a serious and illegal defamation. I happen to
think it quite likely also is now, but I don't know if there is any
binding authority on cases under appeal.
Mister Innocent Until Found Guilty becomes Mister Criminal the moment
the jury announce their guilty verdict. That is despite there being a
great many appeals, some of which succeed.
Ward in front of the car, she was clearly satisifed with that
result. We know that she failed to call emergency services, left Ward
to die, and went on her merry way --- clearly not giving a damn until
the police caught up with her.
Ward wasn't an aggressive juvenile delinquent or a midlife crisis in
lycra --- she was a 77YO who was probably intimidated by the impatient
people our society unfortunately allows to have driving licences and
she may well have believed she was using a legitimate shared-use path.
Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held
legally to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an
oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?
If the cyclist was shouting "get the fuck out of my way", absolutely
yes.
On 19 Mar 2024 at 18:37:38 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continueDo you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
She still killed the cyclist, even if it turns out to be negligent rather than
criminal.
On 20/03/2024 11:18, GB wrote:
On 19/03/2024 19:08, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/03/2024 18:37, GB wrote:
On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
Do you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?
I mean possibly legally too.
A verdict under appeal, for which unanimous leave has been given by
three Appeal Court judges, is clearly highly dubious. If that
verdict is eventually quashed, it's clear that calling her the
'Huntingdon cyclist killer' will be a serious and illegal
defamation. I happen to think it quite likely also is now, but I
don't know if there is any binding authority on cases under appeal.
Mister Innocent Until Found Guilty becomes Mister Criminal the moment
the jury announce their guilty verdict. That is despite there being a
great many appeals, some of which succeed.
The expression is actually 'innocent until *proven* guilty'...
The question therefore is whether and when someone is *proven* guilty if there is an ongoing appeal that is actually very likely to quash her
unsafe conviction. Can she logically have been proven guilty if her
appeal succeeds and the jury verdict is overturned, or even during the
appeal process?
It seems from her now having the opportunity to ask for release on bail
that she is once again legally regarded as 'innocent until proven
guilty', and that calling her what the BBC did is therefore defamatory.
On 20/03/2024 12:14 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
If the cyclist was shouting "get the fuck out of my way", absolutely
yes.
Did *anybody* use those words?
On 20/03/2024 12:14 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
[ ... ]
Even if you don't interpret the video as showing Grey hoping to put
Ward in front of the car, she was clearly satisifed with that
result. We know that she failed to call emergency services, left Ward
to die, and went on her merry way --- clearly not giving a damn until
the police caught up with her.
Did that victim pedestrian have a mobile phone with her?
Was there a public call box very near by which could have been used in
the unlikely event of no-one at all on the spot having a mobile phone
with them?
If the answer to those questions is "I don't know", how did you manage
to get to the conclusion in your remarks above?
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
If the cyclist was shouting "get the fuck out of my way", absolutely
yes.
Did *anybody* use those words?
Auriol Grey was caught on CCTV shouting "get off the fucking pavement".
She still killed the cyclist, even if it turns out to be negligent
rather than
criminal.
I don't see how she killed the cyclist?
On 20/03/2024 03:09 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
If the cyclist was shouting "get the fuck out of my way", absolutely
yes.
Did *anybody* use those words?
Auriol Grey was caught on CCTV shouting "get off the fucking pavement".
Thank you.
So no-one used the words cited by the PP.
On 20/03/2024 14:17, Fredxx wrote:
She still killed the cyclist, even if it turns out to be negligent
rather than
criminal.
I don't see how she killed the cyclist?
I grappled with how to word this point earlier on, and just deleted the
draft post. She clearly contributed to the cyclist's death, but I
couldn't begin to put a %age on that.
On 2024-03-19, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last >>>>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal >>>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter' >>>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."
"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro >>>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are >>>>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way >>>> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.
It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
happened.
Even if you don't interpret the video as showing Grey hoping to put
Ward in front of the car, she was clearly satisifed with that
result. We know that she failed to call emergency services, left Ward
to die,
and went on her merry way --- clearly not giving a damn until
the police caught up with her.
On 20/03/2024 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 20/03/2024 03:09 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
If the cyclist was shouting "get the fuck out of my way", absolutely >>>>> yes.
Did *anybody* use those words?
Auriol Grey was caught on CCTV shouting "get off the fucking pavement".
Thank you.
So no-one used the words cited by the PP.
There's precious little difference.
On 20/03/2024 05:57 pm, GB wrote:
On 20/03/2024 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 20/03/2024 03:09 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
If the cyclist was shouting "get the fuck out of my way", absolutely >>>>>> yes.
Did *anybody* use those words?
Auriol Grey was caught on CCTV shouting "get off the fucking pavement".
Thank you.
So no-one used the words cited by the PP.
There's precious little difference.
That is (at best) a matter of opinion.
A case some years ago where a chav on a bike bellowed almost exactly the words you used - and then ploughed into a young female pedestrian and
killed her - resulted in a guilty verdict (though the "punishment" was risibly and insultingly trivial).
"Get off the fucking pavement", whatever spin some might prefer to put
on it, is simply an exhortation to obey the law. If only it were never necessary to communicate such things to those using chav-cyclists on footways, eh?
On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:36:33 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/03/2024 05:57 pm, GB wrote:
On 20/03/2024 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 20/03/2024 03:09 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
If the cyclist was shouting "get the fuck out of my way", absolutely >>>>>>> yes.
Did *anybody* use those words?
Auriol Grey was caught on CCTV shouting "get off the fucking pavement". >>>Thank you.
So no-one used the words cited by the PP.
There's precious little difference.
That is (at best) a matter of opinion.
A case some years ago where a chav on a bike bellowed almost exactly the
words you used - and then ploughed into a young female pedestrian and
killed her - resulted in a guilty verdict (though the "punishment" was
risibly and insultingly trivial).
"Get off the fucking pavement", whatever spin some might prefer to put
on it, is simply an exhortation to obey the law. If only it were never
necessary to communicate such things to those using chav-cyclists on
footways, eh?
As I am sure you realise, killing someone because they are breaking a minor administrative rule is no defence.
In any case, they need only stop riding
the bike to remain within the law. Getting off the pavement is not necessary.
On 19/03/2024 18:13, GB wrote:
On 19/03/2024 12:33, Simon Parker wrote:
Pending a full appeal, Ms Grey will be able to make an appeal for bail.
How does that work if she loses her appeal? Will she be returned to
jail, and will the time out on bail count towards her sentence?
Time under remand counts towards one's sentence, time under bail does not.
Regards
S.P.
On 19/03/2024 18:13, GB wrote:
On 19/03/2024 12:33, Simon Parker wrote:
Pending a full appeal, Ms Grey will be able to make an appeal for bail.
How does that work if she loses her appeal? Will she be returned to
jail, and will the time out on bail count towards her sentence?
Time under remand counts towards one's sentence, time under bail does not.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:40:58 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,575 |