Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Matthew Best]

.. we are baying for the locking up, for life, maximum punishment for a mentally disabled, partially sighted elderly person who made a grievous decision while out for a walk.

50 is "elderly" now? Thanks, mate. Now I feel really old.

 

[Thermal]

50 is "elderly" now? Thanks, mate. Now I feel really old.

Grey is 50 now, in 2024. She killed the cyclist in 2020.

 

[theprestige]

Grey is 50 now, in 2024. She killed the cyclist in 2020.

She was just a baby when it happened! Don't they usually seal juvenile criminal records?

 

[Thermal]

She was just a baby when it happened! Don't they usually seal juvenile criminal records?

And in the shades of Grey between baby and elderly, we just might stumble upon the truth...

 

[novaphile]

She isn't blind and you know it. Why do you say this?

Nor was she elderly, unlike her victim.

 

[Chanakya]

The ISF. The only place where, on one thread, we are baying for the humane treatment of a person who willingly joined a terrorist group and is alleged to have undertaken tasks to aid terror attacks and, on this one, we are baying for the locking up, for life, maximum punishment for a mentally disabled, partially sighted elderly person who made a grievous decision while out for a walk.

That "alleged"? What it implies, in that case, was already explained to you, wasn't it? Skepticism: as we use the term, the first principle of it is honesty, sincerity of intent, as opposed to trying to somehow fool oneself and others. Hence ISF, and why this kind of nonsense doesn't get away here like it might elsewhere; and hence, probably, the frustration of some with this place.

 

[Matthew Best]

Grey is 50 now, in 2024. She killed the cyclist in 2020.

That's even worse! So 46 is "elderly"! Wow.

 

[Brainster]

It’s a line ball for me. Most certainly manslaughter, but her behaviour was not accidental and she should have seen the consequences.

Premeditated murder requires that there be an intent to kill. While Grey's actions were reckless and irresponsible, did she intend to kill the cyclist?

 

[bluesjnr]

Tell me you're not even halfway to fifty without telling me.

I take the elderly back, it was my memory playing up.

I'm sixty.

 

[bluesjnr]

That "alleged"? What it implies, in that case, was already explained to you, wasn't it?

When? Was it when you wrote this in response to my introducing you to the allegations?

That was an interesting link, thanks for posting!

Absolutely, that puts things in a different light.

Skepticism: as we use the term, the first principle of it is honesty, sincerity of intent, as opposed to trying to somehow fool oneself and others.

You don't like the use of the word, "alleged", when allegations are made against somebody? I'm not following your reprimand.

Hence ISF, and why this kind of nonsense doesn't get away here like it might elsewhere; and hence, probably, the frustration of some with this place.

Using the word, "alleged", when referencing a person who has had allegations made against them is nonsense?

 

[jimbob]

Premeditated murder requires that there be an intent to kill. While Grey's actions were reckless and irresponsible, did she intend to kill the cyclist?

Which is why I think the conviction for involuntary manslaughter is correct

 

[Nessie]

Yes, and in the discussion of self-defence he talks about the circumstances in which actions taken in self-defence may be considered lawful or unlawful. He may not have used the exact expression "unlawful act", but it's clear that he's talking about whether acts are lawful or unlawful, for example:

Which is why it is hard to see how the defence have successfully argued an appeal. Unlawful act was clearly discussed and considered.

 

[jeremyp]

Sure, and Grey was a disabled blind person

Have you seen the video? She was not physically disabled, at least not seriously, and she was not blind. Please stop misrepresenting the situation

trying to go about their normal business on what they thought was NOT a shared cycle path.

If her normal business is harassing cyclists to their deaths, it's better for everybody if she is in prison.

I don't dispute that it was a tragedy, it absolutely was. I dispute the rhetoric that treats a disabled and blind person as if they're an intentional murderer who wanted to kill the cyclist and therefore deserves to be in jail for many years.

It's a crazy kind of polarization about a very sad event.

Most people here aren't claiming she was a murderer. However, she did, by her actions, cause the death of another person. Under English law, that is a crime and it usually attracts a prison sentence. If you don't like that, campaign to have the law changed, but I think you might meet some resistance.

 

[jeremyp]

Premeditated murder requires that there be an intent to kill. While Grey's actions were reckless and irresponsible, did she intend to kill the cyclist?

For me (and this is my opinion without looking up what "premeditated" means in English law) "premeditated" means "planned before hand". I have no doubt that, even if Grey had deliberately intended to kill Ward, it was probably "in the moment". I don't think she was planning, from the moment she saw Ward, to murder her, hence not premeditated.

 

[Roboramma]

For me (and this is my opinion without looking up what "premeditated" means in English law) "premeditated" means "planned before hand". I have no doubt that, even if Grey had deliberately intended to kill Ward, it was probably "in the moment". I don't think she was planning, from the moment she saw Ward, to murder her, hence not premeditated.

Yeah, Gulliver's Foil's claim of "premeditated murder" is complete nonsense.

 

[RolandRat]

Grey could clearly see far enough to start gesticulating at the cyclist when the cyclist was a fair distance away.

Greys disability is cerebral palsy. On the day in question she was sprightly enough to go walking and, by her own words, assault a pensioner.

Far too much is being placed on her "blindness" and disability by some people.

 

[catsmate]

The only thing wrongful about Grey's conviction was what she was convcted of. It was a premeditated murder, and Grey should be serving at His Majesty's pleasure until her death.

Bollocks. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with what happened and what the definition of murder actually is. Preferably before making further such nonsensical comments.

 

[theprestige]

"Here she comes, I'll push her into traffic."

Leaving aside the difficulty of proving a state of mind, would that be enough forethought to qualify as premeditation? Would it be enough informed disregard for safety to qualify as murder?

I'm not sure, personally. But Gully Foyle's position doesn't seem that farfetched to me. Certainly, if I were on a jury, "I meant for her to swerve into traffic, but I didn't mean for her to die!" wouldn't dissuade me from returning a verdict of premeditated murder.

 

[Roboramma]

"Here she comes, I'll push her into traffic."

Leaving aside the difficulty of proving a state of mind, would that be enough forethought to qualify as premeditation? Would it be enough informed disregard for safety to qualify as murder?

I'm not sure, personally. But Gully Foyle's position doesn't seem that farfetched to me. Certainly, if I were on a jury, "I meant for her to swerve into traffic, but I didn't mean for her to die!" wouldn't dissuade me from returning a verdict of premeditated murder.

I still think that would qualify as a decision in the moment rather than premeditation. If that were the case it would be "she intended to kill her, but didn't plan it in advance".

I think the manslaughter verdict is the right one, because it doesn't seem like she actually intended to kill her, but she did intend to do something that put her in harms way which led to her death.

 

[catsmate]

When your in/actions directly cause someone to die, that's manslaughter. Involuntary if you didn't mean it, voluntary if you kinda did, broad brush.

No. Under Common Law manslaughter requires a criminal act to have been committed.

 

[catsmate]

So they're arguing that Grey deliverately pushing a woman to her death is perfectly legal? Hope she won't object if somebody tries to do the same to her.

Sweet Jeebus, stop spewing all the straw.

 

[theprestige]

I still think that would qualify as a decision in the moment rather than premeditation. If that were the case it would be "she intended to kill her, but didn't plan it in advance".

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what the statute of limitations is on emotional outbursts. Ten seconds? Two minutes? An hour?

It comes back to the difficulty of proving state of mind. I think this:

"I saw her, I got angry and frustrated, and I acted emotionally without thinking."

Is very different from this:

"I saw her, and decided to push her into traffic, and acted on this decision a moment later as our paths crossed."

 

[Chanakya]

When? Was it when you wrote this in response to my introducing you to the allegations?





You don't like the use of the word, "alleged", when allegations are made against somebody? I'm not following your reprimand.



Using the word, "alleged", when referencing a person who has had allegations made against them is nonsense?

I should have thought this was obvious, but since you ask, I'm happy to explain. This is off-topic, though, so I'll put my response within spoiler tags, so as not to disturb the flow of the actual thread discussion.

To begin with, I note that you've only quoted the first two sentences from my post, all jazzed up in red and bold, FSM knows why, but without actually linking to the post itself. So, let me start by first linking to my actual post. And no, the portion that you quoted wasn't the portion I meant, obviously. I meant particularly the last paragraph from my post, the part where I say this:

"As far as the veracity of what this man is saying: That's exactly the point of courts of law, right? That's what courts of law do: they stop people like me from wrongly believing she's innocent of actual killing when in fact she isn't, or at least, they stop her from wrongly being given a light sentence as a result; and they stop people like this guy from wrongly claiming she's done all sorts of horrible things that directly support the killing and maiming of others, when in fact she hasn't, or at least, they stop her from wrongly being given a very harsh punishment as a result. That's, like, exactly why this thing is in principle so completely screwed up, this substituting a normal civilized court-of-law procedure with this weird banishment/revoking-citizenship thing."​

---------------

I'm belaboring the obvious here, but since you insist you don't understand what I meant, then let me spell that out further, in context of what I said here in this thread:

In that other discussion, the impression I had, basis the discussion itself, is that while Shamima did become radicalized and has been cohabiting with terrorists and sympathing with their cause throughout; but she hadn’t actually either killed or maimed anyone, or blown stuff up, or directly instigated such, or directly assisted with such. …At which point you pointed out to me that interview, where that guy alleges that she did directly assist them, by sewing suicide jackets for instance, and also grooming other younger girls, etc. …Which information from you I assumed was presented in good faith, and I took it in that spirit. Absolutely, that was perfectly relevant, and did add additional color. …And I agreed fully, that had she actually done all of those things, then obviously that presents a very different picture, and naturally merits much harsher punishment.

However, this: the part from my post that I’ve quoted, in italics, up there. You rightly pointed out that you couldn’t vouch for the veracity of what the man was saying. And I pointed out to you that that is kind of the whole point of civilized proceedings in a court of law, to sort out what is true and what is not. Those and other similar allegations were not examined in a court of law, as they would have been had this been tried in court in the usual normal way. That actually highlights how bizarre was UK’s treatment of this case. Sure, it was legal, because that is how the law was framed; but we can say the same for laws and legality in Russia and North Korea and China: technically legal, sure, but completely unjust, completely …like I said, bizarre. (And no, the fact that other countries apparently do this sort of thing as well, or the fact that apparently many in the UK want exactly this outcome, does not make any of this right or just.) …So anyway, the short point is, this points to what role the courts should have played here, and what role the UK abdicated in not having these things examined in a court of law.

I was a bit surprised at your not responding to my post. Common courtesy might have induced you to, given my good faith response. If not that, then at least, given that I had squarely engaged with your post and shown how that leads to a conclusion different than you were arguing, I would have thought it would have been the done thing for you to acknowledge it. As it happens, you did not. Well, okay, I shrug, and move on. …And now we come to this thread, and my comment here:

I’m not even following this thread. I chanced on that post of yours following a nommed post, is all. But I suddenly found that you’d used an exchange from that thread, or at least that reference of yours, in which exchange it was your skepticism that was found wanting (because you could not or did not rebut the point made, and nor did you acknowledge that and take it onboard); and what's more you have the nerve to present that, those allegations, as an instance of skepticism or reasonableness being wanting on this site, when it was your skepticism and reasonableness that has been shown wanting here. …Which is why that post of mine, because I didn’t want you to get away with that attempt at gaslighting. Nothing personal, nothing against you, at all; but that's kind of what we do here, right? The skepticism thing? Particularly when we come across blatant attempts at gaslighting?

…Like I said, I’m belaboring here what is completely obvious. But given that you insisted that you hadn’t followed that very obvious implication of our exchange in that thread, I’ve spelled it all out now.

(And yeah, to spell that out in even finer and actually somewhat embarrassing detail, to preempt your again pretending not to understand: You ironically referred to people here wanting humane treatment for Shamima despite those allegations. The mention of those allegations can only make sense if you meant them as one factor which should guide our judgment and our actions as far as Shamima. Which is fair; but not just the bald allegations themselves, but whether or not those allegations, and other similar charges, actually stick when examined in a court of law. So that that makes exactly the opposite point than you're arguing.)

 

[Thermal]

No. Under Common Law manslaughter requires a criminal act to have been committed.

Yes. That would be the "pushing her into traffic" bit. It's kind of the whole story, here.

 

[bluesjnr]

I should have thought this was obvious, but since you ask, I'm happy to explain. This is off-topic, though, so I'll put my response within spoiler tags, so as not to disturb the flow of the actual thread discussion.

To begin with, I note that you've only quoted the first two sentences from my post, all jazzed up in red and bold, FSM knows why, but without actually linking to the post itself. So, let me start by first linking to my actual post. And no, the portion that you quoted wasn't the portion I meant, obviously. I meant particularly the last paragraph from my post, the part where I say this:

"As far as the veracity of what this man is saying: That's exactly the point of courts of law, right? That's what courts of law do: they stop people like me from wrongly believing she's innocent of actual killing when in fact she isn't, or at least, they stop her from wrongly being given a light sentence as a result; and they stop people like this guy from wrongly claiming she's done all sorts of horrible things that directly support the killing and maiming of others, when in fact she hasn't, or at least, they stop her from wrongly being given a very harsh punishment as a result. That's, like, exactly why this thing is in principle so completely screwed up, this substituting a normal civilized court-of-law procedure with this weird banishment/revoking-citizenship thing."​

---------------

I'm belaboring the obvious here, but since you insist you don't understand what I meant, then let me spell that out further, in context of what I said here in this thread:

In that other discussion, the impression I had, basis the discussion itself, is that while Shamima did become radicalized and has been cohabiting with terrorists and sympathing with their cause throughout; but she hadn’t actually either killed or maimed anyone, or blown stuff up, or directly instigated such, or directly assisted with such. …At which point you pointed out to me that interview, where that guy alleges that she did directly assist them, by sewing suicide jackets for instance, and also grooming other younger girls, etc. …Which information from you I assumed was presented in good faith, and I took it in that spirit. Absolutely, that was perfectly relevant, and did add additional color. …And I agreed fully, that had she actually done all of those things, then obviously that presents a very different picture, and naturally merits much harsher punishment.

However, this: the part from my post that I’ve quoted, in italics, up there. You rightly pointed out that you couldn’t vouch for the veracity of what the man was saying. And I pointed out to you that that is kind of the whole point of civilized proceedings in a court of law, to sort out what is true and what is not. Those and other similar allegations were not examined in a court of law, as they would have been had this been tried in court in the usual normal way. That actually highlights how bizarre was UK’s treatment of this case. Sure, it was legal, because that is how the law was framed; but we can say the same for laws and legality in Russia and North Korea and China: technically legal, sure, but completely unjust, completely …like I said, bizarre. (And no, the fact that other countries apparently do this sort of thing as well, or the fact that apparently many in the UK want exactly this outcome, does not make any of this right or just.) …So anyway, the short point is, this points to what role the courts should have played here, and what role the UK abdicated in not having these things examined in a court of law.

I was a bit surprised at your not responding to my post. Common courtesy might have induced you to, given my good faith response. If not that, then at least, given that I had squarely engaged with your post and shown how that leads to a conclusion different than you were arguing, I would have thought it would have been the done thing for you to acknowledge it. As it happens, you did not. Well, okay, I shrug, and move on. …And now we come to this thread, and my comment here:

I’m not even following this thread. I chanced on that post of yours following a nommed post, is all. But I suddenly found that you’d used an exchange from that thread, or at least that reference of yours, in which exchange it was your skepticism that was found wanting (because you could not or did not rebut the point made, and nor did you acknowledge that and take it onboard); and what's more you have the nerve to present that, those allegations, as an instance of skepticism or reasonableness being wanting on this site, when it was your skepticism and reasonableness that has been shown wanting here. …Which is why that post of mine, because I didn’t want you to get away with that attempt at gaslighting. Nothing personal, nothing against you, at all; but that's kind of what we do here, right? The skepticism thing? Particularly when we come across blatant attempts at gaslighting?

…Like I said, I’m belaboring here what is completely obvious. But given that you insisted that you hadn’t followed that very obvious implication of our exchange in that thread, I’ve spelled it all out now.

(And yeah, to spell that out in even finer and actually somewhat embarrassing detail, to preempt your again pretending not to understand: You ironically referred to people here wanting humane treatment for Shamima despite those allegations. The mention of those allegations can only make sense if you meant them as one factor which should guide our judgment and our actions as far as Shamima. Which is fair; but not just the bald allegations themselves, but whether or not those allegations, and other similar charges, actually stick when examined in a court of law. So that that makes exactly the opposite point than you're arguing.)

I'll say only this and no more as you are correct that this is a derail.

Stating the bleeding obvious is not "making a point".

 

[Mojo]

I still think that would qualify as a decision in the moment rather than premeditation. If that were the case it would be "she intended to kill her, but didn't plan it in advance".

I think it's intent, not premeditation, that determines whether it's murder. See the definition here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...cide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious

...with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm...

 

[Chanakya]

I'll say only this and no more as you are correct that this is a derail.

Stating the bleeding obvious is not "making a point".

oh yes, it is

merely saying it isn't making a point doesn't make it not so

agreed, it is "bleeding" obvious. which makes your original post in this thread, and your responses now, bleedingly face-palmy.

anyhoo, point made. moving on...

 

[Thermal]

You know that the narrative of "deliberately pushed" is an interpretation of armchair lawyering on the internet, not a finding of the actual case, right?

Grey's whole argument in the case relied on a screwball interpretation of "self defense" to justify what she did to Ward. That's why the judge went to great lengths to clarify the definition of self defense for the jury.

If it was self defense, as Grey claimed, it was deliberate. By definition. The judge agreed that her actions were "totally out of proportion" with the vehicular attack or whatever crazy thing you want to call it. But make no mistake: Grey admits big snd bold that she intended to do exactly what she did.

 

[Mojo]

The judge agreed that her actions were "totally out of proportion" ...

The judge did not take a position on this in their directions to the jury, because that was a matter for the jury to decide.

 

[Thermal]

The judge did not take a position on this in their directions to the jury, because that was a matter for the jury to decide.

You're right, I was going by memory. It was a police official who made the comment that he agreed Grey's action was "totally inappropriate". I recalled it as the presiding judge commenting on the verdict.

 

[Matthew Best]

In case anyone is interested, Grey has now been released on bail, and is back at home enjoying her freedom.

 

[lionking]

In case anyone is interested, Grey has now been released on bail, and is back at home enjoying her freedom.

British justice is sometimes a mystery. She is still a convicted criminal, and should not be on bail in my opinion.

 

[Nessie]

In case anyone is interested, Grey has now been released on bail, and is back at home enjoying her freedom.

That suggests the court where the bail hearing took place, thinks there is a good chance her appeal will succeed.

 

[LondonJohn]

That suggests the court where the bail hearing took place, thinks there is a good chance her appeal will succeed.

By no means necessarily.

Grey was given a 3-year sentence in March of 2023. This means that she would be eligible for mandatory release in September of this year (half the sentence length). By the time the Court of Appeal has heard her appeal (in May, I believe) and issued its ruling, Grey would have served her entire prison sentence. Which would in turn mean that if her conviction were to be annulled on appeal, there would be no material benefit to her in terms of time served in prison.

Had Grey been, for example, imprisoned for 10 years, it's vanishingly unlikely that she would have been released on bail a year into her sentence pending any appeal against conviction, irrespective of the perceived probability of a successful appeal.

 

[Matthew Best]

Grey’s conviction has been overturned and an application for a retrial denied.

Pedestrian Auriol Grey has Huntingdon cyclist death conviction overturned https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335

 

[catsmate]

Grey’s conviction has been overturned and an application for a retrial denied.

Pedestrian Auriol Grey has Huntingdon cyclist death conviction overturned https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335

Unsurprising given the egregious errors of the original trial, and distinctly (and justifiably) scathing towards the trial judge.

 

[Nessie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335

"At the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, three judges overturned her conviction, leading her family to call for "lessons to be learnt", saying that vulnerable people needed better support from the justice system.
Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey, said: "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury.
"In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant's conviction for manslaughter is unsafe.""

This explains why,

"During her original trial, Ms Grey's actions had been described as "hostile gesticulation" towards Mrs Ward.
However, Adrian Darbishire KC, for Ms Grey, said in the appeal: "Hostile gesticulation is not a crime, otherwise we would have 50,000 football fans each weekend being apprehended."

Assault was not used as the base offence, as contact could not be definitely proved and mens rea is lacking. Instead, the court used "hostile gesticulation" which the Court of Appeal has correctly pointed out, is not a crime.

 

[catsmate]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335

"At the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, three judges overturned her conviction, leading her family to call for "lessons to be learnt", saying that vulnerable people needed better support from the justice system.
Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey, said: "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury.
"In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant's conviction for manslaughter is unsafe.""

This explains why,

"During her original trial, Ms Grey's actions had been described as "hostile gesticulation" towards Mrs Ward.
However, Adrian Darbishire KC, for Ms Grey, said in the appeal: "Hostile gesticulation is not a crime, otherwise we would have 50,000 football fans each weekend being apprehended."

Assault was not used as the base offence, as contact could not be definitely proved and mens rea is lacking. Instead, the court used "hostile gesticulation" which the Court of Appeal has correctly pointed out, is not a crime.

Yeah, Spence tried to make shouted profanity and the "hostile gesticulation" into common assault and was apparently politely laughed at by the judges.
Of course even if they'd accepted his attempt, the appeal would have succeeded on the base point of law that no 'base offence' was identified at the trial, let alone put to the jury.
Pretty scathing towards the trial judge and prosecution. And the CoA have blocked a third CPS try, for the moment.

I await the case's appearance on BAILII .

 

[erwinl]

Yeah, Spence tried to make shouted profanity and the "hostile gesticulation" into common assault and was apparently politely laughed at by the judges.
Of course even if they'd accepted his attempt, the appeal would have succeeded on the base point of law that no 'base offence' was identified at the trial, let alone put to the jury.
Pretty scathing towards the trial judge and prosecution. And the CoA have blocked a third CPS try, for the moment.

I await the case's appearance on BAILII .

Well.
Handy to know that in the UK you are allowed to startle other people by word or deed, causing them to have an accident, possibly even their death.

Would never work here. Our traffic law specifically calls this an illegal deed and as such is a much saner law.
(and that has nothing to do whether the cyclist in question was or wasn't allowed to ride on that pavement).

 

[zooterkin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335

"At the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, three judges overturned her conviction, leading her family to call for "lessons to be learnt", saying that vulnerable people needed better support from the justice system.
Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey, said: "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury.
"In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant's conviction for manslaughter is unsafe.""

This explains why,

"During her original trial, Ms Grey's actions had been described as "hostile gesticulation" towards Mrs Ward.
However, Adrian Darbishire KC, for Ms Grey, said in the appeal: "Hostile gesticulation is not a crime, otherwise we would have 50,000 football fans each weekend being apprehended."

Assault was not used as the base offence, as contact could not be definitely proved and mens rea is lacking. Instead, the court used "hostile gesticulation" which the Court of Appeal has correctly pointed out, is not a crime.

Should they have gone for Gross Negligence rather than Unlawful Act manslaughter, or would that not have applied either?