Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
Startling would mean some sort of preparation, creeping up on or hiding from, and bursting out at the last moment. That did not happen.
Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist
- Thread starter Nessie
- Start date
Startling would mean some sort of preparation, creeping up on or hiding from, and bursting out at the last moment. That did not happen.
Nonsense.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 33,259
Eh......., no.
GNM? Not much of a chance; the prosecution would need to demonstrate both that a 'duty of care' existed and that death was "reasonably foreseeable" from the failure of that duty.
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,427
Don't be silly. The law covers that case just fine as common assault. The issue seems to be that (a) the prosecution didn't specifically attempt establish assault in the trial and (b) the judges believe what she did didn't meet the threshold of imminent or actual attack so they denied the retrial. I think that's a misreading of the video, but there we go, it's done now.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/assault-offences-explained/
Last edited:
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,899
Eh......., no.
GNM? Not much of a chance; the prosecution would need to demonstrate both that a 'duty of care' existed and that death was "reasonably foreseeable" from the failure of that duty.
One general part of our traffic laws goes something like this (translation by me, so don't go all lawyer on it).
'It is forbidden to act such that danger is being caused or can be caused in traffic, or that traffic is hindered, or can be hindered.'
Which sounds a very sane part of that law.
Another part of that same law says that it is forbidden to leave the scene of an accident where you are in any way part of.
Both parts of this law she broke and as such could have been prosecuted with overhere. (and as said, that is totally independent on whether the cyclist in question had any reason to be on that pavement).
There is nothing in the UK law like this?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Eh......., no.
GNM? Not much of a chance; the prosecution would need to demonstrate both that a 'duty of care' existed and that death was "reasonably foreseeable" from the failure of that duty.
I feel like "death by being startled into the street" is reasonably foreseeable by any five year old, who was ever taught to stop, look both ways, and listen before crossing the street. And also any reasoning pre-teen, teen, young adult, and adult up to the point of adult-onset dementia.
I also feel like it's axiomatic that everyone has a duty of care to not startle their fellow humans into the street.
Basically this.
I also suspect that Grey was intending to force Ward off the pavement onto the road as punishment for intruding where Grey believed Ward had no right to be, and that she actually contacted the bile, but that's not completely clear.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 20,367
With the sole proviso that it's not the same thing as no crime having been committed, yes, no crime has been proven.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Honestly it's amazing to me that the same civil society can criminalize rude language on social media, but not hostile gestures that lead directly to an otherwise-avoidable death.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
It is not to me. We are all inconsistent.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
Full ruling downloadable here
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-auriol-grey/
Important part here;
"The appellant was in due course charged with manslaughter. The charge was pursued
as unlawful act manslaughter. The prosecution case was that the hostile reaction of the
appellant to Mrs Ward cycling on the pavement was unlawful. It had caused Mrs Ward
to fall off her bike and into the carriageway, resulting in her death. The words “Get off
the ******* pavement” characterised the appellant’s mindset of hostility to cyclists
riding on pavements. There was ample space for both the appellant and Mrs Ward to
pass one another but the appellant had deliberately obstructed Mrs Ward’s path, waving
her arm in such a manner that it either briefly made contact with Mrs Ward or caused
her to take evasive action, leading to her falling into the road to her death."
It accepts Grey contributed to Ward's death.
"The prosecution now accepts that, by the time that the judge summed up the case to the
jury, there was no evidence which could make the jury sure that the appellant had made
any physical contact with Mrs Ward. The evidence was that the appellant had
gesticulated and shouted at Mrs Ward using a swear word. There was however no
evidence to make the jury sure that the appellant pushed or in any way touched Mrs
Ward"
It does not accept that there is evidence to prove contact.
"On behalf of the appellant, Mr Adrian Darbishire KC with Mr Chris Henley KC, Mr
Tom Doble and Mr Brad Lewis (who did not appear at trial) submits that the Judge
failed to specify to the jury the act constituting the relevant “unlawful act” (sometimes
called the base offence) that was the alleged cause of death. Neither the Judge nor the
parties identified any such act during the trial. As a consequence, the elements of the
base offence were never left for the consideration of the jury."
The lack of contact makes the shouting and gesticulating the "base offence".
"The requirement to prove the elements of the base offence had been entirely overlooked by everyone, that is counsel on both sides and the judge."
Assault causing the death is the applicable base offence, but it was not proven to have happened;
"the base offence could not be a battery as the jury could not be sure of any physical contact. He submits that, on the facts of the case, the only base offence that could have been applicable was common assault..."
There was insufficient evidence to prove assault;
"Had Mrs Ward not died, we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would ever
have been charged with assault..."
"In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant’s
conviction for manslaughter is unsafe. The judge’s legal directions contained
fundamental and material misdirections of law. That stemmed from the failure of all
involved to properly identify and address the issues to be determined by the jury. Had
the need to identify and prove a base offence been recognised, the evidential
insufficiency of the prosecution case would have been recognised."
Grey's actions prior to the death, whilst contributing to the death, were not criminal.
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-auriol-grey/
Important part here;
"The appellant was in due course charged with manslaughter. The charge was pursued
as unlawful act manslaughter. The prosecution case was that the hostile reaction of the
appellant to Mrs Ward cycling on the pavement was unlawful. It had caused Mrs Ward
to fall off her bike and into the carriageway, resulting in her death. The words “Get off
the ******* pavement” characterised the appellant’s mindset of hostility to cyclists
riding on pavements. There was ample space for both the appellant and Mrs Ward to
pass one another but the appellant had deliberately obstructed Mrs Ward’s path, waving
her arm in such a manner that it either briefly made contact with Mrs Ward or caused
her to take evasive action, leading to her falling into the road to her death."
It accepts Grey contributed to Ward's death.
"The prosecution now accepts that, by the time that the judge summed up the case to the
jury, there was no evidence which could make the jury sure that the appellant had made
any physical contact with Mrs Ward. The evidence was that the appellant had
gesticulated and shouted at Mrs Ward using a swear word. There was however no
evidence to make the jury sure that the appellant pushed or in any way touched Mrs
Ward"
It does not accept that there is evidence to prove contact.
"On behalf of the appellant, Mr Adrian Darbishire KC with Mr Chris Henley KC, Mr
Tom Doble and Mr Brad Lewis (who did not appear at trial) submits that the Judge
failed to specify to the jury the act constituting the relevant “unlawful act” (sometimes
called the base offence) that was the alleged cause of death. Neither the Judge nor the
parties identified any such act during the trial. As a consequence, the elements of the
base offence were never left for the consideration of the jury."
The lack of contact makes the shouting and gesticulating the "base offence".
"The requirement to prove the elements of the base offence had been entirely overlooked by everyone, that is counsel on both sides and the judge."
Assault causing the death is the applicable base offence, but it was not proven to have happened;
"the base offence could not be a battery as the jury could not be sure of any physical contact. He submits that, on the facts of the case, the only base offence that could have been applicable was common assault..."
There was insufficient evidence to prove assault;
"Had Mrs Ward not died, we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would ever
have been charged with assault..."
"In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant’s
conviction for manslaughter is unsafe. The judge’s legal directions contained
fundamental and material misdirections of law. That stemmed from the failure of all
involved to properly identify and address the issues to be determined by the jury. Had
the need to identify and prove a base offence been recognised, the evidential
insufficiency of the prosecution case would have been recognised."
Grey's actions prior to the death, whilst contributing to the death, were not criminal.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
I think the most significant part of the ruling is,
"Had Mrs Ward not died, we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would ever
have been charged with assault..."
The shouting and gesticulating is not regarded as criminal. There is no base offence, therefore no manslaughter by criminal act.
"Had Mrs Ward not died, we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would ever
have been charged with assault..."
The shouting and gesticulating is not regarded as criminal. There is no base offence, therefore no manslaughter by criminal act.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
She served a year in prison so I guess Ward's family will just have to be content with that.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Wow, the appellate court seems to be suffering from a severe case of head-ass-itis.
Had Mrs Ward been rendered quadriplegic, but not dead, would the court really regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would ever be charged with assault? Because the charge seems pretty ******* conceivable to me.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 33,259
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 33,259
Exactly. The trial prosecutor and the judge acted idiotically.
And I note that the issue of the alleged cycleway remains in doubt.
I don't really get it, surely it's an offence under section 5 public order if nothing else:
"(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
Add in the fact it directly led to a death surely is manslaughter? It's outrageous this woman has walked.
"(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
Add in the fact it directly led to a death surely is manslaughter? It's outrageous this woman has walked.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
It's outrageous that thousands of soccer fans aren't incarcerated, given your interpretation of that.
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
A little nugget of information here:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/assault-offences-explained/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/assault-offences-explained/
This surprises me. A shared path remains shared by default until a sign explicitly says it ends, and this isn't the case on this stretch of road. All this was covered in the original debate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, and thanks for the reminder.
Because the recipients expect it and aren't the slightest bit bothered by the verbal abuse? It's just a game. Abuse and gestures that frighten somebody into the road are a different matter, I'd say. Would you disagree?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Clarifying question: If the default is that pathways are NOT shared, wouldn't the assumption be that they are not shared unless otherwise signed?
For an analogy, throughout most of the US, right turns are allowed at stop lights. That's the default - you can turn right on red but you're expected to check for oncoming traffic and yield right of way. Because this is the default in the vast majority of areas, we post signs when there is a deviation from that - when you're NOT allowed to turn right.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I think there needs to be an element of "reasonable person" involved. Remove the outcome in this specific case, and ask whether or not a reasonable person would be so startled by someone waving vigorously at a cyclist while calling them names that they would view it as an incipient assault... or whether a reasonable person would just view the gesturer as a bit of a twat.
I have maintained from the beginning - and continue to believe - that in any other situation, a reasonable person would not view Grey's behavior as threatening or indicative of an assault. A reasonable person would just think Grey was a jerk.
Otherwise, we'd all end up having to accept that ANY person who says "**** off" while rudely gesturing at someone is committing assault, and that's simply an inane position to hold.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I made one post in this thread previously, which I found with the search function:
By "a person like that" I was referring to
Seems like the appeals court agreed.
Shame on the Judge.
By "a person like that" I was referring to
Seems like the appeals court agreed.
Shame on the Judge.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
The ruling points out that "hostile behaviour" is not defined as a crime. An example is given of football matches and fans shouting and gesticulating at each other. Grey got angry. Will that mean it is now illegal to be angry?
The ruling also suggests that for it to be criminal manslaughter, the base crime has to be appropriate, one that can cause a death, such as assault.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
There also needs to be mens rea.
"There are some situations in which actions that might fall under the definition of ‘assault’ are lawful, for example in medical interventions, in self-defence, or where it is part of a contact sport like rugby."
Shouting and gesticulating for someone to stop cycling on a path, would not fall into what is considered to be an assault.
The ruling references what if Ward had not died? It does not go into detail, but what if she had cycled by without falling into the road? There is no crime. What if she had cycled into the road and there was no car there? There is no crime. What if she had fallen as she passed, but there was no car? The court ruled no crime. It is a coming together of two people who both believe they are entitled to be in the same place at the same time, and neither is prepared to give way to the other. Mens rea is lacking.
And/or there was an intent to cause harm.
Rubbish. If that were the case then a missing sign could involve the cycleway extending for miles in completely the wrong direction.
The cycleway was ( and presumably still is ) defined along its length by signs which should be placed at no more than a certain distance apart. The next sign along the cycleway was on the other side of the road and no doubt the final end/start signage was at the actual end/start somewhere further along the other side of the road.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 33,259
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Shame on the judge.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
I see that people are still glossing over the fact, admitted in court, that the aggressor made physical contact with the cyclist.
Note that she didn't admit to actually shoving the cyclist into traffic, and only admitted to making contact after the CCTV footage proved the contact had occurred.
Personally, I'm surprised that this case made it to court at all, given the general reluctance to provide any support for cyclists under any circumstances.
The general theory appears to be:
(a) If the cyclist is not on the road, the cyclist is in the wrong;
(b) If the cyclist is on the road, the cyclist is in the wrong; and,
(c) If anything ever happens to a cyclist anywhere at anytime, the cyclist is in the wrong and deserves it.
That attitude appears to extend to a cyclist's property, and bicycles in general.
Personally, I see it as proof that generations of anti-cycling advertising, has had an effect.
Note that she didn't admit to actually shoving the cyclist into traffic, and only admitted to making contact after the CCTV footage proved the contact had occurred.
Personally, I'm surprised that this case made it to court at all, given the general reluctance to provide any support for cyclists under any circumstances.
The general theory appears to be:
(a) If the cyclist is not on the road, the cyclist is in the wrong;
(b) If the cyclist is on the road, the cyclist is in the wrong; and,
(c) If anything ever happens to a cyclist anywhere at anytime, the cyclist is in the wrong and deserves it.
That attitude appears to extend to a cyclist's property, and bicycles in general.
Personally, I see it as proof that generations of anti-cycling advertising, has had an effect.
Rubbish.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I can't seem to recall ever seeing an "anti-cycling" advertisement.
Can you give an example?
Can you give an example?
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
From the Appeal ruling;
"...waving her arm in such a manner that it either briefly made contact with Mrs Ward or caused her to take evasive action..."
"...there was no evidence which could make the jury sure that the appellant had made any physical contact with Mrs Ward."
"...where it could not be established that she had made any physical contact with the cyclist."
Rubbish
Why do you think the court of appeals made this mistake?
Context matters. Grey didn't just get angry, she directly shouted abuse and acted in a threatening manner to an oncoming cyclist. This is entirely different to just being angry or two sets of football fans screaming abuse at each other. Although, depending on the abuse, you absolutely can have action taken against you because of your behaviour in a stadium.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,053
Take your complaints up with the appeal court. From the start, I argued that Grey did what lots of people do every day and get angry at someone who is getting too close for comfort and threatening their personal space. Cyclists do that to drivers. Drivers do it to cyclists. Grey's actions were akin to road rage, pedestrian rage if you want, and Ward chose to ignore her, there was a coming together which at most involved slight contact and Ward over balance and fell into traffic. Grey's actions were not criminal, or else if they were the courts would be even more back up than they already are, so it was not manslaughter.