Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

This isn’t true, CCTV footage of the cyclist earlier in the day spontaneously tumbling into roads, would bolster your case that the cyclist coincidentally tumbled into the road just as a passing pedestrian mimed the action of giving her a shove.

Evidence that she was a good or bad cyclist, would not have any significant effect on the case, which is wholly dependent on the CCTV. I would be very surprised if this had gone to trial, if there had been no CCTV.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Well, we haven't clearly seen exactly what happened as the cyclist passed the pedestrian since it was partly out of shot. If there was another view then that could be decisive. I tend think there was a push, but it's not possible to be sure from what we have.

Which is what makes the verdict surprising, as there is no beyond reasonable doubt.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Well, we haven't clearly seen exactly what happened as the cyclist passed the pedestrian since it was partly out of shot. If there was another view then that could be decisive. I tend think there was a push, but it's not possible to be sure from what we have.

That's really the point. We can't see, so we can't be sure. Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

[GlennB]

Perhaps there was other evidence? Testimony from the unfortunate motorist that hit the cyclist, for example. They must have had a pretty good view.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Perhaps there was other evidence? Testimony from the unfortunate motorist that hit the cyclist, for example. They must have had a pretty good view.

Possibly they saw no push, probably they saw a cyclist and pedestrian on the pavement, but it is far more likely that the first thing the driver saw was the cyclist falling into the road.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Perhaps there was other evidence? .

Exactly.

Too many people in this thread imagine the entire trial involved just looking at the video. Some who should know better.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lionking

Exactly.

Too many people in this thread imagine the entire trial involved just looking at the video. Some who should know better.

There will have been evidence of the vulnerabilities of the accused and victim. Evidence about the footpath and its status. Evidence from the driver of the car and possibly other drivers. There was likely agreed evidence for the submission of the CCTV and the post-mortem.

It is hard to see what else there was. CCTV makes up the single most important part of the evidence and as I said before, if there was no CCTV, I doubt this would have gone to trial.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

Exactly.

Too many people in this thread imagine the entire trial involved just looking at the video. Some who should know better.

The initial link here refers specifically to the video and cites no other testimony or evidence. It's impossible to believe she could have been convicted without the video.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The initial link here refers specifically to the video and cites no other testimony or evidence. It's impossible to believe she could have been convicted without the video.

So what? Are you saying that there could not have been other compelling evidence?

There is some really naive thinking in this thread.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The initial link here refers specifically to the video and cites no other testimony or evidence. It's impossible to believe she could have been convicted without the video.

I've looked at a few newspaper articles from then and they are all very brief. The video is important and dramatic evidence, certainly, but that's a straight stretch of road and it seems likely (to me, anyway) there would have been other pedestrians who might have testified but not have got a mention in the papers.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by GlennB

I've looked at a few newspaper articles from then and they are all very brief. The video is important and dramatic evidence, certainly, but that's a straight stretch of road and it seems likely (to me, anyway) there would have been other pedestrians who might have testified but not have got a mention in the papers.

If anyone had testified credibly ("I was right behind her and I saw her push that poor old woman!") it would have been reported prominently. No other pedestrians appear in the video, and drivers generally are watching the road. The specific question is whether the pedestrian shoved the cyclist -- not did she wave or did she gesture. And somebody would have had to be very close and intensely focused to observe a shove.

[Nessie]

If it was not for the CCTV, the evidence would be motorists who say they saw a cyclist and pedestrian pass and the cyclist fall into the road. It is highly unlikely any motorist heard what the pedestrian shouted and saw her gesturing. There is no indiction of a nearby pedestrian.

[Jack by the hedge]

For what it's worth, although I think the pedestrian either grasped the cyclist's arm or made her flinch by moving as if to do so, and thereby caused her to lose control and fall, I'm not convinced of it beyond all reasonable doubt.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If anyone had testified credibly ("I was right behind her and I saw her push that poor old woman!") it would have been reported prominently. No other pedestrians appear in the video, and drivers generally are watching the road. The specific question is whether the pedestrian shoved the cyclist -- not did she wave or did she gesture. And somebody would have had to be very close and intensely focused to observe a shove.

How on earth do you know that? The business of newspapers is to publish stories which will be read. Cases like this will never be covered in fine detail by newspapers.

I have a good deal of confidence in the UK justice system (as distinct from the US system). This case was judged on its merits. The actions of the pedestrian caused the death of the cyclist, and I do not think there is any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, about that. Manslaughter it is.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

How on earth do you know that? The business of newspapers is to publish stories which will be read. Cases like this will never be covered in fine detail by newspapers.

I have a good deal of confidence in the UK justice system (as distinct from the US system). This case was judged on its merits. The actions of the pedestrian caused the death of the cyclist, and I do not think there is any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, about that. Manslaughter it is.

If an eyewitness had testified against her, that would have been much more compelling journalism ("That's the one!") and more reader-appealing than a report about a video. Absent such an account, we can safely assume there wasn't such a witness. And gesturing and shouting is a far cry from pushing and shoving, which even the prosecution didn't accuse her of. And we still aren't sure whether the cyclist was entitled to be there at all. Even if she was, as a vehicle operator it was her duty to accommodate the pedestrian and control her bicycle. If the pedestrian had been convicted and sentenced to probation, that might have been bad enough, but tolerable. Three years in prison is not.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If an eyewitness had testified against her, that would have been much more compelling journalism ("That's the one!") and more reader-appealing than a report about a video. Absent such an account, we can safely assume there wasn't such a witness. And gesturing and shouting is a far cry from pushing and shoving, which even the prosecution didn't accuse her of. And we still aren't sure whether the cyclist was entitled to be there at all. Even if she was, as a vehicle operator it was her duty to accommodate the pedestrian and control her bicycle. If the pedestrian had been convicted and sentenced to probation, that might have been bad enough, but tolerable. Three years in prison is not.

So what is a good sentence for manslaughter? Because it’s been proven that the actions of the pedestrian caused death. Your point about the cyclist not entitled to be there (on a shared path?) is irrelevant.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

So what is a good sentence for manslaughter? Because it’s been proven that the actions of the pedestrian caused death. Your point about the cyclist not entitled to be there (on a shared path?) is irrelevant.

Your own Crown Prosecution Service defines manslaughter thus:

Quote:

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

1. Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
2. Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
3. Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...er#_Toc3812588

She was proven to have gestured and cursed at a cyclist who was approaching her (and I think that's important because the cyclist had plenty of opportunity to see her and adjust her course). I don't think that constitutes "conduct that was grossly negligent" or "an unlawful act." With no intent to harm, no criminal record, and apparently with a medical and psychiatric disorder, I think a year's probation ("Don't do it again!") would be appropriate. This was really a tragic traffic accident, nothing more.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Your own Crown Prosecution Service defines manslaughter thus:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...er#_Toc3812588

She was proven to have gestured and cursed at a cyclist who was approaching her (and I think that's important because the cyclist had plenty of opportunity to see her and adjust her course). I don't think that constitutes "conduct that was grossly negligent" or "an unlawful act." With no intent to harm, no criminal record, and apparently with a medical and psychiatric disorder, I think a year's probation ("Don't do it again!") would be appropriate. This was really a tragic traffic accident, nothing more.

Firstly it’s not my Crown Prosecution Service, but manslaughter laws are quite similar in Australia. I (and more importantly the CPS) think the manslaughter verdict was justified. And, as you should know, the judge found the alleged medical conditions were irrelevant.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

Firstly it’s not my Crown Prosecution Service, but manslaughter laws are quite similar in Australia. I (and more importantly the CPS) think the manslaughter verdict was justified. And, as you should know, the judge found the alleged medical conditions were irrelevant.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt about her medical conditions. If she's partially blind and learning-impaired, I don't see how that's irrelevant.

From another link:

Quote:

Grey has cerebral palsy, is partially blind, suffers from cognitive issues and has been living in shelter accommodation for most of her life.

During sentencing, Judge Sean Enright said: "These actions are not explained by disability."

https://news.yahoo.com/she-wont-cope...124113262.html

This is not somebody you send to prison for waving and shouting. The cyclist failed to control her bike.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

There doesn't seem to be any doubt about her medical conditions. If she's partially blind and learning-impaired, I don't see how that's irrelevant.

Take it up with the judge.

What might be at play here is the whole idea of manslaughter. As far as I know this is not a charge in the US, and there have been a very large number of US cases (particularly “self defence” killings) where the killer has walked. Manslaughter is there to deal with non-intentional killings that resulted from negligence where the consequences could have been considered by the offender.

This case is pretty clear cut to me.

Further to medical impairment issue, do you think that everyone with an impairment should be automatically be found not guilty?
22% of the people in the UK have a disability, and when you include all the other self-proclaimed impairments going around, maybe 50% would automatically walk.

https://researchbriefings.files.parl...2/CBP-9602.pdf

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

Take it up with the judge.

What might be at play here is the whole idea of manslaughter. As far as I know this is not a charge in the US, and there have been a very large number of US cases (particularly “self defence” killings) where the killer has walked. Manslaughter is there to deal with non-intentional killings that resulted from negligence where the consequences could have been considered by the offender.
.....

Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, or equivalents with different titles, are certainly serious crimes in the U.S., with the possibility of heavy sentences. But they require intent to harm (voluntary) or gross negligence (involuntary). I strongly doubt something like this could be prosecuted on this evidence in the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansla...ed_States_law)

[Chris_Halkides]

If the pedestrian saw the car, then why did she point the cyclist to the road?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

If the pedestrian saw the car, then why did she point the cyclist to the road?

I don't think anyone claims that she was looking at any particular car on a busy two-lane road. Her contention, about which there seems to be some dispute, is that the cyclist should have been operating in the roadway rather than on the "pavement" (which USians call the sidewalk).

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, or equivalents with different titles, are certainly serious crimes in the U.S., with the possibility of heavy sentences. But they require intent to harm (voluntary) or gross negligence (involuntary). I strongly doubt something like this could be prosecuted on this evidence in the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansla...ted_States_law)

This came up in another thread recently, and the same wikipedia citation was used (by me).

However, you've made the same mistake/asumption the poster I was conversing with there did: namely, neither the phrase 'gross negligence', nor even the word 'gross' appear anywhere in that entry. 'Negligence'? Yes. 'Gross negligence'? No.

It is very possible that the actual statutes use this language, but if that is the case then that should be the source cited in support of this claim.

ETA: Aso, your link is broken, this one works.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by junkshop

This came up in another thread recently, and the same wikipedia citation was used (by me).

However, you've made the same mistake/asumption the poster I was conversing with there did: namely, neither the phrase 'gross negligence', nor even the word 'gross' appear anywhere in that entry. 'Negligence'? Yes. 'Gross negligence'? No.

It is very possible that the actual statutes use this language, but if that is the case then that should be the source cited in support of this claim.

ETA: Aso, your link is broken, this one works.

Sorry about the link. Too late for me to fix it.

Sounds like this might be a gray area in practice. But criminal negligence must meet a higher standard than ordinary negligence.

Here's one source:

Quote:

The level of negligence required for involuntary manslaughter is higher than normal civil negligence and requires that the defendant have acted in a very unreasonable manner. The exact language used to describe this negligence standard varies by state, but many refer to it as “criminal negligence” or “gross negligence.”

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offe...-manslaughter/

And this:

Quote:

Although all jurisdictions punish involuntary manslaughter, the statutes vary somewhat. In some states, the criminal negligence type of manslaughter is described as gross negligence or culpable negligence. Others divide the entire offense of manslaughter into degrees, with voluntary manslaughter constituting a more serious offense and carrying a heavier penalty than involuntary manslaughter.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...m/manslaughter

[Nessie]

If what the pedestrian did counts as gross negligence, then our prisons should be even fuller than they are. Shouting and gesticulating to a cyclist to get into the road, is far less than an active shove to push a cyclist into a road.

Any confrontational interaction that leads to a death, even where the interaction is minor and there is clearly no intention to harm, should, by the standard set here, lead to a prison sentence.

[Nessie]

I disagree with this;

"Grey has cerebral palsy, is partially blind, suffers from cognitive issues and has been living in shelter accommodation for most of her life.
During sentencing, Judge Sean Enright said: "These actions are not explained by disability."

Her actions are entirely explained by her medical conditions. She is vulnerable due to her palsy. She is likely a poor judge of space and distance due to her poor eyesight. She is a poor judge of situations due to her cognitive issues.

Two vulnerable people met on a pavement, to hold one of them wholly responsible for the other going off balance and falling into the road, is clearly wrong.

[Vixen]

Whilst this lady has lived a very sad life, unfortunately everybody is equal in the eyes of the law. Her act of recklessly causing the cyclist to fall into the path of a car (the CCTV doesn't show whether she actually pushed the woman) has nothing to do with her disabilities. The fact she appears to be (understandably perhaps) permanently grumpy should not be an excuse for anti-social behaviour. She got off lightly with just three years. She'll be out soon.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I disagree with this;

"Grey has cerebral palsy, is partially blind, suffers from cognitive issues and has been living in shelter accommodation for most of her life.
During sentencing, Judge Sean Enright said: "These actions are not explained by disability."

Her actions are entirely explained by her medical conditions. She is vulnerable due to her palsy. She is likely a poor judge of space and distance due to her poor eyesight. She is a poor judge of situations due to her cognitive issues.

Two vulnerable people met on a pavement, to hold one of them wholly responsible for the other going off balance and falling into the road, is clearly wrong.

Oh great. Please explain how you know better than the judge, who unlike you, had access to all the evidence presented.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Whilst this lady has lived a very sad life, unfortunately everybody is equal in the eyes of the law. Her act of recklessly causing the cyclist to fall into the path of a car (the CCTV doesn't show whether she actually pushed the woman) has nothing to do with her disabilities. The fact she appears to be (understandably perhaps) permanently grumpy should not be an excuse for anti-social behaviour. She got off lightly with just three years. She'll be out soon.

Brace yourself. I agree with all of this post.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I disagree with this;

"Grey has cerebral palsy, is partially blind, suffers from cognitive issues and has been living in shelter accommodation for most of her life.
During sentencing, Judge Sean Enright said: "These actions are not explained by disability."

Her actions are entirely explained by her medical conditions. She is vulnerable due to her palsy. She is likely a poor judge of space and distance due to her poor eyesight. She is a poor judge of situations due to her cognitive issues.

Two vulnerable people met on a pavement, to hold one of them wholly responsible for the other going off balance and falling into the road, is clearly wrong.

Snag is CP covers a wide range of potential difficulties; a term like "cognitive issues" is so vague as to be unhelpful; more detail is necessary in order to understand what limitations she may have and how those impact her life. One hopes that the court did actually have those details and that her defence counsel made damn sure that they were presented, especially as the judge did make a very explicit statement about the role of her condition.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh great. Please explain how you know better than the judge, who unlike you, had access to all the evidence presented.

Sorry, I thought the forum was for people who want to discuss issues. I was not aware we should default to decisions made elsewhere.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Whilst this lady has lived a very sad life, unfortunately everybody is equal in the eyes of the law. Her act of recklessly causing the cyclist to fall into the path of a car (the CCTV doesn't show whether she actually pushed the woman) has nothing to do with her disabilities. The fact she appears to be (understandably perhaps) permanently grumpy should not be an excuse for anti-social behaviour. She got off lightly with just three years. She'll be out soon.

That is a very low bar you set for recklessness. Shout and gesticulate at someone, who the falls, possibly due to their own inability to control a bike at low speed and you go to prison.

Think how that translates to all sorts of minor actions, that could now get you sent to prison, if, the other person ends up dying.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Sorry, I thought the forum was for people who want to discuss issues. I was not aware we should default to decisions made elsewhere.

You're begging the question that there's an issue to discuss.

Personally, I think it can be a crimes to startle someone into traffic where they die. So I have no issue with the basic premise of this case and its verdict. Do you have an issue with the premise?

Or do you just not see how his particular incident rises to that level?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're begging the question that there's an issue to discuss.

Personally, I think it can be a crimes to startle someone into traffic where they die. So I have no issue with the basic premise of this case and its verdict. Do you have an issue with the premise?

Or do you just not see how his particular incident rises to that level?

Why did she lose her balance?

1 - she was startled. That seems unlikely, as she was cycling towards the lady, who shouts and gesticulates at her. So she was well aware the lady was there.

2 - she was pushed. The CCTV does not show an obvious push and no evidence was presented by the prosecution to prove she was pushed, or even nudged or any physical coming together, beyond, possibly, the pedestrians hand as she continues to gesticulate.

3 - she toppled as she tried to cycle slowly past the pedestrian. Slow cycling is a skill and it is hard to stay in a straight line when cycling very slowly. The front wheel wobbles from side to side, as the cyclist tries to stay upright. We see that her front wheel goes to the side and we know she passes the pedestrian very slowly. We also know the cyclist is elderly and our balance goes as we get older.

1, 2 or 3, what do you think is most likely?

[GlennB]

4. She became increasingly frightened at the aggression being shown and the refusal of the pedestrian to give way, even to the smallest degree.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Why did she lose her balance?

1 - she was startled. That seems unlikely, as she was cycling towards the lady, who shouts and gesticulates at her. So she was well aware the lady was there.

2 - she was pushed. The CCTV does not show an obvious push and no evidence was presented by the prosecution to prove she was pushed, or even nudged or any physical coming together, beyond, possibly, the pedestrians hand as she continues to gesticulate.

3 - she toppled as she tried to cycle slowly past the pedestrian. Slow cycling is a skill and it is hard to stay in a straight line when cycling very slowly. The front wheel wobbles from side to side, as the cyclist tries to stay upright. We see that her front wheel goes to the side and we know she passes the pedestrian very slowly. We also know the cyclist is elderly and our balance goes as we get older.

1, 2 or 3, what do you think is most likely?

How about this? I promise to answer your question, but first I'd like you to answer mine.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Nessie

....
2 - she was pushed. The CCTV does not show an obvious push and no evidence was presented by the prosecution to prove she was pushed, or even nudged or any physical coming together, beyond, possibly, the pedestrians hand as she continues to gesticulate.
....

Let's note that the prosecution itself never even claimed that the pedestrian pushed the cyclist. She has been convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison because she gestured and cursed.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by GlennB

4. She became increasingly frightened at the aggression being shown and the refusal of the pedestrian to give way, even to the smallest degree.

The cyclist had multiple options, including stopping to let the pedestrian pass her or passing the pedestrian on the left, away from the roadway. The cyclist made a bad choice and failed to control her vehicle (and yes, a bicycle is a vehicle that the operator is responsible for controlling).

[Bob001]

deleted duplicate