UK woke legal system yet again...

For information the directions & sentencing remarks

Burden of proof

The prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. She does not have to prove her innocence.
Standard of proof
The prosecution proves the defendant's guilt by making you sure of it. Nothing less than that will do.
Manslaughter
A person commits manslaughter is he/she does an unlawful act that a sane and reasonable person would realise would inevitably expose another person to the risk of some harm ( and that other person dies as a result).
If you concluded that what took place was or may have been an accident, then you will find the defendant not guilty.
If you were sure that what took place was not an accident but found that defendant was or may have been acting in self-defence, then you will find her not guilty.
2
WHAT IS SELF DEFENCE?
In summary
1. A person who thinks she is under threat may use force to defend herself and, as long as she uses reasonable force she will be acting in lawful self-defence.
2. It is for the Crown to prove, that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.
3 It is a two stage test.
Stage 1 – did she feel under threat (subjective)
4. You must first ask did she honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to defend herself? She is not deprived of this defence simply because she was mistaken about the need to use force.
If you are sure that she did not believe it was necessary to use force, then self-defence fails, and the force used would be unlawful.
If she may have believed it was necessary to use force, go on to the second stage.
Stage 2 – reasonable force (objective).
5. You must then decide whether the type and amount of force she used was reasonable. A person who is under threat may react on the spur of the moment and cannot be expected to work out exactly how much force she needs to use and everyone has a degree of latitude in that situation. If the reality is that she used no more force than she instinctively thought necessary, that would be good evidence that the force used was reasonable and therefore lawful.
3
6. If you conclude the defendant was or may have been acting in lawful self-defence you must find her not guilty and that is the end of the case, and you will go no further.
7. However, if she used force out of all proportion to the situation she faced, then the force used would not be reasonable and her actions would be unlawful.
8. If you reject self-defence, it means you have found that she used unlawful force.
You will then ask: would a sane and reasonable person realise that in doing what she did, would inevitably expose another person to the risk of some harm?
If yes, verdict guilty.
If no, verdict not guilty.
4
ROUTE TO VERDICT
(After you have had a full discussion about the issues you will need to make decisions, and if you follow this route to verdict it will help you return a verdict which in accordance with the law)
Q 1 Was what took place or may it have been an accident?
If so, your verdict is not guilty. Go no further.
If not, go to Q2.
Q 2 Did she believe, or may she have believed it was necessary to use force to defend herself?
If not, self-defence fails and you will go straight to Q4.
If yes, go to Q3.
Q3 Was the force that she used reasonable or may it have been reasonable?
If yes, verdict not guilty. Go no further.
If no, self-defence fails. Go to Q4.
Q4 Would a sane and reasonable person realise that doing what she did, would inevitably expose Mrs Ward to some harm?
If yes, verdict guilty. Go no further.
If no, verdict not guilty.
5
THE DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AT TRIAL
The defendant has chosen not to give evidence in support of her defence.
A warning
You must remember that the defendant has a perfect right not to give evidence and to require the prosecution to prove its case. You cannot jump to the conclusion that her silence proves the case against her. It does not. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove its case so that you are sure.
How may the defendant’s silence be relevant to the case?
There is no evidence before you to contradict or undermine the evidence for the prosecution save for what the defendant said in interview. You will appreciate those answers carry less weight than sworn evidence because they were not given on oath and were not tested in cross examination.
What point do the prosecution make?
The prosecution argue that the reason why the defendant has remained silent is that she has no answer to the prosecution case or none that would stand up to examination.
What do you need to be satisfied of before accepting that argument?
You should only act on that argument if you regard the Prosecution case as sufficiently strong to require an answer from her, and you are sure that the only sensible explanation for her silence is her awareness that she has no answer, or none that would bear examination.
6
GOOD CHARACTER
The defendant has no criminal convictions, cautions or reprimands and you have heard evidence about her character from three witnesses.
1 This is a factor which you should take into account when deciding whether you believe what she said in interview.
2. The fact that she is of good character means that she has no known propensity to commit offences and is therefore less likely to have committed this offence.
These are matters to which you should have regard in the defendant's favour.
EXPERT EVIDENCE
Experts are entitled to give their opinion evidence on matters outside the knowledge of lay people.
None of the expert evidence is in dispute and there is no rational basis to depart from it.

You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.

Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.

The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.

This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.

I have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.

You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities. Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.

I have been referred to the guidelines on unlawful act manslaughter issued by the Sentencing Council and have heard submissions from both parties.

In terms of the guidance, looking at these matters in the round, culpability C is made out, but towards the lower end of the scale.

A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to whether harm would be caused.

I reject the submission that this is best framed in terms of category D for reasons I have indicated.

Aggravating factors
The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.

The effect on Mrs Carla Money (in so far as her first statement extends). Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable.

Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation
You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.

You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years old. This stands to your credit.

Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.

Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.

As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.

Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your disabilities and do not hold it against you.

There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.

I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.

Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment.