|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 19:19:55 GMT
You’re being silly here Steve you cannot be being libelled. M’lud Steve accuses Darling of libel Judge: Steve who? Someone called Steve on the internet Judge: Who is Darling? Someone on the internet m’lud Judge: if you ever find out who Steve is jail for seven days wasting my time and contempt of court. I disagree with Darling on this but it’s only a discussion on a forum. I used the word 'libel' in its English language meaning ie defamatory. If that stupid fuckwit statement was read by anyone in any walk of life who knows me as the person who posts here as 'Steve' then it was defamatory. That it doesn't meet the threshold to be able to bring legal action for libel (not that I would) doesn't change what it was: a malicious false statement. Next time maybe I'll just call Darling out for being a stupid cunt Hey Vicar, I have an idea so crazy it just might work - how's about you stop being a humourless busybody? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 10, 2023 19:47:28 GMT
Which is why it was never a case in the first place, plus it hasn't been based on the law either. Shockingly blatant. Quite. So, in précis: The judge accepts that pretty much the whole incident is captured on CCTV but then praises a witness whose evidence is contradicted by that same video. The judge also states that the footpath is a “Shared space” despite the total lack of any signage indicating such. And, as Whoiney correctly states, the test to be applied is the “But for” test. However, as I said on the very first page of this thread: ...1) The cyclist clearly had to swerve around the pedestrian in any case, so where's the evidence that she didn't simply misjudge it? And in the video, you can clearly see that Celia Ward cycled past Auriol Grey before falling into the road. The whole incident took three seconds and from the available evidence, it is impossible to say that the cyclist would not have crashed but for the pedestrians actions. And even if Walker were correct (ie they both came to a halt, had an altercation and then Celia Ward cycled off and fell into the road) then the chain of causation would be broken. So either way, it is an unsafe conviction. If that was true then you would wonder why the defendant chose not to testify. In both cases. Suggests to me that this isn't correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 19:49:57 GMT
Which is why it was never a case in the first place, plus it hasn't been based on the law either. Shockingly blatant. Quite. So, in précis: The judge accepts that pretty much the whole incident is captured on CCTV but then praises a witness whose evidence is contradicted by that same video. The judge also states that the footpath is a “Shared space” despite the total lack of any signage indicating such. And, as Whoiney correctly states, the test to be applied is the “But for” test. However, as I said on the very first page of this thread: ...1) The cyclist clearly had to swerve around the pedestrian in any case, so where's the evidence that she didn't simply misjudge it? And in the video, you can clearly see that Celia Ward cycled past Auriol Grey before falling into the road. The whole incident took three seconds and from the available evidence, it is impossible to say that the cyclist would not have crashed but for the pedestrians actions. And even if Walker were correct (ie they both came to a halt, had an altercation and then Celia Ward cycled off and fell into the road) then the chain of causation would be broken. So either way, it is an unsafe conviction. Do you have any objections to the conviction (not the sentence) that are based on law, rather than just second guessing the jury's finding of fact? If you don't, it's not looking very good for the angry old bat, as the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to overturn a jury's finding of fact. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 20:10:49 GMT
Quite. So, in précis: The judge accepts that pretty much the whole incident is captured on CCTV but then praises a witness whose evidence is contradicted by that same video. The judge also states that the footpath is a “Shared space” despite the total lack of any signage indicating such. And, as Whoiney correctly states, the test to be applied is the “But for” test. However, as I said on the very first page of this thread: And in the video, you can clearly see that Celia Ward cycled past Auriol Grey before falling into the road. The whole incident took three seconds and from the available evidence, it is impossible to say that the cyclist would not have crashed but for the pedestrians actions. And even if Walker were correct (ie they both came to a halt, had an altercation and then Celia Ward cycled off and fell into the road) then the chain of causation would be broken. So either way, it is an unsafe conviction. If that was true then you would wonder why the defendant chose not to testify. In both cases. Suggests to me that this isn't correct. Same reason she lied in interview: She was afraid. A severely disabled woman who couldn't face the ordeal. The same reason that she made an easy collar. Hardly rocket science is it? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 20:14:12 GMT
Quite. So, in précis: The judge accepts that pretty much the whole incident is captured on CCTV but then praises a witness whose evidence is contradicted by that same video. The judge also states that the footpath is a “Shared space” despite the total lack of any signage indicating such. And, as Whoiney correctly states, the test to be applied is the “But for” test. However, as I said on the very first page of this thread: And in the video, you can clearly see that Celia Ward cycled past Auriol Grey before falling into the road. The whole incident took three seconds and from the available evidence, it is impossible to say that the cyclist would not have crashed but for the pedestrians actions. And even if Walker were correct (ie they both came to a halt, had an altercation and then Celia Ward cycled off and fell into the road) then the chain of causation would be broken. So either way, it is an unsafe conviction. Do you have any objections to the conviction (not the sentence) that are based on law, rather than just second guessing the jury's finding of fact? If you don't, it's not looking very good for the angry old bat, as the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to overturn a jury's finding of fact.
Yes. There was no unlawful act.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 10, 2023 20:15:42 GMT
Afraid I could understand during the police interview. But if she had legal advice through two court cases, I don't buy that.
I'd also question your definition of "severe". I'm not an expert and not saying you are wrong, but from the judge's comments that doesn't appear to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 20:20:21 GMT
Do you have any objections to the conviction (not the sentence) that are based on law, rather than just second guessing the jury's finding of fact? If you don't, it's not looking very good for the angry old bat, as the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to overturn a jury's finding of fact.
Yes. There was no unlawful act.
That's a decision for the jury. So, basically you have no grounds for appeal of the conviction other than the jury misinterpreted the facts. That's a very, very long shot. It's probably why Grey isn't appealing the conviction. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 20:24:27 GMT
Afraid I could understand during the police interview. But if she had legal advice through two court cases, I don't buy that. I'd also question your definition of "severe". I'm not an expert and not saying you are wrong, but from the judge's comments that doesn't appear to be the case. What, Judge Fudge who praised a witness who was demonstrably incorrect? I'd certainly question that judgement.
But I wouldn't question anyone's reluctance to give evidence in court and be ripped into by a trained barrister. Let alone a partially blind woman with cerebral palsy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 20:26:32 GMT
Afraid I could understand during the police interview. But if she had legal advice through two court cases, I don't buy that. I'd also question your definition of "severe". I'm not an expert and not saying you are wrong, but from the judge's comments that doesn't appear to be the case. What, Judge Fudge who praised a witness who was demonstrably incorrect? I'd certainly question that judgement.
And Grey is questioning that judgment. But that judgment was made in the sentencing phase. It had no impact on the jury's decision. As already pointed out, it is only relevant to the appeal of the sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 20:27:48 GMT
Yes. There was no unlawful act.
That's a decision for the jury. So, basically you have no grounds for appeal of the conviction other than the jury misinterpreted the facts. That's a very, very long shot. It's probably why Grey isn't appealing the conviction. Which jury would that be? How about the first one that couldn't reach a verdict? And what was different second time around? Same facts, different interpretation? Judge Fudge?
Yeah, watertight that is. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 20:29:19 GMT
That's a decision for the jury. So, basically you have no grounds for appeal of the conviction other than the jury misinterpreted the facts. That's a very, very long shot. It's probably why Grey isn't appealing the conviction. Which jury would that be? How about the first one that couldn't reach a verdict? And what was different second time around? Same facts, different interpretation? Judge Fudge?
Yeah, watertight that is. You should know that the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to overrule a jury's finding of fact. If it was a finding of law, that might be another matter. But it isn't. No appeal against the conviction has been lodged, and it's very easy to understand why. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 20:31:06 GMT
Never confuse law with justice, Whoiney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 20:42:27 GMT
Never confuse law with justice, Whoiney. Fine. So you finally admit she doesn't have a leg to stand on as far her conviction is concerned. Grey was walking in the centre of the footpath. Seeing the cyclist, she veered her trajectory towards her. When the cyclist was abreast, there is movement of Grey's elbow and shoulder, and there is as much to suggest she pushed that lady as there is to suggest she merely made contact with her. She is lucky she didn't face a murder charge. There was plenty of room on the pavement for both. All that was required was a little consideration from Grey. She could easily have stepped aside and made room for the cyclist. If she wished to remonstrate, she would have had every opportunity to call after her or even call the police. Looking at the comments on the BBC's youtube channel and The Telegraph's report of the case, most seem to be of the view that she got off too lightly, with many saying a murder charge would have been more appropriate. I'll settle for manslaughter. Take a look at the BBC's link. Notice how the reporter is passed by a cyclist. There was plenty of room for both: www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436 |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 10, 2023 20:48:57 GMT
What, Judge Fudge who praised a witness who was demonstrably incorrect? I'd certainly question that judgement.
And Grey is questioning that judgment. But that judgment was made in the sentencing phase. It had no impact on the jury's decision. As already pointed out, it is only relevant to the appeal of the sentence. And you don't realise that those comments in sentencing are strongly indicative of what had been said in evidence? Really? And since we know that the quote in sentencing of William Walter's evidence is a false statement the whole thing becomes sus. Are you by any chance a leading member of the Cyclists can do what the fuck they like party? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 20:52:45 GMT
And Grey is questioning that judgment. But that judgment was made in the sentencing phase. It had no impact on the jury's decision. As already pointed out, it is only relevant to the appeal of the sentence. And you don't realise that those comments in sentencing are strongly indicative of what had been said in evidence? Really? Duh, Steve! Of course, Walker's comments were part of the evidence. Incorrect statements of fact are given in evidence all the time. It's the jury's job to sift through the evidence and find the facts. They are likely to have given exactly zero credence to Walker's claim if, as you say, it is obvious that she hadn't stopped. They will have reached their decision based on what we all saw on the video footage. Duh again! |
|
