|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 21:24:53 GMT
Sincerely sorry your side lost, Squeaky. There's a chance with the appeal. You can't be a two-time loser, Squeaky. You're right, I'll never beat your record Whoiney. But good to see you magnanimous, as ever, in defeat. See you in the Court of Appeal. 
Yeah, where the sentence will be appealed. The angry old bat will still have her conviction whatever the outcome. Be angry about that, Squeaky. Anger is a gammon's natural state. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 10, 2023 21:25:38 GMT
Well, I'm satisfied with the outcome, Squeaky. Meanwhile, you've shown yet again that you don't have the first understanding of how the law works. Well done on that law degree you don't have. And well done on lying about the video evidence.
Are you Judge Fudge, darling? No but Darling fancies politicising the law is all well and dandy. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 21:42:58 GMT
You're right, I'll never beat your record Whoiney. But good to see you magnanimous, as ever, in defeat. See you in the Court of Appeal.
Yeah, where the sentence will be appealed. The angry old bat will still have her conviction whatever the outcome. Be angry about that, Squeaky. Anger is a gammon's natural state. Anger is clearly your natural state, Whoiney. Are you a Gammon?
You Brits, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 10, 2023 22:21:22 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. As I understand it - and I am open to correction. Not testifying is not an admission of guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 23:11:33 GMT
Yeah, where the sentence will be appealed. The angry old bat will still have her conviction whatever the outcome. Be angry about that, Squeaky. Anger is a gammon's natural state. Anger is clearly your natural state, Whoiney. Are you a Gammon?
You Brits, eh? She's in prison tonight, Squeaky. Maybe she'll cry herself to sleep like the family of the woman she killed most likely will. She didn't expect a custodial sentence. Every night she spends in prison is a win.  |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 10, 2023 23:29:31 GMT
What a vile little shit you are Darling with posts like that and your sad pretence that the law never gets it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 10, 2023 23:40:02 GMT
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. As I understand it - and I am open to correction. Not testifying is not an admission of guilt. That is of course correct, but the point that I'm making is if the account of the incident is not correct, why would the defendant not want to put her version of events to correct this? Twice. Doesn't stack up for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 23:46:29 GMT
What a vile little shit you are Darling with posts like that and your sad pretence that the law never gets it wrong. You are forgetting yourself, Vicar. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 23:48:32 GMT
What a vile little shit you are Darling with posts like that and your sad pretence that the law never gets it wrong. And Grey clearly made contact with the cyclist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vnW7gCYrw |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 11, 2023 5:44:32 GMT
There would have been no contact, no gesticulations if the cyclist hadn't been on the footpath or, at the very least, stopped and dismounted.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 11, 2023 7:37:31 GMT
Anger is clearly your natural state, Whoiney. Are you a Gammon?
You Brits, eh? She's in prison tonight, Squeaky. Maybe she'll cry herself to sleep like the family of the woman she killed most likely will. She didn't expect a custodial sentence. Every night she spends in prison is a win. Which is what it is actually about, retribution for a stupid cyclist who didn't obey the law in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 11, 2023 12:12:53 GMT
As I understand it - and I am open to correction. Not testifying is not an admission of guilt. That is of course correct, but the point that I'm making is if the account of the incident is not correct, why would the defendant not want to put her version of events to correct this? Twice. Doesn't stack up for me. The jury are invited to draw whatever inferences they want to faced with a defendant's refusal to take the witness stand to give evidence in their own defence |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 11, 2023 12:36:52 GMT
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. As I understand it - and I am open to correction. Not testifying is not an admission of guilt. You are correct the accused when the charges are out put to them at the start of a trial cannot be forced to enter a plea, if they don't enter a plea the Court treats it as a not guilty plea, they cannot be forced to enter the witness box either, if they do agree to go into the witness that means they can be crossed examined, by the prosecution The accused can make a statement to the Court from the Dock, if they choose to do that they cannot be cross examined |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 11, 2023 13:21:47 GMT
As I understand it - and I am open to correction. Not testifying is not an admission of guilt. That is of course correct, but the point that I'm making is if the account of the incident is not correct, why would the defendant not want to put her version of events to correct this? Twice. Doesn't stack up for me. Not only has she got physical difficulties she is disabled, she has Cognitive difficulties she could not have coped with being cross examined |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 11, 2023 13:36:27 GMT
That is of course correct, but the point that I'm making is if the account of the incident is not correct, why would the defendant not want to put her version of events to correct this? Twice. Doesn't stack up for me. Not only has she got physical difficulties she is disabled, she has Cognitive difficulties she could not have coped with being cross examined Besides, she might have told the judge to get off the fucking bench. |
|
