|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 3, 2023 7:20:43 GMT
The legal system is not consistent. We have eco zealots not being prosecuted for blocking our highways and byeways and people being prosecuted on the most flimsiest of wims. Each case is judged on its merit each case is different even for the same type of offence, Judges do have sentencing guidelines to try bring consistencies when passing sentence, like in anything else Yeah, but the ‘independence’ of the judiciary means there is no comeback when they fuck up. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 3, 2023 7:33:11 GMT
I saw the video on the Itv news last night. It is apparently a shared space, and there is signs to indicate this at the entrances, but there are no repeaters. As such the cyclist was perfectly entitled to be there. It could be that the pedestrian wasn't aware of that.
She certainly didn't intend for her to die, but it is difficult to see what she was intending. Therefore manslaughter seems reasonable outcome.
I won't comment on the sentencing as I don't know what the guidelines are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 3, 2023 7:51:33 GMT
I saw the video on the Itv news last night. It is apparently a shared space, and there is signs to indicate this at the entrances, but there are no repeaters. As such the cyclist was perfectly entitled to be there. It could be that the pedestrian wasn't aware of that. Which will be news to the Police as they told the Court that they could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycle-way or not. To be honest, in my view, if the status of the footpath is that unclear even after Police investigation then it cannot be classed as a shared cycle-way. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 3, 2023 8:02:52 GMT
It isn't the police who determine whether is is a shared space or not, it's the County Council.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 8:03:43 GMT
Each defendant is different, each case is different, each jury is different, each witness is different, each Judge is different , people are different , the sentencing guidelines are on line, we only know a little about what happened in Court, the Jury thought she was guilty, As I stated earlier a very harsh sentence to say the least, but the dead woman's family may not agree, I hope her appeal is successful That all depends mostly of the time on the summing up....Many of these so called lawyers are only there for the money and nothing more. When a Judge addressees the Jury to sum up after all the evidence has been heard, the Judge simply reminds them of the main points of what they heard and been shown by the Crown and the Defence, both sides of the argument, He or she then sends them out to decide if the accused is guilty or not guilty, it is their decision. IMHO looking at the short video again, it appears to me the Cyclist was riding on the pavement as it was safer for her as the road where she should have been riding on looks busy too dangerous, however having said that Pedestrians have the right of way at al times, again INHO the cyclist should have either just stopped and wait to let the pedestrian pass safely, or got off her bike and pushed her cycle until it was safe to remount and ride on. As I has stated before the the sentence is harsh considering her age eyesight and mental capacity it should not have been so harsh, hopefully her appeal if successful may get it reduced, of the verdict may even be overturned |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 8:05:09 GMT
Each case is judged on its merit each case is different even for the same type of offence, Judges do have sentencing guidelines to try bring consistencies when passing sentence, like in anything else Yeah, but the ‘independence’ of the judiciary means there is no comeback when they fuck up. Yes there is the Courts of Appeal |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 8:07:45 GMT
I saw the video on the Itv news last night. It is apparently a shared space, and there is signs to indicate this at the entrances, but there are no repeaters. As such the cyclist was perfectly entitled to be there. It could be that the pedestrian wasn't aware of that. She certainly didn't intend for her to die, but it is difficult to see what she was intending. Therefore manslaughter seems reasonable outcome. I won't comment on the sentencing as I don't know what the guidelines are. Pedestrians have right of way at all times, cyclists are not allowed to cycle on the pavement it is an offence , even it there is a marked cycle lane that means there pavement is shared by cyclist and pedestrians the pedestrians have right of way |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 3, 2023 8:16:00 GMT
It isn't the police who determine whether is is a shared space or not, it's the County Council. But nobody knew about it - it was a 'secret' shared space.. If the Council can put up signs on the other side of the road indicating that the footpath there was shared but failed to put up any signs on the path in question, it is perfectly normal to assume that the footpath in question was not a shared space. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 3, 2023 8:18:30 GMT
It isn't the police who determine whether is is a shared space or not, it's the County Council. In which case on the evidence available the county council are liable for not making it clear the status of the footpath. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 8:26:14 GMT
It isn't the police who determine whether is is a shared space or not, it's the County Council. In which case on the evidence available the county council are liable for not making it clear the status of the footpath. Here in London there are cycle lanes all over the place probably hundreds of miles of them, some are on the highway all clearly marked and vertical poles or raised concreate edging to prevent vehicles entering the cycle lanes to keep cyclists safe. On the wider pavements cycle lanes are clearly marked, when the pavements are narrow the cycle lane ends cyclists should stop and dismount until they get passed it or ride on the road until they come to another cycle lane , however many do not |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 3, 2023 9:12:10 GMT
Yeah, but the ‘independence’ of the judiciary means there is no comeback when they fuck up. Yes there is the Courts of Appeal I meant there is no way to remove a fucking idiot from the bench. Also, appeal court standards of proof have in the past been set higher than the standard for the original conviction. Michael Howard was famous for using this as an excuse not to do his job. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 9:42:50 GMT
Yes there is the Courts of Appeal I meant there is no way to remove a fucking idiot from the bench. Also, appeal court standards of proof have in the past been set higher than the standard for the original conviction. Michael Howard was famous for using this as an excuse not to do his job. Ok to the best of my knowledge, yes there is a way to remove idiots from the bench IMHO the Law Society, all convictions require a high standard of evidence to put someone on trial , the CPS evaluate that and will not go to trial unless they think it is strong enough to secure a conviction, as for the Courts of Appeal if an appeal is accepted their job is to look at the strength of the evidence and everything else was done right , including any new additional evidence not known about at the time of the trial. They can either dismiss an application of appeal if they think its not justified , or allow an appeal and rule on it after scrutinising the evidence , either unsafe conviction especially if new evidence has come to light, or the conviction was safe, or that the sentence was too harsh, or not harsh enough . Quality Control |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 9:43:43 GMT
I meant there is no way to remove a fucking idiot from the bench. Also, appeal court standards of proof have in the past been set higher than the standard for the original conviction. Michael Howard was famous for using this as an excuse not to do his job. Ok to the best of my knowledge, yes there is a way to remove idiots from the bench IMHO the Law Society, all convictions require a high standard of evidence to put someone on trial , the CPS evaluate that and will not go to trial unless they think it is strong enough to secure a conviction, as for the Courts of Appeal if an appeal is accepted their job is to look at the strength of the evidence and everything else was done right by all involved , including any new additional evidence not known about at the time of the trial. They can either dismiss an application of appeal if they think its not justified , or allow an appeal and rule on it after scrutinising the evidence , either unsafe conviction especially if new evidence has come to light, or the conviction was safe, or that the sentence was too harsh, or not harsh enough . Quality Control |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 3, 2023 11:12:59 GMT
It isn't the police who determine whether is is a shared space or not, it's the County Council. In which case on the evidence available the county council are liable for not making it clear the status of the footpath. Don't disagree. Certainly seems like the County Council are negligent. Doesn't really explain though the action of the pedestrian though. Regardless of whether what the cyclist was doing was fair or not, her actions were dangerous and caused death. That has to be manslaughter. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 3, 2023 11:27:58 GMT
It isn't the police who determine whether is is a shared space or not, it's the County Council. Nope, it's down to the court.
However, as previously stated, without appropriate signage to the contrary it's a footpath.
|
|
