Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2023 19:43:04 GMT
I've reassessed the case and think Celia Ward should be prosecuted for cycling without due care and attention. Except she's immune from prosecution.
Bigmouth Auriol Grey should be released on bail pending appeal. IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 19:56:32 GMT
Unfortunately the lady riding the bicycle wasn't competent or confident enough to ride it, by the looks of the video. She clearly didn't have the capacity to ride the bike off the pavement and onto the road. She should have just stopped calmly on the pavement and let the pedestrian pass her by. It looked as though she panicked and things happened a little too quick for her once she got a gesture from the pedestrian. The pedestrian could have seen that she was old, and moved right over onto the pavement for the lady on the pushbike (that is what I would have done), but she wasn't considerate enough to do that. Manslaughter though, no. I agree the cyclist should have stopped it matters not if its a shared pavement for both pedestrians and cyclists, the pedestrian has the right of way at all times even if they are not supposed to be there . The pedestrian who was convicted and sent to prison is 49 years of age and was born with Cerebral Palsy which effects eyesight , also difficulty in controlling their limbs causing random uncontrolled clumsy movements. Having watched the short Video several times the pedestrian is not walking in a straight line with her left arm out veering away from the metal fence towards the kerb, the video stops was there contact and the cyclist fell off or did the unfortunate lady just fall off ? I don't know perhaps if the Appeal is allowed we may find out at some point, very sad for both women and their families |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 19:58:44 GMT
I've reassessed the case and think Celia Ward should be prosecuted for cycling without due care and attention. Except she's immune from prosecution. Bigmouth Auriol Grey should be released on bail pending appeal. IMO The Judge was asked to consider Bail but refused to grant it |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 3, 2023 19:58:51 GMT
I've reassessed the case and think Celia Ward should be prosecuted for cycling without due care and attention. Except she's immune from prosecution. Bigmouth Auriol Grey should be released on bail pending appeal. IMO Why is she immune ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2023 20:01:43 GMT
I've reassessed the case and think Celia Ward should be prosecuted for cycling without due care and attention. Except she's immune from prosecution. Bigmouth Auriol Grey should be released on bail pending appeal. IMO Why is she immune Has gone to meet her maker. Has ceased to exist, fallen off the perch, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 4, 2023 5:59:28 GMT
Garbage judicial system. A few stiff sentences and this will be put to rest but in GB, the system is laughable.....7 Years would have been better. Two Insulate Britain protesters are jailed for contempt of court after they defied a judge's orders not to refer to the climate crisis as a motivation during their trial for blocking traffic in the City of London
Insulate Britain activists Amy Pritchard, 37, and Giovanna Lewis, 65, outside Inner London Crown Court today
But Lewis was unrepentant and told the court today: 'I continue to be astonished that in a British court of law a judge can or would want to ban or criminalize the mention of the words "fuel poverty" or "climate crisis".
'There are thousands of deaths every year in the UK from fuel poverty, and thousands of deaths around the world due to climate change. There is no choice but to give voice to truth and to not be silenced.
Giovanna Lewis, 65, and Amy Pritchard, 37, were today jailed for seven weeks They glued themselves to road in October 2021, disturbing rush hour traffic www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11818173/Two-Insulate-Britain-protesters-jailed-contempt-court.html#comments |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 4, 2023 10:13:53 GMT
Garbage judicial system. A few stiff sentences and this will be put to rest but in GB, the system is laughable.....7 Years would have been better. Two Insulate Britain protesters are jailed for contempt of court after they defied a judge's orders not to refer to the climate crisis as a motivation during their trial for blocking traffic in the City of London
Insulate Britain activists Amy Pritchard, 37, and Giovanna Lewis, 65, outside Inner London Crown Court today
But Lewis was unrepentant and told the court today: 'I continue to be astonished that in a British court of law a judge can or would want to ban or criminalize the mention of the words "fuel poverty" or "climate crisis".
'There are thousands of deaths every year in the UK from fuel poverty, and thousands of deaths around the world due to climate change. There is no choice but to give voice to truth and to not be silenced.
Giovanna Lewis, 65, and Amy Pritchard, 37, were today jailed for seven weeks They glued themselves to road in October 2021, disturbing rush hour traffic www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11818173/Two-Insulate-Britain-protesters-jailed-contempt-court.html#commentsThat's because most of these just stop oil and these so called eco-zealots are well connected, they are made up of ex-retired civil servants, relatives of aristocracy, mummy and daddy' spoil little bored brats with fuck all to do all day.
This lady who got three years was clearly a loner, with apparently just one friend, and to all accounts had some childlike mental health issues, she was always destined to be 'made a example of', look how many times that slapper Katie Price has walked out of court when she should have been jailed, two tier judicial system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Mar 4, 2023 10:48:55 GMT
Garbage judicial system. A few stiff sentences and this will be put to rest but in GB, the system is laughable.....7 Years would have been better. Two Insulate Britain protesters are jailed for contempt of court after they defied a judge's orders not to refer to the climate crisis as a motivation during their trial for blocking traffic in the City of London I can't say I have much sympathy with these protestors. At the same time I can't help thinking, 'shades of Bushel's case'. |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Mar 5, 2023 11:49:25 GMT
When I spoke to a policeman in London about a fast moving pavement cyclist that he had witnessed he explained to me that he was not allowed to attempt to stop them because doing so might distract them and cause an accident. He advised me (in a friendly manner) not do call out to them because if my doing so caused an accident then I could be prosecuted. Police are only allowed to stop slow moving pavement cyclists when its safe to do so (which they do). One problem cyclists have in London is pedestrians using designated pavement cycle paths. Cyclists often use the roads because of the danger of pedestrians walking in front of them ... and they can safely move faster on the road than on the paths. Cycle paths on main roads outside towns are often covered in debris that can puncture one's tyres or even cause one to fall off (especially after dark ... I once fell off my bike after hitting a large metal bolt).
On interesting fact is that there is NO SPEED LIMIT FOR CYCLISTS ... one can legally hurtle down a hill at 70 miles an hour in a 30 mile zone. There's a hill where I live that has a 20 mile limit that cyclists do race down.
"Strictly speaking there is no speed limit for cyclists. Common sense should apply".
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 5, 2023 12:42:54 GMT
I am normally cautious about commenting on court cases. However, in this case it appears that the whole incident was captured on CCTV. And the case turns on whether the pedestrian's actions caused the cyclist to fall in front of the car. It strikes me that there's two points here: 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? 2) And even if the cyclist did fall off because the pedestrian shouted, the pedestrian was entitled to be on the pavement and the cyclist wasn't. Therefore the pedestrian was entitled to shout out, especially if they thought that they were about to be hit by a cyclist. For either scenario to be deemed manslaughter is absurd: Manslaughter requires Gross negligence or Unlawful act. Where are either of those in this scenario? She 'screamed' at the cyclist to 'get off the fucking path' beside a busy road. It was foreseeable that this might have shocked the old lady into falling from her bicycle onto the busy highway. Whether that was 'gross' negligence is arguable. But it's possible to see how the judge and jury might have arrived at that conclusion. Where's the mystery? Whether the footpath was designated for cyclist use is immaterial. Gross negligence is doing a lawful act in a grossly negligent manner. If the cyclist shouldn't have been on the footpath, it would have been lawful for the pedestrian to tell her to use the road. But she is not entitled to do that lawful act in a grossly negligent way. Suddenly screaming profanities at someone so as to shock them into a fall onto a busy road is arguably grossly negligent. The question of whether the sentence was fair is an entirely separate matter. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 5, 2023 15:20:38 GMT
I suspect that you may well be correct regarding the cycle path, albeit its questionable status introduces yet another uncertainty into an already dubious case.
But, regardless:
"Gross negligence" means a failure by a party (by act or omission) to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing or failing to perform an obligation, where such party demonstrates indifference to or a serious disregard for a reasonably foreseeable risk."
To suggest that a pedestrian making proper use of a footpath had any such obligation towards the cyclist is highly tenuous at best and in any case, to suggest that a multiply disabled pedestrian would have any appreciation of such is even more so. Let alone that there was a "reasonably foreseeable risk" to her very minor actions.
It was a one-off freak occurrence. Certainly sad, but hardly manslaughter and it will doubtless be overturned on appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 5, 2023 16:40:50 GMT
I suspect that you may well be correct regarding the cycle path, albeit its questionable status introduces yet another uncertainty into an already dubious case.
But, regardless:
"Gross negligence" means a failure by a party (by act or omission) to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing or failing to perform an obligation, where such party demonstrates indifference to or a serious disregard for a reasonably foreseeable risk."
To suggest that a pedestrian making proper use of a footpath had any such obligation towards the cyclist is highly tenuous at best and in any case, to suggest that a multiply disabled pedestrian would have any appreciation of such is even more so. Let alone that there was a "reasonably foreseeable risk" to her very minor actions.
It was a one-off freak occurrence. Certainly sad, but hardly manslaughter and it will doubtless be overturned on appeal.
That will depend on where the definition of gross negligence originates. I haven't done an extensive search, but the pedestrian's actions would have no difficulty coming under the definition of gross negligence stated in R v. Adomako (1994): The offence of gross negligence manslaughter is committed 'where a death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant'. Perhaps, there is a more recent case or statutory definition, but the CPS's own site doesn't cite one: www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/gross-negligence-manslaughterUnder R v. Adomako, the law of negligent manslaughter is not couched in terms of the 'performance of an obligation' as such; rather, the duty is expressed in the same manner as in the law of tort: that is, a duty arises where there is a duty of care. These are the exact words from the CPS's site: 'A duty of care will arise from an act of a person where the requirements of foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness establish such a duty ( Donohue v Stevenson [1932] AC 582)'. Applying that test, there is no reason why a pedestrian seeking to remonstrate with a cyclist improperly using a footpath should not have a duty of care in doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 5, 2023 17:21:27 GMT
....These are the exact words from the CPS's site: 'A duty of care will arise from an act of a person where the requirements of foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness establish such a duty ( Donohue v Stevenson [1932] AC 582)'. Applying that test, there is no reason why a pedestrian seeking to remonstrate with a cyclist improperly using a footpath should not have a duty of care in doing so. Yes but I would suggest that it fails in terms of the foreseeability, fairness, justice and reasonableness. Unless you're suggesting that a seriously disabled woman would reasonably foresee that a cyclist would take a header in front a moving vehicle as a result of such remonstrance. Which is tenuous, especially considering that your position relies on a case from long before "Caldwell Recklessness" died on it's arse. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 5, 2023 17:38:47 GMT
....These are the exact words from the CPS's site: 'A duty of care will arise from an act of a person where the requirements of foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness establish such a duty ( Donohue v Stevenson [1932] AC 582)'. Applying that test, there is no reason why a pedestrian seeking to remonstrate with a cyclist improperly using a footpath should not have a duty of care in doing so. Yes but I would suggest that it fails in terms of the foreseeability, fairness, justice and reasonableness. Unless you're suggesting that a seriously disabled woman would reasonably foresee that a cyclist would take a header in front a moving vehicle as a result of such remonstrance. Which is tenuous, especially considering that your position relies on a case from long before "Caldwell Recklessness" died on it's arse. I can certainly understand how a jury would come to the conclusion that suddenly screaming at an elderly cyclist might cause her to start and fall from her bicycle. I can also see how a jury would conclude that it was foreseeable that this might lead to her death, given the very close proximity to a busy highway. I see no problem with this aspect of the case at all. What point are you making about 'Caldwell Recklessness'? I am stating the law as it appears on the Crown Prosecution Services' own website. I don't know why you have even brought recklessness into the discussion, given that negligence and recklessness are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 5, 2023 18:02:11 GMT
Yes but I would suggest that it fails in terms of the foreseeability, fairness, justice and reasonableness. Unless you're suggesting that a seriously disabled woman would reasonably foresee that a cyclist would take a header in front a moving vehicle as a result of such remonstrance. Which is tenuous, especially considering that your position relies on a case from long before "Caldwell Recklessness" died on it's arse. I can certainly understand how a jury would come to the conclusion that suddenly screaming at an elderly cyclist might cause her to start and fall from her bicycle. I can also see how a jury would conclude that it was foreseeable that this might lead to her death, given the very close proximity to a busy highway. I see no problem with this aspect of the case at all. What point are you making about 'Caldwell Recklessness' I am stating the law as it appears on the Crown Prosecution Services' own website. I don't know why you have even brought recklessness into the discussion, given that negligence and recklessness are not the same thing. And I totally get your confusion. But the point with Caldwell, or rather the discontinuance thereof, is that it introduces subjectivity into legal argument. So, per your example, the jury may well conclude that it was foreseeable.
But would the defendant have reasonably foreseen it? I'd say that's dubious. Indeed, given the 2 second time-frame, I'd seriously doubt whether anyone would reasonably have foreseen the outcome of that exchange.
(Although if anyone really wanted to contend otherwise, I'd suggest that the driver would also share culpability).
But as it stands, it was a freak occurrence. And an unsafe conviction.
|
|
