|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 6, 2023 12:52:11 GMT
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. The press reports are incomplete, but the Cambridgeshire Police account suggests that the violent gesticulation was the unlawful act. Whilst it is true that a grossly negligent act would be considered unlawful, I think it is substantially more likely that the police account would describe it as such, rather than using the words unlawful. My bet would be on unlawful act rather than gross negligence. I tend to agree that the designation of the footpath is immaterial; as long as the woman believed the cyclist was using the footpath and committing an offence, she was entitled to use reasonable means to prevent the offence continuing. It is possible a jury might find the means constituted unreasonable force, but I doubt it. As I said earlier it all seems a little odd, perhaps due to the press reports. No doubt all will be clarified when the appeal is reported.
I agree. As I said: "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... [/quote] As for shouting at the cyclist being an unlawful act, well I'd suggest that's pretty tenuous as well. As the fact that it took two trials and two juries to get a conviction tends to indicate. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 6, 2023 18:15:53 GMT
For some reason, the site isn't allowing me to quote Squeaky's post above.
Squeaky said: 'As for shouting at the cyclist being an unlawful act, well I'd suggest that's pretty tenuous as well.' Squeaky can safely be ignored here, as whether the act of shouting and startling a cyclist is gross negligence is a question for the jury to decide after a full consideration of the context. The jury, with access to all the facts, has made its decision. They disagreed with Squeaky.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to overrule a jury's finding of fact. But even if it wasn't, this wouldn't matter in this case, as The Mirror Newspaper appears to confirm the Daily Mail's report that the defendant is not appealing the conviction itself, but only the sentence (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pedestrian-jailed-over-cyclist-pavement-29360585) Squeaky's belief that the jury's finding is 'tenuous' is clearly not shared by the defendant's lawyers; hence, they are only appealing the sentence, not the conviction.
The defendant has a shot at having her sentence reduced. However, the court imposed a harsh sentence because the defendant showed no remorse (a fact denied by the defendant), and continued on her shopping trip after the event, apparently indifferent to the death.
The woman has medical issues, but none that are relevant to this case. Her medical issues were no more relevant than the fact that he had no legs was relevant to Oscar Pistorius' murder trial.
The jury concluded that the defendant was simply a bad-tempered woman who screamed at an old lady, startling her and causing her to fall to her death on a busy highway. Her sentence may be reduced, but her conviction will stand. Not only did Auriol Grey's ill-tempered actions cause a death, they caused the driver of the car involved to suffer PTSD. Despite suffering greatly from this, Auriol Grey's indigence means she is immune from being sued by him for his injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 7, 2023 12:18:38 GMT
MMmm, if the cyclist had not been on the pavement this event does not occur.
Secondly there was no cycle lane.
Do we need cycle proficiency tests for over 70s?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 7, 2023 12:50:23 GMT
Do we need cycle proficiency tests for over 70s? No, we need people to respond in reasonable and proportionate ways to what they deem to be wrong. This bad-tempered old bat will probably have her sentence reduced, but her conviction, quite rightly, will stand. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 7, 2023 12:56:54 GMT
MMmm, if the cyclist had not been on the pavement this event does not occur. Secondly there was no cycle lane. Do we need cycle proficiency tests for over 70s?Some of the fat bastards who use mobility scooters do. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 7, 2023 13:01:07 GMT
MMmm, if the cyclist had not been on the pavement this event does not occur. Secondly there was no cycle lane. Do we need cycle proficiency tests for over 70s?Some of the fat bastards who use mobility scooters do. Bloody pests they are, and here's another thing, 3 mobility scooters were parked outside of a Wetherspoons the other day, the fat lazy bastards can soon get off their fat arses to go in to Wetherspoons and spend their benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 7, 2023 13:21:17 GMT
MMmm, if the cyclist had not been on the pavement this event does not occur. Secondly there was no cycle lane. Is this what the court case determined? |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 7, 2023 14:29:02 GMT
Well the papers advise she is going to challenge and hopefully they are prepared to make stronger and better arguments.
It seems the judge took the view the roads were dual purpose and the defendents 'aggressive' action was the cause of the accident.
It seems from the papers not all the police were convinced by this yet the judges view was supreme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2023 17:12:59 GMT
MMmm, if the cyclist had not been on the pavement this event does not occur. Secondly there was no cycle lane. Is this what the court case determined? The police and council said they couldn't say it wasn't a shared path or not. So the judge decided it definitely was: cause for appeal #1 The judge (apparently on advice from the police) said it was 2.4 metres wide. Well with a typical car being 1.85 metres wide then looking at this pic of the path, does that seem believable esp considering the incident takes place where narrowed by that pole? Cause for appeal #2 (also note no shared path signs) ITV talked of some sort of signs being on the path 150 metres back from this photo ie way before the road junction so surely not relevant to the new piece of pavement.  |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 7, 2023 18:19:00 GMT
SteveGood find let's hope the case is over-turned and the judge's future is questioned as this seems vindictive rather than objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 7, 2023 18:38:52 GMT
Steve Good find let's hope the case is over-turned and the judge's future is questioned as this seems vindictive rather than objective. A jury found her guilty of the offence The judge simply passed an appropriate sentence for the crime following the jury verdict |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 7, 2023 19:41:56 GMT
Steve Good find let's hope the case is over-turned and the judge's future is questioned as this seems vindictive rather than objective. A jury found her guilty of the offence The judge simply passed an appropriate sentence for the crime following the jury verdict Yes yet did the Judge lead the jury? Also were photos like the above allowed and did the defendant's Barrister reinforce the point that neither the police or council saw that pavement one that cyclists could use. I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Mar 7, 2023 20:16:21 GMT
Also were photos like the above allowed and did the defendant's Barrister reinforce the point that neither the police or council saw that pavement one that cyclists could use. I doubt it. As I keep saying, the relevant point is what the accused woman thought; did she think it was a shared space or did she think it was exclusively for pedestrians? I wonder if there was evidence that the woman thought it was a shared space? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2023 21:08:49 GMT
A jury found her guilty of the offence The judge simply passed an appropriate sentence for the crime following the jury verdict Yes yet did the Judge lead the jury? Also were photos like the above allowed and did the defendant's Barrister reinforce the point that neither the police or council saw that pavement one that cyclists could use. I doubt it. Quite, what we really need to know is what did the judge say in the summing up and was it based on actual evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 7, 2023 22:05:59 GMT
A jury found her guilty of the offence The judge simply passed an appropriate sentence for the crime following the jury verdict Yes yet did the Judge lead the jury? Also were photos like the above allowed and did the defendant's Barrister reinforce the point that neither the police or council saw that pavement one that cyclists could use. I doubt it. A judge is not allowed to lead a jury in their summing up They sum up the evidence presented in court and explain the law The jury decides its verdict based on the facts presented in court The judge explains the law |
|
