Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
In other words, not disputing that an action took place, but "no possible grounds for concluding that the jury could properly have been sure that Mrs Ward apprehended immediate unlawful violence"
Any dispute seems to be over the legalities of decisions made, not over what actually took place.
What they're saying is, based on all the available evidence, there was no assault. It's not legal wrangling, its factual. Any dispute seems to be over the legalities of decisions made, not over what actually took place.
Forester1965 said:
What they're saying is, based on all the available evidence, there was no assault. It's not legal wrangling, its factual.
They discuss the hostility of Grey to Ward. We see that the two interact with each other, but to do so Grey had to approach Ward, and had to obstruct Ward, otherwise Ward would have just passed by.What has happened, at a third hearing, is that the hostility did not amount to an assault, but its my opinion, and just my opinion, that it did. After 3 hearings, there have been found flaws in the prosecution's case. Some of those flaws were, it seems, not knowing the state of mind of the deceased.
The court has also not found that Mrs Ward was careless, which appears to be your opinion.
Your opinion (under the current law) is wrong. If you want the actions here to amount to an assault, you need the law to be changed. Otherwise it was not an assault and shouldn't have given rise to a manslaughter conviction.
As for my opinion of the deceased, you're making it up out of thin air.
As for my opinion of the deceased, you're making it up out of thin air.
heebeegeetee said:
BrassMan said:
Not much to add, except that this is an interesting contrast between the deaths of two 70-somethings.
Sorry, which ones? https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Forester1965 said:
Your opinion (under the current law) is wrong. If you want the actions here to amount to an assault, you need the law to be changed. Otherwise it was not an assault and shouldn't have given rise to a manslaughter conviction.
As for my opinion of the deceased, you're making it up out of thin air.
This is the bit I struggle with the most, can you explain how it doesn't fit into this description? As for my opinion of the deceased, you're making it up out of thin air.
[i]Common assault (section 39, Criminal Justice Act 1988)
A person is guilty of common assault if they either inflict violence on another person – however slight this might be – or make that person think they are about to be attacked.
They do not have to be physically violent – for example, threatening words or a raised fist could lead the victim to believe they are going to be attacked – and that is enough for the crime to have been committed. Other acts like spitting at someone may also classed as common assault.
The offence covers both intentional and reckless acts. For example, the offender may not have intended to cause the victim to think an attack was imminent but if they behaved in way that was likely to make the victim think they were about to be attacked, and they didn’t care what effect that behaviour would have, the offender is guilty of the offence.
If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at. The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.
There are some situations in which actions that might fall under the definition of ‘assault’ are lawful, for example in medical interventions, in self-defence, or where it is part of a contact sport like rugby.
The maximum sentence allowed by law for common assault is six months imprisonment, and cases can only be heard in the magistrates’ court. If the assault is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment and cases can be heard in the Crown Court as well.
There are two other offences related to common assault – assault with intent to resist arrest and assault on a police constable in execution of his duty.[/i]
Type R Tom said:
This is the bit I struggle with the most, can you explain how it doesn't fit into this description?
It's about intent and perception. To paraphrase the attacker would have to mean the other person to have fear of violence (or be reckless as to whether they did) and the person on the end of it would have to perceive that was about to happen. If either of those are missing you don't have an assault.Forester1965 said:
Your opinion (under the current law) is wrong. If you want the actions here to amount to an assault, you need the law to be changed. Otherwise it was not an assault and shouldn't have given rise to a manslaughter conviction.
As for my opinion of the deceased, you're making it up out of thin air.
Why the aggression? Apologies for mixing you up with another poster. As for my opinion of the deceased, you're making it up out of thin air.
Forester1965 said:
It's about intent and perception. To paraphrase the attacker would have to mean the other person to have fear of violence (or be reckless as to whether they did) and the person on the end of it would have to perceive that was about to happen. If either of those are missing you don't have an assault.
You can understand why people don't agree with the courts?In my opinion I think we can take it as read that the vast majority of people have a fear of violence, especially a 77 Yr old woman, and surely its a surprise that it should even be questioned?
Anyway, I think this conversation about what happened is superfluous, I simply responded to a poster who thinks a 77 Yr old woman with impared hearing was to blame for not being a better cyclist.
The real cause of this is UK's tragically s
t infrastructure. It reinforces what I've thought for decades, that if you can't or don't drive in the UK you are a 3rd class citizen and you don't count. You can get killed if you want, neither the govt or council cares. heebeegeetee said:
I mean, what sh*t path that is. Is that the actual location of this incident?
That just encapsulates completely what life is like if you can't or don't drive in the UK. As motorists we get almost everything, non-drivers are left to squabble over the minimal space they are afforded, and then a load of very selfish drivers imo come on forums like this and debate/accuse over who did what wrong.
It's really not right and not fair.
(A driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian go into a bar. Barman puts out a plate of 10 crisps. The driver takes 8 and then says to the pedestrian "You want to watch that cyclist, he's trying to steal your crisp).
Same road, same side of the road, a couple of hundred metres west of the location.That just encapsulates completely what life is like if you can't or don't drive in the UK. As motorists we get almost everything, non-drivers are left to squabble over the minimal space they are afforded, and then a load of very selfish drivers imo come on forums like this and debate/accuse over who did what wrong.
It's really not right and not fair.
(A driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian go into a bar. Barman puts out a plate of 10 crisps. The driver takes 8 and then says to the pedestrian "You want to watch that cyclist, he's trying to steal your crisp).
qwerty360 said:
WRT the infrastructure.
IMHO councils should have presumed liability for all accidents involving cyclists near cycling infra that doesn't meet minimum central government guidelines (and really guidelines should be replaced/improved with legally enforced minimum standards).
If they don't want to follow the guidelines, fine; but then they should have to prove that building infra to standard wouldn't have affected any incidents or pay compensation...
We have legal requirements for roads. AFAIK councils can be held legally liable if they don't follow them; Yet they can call anything they want a cycle path... Hence this bit wasn't intended to be a cycle path. But both sides are cycle paths with no obvious difference and no signage to indicate where the status changes (hence court ruling it was a cycle path; It isn't reasonable to expect people to memorise council maps (and probably need surveyors equipment) to know where the cycle path starts/ends)
Yep, signage is crucial. Heck, sometimes National Highways don't consider the existence of non-motorised modes at all. What offence would you be committing by proceeding past this sign on a bike? Say for sake of argument that the gate has been left propped open.IMHO councils should have presumed liability for all accidents involving cyclists near cycling infra that doesn't meet minimum central government guidelines (and really guidelines should be replaced/improved with legally enforced minimum standards).
If they don't want to follow the guidelines, fine; but then they should have to prove that building infra to standard wouldn't have affected any incidents or pay compensation...
We have legal requirements for roads. AFAIK councils can be held legally liable if they don't follow them; Yet they can call anything they want a cycle path... Hence this bit wasn't intended to be a cycle path. But both sides are cycle paths with no obvious difference and no signage to indicate where the status changes (hence court ruling it was a cycle path; It isn't reasonable to expect people to memorise council maps (and probably need surveyors equipment) to know where the cycle path starts/ends)
RTRA 1984 § 17... It's the M6.
Edited by Solocle on Friday 10th May 18:33
Solocle said:
Yep, signage is crucial. Heck, sometimes National Highways don't consider the existence of non-motorised modes at all. What offence would you be committing by proceeding past this sign on a bike? Say for sake of argument that the gate has been left propped open.
RTRA 1984 § 17... It's the M6.
Bicycles and pedestrians aren't allowed on the motorway, so that's already the default.RTRA 1984 § 17... It's the M6.
Edited by Solocle on Friday 10th May 18:33
Evanivitch said:
Bicycles and pedestrians aren't allowed on the motorway, so that's already the default.
How do you tell that's a motorway beyond the gate? It's an emergency access from an all purpose road. But if you don't know the layout, there's absolutely nothing prohibiting a non-motorised user from joining the motorway there.All it takes is something like this:
Solocle said:
How do you tell that's a motorway beyond the gate? It's an emergency access from an all purpose road. But if you don't know the layout, there's absolutely nothing prohibiting a non-motorised user from joining the motorway there.
All it takes is something like this:
The massive blue motorway sign is a bit of a clue.All it takes is something like this:
Evanivitch said:
What's between the gate and the motorway isn't the issue. The very obvious blue sign in your photo makes the motorway boundary obvious.
This is an example of it being done correctly. Hence the very obvious blue motorway restrictions sign.Now contrast this.
OK, there's a "authorised vehicles only" sign. Just one problem... it's not retroreflective. Rendering it completely invisible if you're looking to turn left at 3am. And with 3 left turnings in 300 metres, of which only two appear on the signs, it's easy to mix them up at night.
Now, if you return to the M6 example, it's not even that. It's explicitly "no motor vehicles", from an all purpose road where cyclists are allowed, onto a motorway.
Edited by Solocle on Saturday 11th May 01:32
e-honda said:
Zeeky said:
Gross negligence would have been more approriate than unlawful act.
I think that would require a duty of care towards the cyclist that I don't think exists The defendant's actions were clearly negligent I think. The risk of the victim falling off her bike was obvious.
Whether it was grossly negligent would be a matter for the court but in practice this means, simply, 'do you think it was bad enough to deserve a conviction for manslaughter'?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff