A tragic case or a deserved sentence?

[Rofesleg]

Not sure how that mitigates anything. There would have been plenty of room for them to pass by each other apart from the actions of the pedestrian.

I did think that. But the post I referenced suggested she deserved a bigger sentence because the pavement is tiny. Which I don't understand.
He lives in the area and knows it.

 

[Laughing]

That’s it there really isn’t it. She was reckless to move towards a cyclist, shouting and making contact right next to such a busy road.

It’s reasonable to suggest that those actions caused the cyclist to swerve, move, fall into the road which caused her death.

Tragic, unnecessary, possible shocking for people to find out that unreasonable behaviour can lead to 3 years in prison. Most people on here have probably shouted at a motorist or pedestrian in some way for causing a perceived threat to their safety.

You are right. I am not sure the woman could reasonably have expected to cause a death by her actions. As you point out, lots of people react angrilly without anyone dying. If she pushed the old lady, it becomes cut and dried. If she waved her arms recklessly, could she have reasonably expected to kill someone? I am unconvinced. What I would say is I have not read the court transcript, and I am judging purely on what I see in the video, which is only part of the case against her.

I get the woman seems abhorrent. I don't know if that is part of her disability, rather than by choice.

 

[sherlock]

You are right. I am not sure the woman could reasonably have expected to cause a death by her actions. As you point out, lots of people react angrilly without anyone dying. If she pushed the old lady, it becomes cut and dried. If she waved her arms recklessly, could she have reasonably expected to kill someone? I am unconvinced. What I would say is I have not read the court transcript, and I am judging purely on what I see in the video, which is only part of the case against her.

I get the woman seems abhorrent. I don't know if that is part of her disability, rather than by choice.

What are you suggesting should have happened to her if not a prison sentence?

 

[newyddion]

You are right. I am not sure the woman could reasonably have expected to cause a death by her actions. As you point out, lots of people react angrily without anyone dying. If she pushed the old lady, it becomes cut and dried. If she waved her arms recklessly, could she have reasonably expected to kill someone? I am unconvinced. What I would say is I have not read the court transcript, and I am judging purely on what I see in the video, which is only part of the case against her.

I get the woman seems abhorrent. I don't know if that is part of her disability, rather than by choice.

I think its one of those where she's reacted in the moment and been annoyed.. probably thought she was in the right.

But then when questioned..

Did you shout at the cyclist?
Did you move towards the cyclist?
Did you make contact with the cyclist?

Could you reasonably expect that these actions would result in the cyclist altering her course in anyway?

What was at the side of the path the cyclist was traveling on?

Answer: a busy road with heavy traffic traveling at speed.

 

[Millbrook]

You are right. I am not sure the woman could reasonably have expected to cause a death by her actions. As you point out, lots of people react angrilly without anyone dying. If she pushed the old lady, it becomes cut and dried. If she waved her arms recklessly, could she have reasonably expected to kill someone? I am unconvinced. What I would say is I have not read the court transcript, and I am judging purely on what I see in the video, which is only part of the case against her.

I get the woman seems abhorrent. I don't know if that is part of her disability, rather than by choice.

She admitted making contact with the cyclist. When you see the extent of the change in direction of the handlebars it isn't a stretch to say that the contact caused the cyclist to fall into the road.

No intent to kill but a reckless act which caused death so I can see why she was found guilty of manslaughter.

Newys post came as I was typing this so I'll add that there does not have to be a reasonable expectation that her action caused the result.

The result was because of the recklessness which is sufficient.

 

[Laughing]

What are you suggesting should have happened to her if not a prison sentence?

Thats a tricky one because the lady died. There isn't a lower prosecutorial option, I don't think. I am not sure reckless endangerment could be used, given, again the lady died.

Involuntary manslaughter does allow for a suspended sentence, which is, where I think, it should have ended up.

Whilst the woman was negligent, and the act of swearing at someone is unlawful, I think it comes under the common assualt legislation. Involuntary manslaughter was as low as the CPS could go, I believe.

 

[sherlock]

Thats a tricky one because the lady died. There isn't a lower prosecutorial option, I don't think. I am not sure reckless endangerment could be used, given, again the lady died.

Involuntary manslaughter does allow for a suspended sentence, which is, where I think, it should have ended up.

Whilst the woman was negligent, and the act of swearing at someone is unlawful, I think it comes under the common assualt legislation. Involuntary manslaughter was as low as the CPS could go, I believe.

But she didn’t just swear at her did she?

 

[Laughing]

She admitted making contact with the cyclist. When you see the extent of the change in direction of the handlebars it isn't a stretch to say that the contact caused the cyclist to fall into the road.

No intent to kill but a reckless act which caused death so I can see why she was found guilty of manslaughter.

Newys post came as I was typing this so I'll add that there does not have to be a reasonable expectation that her action caused the result.

The result was because of the recklessness which is sufficient.

I think the lady was charged with unlawful act manslaughter which does require that a reasonable person would expect some harm to be caused by their actions. Given she swore at the lady, the offence fulfills the unlawful act part. It doesn't matter whether the perpetrator expected harm to be caused, only that a reasonable person would.

From the government website


Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm.

I wouldn't necessarily dispute the charge. I think the pavement is too narrow for dual use. I think the woman behaved very badly, I am not sure 3 years is an appropriate sentence. Guidelines are from suspended sentence up to life.

I also believe it will be reduced on appeal.

 

[Laughing]

But she didn’t just swear at her did she?

No she didn't. But the swearing makes the act unlawful. Not sure waving your arms does.

 

[sherlock]

No she didn't. But the swearing makes the act unlawful. Not sure waving your arms does.

How about the contact/push?

I’m not sure why you seem so keen to make out there was no contact?

 

[newusername]

No she didn't. But the swearing makes the act unlawful. Not sure waving your arms does.

Come on! She put her hand on the cyclist's arm, she affected her ability to steer, to balance, she caused her to fall into the road.

 

[Laughing]

How about the contact/push?

I’m not sure why you seem so keen to make out there was no contact?

Not what I said. I said you cannot tell from the video wether there was a push or not. Accidental contact is not a push

 

[Laughing]

Come on! She put her hand on the cyclist's arm, she affected her ability to steer, to balance, she caused her to fall into the road.

A few years ago I was in this same position after ched evans was jailed on a conviction for rape, took all the comments that people made. Not a peep when he was released on appeal and the conviction overturned.

Her sentence will be reduced on appeal.

 

[Millbrook]

I think the lady was charged with unlawful act manslaughter which does require that a reasonable person would expect some harm to be caused by their actions. Given she swore at the lady, the offence fulfills the unlawful act part. It doesn't matter whether the perpetrator expected harm to be caused, only that a reasonable person would.

From the government website


Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm.

I wouldn't necessarily dispute the charge. I think the pavement is too narrow for dual use. I think the woman behaved very badly, I am not sure 3 years is an appropriate sentence. Guidelines are from suspended sentence up to life.

I also believe it will be reduced on appeal.

Thanks for that. You are correct about the risk of some physical harm.

I'm not sure you have the rest correct though. The objective test is whether the defendant committed an unlawful act which was dangerous and death resulted.

Swearing may be unlawful but it was unlikely to be dangerous and did not cause the death.

Given the defendant admitted contact and seeing her conduct before that I think it is a stretch to think that contact was accidental.

If you accept that the unlawful act was not the swearing then the judge must have found there to be a different unlawful act which resulted in death and it can only be the 'push'.

 

[Laughing]

Thanks for that. You are correct about the risk of some physical harm.

I'm not sure you have the rest correct though. The objective test is whether the defendant committed an unlawful act which was dangerous and death resulted.

Swearing may be unlawful but it was unlikely to be dangerous and did not cause the death.

Given the defendant admitted contact and seeing her conduct before that I think it is a stretch to think that contact was accidental.

If you accept that the unlawful act was not the swearing then the judge must have found there to be a different unlawful act which resulted in death and it can only be the 'push'.

Maybe. Its probably time to read the transcript of the verdict. Newspapers are covering this on the most basic terms.

 

[Millbrook]

Maybe. Its probably time to read the transcript of the verdict. Newspapers are covering this on the most basic terms.

Presume it's not available yet. When it is where can it be found?

 

[Laughing]

Presume it's not available yet. When it is where can it be found?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ don't know how long they take to appear though

 

[Aet290204]

I'm a bit confused. If it is a tiny pavement is that not a bit of mitigation? How does that make it worse?

Oh I might have known you’d have a bloody pop at me. You take any sodding opportunity you can to have a go at me on here don’t you???

 

[Aet290204]

Why are they ill informed - you live near the place it hardly makes you the authority on the legalities of the case.

You clearly missed the Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s officers comments about ill informed comments on social media I take it??

I’m not an authority on anything. Take care.

 

[Rofesleg]

Oh I might have known you’d have a bloody pop at me. You take any sodding opportunity you can to have a go at me on here don’t you???

WTF??!!!! It was a genuine question.
Where have I had a pop?