Manslaughter... or not

Such vitriol in this thread, classic DIYnot GD thread. You'd all be speaking differently if it had been your mum or child who fell into the road.
 
wobs said:
The path was a shared use path and over 2m wide, and the cyclist was allowed to cycle there. The pedestrian wasn't aware it was shared use though.
Click to expand...

I still think cyclists should be on the road only.
 
motorbiking said:
People die as a result of misadventure every day. Doesn't mean someone is criminally responsible.
Click to expand...
The old idiot that scared the cyclist into the road is definitely responsible, but as you say that doesn't mean criminally responsible.

How it has worked out seems reasonable to me, meaning to or not she took a life. But manslaughter doesn't feel like the right description.
 
motorbiking said:
That is what the prosecution failed to prove.
Click to expand...

I've got the judgment now. This case is utterly shocking. The defendant was failed at every level, by the prosecution, the defence and the judge.

The Court of Appeal agrees with what I had posted earlier i.e. the relevant offence would have been common assault. It is not just that the prosecution failed to prove this offence. They didn't even try! Further, neither the judge, nor the defence, seems to have realised this was an essential element of unlawful act manslaughter. And the defendant was then advised that she had no grounds to appeal the conviction, even though she was represented by a KC. She only found out the mistake when she switched legal teams.

It is common ground that the appellant could only be convicted of manslaughter if she had committed the offence of common assault, this being the only possible base offence. It is also common ground that the elements of the base offence were never specified at trial, whether by the prosecution or by the judge, nor was the failure to do so recognised by those then representing the appellant. This was not simply a failure to provide a label for a base offence about which the jury were otherwise properly directed. The jury were provided with no directions at all about any of the elements of the base offence, whether relating to the actus reus or the mens rea. They were simply not asked to consider the factual elements required to prove a common assault. This amounted to a failure to direct the jury about an essential ingredient of the offence of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
Yes it’s already been posted.

But what is more intriguing is whether or not the cyclist had a right to ride on the pavement. For me this is vital to establishing if a reasonable person would behave the same way.

I’m also surprised that the driver had no accountability. You see a cyclist riding on the pavement towards a pedestrian and you don’t think maybe move over a bit just in case?

Also asking a mentally impaired person if she was mentally impaired.. seriously?

Not only this, but common assault wasn’t proved and it wasn’t even considered whether an alleged common assault caused the death.

I agree, totally failed and questions need to be asked about those who should have more experience.
 
Last edited:
motorbiking said:
But what is more intriguing is whether or not the cyclist had a right to ride on the pavement. For me this is vital to establishing if a reasonable person would behave the same way.
Click to expand...

Which part of unlawful act manslaughter are you thinking of here. Are you meaning as regards making out the elements of the offence of common assault?
 
It's a tricky one in some cases. Say you have a couple of younger kids or grandkids and you want to go cycling with them. However you don't own a car (to go elsewhere to cycle) and the roads in your immediate locality are all busy. In that scenario you could understand people wanting to cycle on the pavement. It's all very well it being illegal, however many (most?) roads in towns are hardly ideal for cycling on, more so for youngsters.

I do have to wonder how heavily the police enforce that law.
 
JonathanM said:
Which part of unlawful act manslaughter are you thinking of here. Are you meaning as regards making out the elements of the offence of common assault?
Click to expand...
Self defence extends to the preservation of the Rule of Law and the King's Peace.

As we know, the prosecution didn't establish if: an unlawful act took place or if it did, if it actually caused the death, there is a further argument that had the cycling on the pavement been unlawful, then the self defence scope is widened.
 
diy_fun_uk said:
It's a tricky one in some cases. Say you have a couple of younger kids or grandkids and you want to go cycling with them. However you don't own a car (to go elsewhere to cycle) and the roads in your immediate locality are all busy. In that scenario you could understand people wanting to cycle on the pavement. It's all very well it being illegal, however many (most?) roads in towns are hardly ideal for cycling on, more so for youngsters.

I do have to wonder how heavily the police enforce that law.
Click to expand...
When you go to other countries, they have a pedestrian side and a cycle side on the pavement. The cyclists shout abuse at you if you walk on the cycling side by mistake. It's the only form of transport where rational people think its ok to shout or clip a person because they are in their path. Youtube is full of cyclists shouting at pedestrians crossing the road. They never think, maybe slow down or stop, yet the same cyclists scream abuse at car drivers who don't give them enough space.

Personally I think inexperienced cyclists should be on the pavement, but I always got my kids to stop if they came up on a pedestrian. In this thread the cyclist should have stopped, she was apparently deaf, so arguably couldn't even hear the verbal abuse.
 
Last edited:
Cyclists often seem to think pedestrians will just get out of their way on the footpath. I know a cyclist who ended up in the canal when a pedestrian didn't budge on the towpath.

But on a general point, what if a cyclist ran over a pedestrian and caused serious injury. Would that ever be prosecuted as GBH?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top