Cyclist killer to appeal

[Japan Jambo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68606255

 

Reading the words I expected the clip to show so much worse. Minding her own business walking along a narrow pavement and suddenly her life is turned upside down. Tragic accident and a shame for the poor old dear that died but watching what she did I can't say hand on heart I'd have reacted differently to her.

[jackal]

The irony of the cyclist on the pavement in the news report.

Tragic circumstances for all involved.

[Ulysses]

24 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

Minding her own business walking along a narrow pavement and suddenly her life is turned upside down. 

 

I don't think I would have jailed her (though I don't know all the details that the court knew), but at least she still has a life to be turned upside down.

 

It's tragic, though.  The cyclist has lost her life, the pedestrian has lost her liberty, and the driver of the car is probably still guilty and traumatised over what happened.

[Victorian]

Where do you draw the line?  Seems to have been found guilty on the basis of the specific actions.  Gesturing and swearing.  But what if a pedestrian just stands their ground or moves slightly in the path of a cyclist?  Is there a legal responsibility upon a pedestrian to act in a way to prevent a cyclist from being in harms way from a car?  To move out of the way?  To remain silent?  

 

3 years imprisonment for this seems incredible tbh.  I wonder if she's been harshly treated due to leaving the scene.  Her disabilities were deemed not to be an excuse for the 'crime'.  Could they be an excuse for leaving the scene?  

[Luckies1874]

Absolutely scandalous she was jailed. I hope she’s released on bail and then wins her appeal. 

[FWJ]

“Gestured aggressively”?  She was just flicking her arm.  It’s not like she pushed the cyclist (I’m assuming she didn’t or I’m sure that would have been mentioned)

 

Edit to add:  Good point, too, re the car driver.  What a genuine nightmare for them.

Edited March 19 by FWJ

[Ulysses]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Where do you draw the line?  Seems to have been found guilty on the basis of the specific actions.  Gesturing and swearing.  But what if a pedestrian just stands their ground or moves slightly in the path of a cyclist?  Is there a legal responsibility upon a pedestrian to act in a way to prevent a cyclist from being in harms way from a car?  To move out of the way?  To remain silent?  

 

3 years imprisonment for this seems incredible tbh.  I wonder if she's been harshly treated due to leaving the scene.  Her disabilities were deemed not to be an excuse for the 'crime'.  Could they be an excuse for leaving the scene?  

 

It does seem a harsh sentence for, in effect, waving your arm at someone and telling them to **** off.  

 

Things can seem out of line or disproportionate when you're not in the courtroom hearing what's going on in a case, but in fairness she was tried in front of a jury that was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt to find her guilty of manslaughter.  The judge said in his sentencing remarks that the pathway was a shared footpath and cycle path.  The police couldn't say whether that was the case or not, and the Council didn't seem to be much help. 

 

Manslaughter actually carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, though something in the range of 3 to 10 years would be more normal.  So the jury found her guilty, and in the circumstances the judge imposed a sentence at the bottom end of the sentencing range for the offence.  Arguing that the jury shouldn't have convicted her is fair enough, but once she was found guilty of manslaughter the reality is that three years is not actually a harsh sentence.  

 

What would concern me more is that she was sentenced to three years just over a year ago, but her leave to appeal has only been given now.  Why is that?   It seems like an inordinate delay to me. 

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Having watched the video, what a joke this country's judicial system is.

[I P Knightley]

10 minutes ago, FWJ said:

“Gestured aggressively”?  She was just flicking her arm.  It’s not like she pushed the cyclist (I’m assuming she didn’t or I’m sure that would have been mentioned)

I'm 95% sure there is no contact in that video clip. The cyclist loses her balance trying to avoid the shouty wifie waving her arms ahead. Give that there appears to be a lamppost in the pavement and, beyond that (from the cyclist's view) was a pedestrian on what appears to be a narrow pavement, I would have thought that the cyclist (who shouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place) had a responsibility to control her bicycle, slowing down until the pedestrian was out of the way. 

[Luckies1874]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

It does seem a harsh sentence for, in effect, waving your arm at someone and telling them to **** off.  

 

Things can seem out of line or disproportionate when you're not in the courtroom hearing what's going on in a case, but in fairness she was tried in front of a jury that was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt to find her guilty of manslaughter.  The judge said in his sentencing remarks that the pathway was a shared footpath and cycle path.  The police couldn't say whether that was the case or not, and the Council didn't seem to be much help. 

 

Manslaughter actually carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, though something in the range of 3 to 10 years would be more normal.  So the jury found her guilty, and in the circumstances the judge imposed a sentence at the bottom end of the sentencing range for the offence.  Arguing that the jury shouldn't have convicted her is fair enough, but once she was found guilty of manslaughter the reality is that three years is not actually a harsh sentence.  

 

What would concern me more is that she was sentenced to three years just over a year ago, but her leave to appeal has only been given now.  Why is that?   It seems like an inordinate delay to me. 

 

Good point so in essence she will be released anyway (assuming good behaviour inside) not long after this appeal takes place. So at this point this is as much about having her guilty conviction overturned. 

[FWJ]

3 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I'm 95% sure there is no contact in that video clip. The cyclist loses her balance trying to avoid the shouty wifie waving her arms ahead. Give that there appears to be a lamppost in the pavement and, beyond that (from the cyclist's view) was a pedestrian on what appears to be a narrow pavement, I would have thought that the cyclist (who shouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place) had a responsibility to control her bicycle, slowing down until the pedestrian was out of the way. 

Absolutely.  My only disagreement is that she wasn’t even waving her arms, she was flicking out her hand.

 

I do wonder what else the jury knew (if anything) that we didn’t.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Having watched the video, what a joke this country's judicial system is.

 

2 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I'm 95% sure there is no contact in that video clip. The cyclist loses her balance trying to avoid the shouty wifie waving her arms ahead. Give that there appears to be a lamppost in the pavement and, beyond that (from the cyclist's view) was a pedestrian on what appears to be a narrow pavement, I would have thought that the cyclist (who shouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place) had a responsibility to control her bicycle, slowing down until the pedestrian was out of the way. 

 

There are two things that it's no harm to note.  It seems that the police officer who interviewed the woman who was convicted has his own views about the CCTV video.  Also, the court noted that she herself said when interviewed that there was "light contact".

 

Huntingdon cyclist death: Police warn over ill-informed views (bbc.com)

 

Huntingdon: Cyclist death accused was 'anxious' for her own safety, jury told (bbc.com)

 

 

 

 

[I P Knightley]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

It does seem a harsh sentence for, in effect, waving your arm at someone and telling them to **** off.  

 

Things can seem out of line or disproportionate when you're not in the courtroom hearing what's going on in a case, but in fairness she was tried in front of a jury that was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt to find her guilty of manslaughter.  The judge said in his sentencing remarks that the pathway was a shared footpath and cycle path.  The police couldn't say whether that was the case or not, and the Council didn't seem to be much help. 

 

Manslaughter actually carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, though something in the range of 3 to 10 years would be more normal.  So the jury found her guilty, and in the circumstances the judge imposed a sentence at the bottom end of the sentencing range for the offence.  Arguing that the jury shouldn't have convicted her is fair enough, but once she was found guilty of manslaughter the reality is that three years is not actually a harsh sentence.  

 

What would concern me more is that she was sentenced to three years just over a year ago, but her leave to appeal has only been given now.  Why is that?   It seems like an inordinate delay to me. 

 

If it was a cycle path, that changes things a little from what I just wrote. 

 

However, the whole case just highlights for me (with a shudder) the appalling state of the courts system in this country and the difficulty in getting true justice. Had the pedestrian been an insured driver, her insurance company would have forked out for an expensive lawyer & hired a road traffic expert to provide a structured defence which, even if it were nonsense, would have met a feeble counter argument, if any, from the CPS and she would have walked without as much as a slap on the wrist. 

 

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, Luckies1874 said:

Good point so in essence she will be released anyway (assuming good behaviour inside) not long after this appeal takes place. So at this point this is as much about having her guilty conviction overturned. 

 

She originally sought leave to appeal immediately after being convicted, but was turned down last May.  That said, the appeal seemed to relate to the severity of the sentence, rather than the guilty verdict itself.  Her appeal was turned down on the grounds that the sentence wasn't manifestly excessive.  But on this occasion the argument made is that manslaughter requires a specific action to be taken to cause death, and that no such action took place.  But IMO her lawyers should have made that argument the first time round instead of waiting. 

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, I P Knightley said:

If it was a cycle path, that changes things a little from what I just wrote. 

 

 

 

If it was.  The cops couldn't say, and the Council said they'd have to review their cycle paths.

[I P Knightley]

6 minutes ago, FWJ said:

Absolutely.  My only disagreement is that she wasn’t even waving her arms, she was flicking out her hand.

 

I do wonder what else the jury knew (if anything) that we didn’t.

Juries are made up of members of the public who are, by and large, arseholes. There will have been jury members who based their recommendation on the cut of her jib. 

[I P Knightley]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If it was.  The cops couldn't say, and the Council said they'd have to review their cycle paths.

This just makes me depressed. 

 

From my own experience, I have unfortunate reason to know (by heart) that section 140 of the Highway Code says that a cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. It should take no time at all to go on Google Streetview and establish whether or not it's a cycle lane. 

 

From that CCTV, I'd be surprised if it were; it seems too narrow to allow shared use. However, councils can also be arseholes and might have come up with an arsehole plan to make that a shared path to tick a box saying that they'd created x miles of 'safe' cycle routes. 

[Victorian]

16 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Juries are made up of members of the public who are, by and large, arseholes. There will have been jury members who based their recommendation on the cut of her jib. 

 

Having served on a jury,  I can attest to this.  The jury I was on was completely chaotic.  Some were barely interested in the discussions to arrive at verdicts.  

[Daktari]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Having served on a jury,  I can attest to this.  The jury I was on was completely chaotic.  Some were barely interested in the discussions to arrive at verdicts.  

That's why the judge is there though, to oversee due process and ensure that there is sufficient evidence to convict. If not, he can direct the jury towards a verdict and then if the verdict is so skewed from legal necessity, that's what the appeals process is for.

[FWJ]

23 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Juries are made up of members of the public who are, by and large, arseholes. There will have been jury members who based their recommendation on the cut of her jib. 

I did wonder about her demeanour in the dock and how it might have affected the jury’s decision.

[Daktari]

2 minutes ago, FWJ said:

I did wonder about her demeanour in the dock and how it might have affected the jury’s decision.

Regardless of that, there still has to be actual evidence to enable them to convict and after that it's down to the judge to sentence- based on all of the facts of the case - not the jury. The jury is obviously only part of it and the judge clearly saw enough in the evidence in the case to hand out the sentence that he/she did.

 

[FWJ]

4 minutes ago, Daktari said:

Regardless of that, there still has to be actual evidence to enable them to convict and after that it's down to the judge to sentence- based on all of the facts of the case - not the jury. The jury is obviously only part of it and the judge clearly saw enough in the evidence in the case to hand out the sentence that he/she did.

 

Which comes back to … what do they know that we don’t - if anything?

Or maybe they just thought that it merited a conviction and a considerable jail sentence 

Edited March 19 by FWJ

[Daktari]

10 minutes ago, FWJ said:

what do they know that we don’t - if anything?

Probably quite a bit to be honest.  They can't just 'think' it merits a conviction, there has to be sufficient evidence and as I said above the actual sentence is up to the judge. 

The crime here is an English one. There is no such crime in Scotland, here it's Culpable Homicide, so anyone talking on here about the intricacies of the crime of manslaughter is either conflating it with Scottish Common Law or will have had to have had experience of the English legal system. 

 

The basis of the conviction in this case was stated as 'In a case such as this, the prosecution is required to prove to the jury that she intended to cause Mrs Ward harm, or fear of harm'. That's it, in simple terms and it's up to the crown to lead sufficient evidence to show this was the case. There are opinions on here saying that the lady shouldn't be convicted, or was harshly sentenced because all she did was gesture and swear. But the point is, she did gesture and swear and may even have made contact with the cyclist (a 77 year old woman remember) when she could have chosen to step aside. She continued, as far as I can see, on the same course on the path gesturing and swearing. The cyclist  was moving fairly slowly when she lost balance right on the edge of the path and turned into the road. Yes, she was maybe 'just' gesturing and swearing but she made that choice, and if she had chosen differently, the cyclist would likely not have died. It's also wrong to say that the cyclist 'should have been able to control her bike'. The conviction is based on what the accused did do, not what the cyclist may have been able to do.  I'd imagine the evidence of the motorist would be quite crucial and hasn't been reported.

 

So, her appeal will be based on showing that she did not intend to either 'cause the cyclist harm, or place her in fear of harm'. Based on her actions, I'd expect her appeal to fail personally and even more so if there is evidence led of contact. Not here to say who is right or wrong. In my experience there are no winners in cases like this. People often talk about 'justice' in very loose terms, and often they either mean 'revenge' or else 'what I think it should be', but by and large there are many considerations in these cases and all of the evidence is not always reported in the press. Justice is actually the full application of an open and fair judicial system. All of the evidence in this case will have been heard in an open court, no doubt with members of the press, families and public in attendance. Just trying to bring a bit of context and maybe a little experience to the discussion. 

[Bindy Badgy]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

If it was.  The cops couldn't say, and the Council said they'd have to review their cycle paths.

 

But the judge seems confident that it was. Very strange as something like that should obvious.

[jambosean75]

cars - motorbikes - bicycles - pedestrians

 

you give way to the most vulnerable, so as they were at a narrowed piece of pavement with an obstruction the cyclist should have stopped or slowed her arrival so it was safe to pass.

 

while its horrendous that she died the cyclist was the one at fault though the pedestrians reaction was stupid and contributed but surely not enough to go to jail

 

if she had shoved her fair enough but that doesn't seem the case

[FWJ]

46 minutes ago, Daktari said:

Probably quite a bit to be honest.  They can't just 'think' it merits a conviction, there has to be sufficient evidence and as I said above the actual sentence is up to the judge. 

The crime here is an English one. There is no such crime in Scotland, here it's Culpable Homicide, so anyone talking on here about the intricacies of the crime of manslaughter is either conflating it with Scottish Common Law or will have had to have had experience of the English legal system. 

 

The basis of the conviction in this case was stated as 'In a case such as this, the prosecution is required to prove to the jury that she intended to cause Mrs Ward harm, or fear of harm'. That's it, in simple terms and it's up to the crown to lead sufficient evidence to show this was the case. There are opinions on here saying that the lady shouldn't be convicted, or was harshly sentenced because all she did was gesture and swear. But the point is, she did gesture and swear and may even have made contact with the cyclist (a 77 year old woman remember) when she could have chosen to step aside. She continued, as far as I can see, on the same course on the path gesturing and swearing. The cyclist  was moving fairly slowly when she lost balance right on the edge of the path and turned into the road. Yes, she was maybe 'just' gesturing and swearing but she made that choice, and if she had chosen differently, the cyclist would likely not have died. It's also wrong to say that the cyclist 'should have been able to control her bike'. The conviction is based on what the accused did do, not what the cyclist may have been able to do.  I'd imagine the evidence of the motorist would be quite crucial and hasn't been reported.

 

So, her appeal will be based on showing that she did not intend to either 'cause the cyclist harm, or place her in fear of harm'. Based on her actions, I'd expect her appeal to fail personally and even more so if there is evidence led of contact. Not here to say who is right or wrong. In my experience there are no winners in cases like this. People often talk about 'justice' in very loose terms, and often they either mean 'revenge' or else 'what I think it should be', but by and large there are many considerations in these cases and all of the evidence is not always reported in the press. Justice is actually the full application of an open and fair judicial system. All of the evidence in this case will have been heard in an open court, no doubt with members of the press, families and public in attendance. Just trying to bring a bit of context and maybe a little experience to the discussion. 

👍

Thank you for a thoughtful response!

 

I still would like to have been a fly on the wall in the Jury Room though.

[Ulysses]

23 minutes ago, jambosean75 said:

cars - motorbikes - bicycles - pedestrians

 

you give way to the most vulnerable, so as they were at a narrowed piece of pavement with an obstruction the cyclist should have stopped or slowed her arrival so it was safe to pass.

 

while its horrendous that she died the cyclist was the one at fault though the pedestrians reaction was stupid and contributed but surely not enough to go to jail

 

if she had shoved her fair enough but that doesn't seem the case

 

In fairness, that's not how the jury decided it when they heard the evidence.  She also said in her police interview that there was some "light contact", and according to the news report, the judge said in his summing up that she "gave a dishonest account in interview".  I get the impression that the jury had more evidence to go on than the video clip we see in the reports.

 

There's a chance we might think differently about this if we'd been in the courtroom listening to the evidence as it unfolded.

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, FWJ said:

 

 

I still would like to have been a fly on the wall in the Jury Room though.

 

Exactly this.

[henrysmithsgloves]

M idle

A ged

M en

 I n

L ycra

🤣