Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on March 02, 2023, 12:18:41 PM
-
Jail? Really?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
-
Yes really. Look at the report and there are no cyclelanes on Huntingdon, and the only time I went, the cars seemed very busy (comfortably outside a rush hour).
-
Jail? Really?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
Her actions led to the death of another person. It could be construed as manslaughter and the jury - who had a better view of the facts than any of us - thought it was manslaughter.
-
Her actions led to the death of another person. It could be construed as manslaughter and the jury - who had a better view of the facts than any of us - thought it was manslaughter.
And does the jury, who do not carry out sentencing, know better than others as to whether having jail sentencing here is beneficial for society?
-
And does the jury, who do not carry out sentencing, know better than others as to whether having jail sentencing here is beneficial for society?
Probably not, that's up to the judge though isn't it?
-
Probably not, that's up to the judge though isn't it?
Not really. There are minimum sentences for manslaughter dependent on what type it's deemed either 1 or 3 years.
-
And does the jury, who do not carry out sentencing, know better than others as to whether having jail sentencing here is beneficial for society?
But as you point out, the jury isn't responsible for sentencing so I'm struggling to understand why their view on sentencing is relevant.
The jury's role is to determine whether the individual is guilty or not guilty of the offence the person is charged with, and in doing that they will take account of both the evidence during the trial but also any specific direction from the judge. And in this case the judge was clear (although there appeared to be some confusion) that the pavement was a shared space and therefore presumably the jury considered their verdict on the basis that it was a shared space.
So in terms of both conviction and sentencing we are dealing with a situation where both the pedestrian and the cyclist had an equal right to use the pavement space and also, presumably, that each had a basic responsibility not to act in a manner that might cause harm to the other. It is pretty clear that the pedestrian deliberately acted in a manner that was likely to cause harm to the other and indeed by attempting to force her off the pavement and into the road act in a manner that resulted in her death.
I doubt the woman intended to cause the death of the cyclist, but she did, and that's why it is manslaughter not murder.
On sentencing I suspect a few other aspects would have played a part. Specifically that the woman failed to help, to render assistance after the event and indeed simply headed off on her way. Secondly that it appears that she was not truthful about what happened when questioned by the police and thirdly that apparently she expressed no remorse until she was convicted.
Looking at the video this is, in my opinion, a really shocking incident and give the clearly deliberate nature of the act on the part of the woman I have no issue with either the conviction nor the sentencing.
-
Not really. There are minimum sentences for manslaughter dependent on what type it's deemed either 1 or 3 years.
And the Judge can't suspend the sentence?
-
Seems similar in character to other road rage type incidents. And, especially considering shared paths or cyclists on footpaths, it is terribly easy for pedestrians to kill cyclists.
From the video it does not look as if the pavement is wide enough to be suitable as a shared path - but many councils do designate unsuitable paths as shared.
The sentence does not seem unreasonable considering the behaviour involved.
-
And the Judge can't suspend the sentence?
Why would he want to? This woman is guilty of manslaughter. The reports I’ve read suggest showed no remorse and even left the scene before the emergency services arrived. It doesn’t seem to me that she deserved leniency.
-
And the Judge can't suspend the sentence?
Yes - the judge had the authority to suspend the sentence should he have consider that appropriate:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Manslaughter-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf
This would presumably be based on specific mitigations, such as pleading guilty, cooperation with the investigation, clearly indicating remorse etc.
However in this incident it appears that the woman didn't give a damn - she rendered no assistance to the dying woman, headed off to do her shopping instead, failed to be truthful in questioning by the police and showed no remorse. In those circumstance why on earth should the judge have suspended the sentence. A custodial sentence would seem the appropriate outcome.
-
Why would he want to? This woman is guilty of manslaughter. The reports I’ve read suggest showed no remorse and even left the scene before the emergency services arrived. It doesn’t seem to me that she deserved leniency.
I was just pointing out that jail was not the only possible outcome of the guilty finding.
-
I was just pointing out that jail was not the only possible outcome of the guilty finding.
You are correct. However, given the subsequent actions by the defendant, I think* a jail sentence is appropriate.
*Just my opinion, obviously. I'm not a judge and I'm sure there are all sorts of things they have to take into account that I don't know about.
-
You are correct. However, given the subsequent actions by the defendant, I think* a jail sentence is appropriate.
*Just my opinion, obviously. I'm not a judge and I'm sure there are all sorts of things they have to take into account that I don't know about.
I'm not disagreeing with that summary.
Black Belt Barrister has an update on the law and this incident.
https://youtu.be/01vnW7gCYrw
(I find his videos interesting and informative, worth a look at some others if you have the time or inclination)
-
Interesting article detailing the reasons for the guilty verdict and sentencing:
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years
-
I'm not disagreeing with that summary.
Black Belt Barrister has an update on the law and this incident.
https://youtu.be/01vnW7gCYrw
(I find his videos interesting and informative, worth a look at some others if you have the time or inclination)
I often watch his videos.
-
Manslaughter conviction overturned
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335
-
Manslaughter conviction overturned
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335
I regard that as the wrong decision. She caused a death.
-
I regard that as the wrong decision. She caused a death.
And yet in the absence of the base offence being established, it would seem correct in terms of the law.
-
I regard that as the wrong decision. She caused a death.
I agree - will be interesting to see whether this is appealed further.
-
Moderator:
In that case bear with me while I lock this thread and move the posts about the 'other' case to the existing thread on cycling issues.
Done - once I've sorted out the posts I've removed I'll merge them into the previous cycling thread.