Woman convicted of manslaughter after swearing and gesturing at 77 year old cyclist.

[matticus]

"unlawful act manslaughter - which requires an unlawful action to take place that caused death"

Does it? I thought manslaughter was when you do something knowing it might be dangerous but without the intention to kill.

What you thought isn't important. It's a specific crime. Lawyers and the courts know the definition; we've discussed it at length on this thread, or you could google it yourself.
Or you could just state that the BBC article is wrong with no justification. Choice is yours, I guess ....

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I think she's not all there mentally.
I think this sets a dangerous precedent here in the U.K. If attitudes were not already bad enough towards cyclists.

She is not. That is a matter of record. She lived in sheltered housing because of this.

 

[presta]

I think she's not all there mentally.
I think this sets a dangerous precedent here in the U.K. If attitudes were not already bad enough towards cyclists.

Why was she charged with Unlawful Act Manslaughter instead of Gross Negligence Manslaughter? It was overturned because gesticulating is not an unlawful act, but disturbing the balance of someone whose safety depends on balance is negligent.

 

[presta]

What you thought isn't important. It's a specific crime. Lawyers and the courts know the definition; we've discussed it at length on this thread, or you could google it yourself.
Or you could just state that the BBC article is wrong with no justification. Choice is yours, I guess ....

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/w...-year-old-cyclist.290637/page-19#post-7194963

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

From what I have read the prosecution messed up and failed to prove there was a crime in the first place
They had to prove this THEN prove the crime resulted in a death

Without the first - the second was not a legal possibility

Presumably the judge also failed in not spotting this

doesn;t mean she was innocent - just case not proved etc

 

[PK99]

Why was she charged with Unlawful Act Manslaughter instead of Gross Negligence Manslaughter? It was overturned because gesticulating is not an unlawful act, but disturbing the balance of someone whose safety depends on balance is negligent.

What is gross negligence manslaughter?​

In order for someone to be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, the prosecution must establish:

• that the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased
• that duty of care was breached by the defendant
• that breach caused the death of the deceased
• at the time of the negligence, there was an obvious risk of death and
• the nature of the defendant’s negligence was so “gross”, it amounts to a criminal offence

https://www.hempsons.co.uk/services/gross-negligence-manslaughter/?cn-reloaded=1

Examples of Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• A doctor who operates on the wrong patient.
• A nurse who gives a patient the wrong medication.
• A builder who fails to take adequate safety precautions on a construction site, resulting in the death of a worker.
• A driver who falls asleep at the wheel and causes a fatal accident.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

What is gross negligence manslaughter?​

In order for someone to be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, the prosecution must establish:

• that the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased
• that duty of care was breached by the defendant
• that breach caused the death of the deceased
• at the time of the negligence, there was an obvious risk of death and
• the nature of the defendant’s negligence was so “gross”, it amounts to a criminal offence

https://www.hempsons.co.uk/services/gross-negligence-manslaughter/?cn-reloaded=1

Examples of Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• A doctor who operates on the wrong patient.
• A nurse who gives a patient the wrong medication.
• A builder who fails to take adequate safety precautions on a construction site, resulting in the death of a worker.
• A driver who falls asleep at the wheel and causes a fatal accident.

Thanks
Doesn;t mention specifying a "crime" or some kind
WHich the BBC article seems to insist is needed

 

[Cycleops]

She is not. That is a matter of record. She lived in sheltered housing because of this.

She is reported as being on the autism spectrum, although we don't know how severe it is which is probably why she's in sheltered housing.

 

[PK99]

Thanks
Doesn;t mention specifying a "crime" or some kind
WHich the BBC article seems to insist is needed

Manslaughter requires an initiating criminal act

 

[PK99]

doesn;t mean she was innocent - just case not proved etc

it means there was no crime

 

[PK99]

The woman is a nasty old bat. She can consider herself lucky she managed to have her conviction overturned.
Seems to have turned on whether she pushed the woman or not. I'm with @lazybloke , it does look like she pushed her, no definite proof so she walks free. Doubt whether killing someone even bothers her.

She is reported as being on the autism spectrum, although we don't know how severe it is which is probably why she's in sheltered housing.

ummmm.....

 

[presta]

• that the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased
• that duty of care was breached by the defendant
• that breach caused the death of the deceased
• at the time of the negligence, there was an obvious risk of death and
• the nature of the defendant’s negligence was so “gross”, it amounts to a criminal offence

So doesn't startling a cyclist so that they lose their balance and fall under a car meet this?

Doesn't mention specifying a "crime" or some kind
Which the BBC article seems to insist is needed

Two of the categories of manslaughter are unlawful and negligent. You could be forgiven for wondering if they picked the wrong one.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

So doesn't startling a cyclist so that they lose their balance and fall under a car meet this?

Two of the categories of manslaughter are unlawful and negligent. You could be forgiven for wondering if they picked the wrong one.

I presume - and I am no expert - that it can be said that it does

but the prosecution didn't prove this first - and hence had not proved that the original crime resulted in death and hence a charge of manslaughter

or something like that

 

[presta]

The judgement's here.

TL;DR, I ran out of interest before I found any mention of the negligence form of manslaughter, or any acknowledgement that cyclists need to be able to balance.

 

[PK99]

The judgement's here.

TL;DR, I ran out of interest before I found any mention of the negligence form of manslaughter, or any acknowledgement that cyclists need to be able to balance.

but i guess you did read this:

The appellant was 46 years old at the time. She had suffered cerebral palsy since birth when she sustained brain damage that resulted in epileptic seizures; and as a child, she underwent brain surgery to remove the part of the brain causing the epilepsy. As a result of that operation and brain injury the appellant had been left with a weakness to the right side of her body, significantly impaired vision and a degree of cognitive impairment. She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her sight in each eye.