They all come round to my thinking in the end!

Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey:
footway 'not shared'' thread:

NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t defined
under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an unlawful,
criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death of the victim.

"The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."

"Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the plague
on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."

SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."

NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.

How can you be so sure there was one?"

Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:

"Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
identified during her retrial in February last year."

"Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."

On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:

> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>
> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."

I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.

The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
collision.

On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
> They all come round to my thinking in the end!
>
> Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey:
> footway 'not shared'' thread:
>
> NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t defined
> under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an unlawful,
> criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death of the victim.
>
> "The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."
>
> "Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
> unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the plague
> on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."
>
> SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
> manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
> because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
> displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."
>
> NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
> judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.
>
> How can you be so sure there was one?"
>
> Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:
>
> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>
> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>

There was a rather odd piece in The Times on 19 May 2023.

Woman jailed for causing cyclist’s death loses appeal

A partially blind woman with cerebral palsy who was found to have killed
a 77-year-old cyclist will not have her conviction overturned, appeal
judges have ruled.

At the appeal court, Grey’s barrister, Miranda Moore, KC argued that the
three-year jail sentence was “arguably manifestly excessive”, pointing
out that a psychologist’s report showed that she suffered from autism in
addition to her other conditions.

unquote

The phrase "will not have her conviction overturned" implies that it was
an appeal against conviction as well as sentence but presumably it
wasn't. Sloppy Times editing, then.

I don't think it's possible to go to the CA to appeal against conviction
twice, unless fresh evidence is produced etc.

I thought her conviction and sentence were both unjust. I expect she
will lose, though, and the CA will say that the unlawful act was an
assault, a threatening gesture from her and a threatening shout.

On 18/03/2024 13:50, GB wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
>> Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
>> manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
>> was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>
>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
>> pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
>> we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>
> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>
> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
> driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
> collision.
>

I can't find the Times report that Norman refers to, online. Maybe it
was only in the print version.

I suppose it might be argued that although there was an arguably
unlawful act, the jury was not properly directed by the judge to
consider whether in fact it was an unlawful act.

Odd, though, that it has taken this long. And there seems to be no
transcript of the CA's decision on sentencing and one might expect the
judges to comment on the conviction when saying that it was an
appropriate sentence for such a heinous crime etc.

On 18/03/2024 16:01, The Todal wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>> They all come round to my thinking in the end!
>>
>> Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey:
>> footway 'not shared'' thread:
>>
>> NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t
>> defined under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an
>> unlawful, criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death
>> of the victim.
>>
>> "The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."
>>
>> "Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
>> unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the
>> plague on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."
>>
>> SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
>> manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
>> because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
>> displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."
>>
>> NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
>> judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.
>>
>> How can you be so sure there was one?"
>>
>> Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:
>>
>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
>> Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
>> manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
>> was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>
>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
>> pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
>> we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>>
>
> There was a rather odd piece in The Times on 19 May 2023.
>
> Woman jailed for causing cyclist’s death loses appeal
>
> A partially blind woman with cerebral palsy who was found to have killed
> a 77-year-old cyclist will not have her conviction overturned, appeal
> judges have ruled.
>
> At the appeal court, Grey’s barrister, Miranda Moore, KC argued that the
> three-year jail sentence was “arguably manifestly excessive”, pointing
> out that a psychologist’s report showed that she suffered from autism in
> addition to her other conditions.
>
> unquote
>
> The phrase "will not have her conviction overturned" implies that it was
> an appeal against conviction as well as sentence but presumably it
> wasn't. Sloppy Times editing, then.
>
> I don't think it's possible to go to the CA to appeal against conviction
> twice, unless fresh evidence is produced etc.

The first appeal was against sentence. It is that which was rejected in
May last year. The sentence was considered fair *assuming* the
conviction was correct, which was not, and could not be argued in that
appeal.

The appeal against her conviction itself is based on the sole criterion
allowed, ie that it is 'unsafe'. And it's unsafe, it is alleged, and as
I pointed out last year, because 'no criminal offence constituting the
'unlawful act' was ever identified during her retrial in February last
year. It's essentially an argument that the trial was a mistrial as it
was decided without consideration of an essential element of the offence.

> I thought her conviction and sentence were both unjust. I expect she
> will lose, though, and the CA will say that the unlawful act was an
> assault, a threatening gesture from her and a threatening shout.

The appeal is not a re-trial, with witnesses etc, so the CoA is not
entitled to come to any such conclusion. That should have been, and
was, a matter for the jury alone, who were never given the chance to
consider it because the trial was flawed. All the Court of Appeal has
to decide is whether, on the basis of the trial that did happen, her
conviction is unsafe, as in my view it clearly is.

On 18/03/2024 16:32, The Todal wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 13:50, GB wrote:
>> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
>>> Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
>>> manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
>>> was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>>
>>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
>>> pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
>>> we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>>
>> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>>
>> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
>> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the
>> way to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on
>> someone's driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to
>> avoid a collision.
>>
>
> I can't find the Times report that Norman refers to, online. Maybe it
> was only in the print version.

It's an article on page 4 of the print version.

> I suppose it might be argued that although there was an arguably
> unlawful act, the jury was not properly directed by the judge to
> consider whether in fact it was an unlawful act.
>
> Odd, though, that it has taken this long. And there seems to be no
> transcript of the CA's decision on sentencing and one might expect the
> judges to comment on the conviction when saying that it was an
> appropriate sentence for such a heinous crime etc.

An appeal against sentence can only work on the tacit assumption, for
the purposes of the proceedings, that the conviction itself was sound.

On 18/03/2024 16:32, The Todal wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 13:50, GB wrote:
>> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
>>> Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
>>> manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
>>> was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>>
>>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
>>> pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
>>> we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>>
>> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>>
>> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
>> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the
>> way to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on
>> someone's driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to
>> avoid a collision.
>>
>
> I can't find the Times report that Norman refers to, online. Maybe it
> was only in the print version.
>
> I suppose it might be argued that although there was an arguably
> unlawful act, the jury was not properly directed by the judge to
> consider whether in fact it was an unlawful act.
>
> Odd, though, that it has taken this long. And there seems to be no
> transcript of the CA's decision on sentencing and one might expect the
> judges to comment on the conviction when saying that it was an
> appropriate sentence for such a heinous crime etc.

There are invariably two main sources for information on the Auriol Grey
case. On one hand we have the mainstream media and on the other we have
those actually involved with and connected to the case. (There's also
no shortage of rampant speculation here, but I'm lumping that in with
the first of those as sources as it is not a "primary" source.)

I believe that information obtained directly from a primary source is
far preferable to that from secondary sources because there is no
retelling, analysing, or interpreting taking place meaning key points
are far less likely to get distorted or "lost in translation".

Therefore, I weigh information from Red Lion Chambers, the chambers from
which Simon Spence KC was instructed by East of England CPS, far greater
than that in newspapers, particularly as he attended the hearing in
question.

Red Lion Chambers are clear on the matter: Following Ms Grey's
imprisonment, a psychologist - in a report paid for by Ms Grey's family
- diagnosed Ms Grey with autism. On Friday, 19th May 2023, Miranda
Moore KC, representing Ms Grey, sought to argue before the Court of
Appeal that the diagnosis may have made a difference in her case and led
to the sentence being "excessive".

In addition, (Key Fact Warning: some posters should pay keen attention
to the following point), she argued that the sentencing judge had made a
finding of fact against evidence and stated that it "came as something
of a shock" that he found the pavement to be a shared cycleway, despite
the local council being unable to confirm that.

The CoA judges, Mr Justice Griffiths, sitting with Lord Justice William
Davis and His Honour Judge Neil Flewitt KC, concluded that the sentence
was "not manifestly excessive" and dismissed the application for leave
to appeal.

In light of today's application, I note a couple of words (which I've
highlighted) in the following quote made by Mr Justice Griffiths during
the CoA hearing: "A blameless woman had been killed by the *unlawful
act* of [Ms Grey] with devastating impact upon the family she left
behind and upon others including the entirely blameless driver of the car."

He also told the court that the sentence passed "had to mark the gravity
of the unlawful killing" while taking into account mitigating factors.

The sentencing judge Sean Enright had "placed very strong emphasis" on
Grey's disabilities, he said.

He added: "We do not consider that the recent psychology report calls
for a greater reduction than was already given in this respect by the
judge."

After the hearing, Ms Moore told reporters: "The law of manslaughter
needs to change because the perception of risk does not cater for people
who are mentally challenged."

Tangentially, Ms Grey's hearing is in Court 5 at 10:30am today before
President of the King’s Bench Division, Mrs Justice Yip and Mr Justice
Calver.

Sadly, only civil cases are live-streamed so it will not be possible to
watch unless one attends in person. Anyone close to the RCJ that is
free to pop in, take notes and report back here would be most welcomed. :-)

Regards

S.P.

On 18/03/2024 16:01, The Todal wrote:

> I thought her conviction and sentence were both unjust. I expect she
> will lose, though, and the CA will say that the unlawful act was an
> assault, a threatening gesture from her and a threatening shout.

So, it would have been wrong of me to shout a warning at the scooterist
who was recklessly heading straight at me?

>
>

On 19 Mar 2024 at 10:39:49 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

> On 18/03/2024 16:01, The Todal wrote:
>
>> I thought her conviction and sentence were both unjust. I expect she
>> will lose, though, and the CA will say that the unlawful act was an
>> assault, a threatening gesture from her and a threatening shout.
>
> So, it would have been wrong of me to shout a warning at the scooterist
> who was recklessly heading straight at me?
>
>>

I should say it was very dependent on context. If he hadn't seen you and you
shouted "Look out!" it would be more reasonable than if he was looking
straight at you and you shouted "Get off the pavement!" and waved your arms.
But that's just my theory.

--
Roger Hayter

On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:

> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
>> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>
>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>
> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>
> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
> driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
> collision.

It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.

I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).

The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.

On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
>
>> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
>>> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>>
>>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
>>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>>
>> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>>
>> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
>> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
>> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
>> driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
>> collision.
>
> It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
> you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
>
> I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
> to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
> like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
>
> The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
> vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
> should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
>

With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
happened.

There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort
of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe
wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow
pavement, have been tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and
the main thing that stops us is probably the fear of being driven into
by the cyclist, or punched.

That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby
car, when she swerved into the road.

Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held
legally to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an
oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?

On 19/03/2024 11:06, The Todal wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>>>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
>>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
>>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
>>>> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>>>
>>>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
>>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
>>>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>>>
>>> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>>>
>>> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
>>> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
>>> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
>>> driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
>>> collision.
>>
>> It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
>> you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
>>
>> I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
>> to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
>> like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
>>
>> The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
>> vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
>> should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
>>
>
> With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually happened.
>
> There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort of
> Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe wrongly. And
> many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow pavement, have been
> tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and the main thing that stops us
> is probably the fear of being driven into by the cyclist, or punched.
>
> That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby car, when
> she swerved into the road.
>
> Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held legally
> to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an oncoming cylist
> on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road and had been run over?
> Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?
>

Or was actually physically incapable of jumping to either side, the cyclist then
collided with her and one or other ended up dead?

I believe I made the comment before that I would likely fall over if I tried to
rapidly step sideways.

--
kat
>^..^<

On 19/03/2024 11:06, The Todal wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:

>>> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>>>
>>> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
>>> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
>>> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
>>> driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
>>> collision.
>>
>> It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
>> you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
>>
>> I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
>> to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
>> like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
>>
>> The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
>> vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
>> should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
>>
>
> With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
> happened.
>
> There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort
> of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe
> wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow
> pavement, have been tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and
> the main thing that stops us is probably the fear of being driven into
> by the cyclist, or punched.
>
> That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby
> car, when she swerved into the road.
>
> Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held
> legally to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an
> oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
> and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?

Since the Auriol Grey case, (Warning: Correlation is not Causation!),
both the Crown Court Compendium, Part 1, (Issued June 2023, Updated
February 2024) [1] and the CPS Guidance on Manslaughter (Reviewed and
Updated October 2023) [2] have been updated.

Section 19-5 of the former, which starts on page 19-36, covers Unlawful
Act Manslaughter and should be required reading for anybody that wishes
to comment on the case. (Ed: We should add that to the "Moderation
Policy" :-))

But to answer your question as succinctly as I can, yes I believe it
would have been had the CPS felt they had sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Regards

S.P.

[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-June-2023-updated-Feb-2024.pdf
[2]
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious

On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
> They all come round to my thinking in the end!
>
> Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey:
> footway 'not shared'' thread:
>
> NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t defined
> under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an unlawful,
> criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death of the victim.
>
> "The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."
>
> "Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
> unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the plague
> on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."
>
> SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
> manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
> because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
> displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."
>
> NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
> judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.
>
> How can you be so sure there was one?"
>
> Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:
>
> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>
> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."

Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mr Justice Calver
has granted Ms Grey leave to appeal.

"We are satisfied that the ground of appeal now advanced is arguable,"
Dame Victoria said.

The full appeal is now expected to be heard in May.

Pending a full appeal, Ms Grey will be able to make an appeal for bail.

Regards

S.P.

On 19/03/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:

> Since the Auriol Grey case, (Warning: Correlation is not Causation!),
> both the Crown Court Compendium, Part 1, (Issued June 2023, Updated
> February 2024) [1] and the CPS Guidance on Manslaughter (Reviewed and
> Updated October 2023) [2] have been updated.
>
> Section 19-5 of the former, which starts on page 19-36, covers Unlawful
> Act Manslaughter and should be required reading for anybody that wishes
> to comment on the case.  (Ed: We should add that to the "Moderation
> Policy" :-))

As regards what is relevant to the Auriol Grey case, it says, just as I
have maintained throughout despite previous contradictions from you:

"4. It is clear that a crime (sometimes referred to as the ‘base
offence’ on which the manslaughter is constructed) must be committed.
.... All elements of the offence must be proved, and any
defences that have been advanced must be disproved."

The current appeal is on the basis that the offence was not identified
during the trial, so all the elements of it could not have been
considered, and the jury was not asked to decide this crucial element of
what Ms Grey was charged with.

On 19/03/2024 12:25, Norman Wells wrote:

>
> The current appeal is on the basis that the offence was not identified
> during the trial, so all the elements of it could not have been
> considered, and the jury was not asked to decide this crucial element of
> what Ms Grey was charged with.
>
>

Well done Norman!

Very poorly done by the legal system.

On 19/03/2024 12:25, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:
>
>> Since the Auriol Grey case, (Warning: Correlation is not Causation!),
>> both the Crown Court Compendium, Part 1, (Issued June 2023, Updated
>> February 2024) [1] and the CPS Guidance on Manslaughter (Reviewed and
>> Updated October 2023) [2] have been updated.
>>
>> Section 19-5 of the former, which starts on page 19-36, covers
>> Unlawful Act Manslaughter and should be required reading for anybody
>> that wishes to comment on the case.  (Ed: We should add that to the
>> "Moderation Policy" :-))
>
> As regards what is relevant to the Auriol Grey case, it says,

I am aware of what it says, since I am the one that cited the source.

> just as I
> have maintained throughout despite previous contradictions from you:

I believe either that your mind is playing tricks on you, or that you
are confused about what I said or have misremembered. (Unfortunately,
the moderation policy prevents me from advancing a third alternative.)

Should that not be the case, you will no doubt be able to provide
numerous Message-IDs wherein I have stated what you claim and I ask that
you do so now or withdraw the claim.

For my part, I will quote Message-ID:
<kjbodfFhio5U16@mid.individual.net>, a message of mine with which you
must be familiar as you have selectively quoted from it earlier in this
thread, although out of context, but let's ignore that for now.

I was replying to a message from you, in which you made the following
statement:

"When I asked you several times when we previously discussed this, you
refused many times to specify what her illegal act was. You even
declined to accept that it was 'assault'."

You are now claiming that, rather than 'refus[ing] many times to specify
what her illegal act was' I contradicted the claim that an *unlawful*
act was required, which would be something of a shocking claim for me to
have made given that I had quoted the CPS Guidance in force at the time
for what constituted "Unlawful Act Manslaughter" and that it was this
very definition from which you drew the necessity for an unlawful act.

You then continued, in your own unique style, by asking: "So, do be
clear. What was her 'unlawful act' exactly and what law made it
unlawful? You see, for a proper conviction of manslaughter, she would
have to have committed an illegal act which you have so far failed to
identify."

Again, it is clear that your objection is that I have "failed to
identify" "an illegal act" (Ed: *unlawful* act) not claimed that no
unlawful act was necessary or was not identified in court.

By way of response to the above statement and question, which I have
quoted in full, I said the following, which I also quote in full:

<Begin Quote>
Point of Order: Ms Grey was found guilty of *unlawful* act manslaughter
not *illegal* act manslaughter. This is ULM and it should be expected
that a self-proclaimed "erudite poster" such as yourself should use the
correct legal terminology or risk losing that self-appointed definition
of "erudite poster".

As I pointed out numerous times when you raised this point previously,
you seem to have me confused with Simon Spence KC.

You might like to pay attention to our different surnames. One of us
works for Red Lion Chambers, was instructed by East of England CPS and
handled the case for the prosecution of Auriol Grey and the other, well,
doesn't, wasn't and didn't.

As I've said in another post recently, my powers of telepathy are weak
at present and my crystal ball is away being recharged so I am unable to
state definitively what happened in court as I wasn't present. (Although
I note others do not limit themselves by such constraints.)

However, you could do worse than have a read of Message-ID:
<kanamvF703uU3@mid.individual.net>

That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for manslaughter"
suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just because *you* are
unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus displaying clearly your
breathtaking arrogance for all to see.

Regards

S.P. (not Simon Spence KC)
<end quote>

My position is, as it always has been:

I am not Simon Spence KC. I was not in court. I did not listen to the
cases advanced by the prosecution and defence. I cannot accurately say
what was and what was not stated in court, beyond that which has been
reported by others. I am not prepared to speculate about the "unlawful
act".

OTOH, you, despite not having been on court felt confident to state what
was and what was not stated in court.

That your claim has subsequently been found to be true is no more
remarkable than the fact that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

> "4. It is clear that a crime (sometimes referred to as the ‘base
> offence’ on which the manslaughter is constructed) must be committed.
> ... All elements of the offence must be proved, and any
> defences that have been advanced must be disproved."
>
> The current appeal is on the basis that the offence was not identified
> during the trial, so all the elements of it could not have been
> considered, and the jury was not asked to decide this crucial element of
> what Ms Grey was charged with.

Now that we know the result of the appeal, I will say that I am
astonished, given that even the Court of Appeal in its refusal to grant
permission to appeal the sentence referenced Ms Grey's "unlawful act".

However, we now know that permission to appeal has been granted and that
it is likely to be heard around May and she may well be granted bail in
the meantime.

I await the appeal's outcome with interest.

Regards

S.P.

On 19/03/2024 12:33, Simon Parker wrote:

> Pending a full appeal, Ms Grey will be able to make an appeal for bail.

How does that work if she loses her appeal? Will she be returned to
jail, and will the time out on bail count towards her sentence?

>
> Regards
>
> S.P.
>

On 19 Mar 2024 at 11:06:50 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

> On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>>>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
>>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act manslaughter'
>>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
>>>> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>>>
>>>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
>>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we are
>>>> very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>>>
>>> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>>>
>>> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
>>> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
>>> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
>>> driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
>>> collision.
>>
>> It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
>> you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
>>
>> I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
>> to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
>> like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
>>
>> The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
>> vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
>> should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
>>
>
> With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
> happened.
>
> There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort
> of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe
> wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow
> pavement, have been tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and
> the main thing that stops us is probably the fear of being driven into
> by the cyclist, or punched.
>
> That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby
> car, when she swerved into the road.
>
> Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held
> legally to blame. How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an
> oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
> and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?

I think it could have been. Though it would have been harder to prove, uless
she had jumped into the road at the very last moment before collision.

--
Roger Hayter

On 19/03/2024 12:33, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>> They all come round to my thinking in the end!
>>
>> Back in August last year, I had this conversation in the 'Auriol Grey:
>> footway 'not shared'' thread:
>>
>> NW: "Unlawful Act Manslaughter is a common law offence and isn’t
>> defined under any particular statute. The offence is defined as an
>> unlawful, criminal act, which is dangerous and which causes the death
>> of the victim.
>>
>> "The act must be unlawful in a criminal sense."
>>
>> "Now perhaps you'll say, for the first time ever, what you think her
>> unlawful and/or criminal act was, instead of avoiding it like the
>> plague on entirely spurious, inapplicable, semantic grounds."
>>
>> SP: "That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for
>> manslaughter" suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just
>> because *you* are unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus
>> displaying clearly your breathtaking arrogance for all to see."
>>
>> NW: "You're not able to identify it either, nor apparently was the
>> judge, yet it is a sine qua non for a proper manslaughter conviction.
>>
>> How can you be so sure there was one?"
>>
>> Now, from yesterday's Sunday Times:
>>
>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of
>> Appeal that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
>> manslaughter' as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act'
>> was ever identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>
>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting
>> pro bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case,
>> we are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>
> Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mr Justice Calver
> has granted Ms Grey leave to appeal.
>
> "We are satisfied that the ground of appeal now advanced is arguable,"
> Dame Victoria said.

Presumably then, they decided that unanimously.

> The full appeal is now expected to be heard in May.
>
> Pending a full appeal, Ms Grey will be able to make an appeal for bail.

Which I hope will be successful.

In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?

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

On 19/03/2024 14:03, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 12:25, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 11:36, Simon Parker wrote:

> For my part, I will quote Message-ID:
> <kjbodfFhio5U16@mid.individual.net>, a message of mine with which you
> must be familiar as you have selectively quoted from it earlier in this
> thread, although out of context, but let's ignore that for now.
>
> I was replying to a message from you, in which you made the following
> statement:
>
> "When I asked you several times when we previously discussed this, you
> refused many times to specify what her illegal act was.  You even
> declined to accept that it was 'assault'."
>
> You are now claiming that, rather than 'refus[ing] many times to specify
> what her illegal act was' I contradicted the claim that an *unlawful*
> act was required, which would be something of a shocking claim for me to
> have made given that I had quoted the CPS Guidance in force at the time
> for what constituted "Unlawful Act Manslaughter" and that it was this
> very definition from which you drew the necessity for an unlawful act.
>
> You then continued, in your own unique style, by asking:  "So, do be
> clear.  What was her 'unlawful act' exactly and what law made it
> unlawful?  You see, for a proper conviction of manslaughter, she would
> have to have committed an illegal act which you have so far failed to
> identify."
>
> Again, it is clear that your objection is that I have "failed to
> identify" "an illegal act" (Ed: *unlawful* act) not claimed that no
> unlawful act was necessary or was not identified in court.
>
> By way of response to the above statement and question, which I have
> quoted in full, I said the following, which I also quote in full:
>
> <Begin Quote>
> Point of Order: Ms Grey was found guilty of *unlawful* act manslaughter
> not *illegal* act manslaughter.

Thereby showing, despite my telling you, that you had no appreciation
that the act had to be illegal, ie a crime, for her to be properly found
guilty of that offence.

> This is ULM and it should be expected
> that a self-proclaimed "erudite poster" such as yourself should use the
> correct legal terminology or risk losing that self-appointed definition
> of "erudite poster".

Since the 'unlawful' bit of unlawful act manslaughter means 'criminal'
according to the authorities and even the Crown Court Compendium which
you cited, I used the terms I did perfectly correctly.

You were, and perhaps are still, seeking to imply a difference which
does not exist.

> As I've said in another post recently, my powers of telepathy are weak
> at present and my crystal ball is away being recharged so I am unable to
> state definitively what happened in court as I wasn't present. (Although
> I note others do not limit themselves by such constraints.)
>
> However, you could do worse than have a read of Message-ID:
> <kanamvF703uU3@mid.individual.net>
>
> That said, your use of the phrase "a proper conviction for manslaughter"
> suggests Ms Grey has not been properly convicted just because *you* are
> unable to identify the relevant illegal act thus displaying clearly your
> breathtaking arrogance for all to see.
>
> My position is, as it always has been:
>
> I am not Simon Spence KC.  I was not in court.  I did not listen to the
> cases advanced by the prosecution and defence.  I cannot accurately say
> what was and what was not stated in court, beyond that which has been
> reported by others.  I am not prepared to speculate about the "unlawful
> act".
>
> OTOH, you, despite not having been on court felt confident to state what
> was and what was not stated in court.

Yes. I read the reports, I read the judge's instructions to the jury,
and his sentencing remarks. From those it was absolutely clear no
consideration had been given to what the illegal act was and what law
made it so. It's not by chance or luck that I was right but by knowing
the law and paying proper attention.

> That your claim has subsequently been found to be true is no more
> remarkable than the fact that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
>
>> "4. It is clear that a crime (sometimes referred to as the ‘base
>> offence’ on which the manslaughter is constructed) must be committed.
>> ... All elements of the offence must be proved, and any
>> defences that have been advanced must be disproved."
>>
>> The current appeal is on the basis that the offence was not identified
>> during the trial, so all the elements of it could not have been
>> considered, and the jury was not asked to decide this crucial element
>> of what Ms Grey was charged with.
>
> Now that we know the result of the appeal, I will say that I am
> astonished, given that even the Court of Appeal in its refusal to grant
> permission to appeal the sentence referenced Ms Grey's "unlawful act".

I'm afraid that just means you continue to misunderstand the law and
what is required.

As regards the unaccepted sentence appeal, your comments show a further
fundamental misunderstanding. An appeal against sentence can *only* be
entertained on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive
*assuming* that the original conviction was correct. It makes no sense
to appeal a sentence if your position is that she didn't do it anyway.

On 19/03/2024 11:06 am, The Todal wrote:

> On 19/03/2024 10:40, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2024-03-18, GB wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2024 12:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>>> "Grey failed in an attempt to reduce the length of her sentence last
>>>> May, but on Tuesday lawyers will argue to judges at the Court of Appeal
>>>> that she should never have been convicted of 'unlawful act
>>>> manslaughter'
>>>> as no criminal offence constituting the 'unlawful act' was ever
>>>> identified during her retrial in February last year."
>>>> "Ben Rose, a partner at law firm Hickman & Rose said 'We are acting pro
>>>> bono for Auriol Grey because, having carefully reviewed her case, we
>>>> are very concerned that her conviction is unsafe."
>
>>> I always had a lot of sympathy with Grey.
>
>>> The other day, a young adult on an electric scooter came whizzing
>>> towards me on a narrow pavement, expecting me to scamper out of the way
>>> to avoid a collision - which I duly did, by trespassing on someone's
>>> driveway - whilst the scooterist did absolutely nothing to avoid a
>>> collision.
>
>> It's not quite the same thing, since Grey's victim wasn't behaving as
>> you describe and there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
>> I suppose the gutter press must have had a tough call to make on how
>> to spin this case and concluded that they hate cyclists more than they
>> like the elderly and hate the disabled (mostly scroungers).
>> The idea that vulnerable road users should be allowed to kill less
>> vulernable ones for traffic violations is interesting; maybe cyclists
>> should be allowed to carry firearms for close passes by drivers.
>
> With respect, you portray a very distorted picture of what actually
> happened.
>
> There was some sympathy for Auriol Grey - I think she was seen as a sort
> of Susan Boyle, a vulnerable person who acted impulsively and maybe
> wrongly. And many of us, faced with a cyclist approaching us on a narrow
> pavement, have been tempted to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and
> the main thing that stops us is probably the fear of being driven into
> by the cyclist, or punched.
>
> That doesn't mean that the cyclist deserved to be killed by a nearby
> car, when she swerved into the road.

Nobody ever deserves that. But that doesn't automatically mean that it
is someone else's fault when it happens.

> Sometimes, in law, there are pure accidents for which nobody can be held
> legally to blame.

Quite so.

> How would it have been if Auriol Grey, faced with an
> oncoming cylist on the pavement, had panicked and stepped into the road
> and had been run over? Would that also have been unlawful act manslaughter?

Easier to establish (with sufficient eye witness evidence) than the
other way round, I'd say.

On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:

> In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
> calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
Do you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?

On 19 Mar 2024 at 18:37:38 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

> On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
>> calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?
> Do you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?

She still killed the cyclist, even if it turns out to be negligent rather than
criminal.

--
Roger Hayter

On 19/03/2024 18:37, GB wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 14:16, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, is it acceptable for the dear old BBC to continue
>> calling her the 'Huntingdon cyclist killer'?

> Do you mean acceptable purely in a moral sense?

I mean possibly legally too.

A verdict under appeal, for which unanimous leave has been given by
three Appeal Court judges, is clearly highly dubious. If that verdict
is eventually quashed, it's clear that calling her the 'Huntingdon
cyclist killer' will be a serious and illegal defamation. I happen to
think it quite likely also is now, but I don't know if there is any
binding authority on cases under appeal.