Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!.POSTED.chiark.greenend.org.uk!not-for-mail
From: Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: Yet another cyclist/pedestrian fatal incident
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2023 06:20:30 +0100
Organization: <none>
Approved: uk.legal.moderated approval key <matthewv+ulmtestmod@coriolis.greenend.org.uk>
Message-ID: <k8pt8vF4eauU31@mid.individual.net>
References: <k63mriFdbt2U1@mid.individual.net>
 <20a2d8cc-e17a-42dc-b95e-c37534541d0dn@googlegroups.com>
 <srmdnVMWNvECdGH-nZ2dnZeNn_pi4p2d@giganews.com>
 <ilcLL.1031483$OTCe.400874@fx11.ams1>
 <1SSdnXXsqstmTmD-nZ2dnZeNn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <tu71ut$c4sk$1@dont-email.me>
 <k70h5kFjegfU6@mid.individual.net> <k70v0dFtdspU3@mid.individual.net>
 <k76cngFjc4aU21@mid.individual.net> <k774cgFruhhU5@mid.individual.net>
 <pfo31i98lkd1og1sjp93rrcgsoa7p4duhu@4ax.com>
 <k9541i1a27r2to6op90b3l0j8glfehig1t@4ax.com>
 <k7eq94F381nU2@mid.individual.net> <k7t766F4bnkU7@mid.individual.net>
 <k7tup4FdkpiU3@mid.individual.net> <k8039kF4bnkU13@mid.individual.net>
 <k80holFq10bU2@mid.individual.net> <k8adrfF4bnkU22@mid.individual.net>
 <k8avhrFe0maU1@mid.individual.net> <k8iisaF4bnkU32@mid.individual.net>
 <k8is9cFl4dmU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: chiark.greenend.org.uk; posting-host="chiark.greenend.org.uk:212.13.197.229";
	logging-data="30572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kDJweViQnUbPoo/Kk8wIcoiye+0=
X-Moderation: [168032643426860] See https://uklegal.weebly.com/
Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de;
X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net 5G+Avz17OBBZ/qAZFaOonQcWZB7fTZDJKBtZ72STmlSVxE5/7Y
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5
X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO
X-Mythic-Source-External: YES
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 31
X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk
X-STUMP-Warning-0: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: User-Agent:
X-Auth: PGPMoose V2.0 PGP uk.legal.moderated
 iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmQnw8cACgkQnSrwpvmn
 4x7DsQgAiElO2HpzEsMX+v6Bi+mAApDnLX8XJa/D8ITcDDWmLDWWG1T5He2Ck/0E
 xgdBtV6Ow/LmHwqACXYorORhljFFRR37i1ihwKRN89FhYkqvLeqIX1gM47nG3GnF
 jtr/fp1JbfFnlF5TB+/0a2y4RDbhWW5QmeIdP5E2gLegt474eT2lziyVKHNEUtRy
 KQYmuuVYNtuneUY2uUpC5MVRJstNyUKRkzDcLTNycTuuq9jug7SPbpoWF6sCV8H/
 3tmTyLHzbO/AhANIiuxmP6hgxaZVfgvMKI9UEAaFWxV0D2N0Vg1HjORJ5X9oY3Vm
 O5u5quvZszcZRcSO9XfWFZyL+9Gqrw==
 =QnCI
Originator: webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk ([212.13.197.229])
Bytes: 14820
Lines: 275

On 29/03/2023 14:20, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 29/03/2023 11:40, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 26/03/2023 14:27, Norman Wells wrote:

>>> I'd go further than that. I don't think you have any real idea at all 
>>> as to what was the crime Ms Grey committed for there to be a true 
>>> finding of manslaughter.
>>
>> Ms Grey was likely guilty of an offence under section 4(1)(a) of the 
>> Public Order Act 1986.
>>
>> Ms Grey was undoubtedly guilty of an offence under section 4A(1)(a) of 
>> the same Act.
>>
>> Ms Grey was also undoubtedly guilty of an offence under section 
>> 5(1)(a) of the same Act.
>>
>> The charge only needs one crime.  There's three.  And not a mention of 
>> the word "assault" in sight.
> 
> And not a single mention of any of them in any of the court documents 
> we've seen or in any of the reports of the case.
> 
> How strange.

Not in the slightest. The court documents didn't mention the make and 
model of Mrs Money's car but it was mentioned during the trial.

You need to accept that:

(1) Not everything discussed in court will be mentioned in the scant 
paperwork relating to the case that has been released; and

(2) The reports in the media are similarly incomplete.

As I've said before for the allegation that the entire charge is 
baseless to be correct, you are stating that all of the following are true:

(1) The CPS did not identify a criminal act in Ms Grey's behaviour and 
charged her on spurious grounds;

(2) Ms Grey's defence did not notice this;

(3) The prosecution did not notice this;

(4) The judge did not notice this;

(5) The jury were misled about the law or didn't care and convicted anyway.

(6) You, and you alone, are the only person to have spotted this 
egregious mistake and have been able to do so having viewed nothing more 
than a couple of documents released by the court.

The alternative is simple: You are mistaken.

That you cannot see this and persist in repeating this notion is beyond 
absurd and speaks volumes about your claimed "knowledge" and "experience".

Tangentially, perhaps you'd be so kind as to remind me of the deadline 
for Ms Grey seeking leave to appeal the conviction.


>>> It's a sine qua non for a true finding of manslaughter.  If the crime 
>>> can't be identified then she would have to be found not guilty.
>>
>> You're basing your entire argument on the snippets of information that 
>> we have.
> 
> Of course.  Anything else would be pure speculation.

Excellent.  So what *evidence* do you have that the CPS did not identify 
a criminal act in Ms Grey's behaviour and that this was detailed, at 
length, in court?

Similarly, what *evidence* do you have that all six of the points 
detailed above are true?

No speculation now, Norman, as you are so set against it.


>> Do you not believe that the prosecution will have gone to great pains 
>> to detail the precise criminal act of which Ms Grey was accused?  Do 
>> you not believe they will have broken down the act to its constituent 
>> parts?  Do you not believe that they will have compared Ms Grey's 
>> actions to each of the elements of the crime to ensure that each 
>> element was proven?
> 
> It should have done.  It's just very odd that no-one has come out and 
> said exactly what.  All we've had are hints, nudges and winks, and all 
> of those have hinted at or suggested assault without actually being 
> specific.  No-one has even hinted at what you're now alleging.

"It *should* have done."  Did it, or didn't it, Norman?  No speculating. 
  We want the facts and only the facts.

If you don't have the facts, and are so set against speculation, then I 
suggest you have little, if anything, to contribute and the discussion 
is at an end.


>> In the name of balance, do you not also believe that the defence will 
>> have tried to disprove each element or avail of defences for each 
>> element and the overall crime?
> 
> It should have done.

"It *should* have done."  Did it, or didn't it?  Etc.


>> That these details haven't been reported doesn't mean they didn't happen.
> 
> If they did, it's again very strange that they haven't been reported.

No it isn't.  I have a very low opinion of media reporting on legal 
cases and I'm surprised your "knowledge" and "experience" hasn't led you 
to a similar conclusion.

Reporters frequently focus on details that are legally irrelevant and 
highlight trivia, if that's what they think their readers want to know.

In the instant case, the BBC started their coverage of the case with a 
reporter in court producing a summary of the day's events.  But it must 
not have received sufficient traffic, or the reporter was deployed 
elsewhere on something they considered more sellable, as the reporting 
simply stopped.


>>> Besides, I assume you have read the Directions of Law provided by the 
>>> judge to the jury prior to their making the decision.  They do not 
>>> instruct the jury to consider what the crime was, which to my mind is 
>>> an astonishing omission.  They just allude to 'assault', without 
>>> saying as much, by reference to the swinging arm which, in and of 
>>> itself, is no crime *unless* it amounts to assault.  And that's all 
>>> they allude to. They certainly do not refer to anything that you have 
>>> speculated about, namely 'public order offences'.
>>
>> You assume correctly that I have read the Directions at Law.   As you 
>> consider there is not just an omission but "an astonishing omission" 
>> it would be prudent for you to detail any training and or experience 
>> you have in preparing or delivering Directions at Law and how this 
>> aided you in reaching this conclusion.
> 
> The jury is tasked with reaching a true verdict according to law.  If 
> the law is that the accused must have committed a crime in order to be 
> properly convicted of manslaughter, it is fundamental that they should 
> be asked to consider what crime exactly and whether the evidence proves 
> that she committed it.  But they weren't.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========