I make no apologies for returning to an item the first section of which was posted 7th March with subsequent addendums as the matter progressed. For those unfamiliar with the case of Rex-v-Auriol Grey look here. Last week at the Court of Appeal three judges rejected her argument that the sentence was excessive. The sentencing guideline on manslaughter can be read here. One of the most contentious facts to emerge from the trial was the evidence given by Det Sgt Dollard for the prosecution. Under cross-examination by defence barrister Miranda Moore KC, he said he did not have any evidence to "categorically" show the path was a shared cycleway. The Highways Act 1835 prohibits cycling on a footpath which is by the side of a road and set apart for use by pedestrians only. Shared use pavements are not included in the act so if there's a specific cycle lane on a pavement it's legal to ride on it. I have found no report to confirm the status of the pathway. Ms Moore KC argued that the sentencing judge had made findings of fact against evidence, stating it "came as something of a shock" he found the pavement to be a shared cycleway, despite the local council being unable to confirm that. There is no transcript of the appeal yet published but But Mr Justice Griffiths sitting with Lord Justice William Davis and Judge Neil Flewitt refused to grant permission for Grey to appeal against her sentence concluding it was "not arguably manifestly excessive". According to reports Mr Justice Griffiths said: "A blameless woman had been killed by the unlawful act of [Grey] with devastating impact upon the family she left behind and upon others including the entirely blameless driver of the car." He told the court 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."
Nothing I have read since my original post has swayed me from my original opinion that the trial verdict was gross misinterpretation of the evidence, that the trial judge failed in his summing up to give full weight to the defence and that the Appeal Court judges have repeated the the folly of their junior colleague.
But there is a further consideration about what this trial and its outcomes says about English justice. It seems that government policy is to put victims even closer to the supposed centre of justice with the latest announcement The Victims and Prisoners Bill introduced 29 March 2023. Justice is or perhaps in current terms was for decades represented as blind. Pressure from interested parties and failings within the police and prosecution services have led to actions by governments over the last two decades to once again achieve that balance which had certainly been out of kilter insofar as rape and other serious offending had been considered. But like so much legislation in this country it has been slow in formulation and excessive in degree. In the case considered here there was not a single victim; there were two victims. Whilst the guilty verdict is now closed it is surely the case that we have not heard the last of the outrageous sentence imposed at trial and rubber stamped by an Appeal Court which seems to have lost all sense and sensibility. If Auriol Grey has to wait for her sentence to be half completed next year before her release on parole can be contemplated then there should be hangings: English justice and those administering it should hang their heads in shame
ADDENDUM 8th April 2024
Rather belatedly I have become aware that on March 19th 2024 the "offender" Auriol Grey has been given leave to appeal her conviction. Press announcement is available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment