Auriol Grey conviction overturned

[Icantpossibly]

The original decision split opinion and I have no doubt today’s one will do the same.
I saw the report in The Independent online.
Aplogies if this duplicates another post. I looked and couldn’t see one

You're looking at it emotionally not objectively. There are millions of horrible people around, a handful here on MN too, that are not in prison. When looking at the case, you have to look at the facts of the case, not someone's character.

Did she set out to kill?
Could she reasonably have predicted her death?
Did she assault her?
Did she push her?
Was there any physical contact?

The answer to the above is NO. NO offence took place that day as far as law is concerned and the case closes right there.

This is probably another topic, but cases like these is where I disagree with jury service in principle. You have a bunch of emotional people sitting there judging you and sealing your fate, instead of looking at the facts of the case.

Rubbish, AG admitted herself that she made physical contact

Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked.

so she did commit assault. 🤷‍♀️

The problem is the jury were never asked to deliberate on whether they felt it was assault or not. They could have done so and could have come to a conclusion that they believed the cyclist was afraid she was about to be attacked which would make it assault. And let’s face it most people would think Celia could reasonably have thought she was going to be attacked. But because the judge didn’t ask the jury to consider that the verdict cannot stand. Shame some people didn’t do their jobs better.

Yes, and that lack of clarity backed up by the Council adding more signs after this tragedy to state that particular section was included as a shared path. Certainly seems obvious that AG didn't realise it was a shared path.

@VinnieVanDog whether AG realised it was a shared path or not doesn't excuse her verbal and physical aggression. And the fact she lied in the police interview suggests she knew she'd done wrong.

I know the path, it's a very long shared facility and yes, it's narrower in places than the recommended width for shared paths and yes there were gaps in the signage. No one is denying that. Just as no one is denying that legally AG hasn't committed a crime.

There's the legal aspect and then there's the moral issue of whether it's acceptable to do what AG did. Clearly some people think she has done nothing wrong. Others do not believe that CW would have been killed if AG hadn't been verbally and physically aggressive to her.

From the clip, it appears that she gestured to her to get off the path. Yes she was aggressive and swearing, but that can not be considered as assault. That woman perhaps wrongly believed that footpath wasn't shared and as such she shouldn't be cycling on it. Im sure incidents like these are common, especially in busy cities like London. As I said, the incident is tragic but she definitely isn't guilty of assault or manslaughter. Correct decision by the appeal court

I think it would be strange for her to not know it was a shared path if she was a local and a regular user of the path. Especially if she had previously attacked a cyclist, surely she would have been spoken to by a carer or someone and taught about shared paths after the first attack?

Off the path would be into the road in the path of the cars.

@Cantthinkofone123 you're wrong, swearing and gesturing aggressively can be considered assault though wasn't in this case. You've also overlooked the fact AG admitted making physical contact when she flung her arm at CW. She couldn't deny that when faced with cctv evidence .

AG didn't admit making physical contact with CW and CCTV didn't prove that she did.

Hang on...aren't cyclists meant to be on the road?

@VinnieVanDog watch the police interview. AG admits it
@Cantthinkofone123 not on shared facilities

But she may not have realised it was shared! Hence my point, it's just a tragic case. Not criminal

And yet it wasn't mentioned in the court cases or any reporting that I've seen and only this morning on this thread posters were saying Police thought she might have touched her, after they made blow-ups of cctv images?

If there was a shared path then that suggests that the road may have been dangerous for cyclists. Also, cyclists should not suddenly ride off a shared path into the road without checking it is safe to enter the traffic. It was clearly dangerous for Celia to 'get off the fucking path', she was killed.

If she was a local then surely she had encountered cyclists on the path before? Even a cyclist on a normal footpath should not be suddenly forced into traffic.

Encountering and knowing the legal definition of said path are two separate things. Seriously just let it go. She is innocent, and has been cleared. I wont be contributing to this topic anymore

If she doesn't know it's wrong to force someone into danger, regardless of the type of path, then she will do it again. It's not over, she is a danger to other people.

@VinnieVanDog you're wrong, the police didn't think AG 'might' have touched CW. They showed her photographic evidence of her hand on CW's jacket.

You seem to be the only person who's aware of that. Which is odd.

As I and others have stated the “shared path” didn’t have correct signage so it was harder for both parties to state where the shared path started and finished.

Auriol did not legally cause Celia’s death but morally she did do so.

'You seem to be the only person who's aware of that. Which is odd.'

@VinnieVanDog you clearly haven't watched the police interview where AG is asked directly if she touched CW and she replied 'only in a vague way.' When asked to describe what that meant she said 'lightly.'

imagine this if she had done this to a child i really hope lessons are learnt and this never happens again my thoughts is with the family of the lady that she killed she acted callous she acted horrible and entitled the thing is she was seen and heard acting very arggesive i have mental health and disability myself and i wouldnt dream of doing something like this at all

my main concern why this miss gray allowed out unsupervised and next time this could be a child. What she did was dreadful she left a poor woman driver traumatised and a death of a lady by getting no help and going shopping soon afterwards not once did she call or ask for help she coukd very easy have called 999 and got help disgusting well i really hope the families can now do a private prosecution now