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

Not a risk to others? She's already killed one person!

I did not say I knew. My words were 'I guess'. It's a possible reason why someone would not dismount. I may have kept riding if I had seen a person behaving aggressively, in order to get past and away from the threat.

I agree, unsupervised she is a risk.

I agree that this was an accident. I don’t think this should be turned into a unsavoury debate whether an nt or nd person was at fault.
To be honest I am I’m tired of MN’s obsession with excusing shitty behaviour by neurodiversity when it suits people, just to turn around to condemn someone else for the same issues. My issue is with MN posters, and not aimed at either of these unfortunate women.

She surely can't go back to where this all happened the poor victims family. She needs a new identity and moving miles away from the victims family preferable to a secure hospital. What if that had been a young teenager she pushed into the road, surely this also makes a mockery of men serving time for one punch deaths when it was a 50:50 fight. One rule for her and another for everyone else 😡

Absolutely right!
It does make a complete and utter mockery of men who punch someone and kill them.

Was Grey let off just because she is disabled?

If so, it gives free rein to anyone who may be neurodiverse or disabled in any way to go pushing people into traffic - and then play the ''I- I- I can't remember'' that Grey did during her police interview.

Her lack of remorse is sickening.

THIS is what makes her dangerous.

She can't tell right from wrong.

That police interview showed her for the liar she is.

Her strong left arm DID make contact with the poor victim.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2900001/Video-Police-interview-49-year-old-pavement-killer-Auriol-Gray.html

Lies lies and more lies...Grey is a stranger to the truth.

I'd quite happily ride my bike past her on the pavement if I lived near her.

@oakleaffy there's a lot she conveniently can't remember in that interview

Some incredibly harsh responses on this thread. She has a learning disability and autism which affect her to the extent that she can’t live independently. It is not a surprise that she doesn’t present as a ‘normal’ person would in an interview.

There’s a lot of sympathy for disabled children on MN. Well they grow up and become disabled adults.

True, but if you have a ND child who is now an adult, and their behaviour caused the death of someone, would you be so fast to say "but, ND", and expect them to be let off scot free?
A lady was killed, and the car driver's life was fucked up too. She ended up with PTSD and her marriage ended.

Hopefully not the type to push someone into the path of oncoming cars.

Sympathy does tend to dwindle when people are no longer children- that's just life...for everyone.
Adults are held as more accountable.

And doesn't give a straight answer to the rest. Does admit making contact. They surely wouldn't have tolerated such tactics in court?

Sympathy does tend to dwindle when people are no longer children- that's just life...for everyone.
Adults are held as more accountable.

In which case there is no benefit in making life for nd children as convenient as possible because they won’t get the same sympathy as adults.
This is woman clearly needs help, and condemning her and wishing her harm is cruel.

We have a long joint cycle/walk path along a river (not road). It often feels like walking down a motorway. Especially on a curve or if someone comes behind you. They don't slow down (and boy are they fast) and mostly don't use there bells.
I admit I shouted after one once when he almost took me out and I had to jump into a bramble Bush.
I looked it up and the more vulnerable user (ie walker) has right of way.

@BurnoutGP and there have been other cases of reckless cyclists who cause injury or death to pedestrians but let's not conflate that with what happened here.

The aggression towards the cyclist AND the physical contact (putting her arm out. The absolute opposite of trying to move out the way of the cyclist) led directly to the cyclist being killled. I hadn't realised what @XenoBitch posted either that the poor car driver suffered PTSD and her marriage broke up after this incident. Absolutely shocking.

So I was talking about this to a police officer friend today and she was amazed the conviction was overturned. I told her it seemed to be on the basis that Auriol Grey hadn’t done anything illegal as the physical contact couldn’t be proved.

she said that to be guilty of common assault you don’t need to make contact. You can be guilty if someone thinks you are about to make contact. So shouting, raising an arm can be enough. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/outlines/assault/

so she did do something illegal, which resulted in the death of an innocent cyclist who had every right to be there. I’d be furious if I was that woman’s family.

I know you don't need to make contact for it to be assault, but the police didn't charge her with assault.

I'll say again, no person should be in the position of walking on a pavement and coming across a cyclist heading towards them. The council caused this IMHP by not marking two areas on the pavement or by not making it the default of it being a pedestrian area.

I know they didn’t, they should have done. She’s got away with killing somebody on a technicality because the police didn’t charge her with the right thing. And I cycle on loads of shared paths which aren’t marked on the actual path tarmac. Just signposts every now and then, often a mile or more between them. Yes clearer marking would have made it more obvious but it’s not uncommon for it not to be marked.

@CormorantStrikesBack exactly, it was a technicality that without an assault charge, there couldn't be a manslaughter conviction. Swearing and gesticulating aggressively is assault, plus Grey admitted eventually that she did make physical contact with the victim.

Shared cycle and pedestrian paths do exist, as this one does, and yes there may well be a case for saying there ought to be better signage and markings, I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. The fact remains though that the cyclist would not have been killed if it hadn't been for Grey's aggression towards her.

Could I remind everyone that pedestrians can be vulnerable for a number of reasons. Do you think that visually impaired people should not be allowed out? Or people who are deaf? Or have severe mobility issues? All of those people are, quite rightly, permitted to be out by themselves. The issue with this case is that bikes and pedestrians don't mix. Where I live we have similar shared paths, and some which aren't shared. Cyclists use them as raceways, and are often a danger to pedestrians. I'm not saying that the cyclist in this case was doing that to be clear. But if we want pedestrians and cyclists to be safe then sharing a walkway isn't the answer. I feel sorry for both parties, and feel that the system failed both.

This was a tragic incident.

Perhaps the learning from this incident will be that for a start, on mixed lanes there should always be lines illustrating clearly one side for cyclists, the other for pedestrians. Also for normal pavements no adults should be cycling on them (yes I've shouted at a few coming hurtling towards my toddler on the pavement because they shouldn't be there). Thirdly if you are cycling towards a pedestrian, you should do so slowly, stop for them as they have right of way and disembark if the path is narrow.

Maybe rather than listening to a "police officer friend" who is probably telling you what you want to hear you should refer to the appeal court judgement prepared by three (3) appeal court judges no doubt after an extensive review of the case for an explanation as to why they came to the decision they did.

It's pretty clearly written.