Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Auriol Grey's manslaughter sentence overturned for killing cyclist. Correct decision?

1000 replies

Locutus2000 · 08/05/2024 14:17

Reported in multiple outlets - BBC.

Mixed feelings - it was a complex case with no winners on any side.

Auriol Grey

Pedestrian Auriol Grey has Huntingdon cyclist death conviction overturned

A woman whose actions led to the death of a pensioner cycling on a pavement wins a court appeal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
Crabble · 08/05/2024 14:20

Absolutely tragic case, and I feel for the victim’s family.

This woman should however never have been convicted. Regardless of the rights of wrongs of what she did, she committed no base offence on which a charge of manslaughter could be founded.

deragod · 08/05/2024 14:22

Yes, that is correct decision. BBC's article contains explanation.

Hoppinggreen · 08/05/2024 14:23

While I feel her actions did directly contribute to the cyclists death I am not sure if it warranted a jail sentence.

Elephantswillnever · 08/05/2024 14:25

I Felt the same as you. Personally I don’t think cyclists should be on pavements. If I remember correctly the
local authorities were unsure about whether that particular pavement was mixed use. It is further up and has signage but that one didn’t or some such if I remember correctly?

It’s all a bit sad, I’m sorry for the victim of course but also the perpetrator has some physical / mental difficulties. On balance I’d say she shouldn’t be locked up but I definitely have splinters from spending so long on the fence.

Ponderingwindow · 08/05/2024 14:25

Correct decision.

tragic incident, but this was never manslaughter.

GasPanic · 08/05/2024 14:26

I agree it was a very tragic case and I feel very sorry for the woman who died.

However when I looked at the evidence there seemed to be question marks everywhere. Every time I looked at various aspects of the case I found something that didn't sit right with me, or led to what I believed was some sort of inconsistency.

So it doesn't really come as a great shock to me the conviction was overturned.

I don't think there are any winners here.

Aquamarine1029 · 08/05/2024 14:26

It's an outrage this woman was ever charged, nevermind convicted.

ToxicChristmas · 08/05/2024 14:27

It was the right decision to overturn and she shouldn't have been convicted and jailed. Such a sad situation all round, especially for the Wards who have lost a beloved family member.

ElaineSqueaks · 08/05/2024 14:29

I suppose there are loads of people just roaming around whose erratic and anti social behaviour could have caused the death of someone else. In this case it did cause the death of somebody.

TheYearOfSmallThings · 08/05/2024 14:32

I think this decision is correct. It was always clear from AG's behaviour and demeanor that she was not functioning at a normal level.

Fargo79 · 08/05/2024 14:32

She should never have been convicted. It's very difficult to have faith in our justice system a lot of the time.

WhatNoRaisins · 08/05/2024 14:32

On the fence too but one of things I thought of was that unlike driving or cycling there aren't really any laws on how a pedestrian should use the pavement. They couldn't prove that Grey pushed the cyclist which would be an obvious assault. There's no requirement for pedestrians to move out of the way of cyclists.

Not sure how shared cycle paths should be handled when there are risks to cyclists from falling into the road.

TheShellBeach · 08/05/2024 14:32

Auriol Grey should never have been charged.

The cyclist was at fault for being on the pavement.

Flopsythebunny · 08/05/2024 14:37

TheShellBeach · 08/05/2024 14:32

Auriol Grey should never have been charged.

The cyclist was at fault for being on the pavement.

The cyclist was allowed to be on the pavement. But even if she wasn't, she didn't deserve to be pushed into the path of an oncoming car.
It certainly wasn't an accident

Fargo79 · 08/05/2024 14:37

ElaineSqueaks · 08/05/2024 14:29

I suppose there are loads of people just roaming around whose erratic and anti social behaviour could have caused the death of someone else. In this case it did cause the death of somebody.

I don't agree that her behaviour was erratic or antisocial and actually I feel that's a very ableist accusation. She has impaired eyesight and a physical disability and someone was coming towards her down the middle of the footpath riding a bicycle. It's entirely understandable that this was frightening and a threat to her safety. She could easily have been the one knocked into the road herself.

Unicorntearsofgin · 08/05/2024 14:39

Correct decision.

The conviction was unsafe. Rudeness is unpleasant but it isn’t a crime.

Sympathies with the victims family though.

TheFairyCaravan · 08/05/2024 14:39

It’s the right decision. She should never have been charged, let alone sent to prison, in the first place.

OneTC · 08/05/2024 14:40

I disagree with this decision.

Allfur · 08/05/2024 14:40

TheShellBeach · 08/05/2024 14:32

Auriol Grey should never have been charged.

The cyclist was at fault for being on the pavement.

Would you say that if it was your child

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 08/05/2024 14:41

Great news.

bluecomputerscreen · 08/05/2024 14:41

gojng against the grain here.
I think this is the wrong decision. it was a shared path and the cyclist was reasonable to be there. her actions caused a person's death.

LittleBrenda · 08/05/2024 14:42

TheShellBeach · 08/05/2024 14:32

Auriol Grey should never have been charged.

The cyclist was at fault for being on the pavement.

Wasn't that fully explained in the trial, that it was a shared pathway.

frankincenseandmyrrh · 08/05/2024 14:43

She has form for being aggressive to cyclists. And now this woman is dead. I wouldn't want to be the next cyclist she sends into the road.

MalcolmTuckersSwearBox · 08/05/2024 14:44

Flopsythebunny · 08/05/2024 14:37

The cyclist was allowed to be on the pavement. But even if she wasn't, she didn't deserve to be pushed into the path of an oncoming car.
It certainly wasn't an accident

"Pushed"

Where does it say she was pushed by AG? The BBC report says she "shouted and waved" at the cyclist.

QualityDog · 08/05/2024 14:44

TheShellBeach · 08/05/2024 14:32

Auriol Grey should never have been charged.

The cyclist was at fault for being on the pavement.

That's a shocking thing to say.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.