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

[Locutus2000]

Reported in multiple outlets - BBC.

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

so couldn’t she be guilty of number 2? Isn’t it something like it’s gross negligence if the average person could foresee that the actions (yelling and lunging at the cyclist) could result in what happened?

Everyone's mentioning her disabilities but I'm not sure that's actually what it was decided on

The bbc article the OP links to refers to the question being whether what she did would have been classed as assault and therefore an illegal act necessary to prove the type of manslaughter she was charged with.

The judges didn't believe it was. They refer to saying if it was enough to amount to an illegal act they'd have to criminalise loads of football fans after a match.

I can't see that her disabilities are necessarily relevant.

How dare you. ‘An old woman who’s died’ - she was a cherished wife, mum and retired midwife.

Whether she panicked or not is irrelevant, she knew what she did was wrong because she lied. People can have a learning difficulty and still be mentally competent enough to stand trial.

Isn’t it funny how the ‘vulnerable’ in society now tend to be the aggressors? People high on drugs, committing crimes or screaming and swearing at members of the public and trying to intimidate them. This is why people get fed up of the ‘they’re so vulnerable’ line being rammed down their throats, makes no bloody sense. All we seem to do as a society is kow tow to their ‘needs’ and ‘vulnerabilities’ while they make our society a much worse place to be without a care in the world.

So I don’t care about Ms Gray’s state frankly, all I care about is the pain and suffering caused to Mrs Ward’s husband and family.

@CormorantStrikesBack no, it couldn't be GN manslaughter because you have to show there as a duty of care either by their relationship eg marriage or assumed care like step parent. There's also other cases like being a police officer but there wasn't that relationship between the two individuals in this case

I was listening to radio 4 yesterday and they were reporting another case where the pedestrian was killed. They had Judge Wendy Joseph giving the legal view, she was a lawyer who has published books about legal issues and I think they said she was the judge in the case. They basically said cycling is a lawless activity and if a cyclists kills you there is no law that properly covers that. For the case they were talking about they used some law that was about 200 years old so the cyclist could only get a maximum 2 year sentence but I think he got 18 months.

I just did a google search to try and find the case and it is shocking how many cases came up with people getting fines or a sentence of 2 years or less.

A police interview where they didn’t follow the guidelines on vulnerable adults. I’d be very wary of relying on anything said in that interview. It’s completely possible for someone vulnerable with learning disabilities to be pushed into admitting something they didn’t do. Which is why there are rules.

Absolutely the right decision, imvho. Cyclists should never be permitted to cycle on pavements when within touching distance of a pedestrian - she should have dismounted well before she got anywhere near the pedestrian and walked her bike past her. Pedestrians should always take priority over cyclists on pavements, as pavements are primarily for pedestrians, not bicycles. I am not at all surprised that the pedestrian was frightened and angry to have someone cycling towards her, given her disabilities - partially blind and with cerebral palsy. It’s time cyclists realised many pedestrians fear people on bicycles, because too many cyclists behave dangerously themselves - too many cycle through red lights and barge past pedestrians on pavements. This was very much a case of “sweet old lady on bicycle versus nasty old disabled woman,” taking no account of the difficulties with spatial awareness of the pedestrian, which would surely have made the cyclist seem much more alarming to her than the average person.

Thank you.

When I lived in London, almost every cyclist went through every single red light there was. It was very rare to see a cyclist stopped at red lights, except at Parliament Square, and that was definitely because there were a great many police dotted around there.

But on other threads about cyclists on here, it's always denied that this happens.

Cyclists need to take responsibility for their entitled and very poor road use.

This is what Gray said in her police interview:

She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.

She virtually admitted pushing her.

Here in Germany unless it's clearly delineated that cyclists use one half of the path & pedestrians the other then pedestrians will always have priority.

Even if it's delineated you can't just cycle along regardless!

I do wish people would read the judgement. Here's the final paragraphs summing up their decision. My highlights. You don't have to like it but there simply wasn't legal grounds for a charge.

The appellant’s actions that day contributed to Mrs Ward’s
untimely death. It seems to us that this formed the starting point for the prosecution. Had Mrs Ward not died, we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would ever have been charged with assault in circumstances where it could not be established that she had made any physical contact with the cyclist.

The death of Mrs Ward is plainly of great significance and undoubtedly called for proper investigation of any criminal responsibility. However, the requirement to prove all the legal elements of common assault remained the same and were simply not addressed as they should have been.

In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is unsafe. The judge’s legal directions contained fundamental and material misdirections of law. That stemmed from the failure of all involved to properly identify and address the issues to be determined by the jury. Had the need to identify and prove a base offence been recognised, the evidential
insufficiency of the prosecution case would have been recognised. There was, in our judgment, simply no proper basis for the appellant to be convicted of manslaughter in this very tragic case.

I think this is the wrong decision. A lady is dead directly because of this woman’s actions.

she admitted making contact with her and when I watched the cctv it very much looked like a push.

she then left her dying and went off to do her shopping.

it was a shared use path, but even if not that doesn’t give someone the right to take matters into their own hands and push them to their death.

Sounds like the overturned conviction is down to a set of convoluted technicalities.

The conviction should NOT have been overturned. The footage of the incident is horrific. The legal process may be complex, however the logic of it is very simple - had Grey not frightened the cyclist, she wouldn't have ended up on the road.

If that had been my Mum or Gran killed, I'd be absolutely furious at the conviction being overturned

May have made light contact unintentionally is not a criminal offence though.

What? A brain damaged and disabled woman should spend years in jail because you believe something which you (and a number of lawyers, jury members and judges) have not been able to prove in any way? Are you serious or was this just badly expressed?

Not when it’s accompanied by “Get off the fucking pavement”? And it results in someone ending up under the wheels of a car? The law’s an ass in this case and she’s got off on a technicality.

I am on the fence on this. She caused the death of someone else, and that can't be ignored. The full footage is not shown online (rightly so), but it apparently shows her pushing the cyclist. She also shouted and swore, then went off to carry on with shopping after it all happened. The driver of the car who hit the cyclist has had her life totally ruined too.

I hope AG is getting proper support now.

I really think people would feel differently if a child had fallen into traffic as a result.

On the CCTV footage, she does walk into the path of the cyclist - deliberately I’d say.

The path was shared use, the council have said they’ll put up better signage.

As far as I remember it couldn't be confirmed whether it was or not as neither the police or the council knew for sure.

Auriol should not have been charged. I was upset at her conviction, she is clearly less able and a person on a vehicle was driving toward her & she was protecting herself from harm. (yes, bicycles are vehicles)
it was not premeditated, it was a defensive REACTION to danger.

who thought she needed prison for “rehabilitation”??

I thought bicycles were never allowed on pavements, certainly not one that narrow with no warnings to pedestrians!!!

I think in this case the consideration makes sense and is consistent with the events as described.

After all, in general if someone is in fear of being attacked by someone, it would not be expected for them to continue moving forwards and try to move past in a restricted space, their first instinct would be to slow down and stop.

I don't see any clear evidence either way that the pedestrian either pushed the cyclist, acted to protect herself and put her arms up and made contact, or didn't push her at all, which as far as I can tell was the conclusion that led to the initial trial not pursing the push aspect.

It doesn't really matter about the guidelines from a facts point of view.

The police didn't coerce her into anything they showed her pictures, and asked her what happened, the video shows the police being very calm, kind and understanding towards her and her explaining in her own words.

police: "how did she end up in the road"
AG: "I think the bike may have swerved onto the road"
police "I'll make this quite a straightforward, sort of almost, yes or no answer, did you make contact with the bike or person riding it, did you touch them with your hand?"
AG: "In a vague way.. only as she was going by"
police: "describe in a vague way"
AG: "lightly?"
police: "lightly"