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.

Just interested to hear from others why it’s right that the Tate Gallery man was convicted, but wrong that this lady was convicted?

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

You thought wrong then because that’s a shared pavement which cyclists can use perfectly legally.

What if she felt intimidated by a person who was walking towards her, and pushed them into traffic?
She made the point of getting into the path of the cyclist, shouting and swearing at them.

The pavement looks quite narrow and right next to a busy road and I can imagine if someone like AG felt not too steady on their feet/lacked spacial awareness they might feel panicky about a cyclist coming towards them and unfortunately AG reacted the way she did (waving her arms, shouting and swearing). It all happened so quickly and it’s utterly tragic.

I really don’t think she should have been convicted of manslaughter and jailed. The original case seemed quite flimsy tbh and there seems to be no proof Auriol Grey pushed or even tried to push Celia Ward.. I also don’t think she deserves the dehumanising way she’s been described by some on this thread. Vile creature for example.

I feel bad for everyone involved especially those who loved and miss Celia Ward.

I'm disabled and meet plenty of cyclists on the pavement but I stop and move in if I can, just because someone is doing something they shouldn't doesn't mean you can act anyway you like, it was an elderly lady not a gang of youths racing down the path. I believe she should be punished, unfortunately the poor driver and the victims family are the ones who are truly suffering

Yes I never agreed with her being sentenced in the first place. I remember MN majority disagreed with me at the time. The lady looked wobbly and Grey was only pointing to the road, if the cyclist is going to be startled that easily perhaps she shouldn't have been on a bike in the first place.

I agree with @SwimmingSnake

It was an aggressive action - she deliberately crossed over into the cyclists path, swore and used her hands.

I think - even taking into account any disabilities, if any member of society causes harm to another - there needs to be consequences.

It could have been a child.

I think she has the capacity to do it again.

You're banding 'brain damaged' and 'disabled' around like someone so impaired that they can't be held responsible for their actions. If you watch any of the police interview footage, as well as watch the footage itself, you can see she is an articulate, well spoken woman who seemed to know exactly what she was doing, probably why they deemed her fit to stand trial.

The fact that they can't quite get there from an evidentiary standpoint, doesn't make it any less true that she in cold blood and seemingly without remorse caused Celia Ward's death that day.

There would surely have been paperwork if the pavement had been designated for pedestrians and cyclists precisely because of cases like this. From my point of view if they can't produce evidence that is was designated for dual use then it was a pavement for pedestrians.

It would be like the police trying to prosecute you for doing 60 in a 30 mph zone without any evidence of what the speed limit was. I can imagine the magistrate when the prosecution stated that "we think it was a 30 mph zone so they shouldn't have done 60." Not a very convincing case.

she might be articulate but her motor coordination and visual ability were impaired

There must be paperwork because that stretch of pavement is now clearly signed as dual use.

Children are allowed to cycle on the pavement, adults aren't and this is an elderly woman we're talking about, not a child.

Grey moved towards the cyclist. SHE got in the cyclist's path! Entirely by choice. Grey was in no danger whatsoever of harm. It was wholly an angry, and not defensive, reaction.

I find it absolutely perplexing that some seem to have NO consideration for the horrific death the cyclist suffered. Not even worth a mention! A horrific death that would NOT have occured had the deceased not been targetted by Grey. Grey never even waited, she went off shopping! And you were 'upset' on Grey's behalf??? Jeez.

Neither the council nor the police could produce evidence of that though could they.

For all those who keep stating with such certainty that the path was shared use:

But the police, in their evidence, said they could not categorically state that the route in question was a shared cycleway and the county council could find no legal records showing that it was.

And according to Department for Transport guidance on cycle infrastructure design — issued to councils in July 2020 — shared routes should be at least three metres wide on roads used by up to 300 cyclists per hour, and 4.5 metres wide on roads used by more than 300 cyclists per hour.

The stretch of pavement where Celia Ward fell off her bike into the path of an oncoming Volkswagen Passat was just 2.4 metres wide, and there wasn’t a sign indicating a ‘shared path’.

The pavement was certainly used by cyclists but unlawfully, it seems.

As for the determined insistence that Mrs Ward was pushed - there was no evidence of that either on CCTV, or given by witnesses to the incident, or the driver of the car that hit Mrs Ward. No Evidence.

Clearly they didn’t look hard enough. They’ve evidently found it now and erected signage.

I don’t think the cyclist was pushed onto the road. From the video (as far as one can see), and the report (accepting it is accurate), the pedestrian shouted and gesticulated at the oncoming cyclist to get off the footpath.

It wasn’t a very wide footpath, and the pedestrian appeared to be approaching a spot with a post/obstacle of some type on the right. So, she may have had to go to the right, and stop, to allow the bicycle to pass on the footpath.

I hope the council are looking at shared spaces like this, and how they can minimise this sort of thing happening. They wouldn’t need to reinvent the wheel. Look at countries which do this well, like the Netherlands.

What date is on the paperwork? It could have been prepared after this incident when they realised that either it had never been designated for cycling or if it had they had no evidence of it.

or they've just made it shared use.

Name change as I live in Huntingdon and have walked that same path.

I think Ms Grey’s conviction should not have been overturned. The idea that moving aggressively towards a cyclist on a shared cycle/pedestrian path, waving your arms, blocking their path while screaming “get off the fucking pavement” is not an unlawful act is ridiculous.

We have public order offences on the books whereby if such behaviour even makes an individual feel threatened and intimidated, the aggressive blocking you way while shouting & swearing person has done an unlawful act. I’m thinking of Section 5. Failing that, it is at least an ASBO which while not criminal, but civil is still unlawful.

To say Ms Grey was acting lawfully means I can go about blocking people’s way while waving my arms, shouting and swearing at them.

She directly caused the death of an innocent, older woman. She didn’t even stop to call emergency services. Even though her victim went into the road to avoid hitting her and went immediately under an oncoming car. A car she could not see behind her, but Ms Grey would have seen. Ms Grey just kept going and did her shopping. Absolutely callous. The pity for her is unwarranted. None of her medical conditions cause this sort of behaviour.

Again when was that paperwork drawn up?

No, it has been dual use as long as I have lived here, so at least 4 years.

I find it terrifying that some of these posters could potentially sit on a Jury. Emotive, reactive, and unable to separate established fact from fiction or hearsay.

But was it legally dual use? If it was why was there no evidence from the police or the council.