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.

I’m a fellow Huntingdonian. It’s been shared use since it was built over 50 years ago. It looks as if some long dead council officer might have fucked up the paperwork.

This case shows exactly why cyclists should never be on pavements unless they are small children. It doesn’t matter if the path was shared use, the cyclist still shouldn’t be doing anything that causes other people fear and worry, which this cyclist clearly did. If there are no laws around cycling then everyone else needs to be kept safe from them, so they should be on the road where other users are not likely to be more vulnerable than they are.

Grey should never have been convicted in the first place.

It wasn't just that they weren't instructed. The reason the Court of Appeal refused the prosecution's request for a retrial is that there isn't the evidence to support a conviction for assault.

I'm not saying that it is never an unlawful act that can lead to a manslaughter charge, although I think it would be highly unusual for simply screaming and waving your arms. To take your situation, I would be surprised if you could convince a jury that X thought they were about to be attacked and even more surprised if you could convince them that you intended X to believe they were about to be attacked or, alternatively, that you knew they would think you were going to attack them but went ahead anyway.

Gross negligence manslaughter is usually for deaths following medical treatment, workplace incidents or deaths in custody. Outside of those settings, it is most likely to apply when the defendant knew (or should have known) that the deceased was in urgent need of medical attention but failed to seek medical assistance.

Apparently her fitness to stand trial wasn't assessed. Again, I wasn't there and I'm not going to rely on unreliable and contradictory social media hysteria but do you realise believe people suffering with brain damage should be judged by the same standards as everyone else? By that notion then there shouldn't be any need for any help with special schooling, parents of brain damaged children shouldn't need extra help caring for them etc. I'd bet my life there are an awful lot of relatives of brain damaged people who would go berserk at that. Are they all wrong? If, as appears to be the case, she is mentally disabled in some way, it's impossible to judge this case without taking that into account.

I'm not an apologist for her, I'm simply not claiming to have secure inside information the way some people on this thread are - information that apparently lawyers, judges, juries and the police were not even privy to such as a very definite 'it was a dual use path' when even the local council who supposedly designated it as such couldn't confirm that in a trial! And 'she pushed her' when even the prosecuting legal team didn't try to argue that point. There are a number of very personal comments about both the victim and the alleged criminal on this post from people who either know some of those involved in real life - even if they haven't admitted it - or are completely unhinged.

Seems like she got off on a technicality. Its a real shame the CCTV didn't show the scene better - if it did I expect the sentence would not have been overturned.

All I hope is that AG's family make sure she is not in a position to do this again, and keep her under supervision.

I take on board that Mrs Ward was a cherished mother, retired midwife and mum.

However, as I’ve also said she was sharing the pavement with a user who had impaired visibility amongst other disabilities and had Mrs Ward simply stopped her bicycle and got off and walked, having anticipated a pedestrian also on the shared path then this accident would’ve probably been avoided. Why on earth Mrs Ward didn’t get off and walk her bicycle is beyond me. Did she think her right of way was greater than Auriol’s?

I don’t doubt that Auroil could be a difficult character prone to outbursts though.

There are signs saying it's a mixed pedestrian cycle path further up, but there are no signs saying the cycle path has ended.

Are you kidding?

Mumsnet is one of the most hideously ableist spaces I've encountered online.

You don't appear to have any actual evidence either but seem very keen to convict her! I just don't understand what that's about.

That I do not know as I don’t check the records with the council for every path I walk. All I know is that path has been regularly used by cyclists and pedestrians for at least four years. A cyclist on it is a normal, every day sight.

I am not sure it matters overmuch because if permissive policing has set a precedent that a certain path is dual use by, there would be no way for a cyclist to reasonably conclude it wasn’t a legal dual use path.

Even on a shared use pathway, a cyclist should give way to a pedestrian. You can’t just cycle into someone because you also have a right to be on the pavement. Particularly if the pedestrian might reasonably not expect you to be there, due to poor signage.

It’s also fundamentally ableist (and appalling) that at least one PP has said that people shouldn’t be on shared use paths if their disability means they can feel intimidated by other users. Shared use pathways can be the only access route for pedestrians and it’s not acceptable for cyclists to be prioritised over accessibility. Cyclists have the option to slow down, dismount, or yield to a pedestrian- a disabled person may have no alternative for access.

Neither of those specifically relate to this case - as the presence or absence of an “unlawful act” seems to be the legal point, rather than whether the cyclist should have been present or not, or any questions over their conduct. My point is more general - some of the posts on this thread are really disappointingly ableist.

I think the local authority created this mess. Cyclists and pedestrians don't mix. This case aside, I could imagine myself instinctively pushing away a cyclist that I thought was going to cycle into me or my old dog.

I’ve seen non small children (so at least 10 years old) cycling towards me the wrong way usually with their father, on a pavement and at speed. So many cyclists are entitled and think they can and should use a pavement which is designed primarily for pedestrians, not cyclists.

Being off work recently I’ve been in my local high streets more than usual and have seen various vulnerable pedestrians, elderly and disabled, some of whom struggle to walk. Why should they have to contend with cyclists on pavements?

There wouldn't be one copy, the council would have at least one and the police would have two, well they did in the police force I worked in, one on the division and one at HQ. So if you mean they lost the paperwork I don't see that as likely. If you mean it was never legally designated as shared use then it wasn't legally shared use.

Hello! I am fairly new to Huntingdon. Moved here from Alconbury- not far.
If it has been for 50yrs might be that the paper based records were not digitised?

It was an elderly lady cycling. It is a narrow and uneven section of pavement next to a 2 lane one way road with very narrow lanes. I very much doubt she was cycling at any speed.

The accused comes across as a very unpleasant person, albeit with significant issues.

Maybe the lady's judgment to cycle there was not the best decision, but she didn't deserve to have arms waved at her, be yelled at, let alone possibly hit and the outcome being her death.

I have cyclists that pass me on pavements, I either move as it's easy on foot, or if I'm in a bad mood say, 'this is a footpath' as I move. Never in a million years would I wave my arms and risk throwing them off balance, especially with heavy traffic passing close by.

Is there a particular reason why you are repeatedly using such dehumanising language to describe a disabled person?

I think it does matter, if it doesn't there isn't much point having laws is there. I'm afraid the onus is on the cyclist to obey the law and "I concluded it was lawful" isn't a great defence.

We always kept paper copies on the division and HQ.

As far as one can see from the video, the pedestrian and cyclist meet at the point where there is a signpost taking up space on the footpath. This narrows the navigable space at that point, so they wouldn’t be passing each other with ease. I think one would have had to stop and give way to the other for it to be safe.

this was a tragic case and she should never have been found guilty. It’s part of a much bigger problem that society has with cyclists’ attitudes. We need clear laws on what and where cyclists can do what and how they can do it, whatever it is!
A cyclist recently had to be prosecuted under an ancient law because although they caused a pedestrian’s death by riding dangerously the manslaughter law couldn’t be applied.
If cyclists’ common sense and good manners do not allow them to police themselves then the law will have to do
it for them and they will finally get their just desserts 🤞

Quite. That path is certainly not what you’d expect to be a cycle path. It looks like a bog standard footpath and certainly there’s not enough room for a cyclist to pass a pedestrian with a comfortable space between them. I would expect to stop and move right to side if I was cycling along it and a pedestrian was coming towards me. Let alone one who was waving her arms.

From what a PP has stated the council only put signs that it’s dual use after this incident and it was listed as a pedestrian path previously.

the 'right of way' argument is bugging me, left unchecked they would have passed each other without either giving 'way', it's only because Auriol Grey crossed into Celia Wards path forcing her to the pavement edge that there became an issue. Celia probably could have stopped then, but in fairness I wouldn't have wanted to stop next to someone who was gesticulating wildly and shouting and swearing, and obviously looking for a confrontation, I'd have tried to get past and away from her as quickly as possible.

I'm sure if Celia Ward knew Auriol Grey would shove her into the road, she may have made that few-seconds decision very differently.

I understand she has now been diagnosed autistic as well.

Not everyone who is autistic would make the same mistakes of course as everyone autistic is different, but I would say that someone with significant issues with flexible thinking might well shout like Auriol did, thinking the cyclist should not be in the pavement, especially if they have learning needs and are partly sighted and unsteady on their feet as she clearly is in the video. That she left before the emergency services arrived and went on to do her shopping is a very clear statement as to the significance of her social understanding differences/difficulties and flexible thinking issues.

I think she probably needed more social and practical support than she was getting, but as a middle aged woman she was undiagnosed autistic and the level of challenges she faced clearly underestimated.

It's a tragedy for Mrs Ward's family either way.

It didn’t matter to either court, so it doesn’t matter. Probably because here in Huntingdon it is commonly known to be a legal dual use path. The loss of the records to prove it doesn’t erase that community awareness that we all have living here.