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.

No, as my friend was recently in court for a incident of raging in public, and their autism did not get them off at all... although it might have triggered some support, which is a good thing.

I hope the same happens with AG. I doubt she has been let out of prison and left to just get on with things. Although, I would not be surprised.

https://news.sky.com/story/auriol-grey-woman-who-caused-cyclist-to-fall-into-road-has-manslaughter-conviction-overturned-13131427

Source for autism diagnosis btw. Though watching her it's obvious.

Entirely possible. Or that an inept council official simply failed to produce it and nobody noticed at the time.

A sad and difficult case but given Ms Greys disabilities I don't think prison was the right sentence

Yes a totally correct decision which was a long time coming in truth. It is perfectly reasonable to call out and gesture at reckless cyclists who are heading in your direction. You don't have to get out of their way although in this case it is not clear that there was any attempt to agree which side to pass on.

video of pushing cyclist

You don't have to get out of their way, although a fast moving vehicle coming towards you, be it a bije, car, scooter, is not something you want to be in front of. It's stubborn not to

You seriously think elderly cyclists can’t cycle at speed? Near my DP’s house there live 2 family friends, a couple, both 70s. They can definitely cycle at speed because I’ve seen them do so.

I don’t understand what video everyone else watched?! She clearly pushed her. The only reason she didn’t get done for it is because it’s not “beyond reasonable doubt”. That doesn’t mean any normal bloody person can’t see it happened.

She must have been “so scared”!!!! So scared that she stepped towards the cyclist to confront her? Nasty piece of work

It was definitely manslaughter.

Shocking that the conviction has been overturned.

Speeding septuagenarians are an absolute menace on our streets

It's interesting because when this was debated before with people I wondered whether we were watching the same video !

To me there is no clear evidence of a push, no clear evidence of the pedestrian moving towards the cyclist (to me she appeared to move pretty much in a straight line down the path) when you reference her walk to features on the pavement.

There was no detail provided on the path width and whether the street furniture was included in that width (I think it was a lamp post you mention). To me the placing of the street furniture was crucial as that surely would affect the side chosen by the cyclist to pass on, and maybe also the trajectory of the cyclist and any potential narrowing of the path where the encounter took place.

These are all questions that left me confused. People appeared to insist there were other videos that showed further evidence of the encounter that were too horrific to show but I simply don't believe that, since they surely would have been released to the public to support the conviction, and any extra detail of the encounter would have been well before the terrible collision further on and therefore would have been acceptable to release.

The whole thing left me scratching my head.

But which side was she supposed to move to? We don't know where the cyclist was until the last second.

You can't just lash out at anyone who annoys you on the street, however justified you feel it may be. The world would be mayhem.

Proving something beyond reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of a criminal
trial.

It’s also subjective. She was convicted for a reason, that was overturned for another. We can sit here and argue about whether she should have been done for manslaughter, but regardless her behaviour was despicable and caused the death of an innocent woman.

So this decision has created a bit of an opportunity for cyclist haters then, if it's legal for them to go around deliberately startling them in the hope they might swerve into the path of another vehicle? As long as they don't touch or threaten them. Maybe bursting a balloon or firing a starter pistol?

Don't be silly. The evidence of her additional needs is very significant in her level of culpability.

No, it was unclear as to whether it was a shared path. The Council weren't sure.

The point is that if something is proven betting reasonable doubt then it’s not subjective.

The Court of Appeal found that this could not be made on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

I don’t see a push either. I was expecting to see an obvious push when I first read about the case, and the cyclist falling sideways after ‘being pushed’, but there isn’t one. It looks like AG gestures with her thumb and hand towards the road. Then the poor cyclist seems to turn her front wheel (I assumed she might have been trying to join/cross the road after AG shouted at her) and falls.

A tragic death and very sad, but i don’t think AG should have been convicted as there wasn’t enough evidence.

Change it from a mature lady on a bicycle to a 5 year old on a scooter and tell he where your sympathy lay. Even if the cyclist was going fast, she was clearly aiming to go outside of the pedestrian...the pedestrian lashed out (and we can debate if contact was made to my mind it's irrelevant) she caused the cyclist to crash into the road and hence be hit by a vehicle.

The president is my worry, can anyone with autism commit a violent crime? She and she alone caused the death. She forced the cyclist to swerve, the cyclist was not intending to ride into her.

My comment did not relate to this defendant, but to the precedent set.

On the issue of shared paths, they have converted quite a few pavements in our area to shared paths, this means that the cyclists get plenty of room and the pedestrians are pushed into the hedge. During the summer when the hedge grows and isn't trimmed, where are pedestrians supposed to go? I think cyclists should be off the pavements and returned to the roads.

Pedestrians take priority over cyclists.
If you both can’t use the path safely then cyclists need to stop.