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 is someone like AG shouted at your pavement cycling child, causing them to fall into the traffic and get their head crushed by a car, you would blame your kid???

Very hard to understand. The cyclist was unsafe on the pavement, encroaching on the walkers space and path, which was a huge risk to the walker. Why didn’t they push their bike or give way? Sadly, the cyclists entitlement caused her death. If she’d been going slowly and safely she’d never had the accident in the first place.

I read a lot about the Court case,AG was in the wrong totally,whether she should have been charged with man slaughter I don’t know,but she deserved punishment for her appalling behaviour.All her disabilities are no excuse.I feel sorry for the family of the lady who lost her life as a direct result of what AG did,no sympathy for her from me.

This case is more complex than I thought then. I initially thought definitely there was no case to answer and she was at least legally innocent, as there was no issue of physical contact.

Laws to restrict the unsupervised movement of people with autism? Who have no previous convictions? Is that really what you mean?

I’d blame you, the parent for not supervising their child and teaching them how to ride safely. Own the problem, it’s not always someone else’s fault.

But Mrs Ward was just as entitled as AG to use the shared pathway.

If AG is unable to control her violent tendencies she should not be in public unsupervised. If she can control them and chooses not to she should not be unsupervised in public.

Surely every parent in this situation would primarily blame themselves?!

How do you know she wasn't going slowly? Were you there?

Car drivers have to drive in a way that assumes cyclists and pedestrians may behave erratically. Cyclists are supposed to assume that pedestrians may behave erratically. Passing too closely and too fast to anyone is simply irresponsible.

they couldn’t prove that the cyclist was actually pushed. Had she been, the case might have been different, but a pedestrian has the right to be react to someone approaching them and getting scared. A pedestrian even has the right to be strangely.

a cyclist should always be prepared to slow down and pass wide or even get off their bike and pass on foot if the space is tight. They can’t assume someone will stay on a true path. Someone might even panic and move towards them.

If you want the state to supervise every person who has zero history of ever being violent, has never been accused or convicted of a crime, but could, maybe, one day do something dangerous to other people- then the state will be supervising every single person.

It seems as if it’s a problem with the pavement as well. It sounds as if it wasn’t well marked so perhaps she did think cyclists weren’t allowed on it?

It will be. Many people think that disabled people shouldn’t be allowed out alone.

Agree with the decision, it was disgraceful she went to prison in the first place. It was never manslaughter. Whilst all sympathy goes to the woman's family, and I can understand they will be disappointed by this verdict, it is the correct thing to release her

So she can get angry about another cyclist and potentially cause another death?

Being released from prison should have hopefully come with some conditions.

Rule H2: Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways.

the cyclist should have stopped to let the pedestrian pass

Apparently a LOT of people on this thread were there, judging from the number claiming that the pedestrian pushed the cyclist as a demonstrable fact.

Wonder why they were never called as witnesses at the trial.

Regardless of what the some old law says. Surely it’s common sense that there has to be some sort of punishment for directly causing someone to fall off the pavement and get killed. Seems she got off on a technicality. Application of law with no justice.
I know you’re not not meant to be on the pavement, but that doesn’t mean if you die the person gets off.
little rant, but it so sad and such a careless act.

No, but where someone like Auriol has prior history of violent outbursts her movement should be restricted. Its unhelpful to group all autistic people together. Autism is a spectrum, otherwise Temple Grandin would be pushing people under cows and tractors not a talented animal behaviourist , designer and advocate for the welfare of animals, amongst other things.

Without being argumentative, and in the spirit of adult debate. Picture a scene. Me 6ft 2, shaved head, large frame that is mostly muscle, ugly face make starts screaming in your face and waving my aims about...would you step back...am I not being violent, could you possibly be forced by my violent outburst to step into the road?
Again what difference...my real concern is that someone like me facing a charge for a violent crime gets a diagnosis of autism. Will the courts look differently. The description of no base event is misleading in my view it's clear that her actions caused the death. Is there a need to spell things out in English law?

The video looks a lot like a push.

Auriol admitted making contact.

An independent witness said Auriol swung her arm at Celia and that Celia either recoiled to avoid it or Auriol made contact.

It looks like the conviction was overturned on a technicality; that the judge didn’t ask the jury to determine if an unlawful act (assault) had taken place.

I don’t believe Auriol is innocent, but it seems the original case wasn’t handled properly.

Precisely. People are sympathising with the cyclist because she was an old woman. Obviously, her death is terribly sad, but that doesn't mean that Auriol Grey deserves to be in prison for it.

I really hope councils all over the UK rethink shared pathways because it seems many aren’t fit for purpose or this tragic incident will no doubt happen again.

I haven’t looked at the footage or read the judgments yet but I will. I studied law even though I didn’t pursue it and I find cases like this very interesting.

I do think from what I know so far, that she isn’t legally culpable although i can appreciate why some may see her as morally at least partially responsible for this.

I think the first decision was the right one. The pedestrian acted in an aggressive manner, not a defensive one. She does not appear scared, the typical thing to do if you panicked at a cyclist approaching would be to move out of the way, not an act of attack. In the video I see an attack on the cyclist, an attempt to drive her off the shared path. The pedestrian is a dangerous individual and ought to be supervised in public.

But fight or flight excuse means that if you crept up behind me and shouted boo I could justifiably punch you in the face....if one cannot control that impulse in what is clearly not a life and death situation. Plus it's not as if the cyclist came from behind her ... It's clear from the footage she saw her coming well in advance and started toward her.