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.

AG eventually admitted she pushed the cyclist.

AG didn't push the cyclist. She shouted and gestured. Totally different.

@Fargo79
'It's entirely understandable that this was frightening and a threat to her safety. She could easily have been the one knocked into the road herself.'

Exactly, cyclists should be on the road, not on the pavement.

I have had so many near misses in London with cyclists (the worst are couriers who do food delivery...) going really fast on pavement and failing to look at for pedestrians.

Not to mention one unpleasant incident when a guy on a bike just planted himself right in front of me and started verbally abusing me for not moving out of his way...

Cyclists need to be reminded than pavements/footpaths should be for pedestrians first and foremost and that it is not our job to get out of their way if they choose to use them.

If you think about it what would you do if a cyclist was coming fast towards you and you assumed he was about to collide with you?

Not everyone has the speed/agility to just jump aside to avoid them and instead an instinctive response might be to raise you arms and push that person away to protect yourself.

I think it's so disgusting that she left the scene and went shopping. I don't think she's sorry at all. But I think it is the right decision.

She should have got a suspended sentence, I am sorry her conviction has been overturned. My sympathies with the victim´s family.

I don't agree that her behaviour was erratic or antisocial and actually I feel that's a very ableist accusation. She has impaired eyesight and a physical disability and someone was coming towards her down the middle of the footpath riding a bicycle.

It wasn't a footpath. It was mixed use.

If people do not feel able to use a path where bicycles are allowed then they shouldn't. There has to be some level of personal responsibility.

Wrong decision imho. Firstly it was a shared path and the cyclist had a right to be there. Even if it was a footpath there’s no excuse for acting so aggressively.

She lurched towards the cyclist while waving her arm. Of course the cyclist was going to take avoiding action.

This woman trundled off for food and left her dying in the road.

There was always some disagreement about whether physical contact took place, it’s hard to tell from the cctv iirc but the prosecution felt it had taken place

it’s a poor outcome That woman killed the cyclist and has got away with it.

Here we go again.

Celia Ward is still dead. Pushed to her death, that's a fact. Pushed to her death by this vile creature. Whatever you think, poor Celia is still dead.

Which is basically what the judges said:

Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey, said: "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury.

sorry to be a nit picker OP but it’s not her sentence that’s been overturned it’s her entire conviction

I wonder if she could have a case for wrongful imprisonment given the judges comments

That’s my memory. In initial police interviews she admitted pushing her but then changed her story.

She wasn't pushed. If she had of been, the conviction wouldn't have been overturned.

Appalling that the killer is being released like this.

Pushing a frail, elderly woman into the road like that is absolutely abhorrent.

What must Celia's family be feeling?

We do now live in a world where no cyclist is ever at fault. It should be totally clear with obvious signs that a path is dual use, or not. It seemed a harsh verdict in the circumstances.

The other aspect to all of this is that where I live, cyclists don’t use the shared paths. A few parents cycling with dc do. Other cyclists still prefer the busy roads. They do bear some responsibility if there’s an accident as they have refused to use the specially designated path. Won’t be a popular view but we spend money on these cycle paths and see them mostly disregarded.

It is interesting to compare this case to the recent case of an 81 year old woman who was knocked down and killed by a cyclist who was doing 29 miles per hour in 20MPH zone. No charges were brought against the cyclist as it was deemed he had not done anything wrong. Speed restrictions apparently only apply to motorised vehicles. So , male cyclist knocks down and kills a woman and there is no case to answer. Female pedestrian waves a cyclist off the pavement resulting in a fatal collision, and she is sent to prison.

People should be wary about calling this woman who has now been acquitted a “killer”.

The original judge felt physical contact was a possibility.

”At the point when Celia toppled into the path of an oncoming car, Auriol, to quote the judge, made 'a lateral sweeping movement' with her left arm, which he said, either made contact with the former midwife or made her recoil and fall.”

As a London pedestrian, I have had far more aggressive, dangerous and unreasonable behaviour from cyclists than motorists.

She was aggressive in a way that caused another person’s death. She may not have intended to kill her but it’s her bad luck that her behaviour did cause a death and she should face consequences for that.

People saying “it’s the cyclist’s own fault” are horrifying. First, there is a lot of evidence the cyclist had a right to be on that stretch of pathway, but even if she didn’t, it doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to scare her into a deadly situation.

That pedestrian stepped out into the road without looking. Right infront of the cyclist. Multiple witnesses backed that up.

Couldn’t agree more.

I've had hundreds of near misses with motor vehicles as a pedestrian and as a cyclist, statistically they're more likely to maim and kill

Rather more than a “possibility” needs to be established for someone to be convicted.

Also on fence..
The pedestrian is walking right down middle of pavement despite presumably knowing a cyclist is coming as she is motioning at her. And likely that the patch is used by cyclists on the pavement

Personally if it were to be combined use i dont feel it is wide enough. As clearly traffic is fast.
If the pedestrian were concerned and badly sighted she could have kept to the railings. Or possibly had a cane to show her sigh wasnt good.

During the interview on the link you see a cyclist passing fast past the reporter.
Its actually surprising more cyclists arent knocked off a path by pedestrians who dont realise they are there (unlike this case)
Where the pavement isnt divided the cyclist should be going slowly and cautiously.

Ideally the 'offender' should be supervised as it seems like she needs it.

People should be wary of killing people if they don't want to be called a killer.

@Allfur

I am a cyclist and pedestrian, I don't understand why people don't use their legs anymore. Even my close friends have this strange mentality that if you need something from the shop you drive there. It's a 20 minutes walk (being very slow...). That's called car brain.
Ww know that during covid a lot of people picked up cycling, around me it seems like men who used to run are now all cyclists.
Frankly, now cycling community is varied much more than it used to be and people who drive cars without consideration are now cycling without consideration.