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.

It doesn't sit comfortably with me. Someone died as a result of her actions.

IANAL but I can understand from the reports why unlawful action manslaugter was incorrect.

Having said that, I wish there is something else appropriate to make her realise her behaviour was not acceptable. I presume it's too late now for different charges? And if she doesn't have the cognition, then that's a whole different matter.

If you aggressively shout and swear then force someone into a live lane of moving traffic then I do think you mean to cause them harm..

Would the likes of you be so understanding if Auriol Grey had pushed a small child in front of a car.. or if it was one of your family members she decided to punish because she decided they were doing something wrong when they absolutely weren't.

She admitted pushing her by the way.. in case you missed that bit, it was nothing to do with Celia being a 'poor cyclist' or 'riding straight into the road without looking' like a previous poster said, she was pushed and then she fell in front of a car.

Auriol Grey is a disgrace of a human and it is pure luck that there was no other CCTV from the other angle so it could be proved in court effectively that she meant to cause harm that day.

I know... and PP saying that AG should be compensated. Her actions resulted in the death of a a person, and destroyed the life of an another.

I'm sure Celia's family and Carla will be so happy AGs learned a lesson that it's not ok to kill people.

The penalty for cycling on a pavement isn’t death, and Celia Ward was on a shared pathway where she had every right to be. Auriol Grey pushed her into the road in front of oncoming traffic, directly resulting her death and a lifetime of trauma for the poor driver who hit her, and just gets to crack on with no consequences? Ridiculous.

Absolutely the correct decision. No doubt whatsoever.

Well I am pretty sure she wouldn't have.

@DoreenonTill8

It's astonishing that people think Grey is the victim.

Even if you hate cyclists which many here seem to. Even if you believe that Celia shouldn't have been on the pavement (which it seems she was allowed to be there). Grey's aggressive actions directly caused Celia's death and ruined the life of the driver.

Grey made a beeline for Celia, she verbally attacked her and waved her arms to startle Celia. If not to push her.

How on earth can anyone conclude that Grey is the victim?

Do you think she was justified in causing Celia Wards death then? That her actions because of her dislike of cyclists is OK?

Yes.... she would have stopped and apologised for shouting and let the cyclist past. I don't think so.
AG was already in a rage and going for the cyclist.

It doesn’t matter what you think, or what anyone else thinks. That isn’t what makes the judgement.

It surprises me that this was turned over. Someone died and she was responsible.

This thread is a brilliant example of why the jury system is the best system for criminal justice. We have lots of people looking at the facts of the case, bringing their own personal experience. There's compassion for both sides. There's reasoned argument. There's intelligence being applied that means that some have one idea, others another.

None of us have seen all the evidence and even though I think i the pedestrian is completely in the wrong, sat in the just room, some of the argument put forward here could change my mind.

thank you for restoring my faith in a very strange way in humans!

This is sad. And there is almost certainly not a right answer. But if there is an answer I feel better about a vulnerable woman with learning disabilities not being in prison. As well as very sad for the cyclist and the driver who killed her.

I haven't read the whole thread but in this case and the recent one of the lady being killed by a cyclist, both cyclists should have been anticipating hazards in front of them and have been prepared to stop if they are riding their bikes (which constitute a lethal weapon when ridden at speed) in the presence of pedestrians.

Horse riders are told to always come back to a walk as they approach people and be prepared to give way and I fail to see why the cyclists in both these cases did not slow right down or stop when approaching a hazard such as somebody at the side of the road or on the same path - they were clearly not paying sufficient attention to what was going on around them. It is part of the theory road test to identify hazards ahead and adjust your speed responsibly and appropriately and not just barrel into people. You should EXPECT them to step into the road - a 20 mile and hour limit is there because pedestrian hazards such as kids running after balls are.to be expected.

They should install speed bumps asap on that road in the park.

If I understand correctly she just kept on walking and didn’t stop to help the fallen cyclist. She completed her shopping. That’s wrong. How could anyone not stop in such a situation. Hit and run drivers get prosecuted.

She also lied about what she said in the moments before the push, she lied under caution and in police interview that she told Celia to 'slow down' when the truth is, she told her to "get off the fucking pavement" before physically forcing her from the pavement.

The fact that she shows she is fully willing to lie through her teeth when it suits her shows she knew exactly what she was doing and she knew that she had done wrong, then she heard sirens and left the woman dying/dead in the road because 'she didn't think she had to stay'

People sympathising with her turn my stomach.

It’s quite frightening to think how many future violent crimes will go unpunished because of the excuse of having a disability.

I'll rephrase;

If AG does not have the cognitive ability to understand that deliberately stepping into the path of an oncoming cyclist while shouting, swearing, and gesturing aggressively has the potential to cause harm then she should not be in public without adequate supervision for her own safety as well as the safety of those around her.

If she does have the cognitive ability to understand this then I fail to see how what she did was not manslaughter. Her aggressive actions directly caused the death of an innocent woman.

The fact that she shows she is fully willing to lie through her teeth when it suits her shows she knew exactly what she was doing and she knew that she had done wrong

Clearly the people who are privy to all the facts and as much evidence as is available don’t agree with you.

Her total lack of remorse and the fact that she left her dying in the road and went off to do her shopping is monstrous but the posters on here describing her as a poor, vulnerable victim and saying their sympathies are with her, that they were horrified on her behalf are nauseating and perverse in the extreme.

This. All the 'lessons learned' people.. are you happy that AG has learned if someone does something she doesn't like, she can cause their death and be thought of as the victim and compensated for it being acknowledged she caused their death?

The reason horse riders are told to slow down when passing pedestrians is because horses can get spooked. Bicycles, being incapable of independent thought, cannot.

The suggestion that every cyclist should slow down to a crawl or stop and get off their bike altogether every time they pass a pedestrian is absurd.

Planning and traffic management. They changed their whole direction with protests due to car fatalities. Now they have an excellent infrastructure, which keeps pedestrians, cyclists and motorists away as much as possible from the situation which has occurred in this case.

You don’t want people to learn lessons and improve infrastructure to keep people as safe as possible. Ok. Thank goodness the Dutch aren’t dummies wrt to this matter.

It's not what you 'think' though, it's what you can 'prove' that's what's important when it comes to the facts.

This case aside, you could literally murder someone and if there is no evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, then you will remain scot free, it doesn't mean you didn't do it.

Her aggressive actions that day led to Celia Ward's death.