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.

Quite. That poor woman would still be alive if she hadn't crossed paths with that gobby, unpleasant individual.
Is she a murderer? No. Does she deserve to be thrown in jail for life? No. But is she an innocent victim? Absolutely not.

Well said! You have to wonder about the AG sympathizers and how they would feel if it was their relative/friend that monster had killed.

Come on people. The police officer says why didn't you stay and talk to the police? She says "They weren't there".

Then later "I didn't know I had to".

This woman has really significant social understanding difficulties.

Would someone with Autism so severe that they deem it necessary to behave the way AG did when correcting what they perceive to be bad behaviour also lie to the police the way AG did?

I'm asking genuinely, fwiw.

I agree, btw, that if her autism was proven to be an overwhelming contributing factor she should not have been jailed but as far as I can tell from what I've read that's not the case. I'm dubious as to whether she would lie to the police if that was the case. Surely her concrete sense of right and wrong would prevent her from lying?

I honestly can't believe all the apologists for AG on this thread. What are you getting out of that? The ..she didn't know/mean it/if she did its still not her fault.

…or is being dishonest

Not funny. Tragic all round. Nevertheless, AG did not cause the cyclist's death. Hence why the conviction has been overturned.

I find it quite odd how people are defending this “victim” AG, considering she managed to mind her own business and get on with her day when Celia was lay dying in the road, but couldn’t keep that same attitude when a 77 year old lady was cycling past

Is she diagnosed autistic?

Of course she caused her death. If AG had not been there, do you think she would’ve swerved and fallen into the road at the same moment? Or at all?

You think a person who answers that the police were not there as a reason why they didn't talk to them is not being as literal as all heck?

Surely she could think of an actual excuse if she was going to lie?

This sounds brilliant @Cailleach1 We should learn from the Dutch. Cycle
paths here are often inadequate and unsafe IMO.

And I agree with pp that sympathy towards Auriol is misplaced and she shouldn’t be compensated. I mean she was the one who said she lightly touched the cyclist this opening up claims of unlawful behaviour .

I hope even if she has been found legally innocent that she has had someone make clear to her actions were unkind and unnecessary and she shows some remorse.

She was not at the time. She is now.

And she very clearly is.

I’ve cycled quite a lot in cities and on pavements where the roads weren’t safe, I always always stopped and got off to pass pedestrians or stopped and remained stationary while they passed, it’s the right thing to do.

The fact is there are odd people around who will do stupid, unpredictable things like wave their arms and shout.

I do think though that if those people’s odd behaviour causes another persons death then they need to pay some sort of price for that.

I thought part of the argument for the defence is this stretch of path is not a cycle/footpath but a wide footpath next to a busy ring road.

So sad as it is, Mrs Ward should never have been cycling on the footpath anyway.

She definitely was being dishonest at one part. She claimed she was telling the cyclist to “slow down” 😵‍💫 she must’ve got a shock when the police later told her that there was audio.

The point that I was making was more that both responses are instinctive, natural and plausible. Your example isn’t comparable though as the threat of danger almost immediately disappears (even though the physiological stress response will still be activated and remain activated for a while afterwards). That scenario would be more comparable if it was dark and I had no idea who you were/whether you were a threat to my safety

Apart from the fact it is a shared space.

But does that make her behaviour ok?
Are you saying her diagnosis gives her pass to cause another's death with impunity?

I don’t think it excuses her from her actions.

I would blame myself for being stupid and selfish enough to let my child cycle on the pavement without having taught them they must not continue cycling on said pavement to get past pedestrians, as pedestrians have priority over cyclists, so the cyclist should have the manners to dismount and push their bike, instead. And if my child cannot do this safely, they should not be cycling on a pavement next to a busy road, as they are clearly not yet ready to do so safely.

No, if you read my other posts you will see I am not saying that.

As an undiagnosed unsupported autistic woman, the law has agreed that it reduces the culpability in this case. It doesn't excuse her actions but it casts them in a different light in terms of understanding what she was doing, her motivations and intentions across the whole incident.

That still sounds like you're saying 'oh yeah she caused someone's death but 'reasons' not her fault..'..

That’s a misstatement.

There being insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Grey committed common assault and it caused Celia’s death does not mean that she did not cause it.

The balance of the evidence does support that Grey assaulted Celia and caused her death but, unfortunately, I can see why it doesn’t meet the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.