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.

She was walking slap bang in the middle of a 2.4m pavement then went on to move into the path of Celia shouting “get off the fucking pavement”

Not the actions of someone frightened with no room to walk past. She sounds an absolute vile bully of a woman and hopefully the next time she wants to start an argument and bully someone metres away from a busy road, she’s met with the same tone as she gave to Celia.

Agreed.

Signed ,

a neurodivergent woman

I'm on the fence about this one as I was when it happened.

I think if her disability was proven to be a major factor then she should not have been jailed but going forward should have adequate support and supervision to ensure she doesn't cause further danger to herself or others.

If her disability was not a major factor (in her understanding her actions were dangerous) then she should absolutely have faced jail time for manslaughter, regardless of whether or not she "touched" Celia as she passed by. Her actions directly led to Celia swerving into the road and any reasonable man could have foreseen this.

OK, so the cyclist just floated past AG and got on with her day. Because of the actions of AG, the cyclist was killed.

Jeez.
She wasn't diagnosed. It makes a HUGE difference. Not being diagnosed means that most likely no one will have explained the reasons for certain rules in society and why they are relevant and important for the smooth running of society. She has also spent 49 years making social understanding errors likely leading to over and over to negative judgements against her; that she is lying or being ridiculous or stupid. This will alter her perceptions of other people who may become scary or irrelevant and worthy of dismissal , depending on how intact her core sense of self worth is. It means that she hasn't had social supports that she may have been entitled to had she had a diagnosis. She has been left to do her own thing in her own way.

There is a huge variety of autism impacts on different people. Being autistic in and of itself isn't a "get off Scott free" card. The impacts of a person's autism on how a situation unfolded have to be considered on a case by case basis, with support from psychological evaluations and opinions. It would be ridiculous to suggest that anyone with an autism diagnosis can do whatever they like with full immunity from the law. Which is why no one is suggesting it.

Grey is a large powerfully built woman

She really isn't.

People with cerebral palsy can be phenomenally strong.
This is a powerful well built woman with weight and rage behind her.

The cyclist died because she lost control of her bike.

My view hasn't changed. Whoever designed the shared pavement made a shitty decision that enabled this to happen.

The planners - and the council - are guilty.

Pedestrians and cyclists shouldn't share an unclear pavement. Cyclists should have their own dedicated cycle lanes.

A really horrible and preventable tragedy.

After being charged at by a large pedestrian in a bate.

Suffering from anything does not give you a free pass to act like a cock.

Someone in my town very narrowly avoided prison based on "brain injury. He had breached the terms of a molestation order several times. I am sure his victim would just say "yeah, he can't help it... let him go".

Being pushed will do that…

And yet none of my patients with CP are phenomenally strong. Almost like it's unusual for people with CP to be phenomenally strong.

She did. Celia Ward wouldn’t have fallen under a car if Gray hadn’t been shouting and waving her arms at her.

Because someone violently gesticulated at her.

What? Skinny she isn't but she's tiny!

Up to 50% of the prison population are believed to have a neurodivergent need, according to a 2021 report.

Arguabky, neurodivergence does feature in criminal behaviour. The issue is whether the person can always truly understand what they did. Particularly with autism, of which the parole board does direct for assessment prior to release being considered in some cases where there js not already a diagnosis, the traits of the need do make it very difficult to explain what the wrong act was. But it doesn't absolve that individual completely for culpability.

Could Auriol Grey have acted differently? Could Celia Ward have acted differently? Yes in both cases. But both look to have acted with their normal expectations of what someone coming towards them would do in those circumstances. In this case, neither party did what the other would expect and a tragic, accidental, death was the result. I'd say the same if this was my own child in Mrs Ward's place.

If she did, then the conviction wouldn't have been overturned. If you read the judgement, the case is quite clear, and today's decision is the correct one.

At the Court of Appeal, the CPS identified the base offence she committed being that of "common assault" - which base offence had not been pleaded in the original prosecution.

For posters' information, "common assault" does not require what is colloquially understood by assault. Instead , Common Assault occurs when one person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend the use of unlawful force or violence.

The CPS barrister, Simon Spence KC, told the court it was accepted that “common assault as the base offence was not identified by name”.
Asked by the appeal judges what actions could have been deemed common assault if it had been identified, Mr Spence said: “The walking towards the cyclist, the gesticulation with her left arm towards the road and the words, ‘get off the f*** pavement’.. “Those words are capable of turning a gesture and nothing more into an unlawful act.”

That is the actual offence the CPS allege was committed and which they would have prosecuted had their application for a retrial been permitted. Quite how they managed to miss alleging common assault at the original trial remains unclear to me

Totally agree and you can see it in that new report where the cyclist whizzes past the journalist at speed.

The whole scenario is a recipe for disaster. The victim doesn't seem able to ride defensively - no anticipating of hazard. Auriol Grey probably felt frightened.

It's a massive mistake to pin this on civilians.

I think this is the wrong decision, she could push more people under cars or trains. If pushing the cyclist was due to her panicking (as per the BBC report) then she should never leave her house. If despite her conditions she was deemed safe for living in society then she should be punished for manslaughter on the same way another person without her conditions should have been. It is not the cyclist's fault and the BBC reporting on Ariol being back and happy in the commnity is quite insensitive towards the family of the victim and the drivers. Someone's lost her life and another innocent person accidentally run over and killed a woman.

As an undiagnosed unsupported autistic woman, the law has agreed that it reduces the culpability in this case.

Except it hasn't, she's been let off on a technicality..

as she was charged with unlawful act manslaughter, the jury should have been told specifically what the unlawful act was and it should have been named.

Because there was 'entirely no base offence identified in this process' and the evidence that was there was deemed insufficient for manslaughter then the conviction was deemed unsafe.

The CPS say Auriol Grey walking towards the cyclist gesticulating and swearing at her to get off the fucking pavement would be classed as Common Assault, leading to unlawful act manslaughter because of her death, but they admit that common assault wasn't named as the base offence during the trial, it has collapsed because of insufficient evidence.

It's a fuckup basically which has allowed her to walk away scot free, it does not mean she is innocent, just that her conviction was 'unsafe'.

People are considered on a case by case basis anyway, they’re usually assessed to ensure fitness to plead and if not they can go down the route of diminished responsibility. No defence solicitor worth their salt would look at defendants like AG and not consider assessments or the MH aspect.

I find on here that no matter what the scenario, autism takes centre stage in absolutely everything. It seems to be the explanation for almost all human behaviour, an excuse for people to be injured or treated badly, and everyone around the person with autism must bend to their ‘needs’ despite the impact on themselves.

There is a reason why we don’t have a sliding scale of responsibility in the justice system and that’s because it would be far far far too complex, arbitrary and unfair. Justice would be metered out not according to the severity of the crime but according to how the defendant felt on the day, and that simply isn’t fair to victims. I can’t even imagine how we could legislate with a sliding scale of sentencing - it would be a nightmare. Of course their conditions or sad stories can be in their mitigation but we have to have a justice system where, if you’re fit to stand trial, you face the same judgement as anyone else who had committed the same crime.

Precisely. We live in such an offender-centred society that we forget it’s about justice for victims, not just ‘what’s best for the defendant’

Awful thing to have done to an elderly cyclist.