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.

At the end of the day it’s true though. Regardless of whether you call it victim blaming or not.

Auriol was a verbally abusive and mildly violent woman, we don’t know if Mrs Ward was blithely cycling on the shared path believing she had right of way, and behaving in a stubborn manner because of this.

This is not going to the Supreme Court and it's the law that matters here. Not what people think. It's been explained by the Court of Appeal why the appeal was allowed. No one here knows better than very experienced judges about the law and what needs to be considered. They can be "wrong" in very complex cases and law can have varying interpretations which is why we have a Supreme Court. This is not one of those cases.

There’s dispute as to whether it was a shared path or not. Cyclists are not generally allowed to cycle on pavements.

If an older person rides a bike on roads or pavements you’d expect them to know the Highway Code or have passed a Cycling Proficiency Test. If they’re deemed to be frail as DM article says then I wouldn’t say being frail makes you a safe road user as a cyclist.

And thank god for this!

I think the decision was wrong and it also sends out the wrong message.

The interview with Grey....She lies .

''I can't remember''

''I can't remember''

Wretched woman clearly is heard swearing and her hand is on the cyclist.

I honestly don't see your point, probably because it doesn't make sense.

The bottom line is, there was room for both on the shared path, if AG just carried on walking they would have passed each other without incident. Instead she chose to gesticulate wildly while shouting at the woman to 'get off the fucking pavement' and then she made the woman get off the pavement, straight into the path of an oncoming car..

out of the two of them AG was the only one doing something wrong, so why blame the victim who was just going about her day?

Correct decision.

There’s dispute as to whether it was a shared path or not.

Not any more there isn’t. The correct signage is all in place. That road with its shared pavement has been in use since 1972 and this is the one and only incident of its kind in over 50 years.

I'm on the fence over this. Auriol Grey's disabilities may have meant that she wasn't able to predict the outcome of her own actions. However, I think her actions did seem malevolent (which her disabilities don't excuse) and they did contribute to someone's death. I'm not sure that she shouldn't be charged with something, even if manslaughter might have been a step too far. Perhaps common assault?

Being pushed sideways will make a lighter weight person fall.

Grey's hand made contact with the cyclist.

The judgment says that AG’s actions contributed to CR’s death.

However, even if the jury had been properly instructed, they don’t see that the elements needed for a criminal conviction would be made out.

Also, there are lots of shared paths in Cambridge and anyone living there for while would be familiar with this. Most people give each other space and there aren't often serious problems.

Incorrect - the case was overturned because a) the CPS failed to actually plead the relevant 'base offence' (here common assault); compounded by b) the judge failing also to mention this requirement when giving directions to the jury.

Further , the Court of Appeal held that Grey's actions contributed to Mrs Ward's death

Because people on here will victim blame- Especially if the aggressor is in any way 'ND'.

Most people are citing lots of views that are nothing to do with the case at the Court of Appeal. It’s a fruitless exercise. The Court is correct.

Can you explain why the appeal court judges did not allow a retrial ?

I think the mistake was at the Crown Court when the judge failed in his direction to mention the legal requirement for a (criminal) base offence to be made out and misdirected the jury. (And a poor prosecution by the CPS in failing to be explicit that the base offence was 'common

in the circumstances, I think the Court of Appeal had little choice but to declared the conviction for manslaughter "unsafe" and quash the conviction. It's perhaps unfortunate though that they did not permit a retrial as requested by the CPS

All the people on this thread who are totally certain AG pushed Celia Ward....how? When if it was as obvious or clear as you all seem to think, it would have made a manslaughter conviction watertight?

I have read that she "shoved" her, pushed her, moved across the pavement to push her....were you there? It's not clear in the video, or it wouldn't be a contested point. You just believe that she did. You don't know.

It's the most crucial factor of this case and it absolutely is not clear at all. The interview I have seen AG says she may have made "vague contact" , clarified as "light", while waving her hands. I believe she later retracted that? Not "yes I pushed her".
It's not on video, and not in what AG says, so where are you all getting your conviction on this point from?

This wasn’t AG’s first contact with the police for aggression towards random members of the public (she is very well known for it), I doubt it will be her last.

Since the trial the council have confirmed that the pavment was not a shared cycleway at the time of the accident or at any time before that. People may that thought that it was shared but they were wrong.

I'm afraid I don't know. The Court of Appeal judgment does not reference this as the application for a retrial occurred only after the judgement had been handed down...

The court of appeal did also say that they do not see how the jury could have found the elements of the offence to be made out, even if they were properly instructed.

I firmly believe that AG either pushed CR or swung for her, causing CR to swerve, but sadly I think the Court is right that the evidence was not strong enough to support the conviction.