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.

A very tragic case IF she pushed her , yes she should of stayed in jail

IF she didnt push her then she shouldnt of gone to jail

In the cctv it looks like she wasnt pushed

The defence also overlooked the fact that the prosecution hadn't specified a base offence, as did the judge. It was a collective failure by all the lawyers involved.

Since you've quoted the prosecution barrister, it ought to be pointed out that the judges disagreed. They pointed out that, to succeed with this argument, the prosecution would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the cyclist thought Ms Grey was going to hit her, whereas all they had actually established is that the cyclist "perhaps" thought that. They also pointed out that, even if they had been able to establish that, it is unlikely they could have established that Ms Grey intended to threaten force or was reckless (in the legal sense of the word).

It’s no coincidence that the government are trying to reduce the prison population.

In Cambridgeshire there are many many shared paths. It’s easy to underestimate how much cycling is embedded into the local culture.

the road in question is a horrible little stretch of road imo and a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians should be safer for both of those groups.

while the whole situation is tricky I still think there should be something put in place, Auriol Grey needs some supervision. I’m not sure a prison sentence would be beneficial however.

if she’s like this towards all cyclists there is a huge amount of people in the general public at risk from her actions if she’s unsupervised

@PoopingAllTheWay

She should never of gone to jail and IF this is the way the justice system is going this way then we are following the USA

Today i crossed a one way street
I looked the way cars were coming from, as i started to cross, a bike came from the wrong direction

I didnt say anything but if i did and he wobbled and fell in the road and got hit by a car, and died i would of gone to prison for manslaughter and that would of been ok?

Really?
Because thats basically what some are saying

A very tragic case but she shouldnt of gone to jail at all

Grey did a hell of a lot more than say something, and Celia Ward was not cycling the wrong way up a one way street.

Your argument is as poor as your grammar.

There is no time limit for indictable offences (i.e. ones that are heard in the Crown Court rather than by magistrates). However, the courts would almost certainly reject any attempt to prosecute her for a different offence on the same facts as an abuse of process. The prosecution would have to show that there were special circumstances in this particular case to allow them to proceed with a new charge. I can't see any special circumstances. An appeal quashing a conviction and the Court of Appeal refusing the prosecution permission to take the case to a fresh trial does not constitute a special circumstance.

Essentially, Auriol Grey is “innocent” in much the same way OJ Simpson was “innocent” ie guilty as all hell but still got away with it.

To me it's as plain as day when you watch the video.

AG is gesturing wildly and shouting but continuing forward, at the moment CW passes her, she has stopped, turns towards CW, you see her raise her arm and extend her open hand out towards CW, you see her weight shift in her legs from her right to her left, at the moment of the push, you see her lean over and a there is a judder in her left trouser leg that makes it look like her hand came into contact with some resistance.. then at that exact moment, Celia veers wildly to the right and falls into the road.

On rewatching the video, it's quite obvious that AG pushes CW left arm forward which is what causes her to turn right so sharply.

the pics attached show the just before and the just after contact is made.. the issue with the proof is that the actual push itself is hidden behind AG body at the time because of the position of the camera, but you can see her arm extending before and see the position of her legs/body in the second photo and that her arm is returning from a position slightly behind her.

Plus the fact that she admitted having 'contact' with CW.

Again, it was a shared path. The cyclist had as much right as a pedestrian to be there. An older lady on a bike. If a cyclist is coming towards you, most people's instinct would to move out of the way. Not push them into the road! And then go off shopping, when you have been part of causing a fatality. And the trauma inflicted on many innocent people that day. The cyclist, the driver of the car, their families. She first said she had pushed the cyclist but then changed her story.. So sad.

She should never have been out on her own then. A danger to anyone whom she believes, incorrectly, are in the wrong.

Yes and roads are shared between cyclists and motorists (and pedestrians crossing roads). What you do is to take much greater care with the more vulnerable user. So the motorist slows and takes a wide berth of the cyclist and the pedestrian. The cyclist should in turn take extra care when passing the pedestrian. If I'm cycling past a pedestrian in a shared path I can't be certain they've seen me, so I slow almost to a stop because that's the safer way to be.

Just one of the interesting comments on the report from Cambs Live

Honestly I could see my father doing something like this. In fact I think it's through sheer luck that nothing of this kind never has happened to him. Undiagnosed because he's 81 and they just didn't back then and because he thinks there's nothing wrong with him, everyone else is the problem. It's very clear to our whole family that there's neurodiversity of some kind, being on the autistic spectrum seems most likely.

He can get very annoyed with people not following the rules he thinks are the important ones and his reactions to unwelcome stimuli have always included waving his arms about, ranting and swearing. He's pretty awful in many ways but had he behaved as AG did here, I can say with absolutely certainty that he would not have any intention at all of hurting and definitely not killing anyone. He would be in his moment in his head and it would not even occur to him that his actions might cause the cyclist to wobble and swerve dangerously into the road. It simply wouldn't cross his mind, which would only be full of how to express his annoyance to the other person. He would also be thoroughly confused and utterly devastated. Innocent? Nope. Criminal? Also no.

So killing someone isn’t criminal if you’re autistic? For fuck sake.

There seems to be discussion around it being a shared path- my understanding is that it wasn't, but had been co-opted as one by cyclists (understandably due to the busyness of the road) A shared path needs to be marked as such- it wasn't. It needs to be a minimum of 3 meters wide- this was about 2.5 regardless, the death of this poor woman needn't have happened- it was as a direct result of the actions of another person- but the council needs to take some responsibility too and actually update it so that it can be properly shared.

Why is everyone saying it’s not manslaughter. It’s the absolute definition of manslaughter.

It's just not that black and white though, is it? I see a massive grey area which, as other posters have already pointed out, is only going to become a greater problem. I'm not saying I have the answers but some kind of speical definitions surely need be made for these kinds of circumstances. Simply loading up our already overstretched jails isn't going to help anyone from what I can see.

There seems to be discussion around it being a shared path- my understanding is that it wasn't, but had been co-opted as one by cyclists (understandably due to the busyness of the road)
It’s messier than that. Other bits of pavement nearby were always clearly marked and signed as shared, and there’s a road crossing (marked for cyclists) which crosses from the clearly-marked pavement on one side of the road to the pavement on the other side, where the incident occurred.

If it was not a shared path, then the council’s road markings were at fault for giving the impression that it was part of the cycle route.

She literally killed someone. Because she found a cyclist coming towards her "scary and threatening".

I find people who push random strangers under cars very scary and threatening, so I should be allowed to just chuck her into oncoming traffic without punishment. Fairs fair and apparently it's completely fine to just sling someone under a car if you think they're a bit scary.

Whether AG has the mental faculties or not to know right from wrong or to understand how to behave in an acceptable manner, she's a danger to the public and should be chaperoned when out and about. That poor woman lost her life because of this individual. Either she is culpable and stays locked up, or she is not culpable and is observed so as not to endanger anyone else.

THE CYCLIST WAS ALLOWED TO BE ON THE PAVEMENT. SHE WAS DOING NOTHING WRONG!!!

I understand she is partially sighted? Seeing a cycle of some kind coming towards you on a pavement will be frightening. She will not be able to easily judge the distance of the cycle or the speed it is travelling at.
Disabled people have been saying for some time that shared pathways are dangerous for them.

@DeeCee7 cyclists should not be so close to pedestrians that them waving their hands knocks a cyclist over.
Too many cyclists on pavements rely on pedestrians moving out of the way.