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.

On the point of her going shopping, wasn't it established that she did stop but was told to go away by other people (possibly emergency services) at the scene? So she did.

Obviously they didn't realise she was involved, and presumably her issuesith cognition meant she accepted the instruction at face value rather than explaining.

I'm also pretty sure that the council and police testified that they couldn't prove it was a shared path at the time, although signage was added afterwards to make it so.

Luckily a core principle of our justice system is judgement by independent persons and not based on how you would feel "if it was your child"

MN opinion was pretty much split down the middle at the time.

And there's me talking about the morality of thinking the cyclist deserved it

I would have thought MN was the one safe place for a person with SEN would be fairly judged. That woman didn't kill anyone.

Oh shhhh 🙄

Who did then?

Instead of moving over towards the fence when there was plenty of room to share the pavement with a cyclist, she shouted at the older woman and threw her arm out and made contact with her, sending her into the road and causing her death. Then went shopping.

If you see a cyclist on the pavement, even if they are coming too close to you, do you step aside and fume or wave your arm about in front of them risking them swerving into traffic?

Well, if it looks like a Boomer, you are free to send them to a horrible death. But if it looks like a cute MNer in dungarees perhaps, you step aside and curtsy.

IANAL. The intricacies of exactly what circumstances amount to manslaughter or otherwise are beyond my expertise. Whether she got off on a technicality or was wrongfully convicted in the first place is a matter for the judges.

My heartfelt sympathies remain, as ever, with the family of the victim and the victim herself whose life was curtailed as a result of Ms. Grey's actions.

Ms. Grey is not the victim here.

People need to consider how their horrible dismissive comments about "the cyclist" would make her family feel. Whatever your opinion on AG and her conviction, Celia is still dead. She was a woman who was much loved by her children and she is gone. Some of these comments make it seem like you think she deserved to die for goodness sake!

My sympathies to the family.

Pushing a frail, elderly woman into the road like that is absolutely abhorrent

Ward can't have been particularly frail if she was capable of cycling around Huntingdon.

Auriol Grey herself is disabled and partially sighted.

Auriol Grey herself is disabled and partially sighted.

And was known in the area for her aggression towards cyclists.

I felt at the time she shouldn't have been charged.

The BBC article explains why this should never have gone to trial.
She was charged with ‘unlawful act manslaughter’. It was never established that she committed an ‘unlawful act’. Shouting and waving your arms at a cyclist is not unlawful.

It was a tragedy for the victim and her family, but putting an innocent woman in prison won’t change that.

I'd step aside, in case the aggressive cyclist decided to mow me down.

Agree with that. Being in a wheelchair myself, I would have been worried for my safety.

She should never have been convicted or jailed for manslaughter.

I agree with the Court of Appeal. This case should never have gone before a jury.

I think in reality and morally, Auriol did cause Celia's death. Auriol moved across the pavement towards the cyclist rather than staying on her existing trajectory on foot. She could even have moved towards the railings to allow Celia more space.

She swore then gestured when the two were dangerously close to each other.
Auriol obviously has vulnerabilities that might explain (but not excuse imo) her behaviour.

But, as has now been decided, as a matter of law she cannot be held accountable for the death, because legally her actions did not meet the criteria for the crime she was convicted of.

No marking on the path can be seen in the video to show it’s a shared pathway.

The pavement where this happened wasn't wide enough to accommodate cyclists as well as pedestrians, IMO.

I'm not surprised that Auriol Grey was startled and afraid, when she saw a cyclist barrelling towards her.

And yet it was decided in a court that it was a shared path. Whether a poster on MN can see that on a video or not.

I’m very sorry for the family of the woman who died. It was a horrible thing to happen. I’m also sorry for the driver who couldn’t have avoided hitting her and has to live with her death.

The decision to pursue a manslaughter charge in the first place seems very odd. The woman was aggressive and unpleasant. I don’t think that it was wrong to charge her but I don’t know why they didn’t go for a lesser charge.