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.

How do we know to give them space or other considerations if there is no visible sign of their disability?

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator

Auriol Grey should never have been charged.

The cyclist was at fault for being on the pavement.

Completely agree

No winners in this case.

Correct decision reached, finally

How can you agree with something so fundamentally incorrect. The cyclist was in no way at fault as it was a shared path. The level of entitlement choosing to ignore rules and laws regarding path usage is astounding.

Telling someone to 'get off the (expletive) pavement' does not equal manslaughter. Anymore than it's manslaughter by the driver.
It was a terrible accident. If she needed to be convicted of something it couldn't be or shouldn't have been directly relating to her negligently causing the poor woman's death.

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose Auriol hadn’t shouted and then raised her hand and Mrs Ward’s bicycle had gone into her, causing presumably injuries. What that be the most acceptable cause of action? Mrs Ward could then have come off her bicycle after going into Auriol.

The fact is, it’s a narrow pathway, Mrs Ward could’ve and should’ve dismounted and walked before getting back on her bicycle. The fact she didn’t do so to me, shows stubbornness and the fact she had priority over a pedestrian.

The fact is that the path was wide enough. The fact is that the lunatic veered towards the cyclist. The cyclist was minding their own business and staying to the side when Auriol launched towards her waving and shouting and flailing. She caused the death of an entirely innocent woman.

She's not an innocent party. She's just not guilty of manslaughter. But she is guilty of causing the death of an innocent victim due to her intentional action

This. ^ Selective memory, and claiming to have forgotten stuff. And admitting she touched the cyclist and then retracting what she said - very likely on the advice of the lawyer. It's a disgrace that she has had her conviction overturned. If this had been a man, there is no way this would have happened.

Quite, it got overturned on a technicality. If this was anything other than a dead cyclist people would be raging

She had brain damage from birth and multiple surgeries on her brain as a child to stop the resulting seizures. I imagine selective memory and forgetting stuff comes with that.

Even the prosecutor didn’t say Auriol pushed Celia so not sure how the posters on here can be so adamant that happened.

Well if AG has a learning disability she’s probably not even aware of the consequences of her actions. And if she hadn’t been judged as fit to live in sheltered accommodation and taken out of the residential home she was in prior to that, the incident likely wouldn’t have happened.

As a driver, cyclist and pedestrian, by far the worst dangers and abuses are when I'm on my bike. Some people just hate cyclists with a passion.

It should either not be mixed use or it should be clearly marked which is the path and which is the cycle path.

That is what caused this issue.

No one should ever be head to head with a cyclist on a pavement of any sort even if it is mixed use.

I think we should have the right to shout at people who are behaving dangerously. If they can't handle that that's their own problem.

Too much of an attitude in this country now that we should all just mind our own business and let the police deal with crimes. No wonder we have so much antisocial behaviour! Especially as the police are overstretched. We all have a civic duty to call out bad behaviour when it's safe to do something

I suspect if the cyclist had been a "lycra lout" rather than an old woman there would have been a lot more sympathy to the pedestrian in the first place.

And I bet you if a driver had sounded the horn at a cyclist riding dangerously and the cyclist had fallen off and died the driver wouldn't have faced any repercussions. Drivers get away with far worse than was done here all the time. Indeed the usual charge for recklessly killing someone in a car is not manslaughter but the lesser charge of causing death by dangerous/careless driving. You could literally run a red light and run someone over and get less punishment than the pedestrian was originally given here!

She had congenital brain damage resulting in learning difficulties as a result and there were multiple brain surgeries. Do you not think that this is likely the reason ? The woman should never have been in prison - it’s jailing a child. The authorities in her area have a lot to answer for because she was in a residential home for disabled people and they judged her fit to live in an assisted living flat - this whole incident is an indictment of that decision.

From this week's judgement for all those on this thread asserting that AG pushed Mrs Ward into the road:

"The prosecution now accepts that, by the time that the judge summed up the case to the jury, there was no evidence which could make the jury sure that the appellant had made any physical contact with Mrs Ward. The evidence was that the appellant had gesticulated and shouted at Mrs Ward using a swear word. There was however no evidence to make the jury sure that the appellant pushed or in any way touched Mrs Ward."

Full judgement here for anyone who wants to read the details:
20240508 R -v- Auriol Grey.pdf (judiciary.uk)

Incredibly sad case.

If she was in assisted living, then doesn't this mean she was judged not to be a child? The criminal age of responsibility is 10. Also a common age for children to be going into town and meeting friends alone around here, without violently lashing out at strangers. Are you saying she has a mental impairment, so she is functioning at a lower level than 10?

Well if you believe the assessment that the pedestrian wasn't found to have committed an unlawful act a "technicality" then yes.

I think most people would describe a "technicality" as a complex point of law or procedure not being followed, not something necessarily fundamental to the foundations of the entire case, but I am aware it is a subjective interpretation.

Ultimately if the conviction was found to be unsafe due to a procedure not being correctly carried out or what I would term a "technicality" then the Appeal Judges would have allowed a retrial.

They didn't, which tells you all you need to know about what the judges view was on the probability of a conviction if a retrial was allowed to take place.

There are no requirements before a pedestrian is allowed to walk on a pavement. People with mental illness (or raving lunatics as you so nicely put it) are allowed to walk on a pavement as are children, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Because cyclists do not abide by the Highway Code.

And because cyclists don't have number plates, so it's impossible to prosecute them for going through red lights.

Because cyclists do not abide by the Highway Code
Bit of a broad sweeping statement!

Okay, so why do they all go through red lights?

I don't! Ever!

They don't

TheShellBeach · Today 10:58

Okay, so why do they all go through red lights?
I never have.
I have never seen any of my cycling buddies do it either.
It's like saying all drivers park on double yellows or on traffic light junctions. We know some do but most don't.
Same with cyclist.. Don't tar us all with same brush.

Don't worry though, you can probably get away with shoving a few cyclists in the road and get away with it.

I'm more worried about the ones who nearly shove me in the road. What is it about getting on a bicycle that gives some people a fat-headed sense of entitlement combined with cycle-rage?

Come off it.
I used to drive through central London for work and it was really rare to see cyclists stopping at red lights.

Especially first thing in the nothing.

But not round Parliament Square. Funny that. The one place in London which is overrun with police officers, and all the cyclists magically manage to resist the desire to ignore the red lights.