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.

They don’t all go through red lights. It’s vanishingly rare that they do because it’s suicidal to run a red light.

Yes a technicality. The prosecution didn't establish the offense, it wasn't that they couldn't. The judge didn't notice, the defence didn't notice.

Any technically it's fair enough but it's definitely a technicality, when the jury made their deliberations they decided the interaction led to a death that otherwise wouldn't have happened. They understood it as the offense itself

I am not bothered she's out of prison though. Didn't really think that was appropriate for the specific situation.

I completely agree with this. I live in the area and know the stretch of road/pavement well. I'm angry with the lazy council for paying lip-service to cycling needs and providing inadequate and dangerous shared use paths that are not fit for purpose.

Loads of people on all forms of transport take the piss with lights. Anyone who drives or rides round London will see multiple cars and bikes pushing through reds daily

What do you suggest they do? There are houses all along that stretch making it impossible to widen the pavement.

What, cars with number plates n all!

Give everybody space.

It isn't likely that multiple cars go through red lights, nor have I seen many do so.

I'm laughing at the assertion that most cyclists stop at red lights.

They don't.

Exactly. That pavement is too narrow to be shared use, in which case cyclists could and do use the road. The speed limit is only 30 mph and there are 2 lanes. If the council cared or had the money, they could convert part of the road to a proper cycle lane, not the pavement.

There was an incident in Regents Park in which a peloton club was riding in formation and one of them struck an 81 year old pedestrian who was crossing the road to a pedestrian island. The rider was said to have his head down and the group were riding well in excess of the 20mph speed limit in the park.

The pedestrian later died but no charges could be brought because it was established that the posted speed limit had never been enforced for cyclists. At present the only appropriate law in similar cases is that of Wanton and Furious Cycling, which was judged inappropriate in this case and yet this law was used to successfully prosecute the cyclist involved in a similar fatality in 2017.

In AG’s case I remember a dispute as to the positioning of signage indicating dual use of the pavement. That doesn’t excuse what happened but I think the original sentence was far too harsh given the self evident mental health conditions. If I remember rightly it was also reported that she was partially sighted and had difficulty with depth perception. The judge dismissed these conditions as not relevant.

I see at least 10 cars jump red lights on my commute most days.

The difference being that motorists can be identified and prosecuted via their license plates.

Well that's the thing you see, they rarely are, oh and they are far more likely to kill and maim whilst doing so.

Yeah but they aren't, and if they're running round jumping loads of reds I'm guessing often they're one of the millions of unregistered/cloned/whatever drivers anyway

Or just an impatient driver who knows they won't get caught at certain junctions with no cameras

Space is relative and not always possible on public pavements even for pedestrians passing pedestrians. Who then is the arbiter of what is reasonable, someone like AG?

You cannot possibly know how the cyclist was proceeding along the path, that she was staying safely to one side and that she posed no threat to AG. You've just made that up to suit the narrative you've created your head. All you know is what's on the cctv, which shows a snapshot mainly of AG's behaviour. You assume that the cyclist was riding slowly and considerately, and that AG had no need to be frightened.

You don't know that. None of us know either way. But the court has concluded she didn't commit a crime.

*Come off it.
I used to drive through central London for work and it was really rare to see cyclists stopping at red lights.
London is a world away from life. I've never been there but everything seems more manic compared to where I live.
The cycle groups I go out with forbid the cyclists in tbe group from going through a red.
As an individual, when away from groups do not go through a red.
I am not saying cyclist never go through reds, of course some do, like I said some drivers also cause hazards. Some cyclist are a bloody menace as well.
However many car drivers and cyclist are respectful to others.

The cyclist following said the cyclist came to a nearly complete stop before the interaction

It's also not true that most cyclists in London routinely jump reds. Ride down any cycle super highway and you see this. It's easy not to see as a driver though because they're controlled in a separate lane at the lights

Did you not watch the video? There was clearly a push.

Ah well, it's a shame the judge didn't agree with you.

There was clearly a push.

Yes a technicality. The prosecution didn't establish the offense, it wasn't that they couldn't. The judge didn't notice, the defence didn't notice.

If the Appeal Court judges thought the offence could be established why did they not at least allow or order a retrial ?

AFAIK the offence was manslaughter by unlawful act. You might argue not establishing the unlawful act was a technicality. But to me it sounds pretty fundamental.