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.

The cyclist was doing nothing wrong and now she's dead because of the actions of another person.

I'm a cyclist. Shared use or not, the path wasn't wide enough for both of them and pedestrians have priority. The cyclist should have stopped to let the pedestrian past. Ms Grey's reaction was pretty instinctive to someone approaching her too fast and too close on a bike. (not that the poor cyclist deserved to die but definitely not something to send the pedestrian to prison for).

I do think it was manslaughter. She stuck her arm out, pushed and shouted and swore. As a direct result of these actions, the 77yo cyclist fell into the road and died.

I would think that the best thing to do would have been to stand aside and let the cyclist past. Even if you know that the cyclist shouldn't be on the pavement.

I understand Grey has disabilities - partial blindness and CP. A previous poster has stated the Grey could have been frightened for her own safety with the cyclist coming towards her. I don't believe this for a minute. Grey stood resolutely and pushed. She could have stood to the side to avoid the incident entirely and protect herself.

Our cities and towns are crowded. You cannot go around pushing people into the road if you decide they are in the wrong. It's manslaughter at the very least.

Cyclists need to be reminded than pavements/footpaths should be for pedestrians first and foremost and that it is not our job to get out of their way if they choose to use them.
Aye, and pedestrians need to be reminded that a shared path is for both cyclist and pedestrians and not for them to sprawl all over the path making it difficult for cyclist to pass.
It works both ways.
Consideration is need on both sides.
On a shared path I always slow right down when their is a family. If they aren't seeing me or don't want to let me pass I use my bell as an indicator that I'm around. I've had so much abuse from people when I've had to do this over the years

It was a shared pedestrian/cyclist path.

By the way did anyone else notice in the video report in the BBC article you see a cyclist riding past the reporter, on exactly the same path that Celia Ward had been (lawfully) riding along?

Cyclists appear to be damned if they do use the shared cycle paths and damned if they don't use the shared cycle paths and use the road instead.

Well it’s a shame that lurching towards someone shouting, waving arms, blocking their path and causing them to swerve infront of a car isn’t enough for a conviction. The first judge thought it was. I think it should be.

Looking at the pathway, it's totally unsuitable to be used as "shared". As a cyclist and hiker, I use shared walkways frequently. So many of them are not fit for purpose. Usually too narrow or badly designated or with no markings at all. When cycling, I'll often just use the road instead of a shared path as I don't always consider them the safer option, particularly when narrow. I'd also have dismounted and pushed past the pedestrian on that pathway had I not wanted to use the road.
That said, it's NOT the fault of Mrs Ward and she was using the path legally as far as anyone can tell (I know there has been some back and forth about that with the council regarding signage). I can also see why a partially sighted and disabled person would be intimidated by a cycle heading towards them at speed.
There was no other option than to quash the conviction. It's over now and hopefully Mrs Wards family can find some peace with it all. I'm sure it must be incredibly hard for them to have lost Celia in such a tragic way and to go through all these legal ups and downs.

Whilst not Man slaughter, she was responsible for a death. Her aggressive action resulted in the victim falling. Had she not flailed at shouted at the victim, the victim would not get dead.

If you look at the articles from the time, the police couldn’t establish whether it was a shared path or not, despite what the original judge said in his sentencing.

The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.
Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.

Regardless of that, the woman shouldn’t have been shouting and waving off a cyclist because it could (and did) lead to an accident. It was an accident though. The cyclist wasn’t shoved into traffic.

Yelling and waving aggressively at a 77 year old cyclist who's right next to a busy road was such a stupid, nasty and reckless thing to do. Ms Grey didn't even care about the fatal accident she caused, she just went shopping. So callous.

Why? What will happen to them?

The cyclist was entitled to be on the shared pavement

Had the woman not aggressively flailed and shouted the innocent victim would not be dead. The death is as a result of this woman's action. That may but be man slaughter but she is still culpable of the death

Most people seem to be clear but, for the benefit of those posters who think the decision to quash the conviction is wrong, the specific offence of which she was committed was Unlawful Act Manslaughter. That offence is committed when someone does something illegal that causes the death of another person. However, the prosecution failed to show that Ms Grey had done anything illegal. The prosecution in the trial did not say that she pushed the cyclist, as some on here appear to think. They described her actions as "hostile gesticulation". As "hostile gesticulation" is not an offence, there is no basis on which Ms Grey should have been convicted. The Court of Appeal is correct that the judge was wrong to allow this case to go to the jury.

If you think Ms Grey should have been convicted, you need to identify an actual offence she committed.

She was an elderly woman, do you really think she was ”barrelling”. Rather emotive language.

it was legally a shared use path with signs denoting it as such further back. And no sign saying end of cycle path inbetween which is legally required once a cycle path ends.

She should have never been convicted.

I don’t believe anyone was pushed here. Certainly not from seeing the footage.

The issue here is that the pavement was clearly not wide enough for both. I can see why AG was concerned.

The victim’s reaction time also seemed slow from what I saw from the footage. She could have stopped earlier.

This was an accident and the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. Council made the wrong decision if they made it a shared pathway. I used to have a shared pathway much wider outside my office and still had a lot of near misses with cyclists.

I agree. The cyclist was wholly innocent. The death occurred as a result of this woman's aggressive actions. Had she not flailed and shouted the death would not have happened but may not reach the bar for MS but the death is due to her intentional actions.

I completely agree. It’s a mixed use footpath and now has the appropriate signage to denote that. I’m very pleased that she’s only served about six months less than if the appeal hadn’t taken place. I’d be gutted if I were Celia Ward’s family.

Is swearing in public not technically an offence? Disorderly behaviour? I get that maybe that’s grasping at straws but it seems Gray has got off on a technicality. Shame the overall picture of aggressive behaviour can’t be considered.

Regardless of what you think, a SHARED footpath is designed for cyclist use. The cyclist was wholly innocent sge died as a result of this woman's intentional action.

She didn’t kill her, that’s the point. She has been acquitted and the appeal judges pretty damning of the original trial and prosecution.

My 70+ mother cycles everywhere, I can imagine if some crazy bitch came barrelling at her yelling and gesturing wildly at her she'd also lose balance and fall into the traffic. And ableism my hole, she was a fucking lunatic that did this regularly, she's no victim

Then they should have charged her with that.

Shared paths need to be a minimum of 2.5m wide and this one isn’t and has obstructions along the way
Theres supposed to be notices as well but Cambs put them up after this occurred.
The only notices are at the beginning of the road which if you join midway you would be unaware of.

Cambs council were negligent in terms of signage and the designation of this as a shared path and yet have not been held to account at all.

However
Pedestrians have priority and the cyclist should have stopped.

Ms Grey didn't even care about the fatal accident she caused, she just went shopping. So callous

I think that this played a big part in the decision to prosecute. If she’d have stopped and cried, if she’d shown the right response, then I don’t think they would’ve gone after her so hard. Her reaction might make her a horrible person but it shouldn’t have played any part in deciding what to charge her with.