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.

So you think people who are not 'able' to use a path which is used by bicycles - should not use the path at all.

You do realise that many of the awful 'share with care' divided footpaths and promenades were originally for the use of pedestrians who have now been pushed to either cowering when confronted by an aggressive cyclist or walk elsewhere (which is often not actually possible)

The cyclists should learn a bit of 'personal responsibility'

A cyclist is the same width of a pedestrian, would she have shoved a runner out of the way? As humans we have to give and take rather than lashing out

Isn’t not intending to murder but your actions leading to murder the literal definition of manslaughter?

Just watched the video. The woman appears to speak and act aggressively, something made that poor cyclist lady fall off her bike into the road. My sympathies lie with the cyclist and her family.

No. Your actions which lead to the death have to be unlawful.

@Flopsythebunny Are you accusing Auriol Grey of murder? She was never accused of pushing. Why come on a thread and make nonsense statements about something you know nothing about.

If the cyclist didn’t have room to pass she shouldn’t have tried to, that’s why she fell into the road!

That’s not negating Auriol’s behaviour, which could have been caused being a vulnerable woman with poor eyesight and cognitive difficulties with repeated near misses with cyclists on the path, or blaming Celia who was an elderly woman likely with reduced reactionary skills, for poor judgment in not stopping and moving her bike to the side of the path.

It was a horrible combination of events but it was not murder on Auriol’s part.

She had partial blindness, so a cyclist on a pavement was super dangerous for her.

As it turned out, not

@MojoMoon Cyclists do have to be aware of pedestrians on shared paths. If they feel they are too narrow, they should use the road if they don't want to dismount. It's unfortunate when lanes are too narrow but a new cycle route near me that cost £8 million is barely used by cyclists. How can any cyclist justify that? It's really about taking care of yourself and others. In this case, the original judge clearly thought the cyclist was doing nothing wrong but my view is that she could have dismounted earlier. Cyclists, generally don't do this.

No.

There are three forms of manslaughter in UK law:

1. Voluntary manslaughter, where there was an intention to kill but a partial defence applies (diminished responsibility, loss of control or suicide pact)
2. Gross negligence manslaughter
3. An unlawful act that results in death

If you do something that leads to someone else's death but your actions don't fall under one of these three headings, you are not guilty of manslaughter.

I feel very sorry for the family of Mrs Ward and also the car driver who said at the original trial that her life has changed forever. Grey may not have been legally responsible but her actions resulted in a lady's death. According to the original trial judge she lied to police and showed no remorse.Id have trouble living with the guilt if it was me .

Speaking for all cyclists?

To convict someone, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution cannot prove that Grey pushed Ward, you cannot convict her on the assumption that she did.

So you think people who are not 'able' to use a path which is used by bicycles - should not use the path at all.

Yes, I do. People should be aware of their own physical capabilities.

People who can't swim shouldn't go in the sea and people who aren't physically fit shouldn't climb Helvellyn and people who are startled by cyclists shouldn't use shared paths.

To repeat, it was never clearly established that this was a shared path at the time of the incident. Its status was uncertain. I understand it is now clearly designated as a shared path, but there is good reason to believe it wasn't at the time.

@Allfur If the shared path is too narrow for both, and the cyclist sees a pedestrian, yes, dismount. I don't know what else you want me to say. Each user should be aware of other users. Whether it's a car driver, cyclist or lorry driver. Care for others matters.

The standard for a criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt. The video evidence is not wholly conclusive that she actually touched the cyclist and Auriol Grey's mental and perception abilities were not fully considered. I have every sympathy for the family of the cyclist who was rightfully on a shared path but the conviction always looked unsafe. I am also unclear what value or justice is served by locking someone away with learning difficulties.

For those interested, the Court of Appeal's judgement can be read at 20240508 R -v- Auriol Gray (judiciary.uk). It is relatively short.

She should still share the space

I think it was the correct decision. The cyclist should have dismounted when she realised there was not room to pass. Where I live the shared pathways state the pedestrian has priority.

She wasn’t convicted of murder. She was convicted of manslaughter which IMO is the correct verdict. It acknowledges that although she probably didn’t mean to cause really serious harm or death, she was negligent as to whether she did. Which is what happens when you do something to cause somebody to hurriedly cycle in to a busy road with no time for careful manoeuvre. It’s as simple as that, in my opinion.