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.

She was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. That requires her to have committed a criminal offence that caused the cyclist's death. It is therefore necessary to identify a criminal offence of which she would have been convicted if the cyclist had not died. She does not appear to have committed one, which is why she should not have been convicted.

Maybe the cyclist should have stopped or dismounted sooner, likely it all happened so fast that there wasn't enough time for that. But I don't believe she was "scared" of the cyclist as the fact she was so aggressive shouting "get off the fucking path" makes me think that she didn't care about the cyclists safety at all. She just wanted to prove her own point that she doesn't agree they should be on any pavements. Her actions by doing this led to someones death.

I disagree with this decision.

I can only think that those who don't haven't watched the video.

Grey deliberately caused a woman to fall into the road into oncoming traffic. She then left the scene and went shopping.

The pavement was a shared cycle lane, and even if it wasn't the cyclist did not deserve to be forced into the road to die.

Grey had a history of trouble making and antisocial behaviour.

Ludicrous that she was ever charged, let alone convicted. I'm beyond sick of cyclists on pavements, if it has wheels, it belongs on the road! (unless it's a wheelchair or other mobility vehicle, obvs) Of course this was the right decision.

'Vile creature', 'aggressive and violent', callous'?

She is brain damaged. What part of that do some posters not understand?

Is she responsible for the death of Celia Ward? Yep. Was that intentional in any way? Clearly not. Should she have been less aggressive? Obviously. Should the victim have slowed and probably dismounted? Yep. Should the council have made sure the paths were more clearly marked? Yep, of course. There's fault on more than one side here, there's more than one victim and no actual criminal offence committed. It's very sad for every one involved but I can't see any value in sending someone to jail.

Well i guess you can always push them into the traffic

They should use the road instead of the cycle path in this case in Huntingdon but when they are near your house, they should use the cycle lane instead of the road?

If the £8million cycle lane isn't being used, that is probably because it is poorly designed. It's not "unfortunate" when lanes are too narrow, it is poor design.

There isn't some obligation to use it just because money has been spent on it - cyclists are entitled to cycle on the road carriageway if they wish regardless of how much money has been spent. It's not their individual responsibility to justify the way a council has chosen to spend money.

If your local council have done a poor job designing it and a poor job managing costs in building it (sounds like a very high sum of money for a mere lane) then complain to them.

Grey had a history of trouble making and antisocial behaviour.

Thats really interesting actually I thought she might have had altercations in the past because of the level of aggression shown in her words and actions in this incident. She could have clearly kept to one side to let the cyclist past, there was plenty of room for her to do that, but she choose not to.

Because she hates cyclists

As for the apparent callousness of leaving the scene, if she had been told to do so by the emergency services as stated, what else exactly would you want her to do? So many uncertainties here being ignored by many who seem really keen to punish this woman to a level I find oddly harsh. Are any of you friends or relatives of the people involved? Some of the comments seem very personal and are blatantly ignoring relevant circumstances.

Does anyone have any evidence to support this idea that she had a history of trouble making and antisocial behaviour? Or is it another social media myth?

She pushed her. Which is assault. Which is illegal.

I haven't - just the opposite. Some drivers here in London are terrifying, going 3 times the speed limit and not signalling before turning. Whereas the cyclists are mostly commuters and are quite considerate.

Couldn't agree more.

There was no evidence to prove that she pushed her. Indeed, the prosecution accepted there was no evidence on which the jury could be sure that she even touched the cyclist. If you want to convict her, you need to stick to the facts that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I thought aggressive and intimidating behaviour was a criminal offence. Did that male motorist not get convicted recently for being angry and frightening a female driver. He didn't make contact with her and argued that being angry was not a crime, but he was convicted anyway.

The BBC report says she left before the emergency services arrived.

I mean, if the legal bar for a manslaughter conviction to stick is not met, then that is one thing. We all need to accept the law or campaign to change it. But it is the morality of it that people are more qualified on, and as such it's hard to dispute that she directly caused and is responsible for poor Celia's death, wasn't sorry about it, and seems to be a pretty awful person. It's just sad all round.

@MrTiddlesTheCat Good point about that angry male motorist. He's been told to expect a custodial sentence.

You don’t have to touch somebody to assault them, you just need to cause them anticipation that they will be harmed. Screaming and waving your arms about as you approach them counts.

I wonder if she will get compensation

And everyone on here was cheering that along.

I suspect had Ms Gray been a 6ft, shaved head tattooed man the comments here would be very different

The law shouldn’t be applied according to the profile of the perpetrator

The motorist was convicted of threatening behaviour. To get a conviction, the prosecution must show that the defendant intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person. On the evidence in this case, they would not have been able to prove that.

She left before the emergency services arrived. In her police interview clip I watched they ask her why she left the scene and she says something like she could "hear" the sirens coming and she "didn't think she needed to stay".