To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

If it makes zero difference then why did the judge say it? Anyway, juries are not perfect and it may have made a difference to them. Also hung juries are not really very common. They obviously indicate doubt over the verdict.

Exactly. There are no signs to indicate that though and the council don't even claim that it is a shared path.

So unless the judge knows something that the council and the police don't know, his comments that it's a a shared path and the pedestrian should have known that are incorrect.

Presumably anything in the judges summing-up, including the status of the cycle path and the defendants knowledge of this would be based on the evidence put before the court. That's Judging 101 isn't it?

We don't know it was a hung jury at the first trial. I understand there are other reasons a retrial could be needed.

I've seen several hung juries and I was very nearly on one.

If a hung jury means a subsequent verdict can't be sound, then there's no point in ever having a retrial after a hung jury. The fact that one jury couldn't reach a verdict doesn't mean another jury can't. It's a whole new trial with a whole new jury. They can deliver a sound verdict based on the evidence.

Judges give an overall summary of everything in the summing up. If the question of the path being shared came up, the judge will include it. They don't suddenly make up evidence.

As others have said, even if Ward was cycling illegally, that's not a defence against her manslaughter.

Yes, exactly. It should be. But we can see the lack of signs and roadmarkings on Streetview. So if the judge says 'she should have known' that it's a shared use path he is clearly wrong.

I saw the cctv and i think what she did was really bad. Aggressive shouting/swearing, walking across the path so the lady had no choice but to go onto the road without looking and gesturing with her arms. Sorry, she was sentenced correctly imo. Manslaughter is accidental death

Manslaughter is accidental death

No, it is unlawful and unintended death. It is not accidental. Accidents aren't illegal.

When a judge is summing up the matters to be considered by the jury, before the jury delivers its decision, an error of fact or law can be grounds for appeal.

We are not privy to the judge’s comments from that summing-up, or whether he referred to the status of the path. There’s every chance that he did not refer to it in his summing up, because the status of the path is not relevant to the offence.

The comments reported in the media, where the judge says it was a shared path, appear to have been subsequent to the jury’s decision (and in the context of delivering the sentence).

It’s very disconcerting how angry and supportive of vigilantism many people on this thread are. I suppose it was ever this, and some people have also been vengeful and intolerant.

Cyclists on pavements are annoying, lots of drivers are annoying, lots of people are annoying. But being irritated and morally indignant about a supposed injustice doesn’t exonerate assaulting someone.

And if you do assault someone and aren’t seriously mentally unwell, and don’t have an intellectual disability you are criminally responsible, whatever your underlying triggers

No, it's not a defence, and as you've just said it shouldn't be mentioned if it wasn't proved by evidence.

There's nothing in the reported evidence though to suggest that there's any justification for a statement that she 'should have known' it was a shared user path. And the provable facts are that she couldn't have known - even if it was, which is still in doubt.

It may well not have ma DD e any difference to the verdict or the sentence but the judge at least thought it significant enough to mention it at sentencing, which means he took it into account when setting the sentence.

Vigilantism? Shouting at a cyclist who's acting illegally, failing to give way appropriately and trying to force you off the pavement, getting in the face of a vulnerable person during a pandemic?

Yes, I made the distinction between summing-up and sentencing and the difference between appealing the sentence and appealing the verdict.

Why are you lying? We all saw the video.

About 20 pages ago you were pretending not to have a strong opinion on this case, yet now you’re making up plain and obvious falsehoods to support the killer?

Disgusting behaviour.

Exactly there was no assault, no vigilantism. That is just emotive falsehood. All their was was someone walking on the pavement who is entitled to safety and consideration. Cyclists shouldn't be there but if they have to be then they must display an abundance of caution, slow down, give way, or get off and push.

Are you saying that Celia Ward was trying to force Grey off the pavement?

And ‘getting in the face’ of Auriol Gray.

Plain and obvious lies about the victim.

Twisted.

We all saw the video but apparently some people (like you) saw it differently than the CPS, the Police and the jury. It could even be that they had access to other evidence refuting your theories.

She was cycling too close and failing to give way. She'd just passed over a wide driveway where she could have easily waited, or safely joined the road - where she should have been to start with.

More lies.

I have consistently said that the video looks like a push but is inconclusive.

I don’t think any body, other than you, has claimed that the video shows the cyclist was trying to force AG off the path or was ‘getting in AG’s face’.

And the reason nobody else has said that is because it is plainly and obviously categorically untrue.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

Serves her right for being such an unnecessary busy-body!

I'm sick of women like this..poking their nose in where it's not wanted. If they're not harassing innocent people, they're calling the police on innocent people. It's disgusting behaviour. They need to pass a law on this kind of shit!

Condolences to the deceased woman's family 🙏🏿

I'm saying she wasn't obeying the Highway Code with the result that a disabled person with poor eyesight and reduced mobility would have been forced to make adjustments to allow her past. She then attempted to pass on the wrong side and seemingly misjudged the width.

I don't care what you think. There clearly wasn't room for both of them. The cyclist didn't stop and attempted to pass on the wrong side. The accepted procedure, where cycling is allowed, is to pass to the left or to stop and allow the pedestrian to pass.

The video does look as if there wouldn't be room for Celia to pass AG without AG being forced to jump to one side. Obviously she doesn't dream of trying to step to one side and should have done. But I do question why Celia was approaching her head on. When on a bike you have the power to hurt pedestrians and the onus is on the cyclist to avoid collisions with pedestrians.

If I was riding a bike, I certainly wouldn't be approaching a pedestrian in the manner that Celia was approaching AG. I would slow down and be ready to pause/walk past if there were any question about room on the pavement, if only to protect myself from future injury claims. It is also much more likely that the pedestrian is the one forced onto the road and I would not have approached AG without room to pass in case it ended up with her somehow on that busy road.

I wouldn't dream of criticising Celia if a disabled, childlike woman was not condemned to three years in prison over the tragedy. Difficult questions need to be asked.

If it was any other lawful user of the shared space there'd be obvious uproar. But this one was a cyclist and there's no limit to what people will argue for when the alternative is siding with a cyclist