A woman who was sentenced to three years in jail for manslaughter after being found by a jury to have confronted an elderly cyclist, causing her to be killed after she fell into the path of a vehicle, has had her conviction overturned at appeal.
Auriol Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially blind, had her conviction overturned today by the Court of Appeal, the BBC reports, three judges ruling that the prosecution’s case had been “insufficient even to be left to the jury” and that the “appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is unsafe”.
Ms Grey’s lawyers had told the judges that they believed no “base offence” was ever identified during the trial, a manslaughter conviction requiring an unlwaful action to have caused the death of Celia Ward in 2020, the senior judge later stating in conclusion that, “Had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault.”
The 50-year-old had been walking along a route in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, when she shouted at the cyclist to “get off the pavement” and gestured as she passed, Mrs Ward falling off her bike and into the path of oncoming traffic.
When Ms Grey was sentenced, Judge Sean Enright had called her “territorial about the pavement” and having “resented” the presence of a cyclist on it. However, whether the route was in fact a shared-use path was also questioned during the initial trial, Cambridgeshire Constabulary unable to “categorically” ascertain whether Mrs Ward had been cycling on a shared use path or pavement.
The case prompted campaigners to urge highways authorities to remove conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, with new shared-use signs installed in the town.
Grey left the scene before the arrival of the emergency services and went to a supermarket to do her shopping. She was arrested the next day, and claimed that Mrs Ward had been cycling “at high speed” and that she was “anxious I was going to get hit by it” so “flinched out with her left arm to protect herself”.
CCTV footage shared by Cambridgeshire Constabulary showed Grey shouting at Mrs Ward, described by her widower as an “experienced and competent cyclist”, to “get off the f***ing pavement” and the pedestrian was jailed for three years last year having been found guilty at a retrial.
However, appeal judges Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey concluded that they have “no hesitation” in concluding that the conviction was “unsafe” and that the prosecution’s case had been “insufficient even to be left to the jury”.
The trio of appeal judges agreed with Ms Grey’s lawyers, one of whom — Adrian Darbishire KC — argued that no “base offence”, an unlawful action to have caused the death was ever established during the trial.
Dame Sharp said the jury had never been asked to decide “the fundamental question of whether a base offence was established” and concluded that “had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault”.
While her gesture towards the cyclist was described as “hostile”, Darbishire KC responded: “Hostile gesticulation is not a crime, otherwise we would have 50,000 football fans each weekend being apprehended.”
The Crown Prosecution Service’s barrister Simon Spence KC told the court that it was accepted that “common assault as the base offence was not identified by name”. He later asked for the case to be returned to the Crown Court for a retrial, a request that was denied.
In a statement released after the conviction was overturned, Ms Grey’s family urged for “lessons to be learnt”.
“Whilst we welcome the decision of the Court of Appeal, our thoughts today are also with the Ward family, and I am a sure a day doesn’t go by when they don’t remember their tragic loss,” the statement said.
“We are very relieved that Auriol’s prison ordeal is over and we would like to thank the staff and inmates of HMP Peterborough for the kindness and consideration they have shown over the last year.
“There has been unnecessary and prolonged suffering and vulnerable people like Auriol need better support from the justice system — we hope lessons will be learnt.”

103 thoughts on “Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter over cyclist’s death has conviction overturned”
If you want to kill someone
If you want to kill someone and get away with it, make sure they are riding a bike.
shouldn’t that be
shouldn’t that be
“If you want to kill someone and get away with it, make sure you are riding a bike”?
captain fantastic wrote:
The OED offers a definition of “fantastic” as “imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality”. Excellent choice of name.
Hilarious. I tell you what, I
Hilarious. I tell you what, I invite you to a duel. You can have my bike as a weapon, I’ll drive your Chelsea tractor. I wonder who will win?
Quote:
Except it is quite clear from the video that she didn’t “flinch” out with her arm at the last moment (which would be my understanding of ‘flinched out’), she was walking toward the cyclist shouting at her and waving her arm about like she was being attacked by a swarm of flies.
This is, IMO, the wrong decision
Seems it wasn’t clear to the
Seems it wasn’t clear to the appeal judges though – rather the opposite.
IANAL but despite the “technical” nature of the appeal (no “base offence”) from the pretty strong comments by the judges and the denial of a retrial they sound certain the case had little merit and/or the prosecution made a total mess.
I’m not sure myself – IIRC initially it seemed a long shot to prove anything but later it was reported that there was some footage that the police had which was more conclusive (and damaging to the defendant’s case). Only read reportage here and the Beeb though so IDK.
Educate yourself on how the
Educate yourself on how the appeals court works. It’s not how you are thinking it does.
I do get it.
I do get it.
The appeal court looks at whether the letter and process of the law was adhered to, and have decided that it wasn’t because the prosecution didn’t invoke the correct magic phrase.
But also declared that there couldn’t be a retrial (presumably because she’d never ever get a fair trial now).
I still think that is the wrong decision – even if they didn’t say “Abracadabra” they surely demonstrated that her actions met the threshold for criminal
liability. (edit) prosecution.There was more to it than
There was more to it than just phrasing something correctly. In order for it to be manslaughter, the defendant had to have done something that constituted assault, which is then upgraded to manslaughter due to the deadly consequences. If she was merely being an arsehole, rather than behaving in an illegal way, she isn’t guilty of manslaughter because no offence took place that could be upgraded.
It has always seemed bizarre that this vulnerable woman (albeit not a nice person) and who could not have reasonably foreseen the deadly consequences of her actions, was pursued to the full extent of the law, when drivers continue to kill a couple of cyclists every week and rarely see any jail time at all. If anything, this case further highlights the drivers’ privilege over every other user of roads and footways.
zweiblumen wrote:
I don’t disagree with you about drivers but surely the whole point of manslaughter is that there wasn’t an intent to kill and what I saw on the video surely counts as assault even if it wasn’t explicitly called that in court?
zweiblumen wrote:
Surely there can be no argument that she did do something that constituted assault: common assault can occur when “a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force”. Shouting and swearing at Mrs Ward, waving her arms about and stepping into her path, ultimately by Grey’s own admission lashing out at her, whether contact was made or not, clearly comes under this heading.
If she could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of her actions she could, and should, have been charged with murder. Manslaughter exists as an offence precisely for people who kill as an unintended/unforeseen consequence of their actions.
zweiblumen wrote:
I would consider that shouting and waving your arms aggressively at someone is intended to cause fear and should count as assault or at the very least disturbing the peace. As a test, I would suggest doing that to a copper and seeing what the result is (not that coppers are necessarily experts in the law). I would think that it was the possible assault charge that could be upgraded to manslaughter as the cyclist entered the road purely due to fear of the defendant’s threatening behaviour.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I would consider that shouting and waving your arms aggressively at someone is intended to cause fear and should count as assault or at the very least disturbing the peace. As a test, I would suggest doing that to a copper and seeing what the result is (not that coppers are necessarily experts in the law). I would think that it was the possible assault charge that could be upgraded to manslaughter as the cyclist entered the road purely due to fear of the defendant’s threatening behaviour.— zweiblumen
it should now be perfectly legal for anyone to scream at these three judges and shove them off the pavement whenever they are encountered.
you know, since that is not assault after all.
But the very lowest level of
But the very lowest level of assault is exactly that, being an arsehole to someone, you don’t have to hit anyone or die from an altercation as the defence lawyer seems to think, for it to be an unlawful act.
zweiblumen wrote:
Unlawful act involuntary manslaughter does not require the offender to be able to foresee the death.
Personally, I’d say it is an obvious case of common assault by the victim being placed in fear of personal violence, so the Appeal Decision is a fairly blatant miscarriage of justice – even if technically correct.
mattw wrote:
It appears that the appeal decision was due to the original judge not mentioning Common Assault – not so much that it wasn’t common assault, just that the judge hadn’t explicitly mentioned it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Certainly that appears to be my reading of it.
Basically 3 stages for this prosecution jury should have been ruling on:
1. Did her actions beyond reasonable doubt constitute assault
2. If they did constitute assault is it beyond reasonable doubt it wasn’t self defence
3. Did it result in death.
Basically the judge and prosecution’s submission to the jury started at step 2 rather than the jury being told to rule on step 1. While I would argue step 1 should have been met (clearly the cyclist was either hit or jumped back in fear of being hit, hence common assault…), but can also accept that the appeal is valid because this had to be determined by the jury.
The huge issue is the number of *bleeps* trying to argue she did nothing wrong rather than a technical error who will use it to justify attacking cyclists. And if anything this would be the best reason to consider a retrial rather than throwing it out (even if, given penalties for drivers, any sentence would likely already be served)
So the conviction was
So the conviction was overturned because the CPS didn’t explicit state that Ms Grey’s hostile actions which constitute common assault, were in fact an act of common assault?
BS technicality!
That’s exactly what the
That’s exactly what the appeals court rules on. Contary to popular opinion it’s not about getting a second opinion of your guilt or innocence but whether the process and letter of the law was applied.
In this case it wasn’t. End of story, whether we like it or not.
She was tried for
She was tried for manslaughter, found guilty and the conviction overturned due to lack of an underlying assault charge.
She can’t be retried for manslaughter, fine, but by that same technicality surely the CPS *could* take her back to court to be tried for assault?
Costs and public interest
Costs and public interest rule it out, ie she’s already spent 1 year in jail, it’s unlikely there’d be any further sentencing appropriate for it.
What the CPS should be doing is working out how they managed to screw up presenting the unlawful act part in the original trial.
stonojnr wrote:
That makes sense, but it seems like a miscarriage of justice to me and the friends/family of Celia Ward should be considered too. Justice should be about more than just a balance sheet.
Personally, I think a year in jail is reasonable, so a suspended sentence would seem appropriate to send the right message about public aggression.
Fair enough overturning the
Fair enough overturning the original conviction if they found that the letter of the law had not been applied correctly.
However, by refusing a retrial, the appeal judges also seem to have also concluded as a matter of fact that not only was the unlawful act not specified, it never happened – i.e. Ms Grey’s actions absolutely did not constitute assault.
I think that is what is hard to stomach about this ruling. Obviously we have only read little tidbits in the media, but it certainly sounds to me like Ms Grey’s actions could have been assault. Therefore, a retrial, in which a jury is asked to decide whether or not the unlawful act has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, would seem the more just outcome. We don’t know exactly what directions were given to the jury in the original trial, but they clearly believed Ms. Grey was criminally culpable, and I would struggle to understand how the jury could reach that conclusion unless the jury believed Ms. Grey intended to hit or push Ms. Ward (which would be assault, even if it was not specified by name during the trial).
The police comments at the
The police comments at the time were
Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: “I’ll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.
“In all honesty it’s horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void.”
I think stonojnr has it right though with “Costs and public interest rule it out, ie she’s already spent 1 year in jail, it’s unlikely there’d be any further sentencing appropriate for it.”
Hirsute wrote:
Potentially I could sympathise with that argument, but that is not the justification that has been given. I would also have thought that that decision ought to be made by the CPS choosing not to persue a retrial, rather than by the Appeal Judges refusing to permit one.
They’re maybe a more
They’re maybe a more technical lawyer speak reasoning for barring a retrial, it’s just my assumption that it sits in the bucket marked costs,time, public interest etc.
I find it absolutely spine
I find it absolutely spine-chilling that you can push someone, not least an old lady, in front of an on-coming car, and walk away free. Just walk away without responability, like how this evil person walked to Sainsbury’s after she killed another human being. Will we hear from Ian Duncan Smith regarding a “death by dangerous walking” amendment?
Honestly, this case is the last straw for me. I don’t feel any positivity about being a cyclist anymore. I’ve always just wanted to get to Lidl without dying and now I can be reassured by the knowledge that someone can just push me to my death and they will get away with it one way or another. I’m not a human being when I get on the saddle, all I’m ever told/shown/treated is that I’m worthy of death.
Push?
Push?
Where do you see that she
Where do you see that she pushed her?
wHeRe dO yOU sEe tHAt sHE
wHeRe dO yOU sEe tHAt sHE pUShED hEr
In the video. I do not care what technicalities meant that they couldn’t decide in court. The video for me is clear. As the victim falls, the pusher’s elbow is in a position that makes it so obvious that she pushed her.
The pusher also walked basically towards and in front of the lady and between the road and a lamppost, essentially directing the victim into the road. She caused that ladys death whether the court puts her in jail or not.
i-am-furious wrote:
Then you need your eyes tested. You *inferring* the movement ending in a push is not the same as the video showing she was pushed. The moment of contact isnt shown.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
IIRC the police at the time said that they had a longer version of the video, which wasn’t released to the general media/public.
From up thread
From up thread
“In all honesty it’s horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void.”
i-am-furious wrote:
No doubt that Grey caused Ward’s death but – from the court judgement: “there was no evidence which could make the jury sure that the appellant had made any physical contact with Mrs Ward”
http://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
I may be unpopular for
I’m as appalled as anyone else on this site at this tragic incident. I may be unpopular for pointing this out but someone with mental health problems and a visual impairment isn’t ‘evil’. However perplexing you may find the Court’s decision equating an individual’s disability to a moral deficiency is as unbecoming as it is unacceptable.
jaymack wrote:
The equivalence of mental health problems and visual impairment with evil is in your reply, not in the post you are answering.
“…like this evil person”,
“…like this evil person”, these aren’t my words but those of the individual making the post. Still it’s a sunny and there’s far more worthwhile things to do than squabble, I hope you have a wonderful afternoon.
I’m not confortable with the
I’m not confortable with the ‘evil’ description either. I’m also prepared to accept a custodial sentence may not have been appropriate. However, it’s not fair on the lady who died that her death is now being treated as a bit of a whoopsie.
If her legal team think she has diminished responsibily for medical reasons then they can argue that. As far as I’m aware they didn’t.
I can’t help but think her defence is not one of someone who has a different recollection of events, but one who didn’t realise there would be video evidence to contradict her statement, and was relying on the lack of witness testimony from the woman whose death she caused.
jaymack wrote:
Equally someone with mental health problems and a visual impairment is capable of being “evil” just as much as the next person. I don’t think the OP was equating Grey’s disability with her actions at all. It’s worth noting that the original trial judge made a point of stating that her actions had no connection with her disabilities.
Darbishire KC wrote:
Darbishire KC sees that as a ridiculous notion. I see it as a good start.
Darbishire KC needs to
Darbishire KC needs to reconsider their chosen vocation surely?
GMBasix wrote:
most hostile gesticulation by football fans is not at a distance of less than a foot. If I swing a baseball bat at someone and the jump back off the platform onto the train tracks I don’t get to say ah well, not my fault, there was no contact.
A small silver lining – she
A small silver lining – she has already spent a year in jail.
For an unsafe conviction and
For an unsafe conviction and no established base offence. That’s a strange kind of silver lining.
If they’d appealed her
If they’d appealed her sentence and decided she’d been punished enough I’d have been OK with it. Unfortunately, this judgement implies she wasn’t guilty at all.
There can be legal interpretations about technicalities, but the media coverage gives the very strong impression that the woman who died was in the wrong, and her assailant was an innocent victim. While I can accept the woman who was previously found guilty may have genuinely believed it was a pavement for pedestrians only, the media coverage is repeating that as absolute fact, as if the victim, who has not been able to give her point of view, was willfully cycling on a pavement and threatening the welfare of vulnerable people.
So it’s got to the stage that
So it’s got to the stage that even a pedestrian can be responsible for a cylists death but not held accountable. The fact a retrial had been refused leaves it open season, again, on cyclists.
One looks forward to the
One looks forward to the tabloid headlines: “Outrage as “cyclist killer” is released on a technicality”. Oh sorry, no, my mistake, she’s a cyclist killer, not a “killer cyclist”. No outrage required.
So an assault ‘base’ charge
So an assault ‘base’ charge was required for the manslaugher charge to be considered valid, is that correct?
Would the defendant’s viewpoint (testimony?) of effectively acting in self-defence nullify this? I’m not suggesting it should (it seems that she was quite aggressive in her so-called ‘defence’), just considering that point.
tootsie323 wrote:
I don’t see how a self-defence plea would work against a non-aggressive act i.e. carefully cycling. However, it would be fun if we could plead self defence to go and attack any non-attentive driver.
In this hypothetical, you
In this hypothetical, you would presumably be arguing that the cycling was not careful, and that you genuinely believed the cyclist was going to hit you if you didn’t push them away.
OnYerBike wrote:
Yes, but that wouldn’t be confirmed by the video footage. Also see Rendel’s reply.
It would also be rather
It would also be rather difficult to prove self defence when the video shows that Grey deliberately walked into the path of the cyclist, if she had stood still or stepped to her right there was plenty of room for the cyclist to pass, she was deliberately seeking a confrontation, nothing in what she did could be classed as defensive as far as I can see.
Ah… I’ve not reviewed the
Ah… I’ve not reviewed the footage recently and my memoy is not the best! I was going on the perspective of a partially blind person with cerebal palsy.
If she effectively initiated the confrontation, the self-defence argument does fall pretty flat.
Self defence could nullify it
Self defence could nullify it.
It wouldn’t have in this case because the jury was asked to rule on whether it was self defence.
Effectively the prosecution + judge started from the assumption that it was assault rather than requiring the jury first rule on assault, then, as they did, on it not being self defence and if it caused death.
“Had Mrs Ward not died we
“Had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault.”
this is boggling to me, how can it not be assault to push someone off their bike?
Bike thieves on canal towpaths up and down the land will be rejoicing in their immunity
Unfortunately it seems the lesson that will be learned from this is not only can drivers endanger cyclists with impunity, but pedestrians are now free to assault them if they chose.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Where do you see that Grey pushed her?
“There was however no evidence to make the jury sure that the appellant pushed or in any way touched Mrs Ward”
http://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
In a police interview, she
In a police interview, she admitted to light contact.
“She said she “may have unintentionally put” out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.”
Then
” The trial was told the incident was captured on CCTV which included sound, and how, prior to Mrs Ward coming off her bike, Ms Grey could be heard shouting “get off the [expletive] pavement”. “
“After being shown the CCTV footage, interviewing officer Det Sgt Mark Dollard asked her why she said what she said, to which she responded: “I don’t know.” “
“may have unintentionally put
“may have unintentionally put” out her hand to protect herself
Those are the words of a person who pushed someone and is trying to cover it up
Dnnnnnn wrote:
The judge remarked in sentencing:
The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.
So either she pushed Mrs Ward or an attempt to do so caused her to fall.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The “or” is important. The Appeal Court said: “there was no evidence which could make the jury sure that the appellant had made any physical contact with Mrs Ward”
http://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
There’s no doubt Grey was culpable for Ward’s death, of course.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
I don’t think it is that important. It’s an assault to make someone fear violence, not just if physical contact is made.
HoarseMann wrote:
Maybe so, and causing fear in someone to this extent should certainly be a crime. My initial responses were to those who specifically said there had been a push and – in some cases – seemed to be suggesting legal carte blanche to shove cyclists under cars. But neither what they nor I think is important here and it’s too sunny outside to spend more time on this.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
the defendant admitted to light contact. the other witness is unable to testify whether the contact was light or firm, but I do not believe there was no contact.
Judgment here for anyone
Judgment here for anyone interested in what the Court of Appeal actually said: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/487.html
quiff wrote:
It’s interesting that Auriol Grey’s new legal team worked pro bono.
Two points of clarification.
Two points of clarification.
1. The appeal did not succeed due to a technicality, it succeeded because the pedestrian did not perform any unlawful act.
There was no assault.
2. The police do not have any more evidence. The CCTV that they have just continues after the cyclist goes into the road and is hit by the car. They may say that this proves guilt but they are wrong.
carefulrider wrote:
Shouting and swearing at somebody, moving towards them and gesticulating in a threatening manner in such a way that a reasonable person might consider they are in danger of violence is an assault in law. Grey clearly did that. The court’s assertion that she would not have been charged with an assault if Mrs Ward had not fallen into the road and been killed may well be true but that does not obviate the fact that the video shows a clear case of assault under the letter of the law.
You need to re-read the
You need to re-read the appeal judgement my friend. The appeal judges are clear that the video does not show an assault. A lot of people have made the mistake (including the police) of working backwards from the terrible outcome and thinking that that proves that the interaction was an assault. That is wrong. The interaction was not assault. Mrs Ward had hearing problems so probably didn’t hear Grey anyway. Grey did not move towards Ward, she just continued walking on the pavement. Ward was careless and startled when making an extremely close pass by Grey. She failed to control her bike after that.
No, I think you need to read
No, I think you need to read it more closely.
The Judges were very clear that assault was not proven, and indeed they do not believe the evidence provided was sufficent that there was any potential to prove an assault occured.
That is, in an important way, different from saying that an assault did not occur.
Your version of events (in which an assault did not occur) is one that the appeal judges feel is compatable both with evidence available and the jury’s decision at the original trial, on the basis of the directions they were given.
However, there are other versions of events, in which an assault does occur, which have not been ruled out either. Neither the original trial nor the appeal judges reach a factual conclusion of whether or not Ms Grey did strike Mrs Ward. Neither the original trial nor the appeal judges reach a conclusion of why exactly Mrs Ward fell – she could have been knocked off by the strike (if one happened); she could have fallen off having flinched in apprehension of a strike; or she could have lost balance having slowed to pass Ms. Grey. And we don’t know in sufficient detail the state of either Ms Grey’s or Mrs Ward’s minds. So, there certainly are versions of events, compatible with the evidence presented and the appeal judges’ ruling, in which an assault did occur.
Well I suppose that
Well I suppose that technically an assault of some kind could occur any time that two people pass each other on the pavement. We don’t try to prove that an assault did not occur. We just assume that assaults don’t occur all the time unless there is good reason to think that an assault has occurred. In this case there is no reason to think that an assault has occurred – that is what the judges are saying.
Grey admitted to light
Grey admitted to light contact during a police interview and you don’t have to be hit for it to be assault.
So what if there was light
So what if there was light contact? It wasn’t Grey’s fault, it was the cyclist’s fault.
carefulrider wrote:
Fuck off
Any contact was incidental
Any contact was incidental and was only possible because the cyclist was too close (much too close).
And how would you know that?
And how would you know that?
She was–presumably–within
She was–presumably–within striking distance?
carefulrider wrote:
So we have a pedestrian objecting to a cyclist being on the shared use(?) pavement. Shouting at them to leave the pavement, and making contact with their arm leading to the cyclist leaving the pavement. But we cannot deduce from this the the pedestrian striking the cyclist was in any way contributory to the cyclist leaving the pavement? That in fact the contact only occured as the cyclist was already falling off into the path of the vehicle?
Grey admited there was contact, and we only have her word that the contact was light given the consequences to the only other witness.
The police reviewwed the evidence and decided it was sufficient, the CPS reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient and a jury of her peers reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to determine that grey directly caused Ward to fall to her death. Remove the motor vehcilse and will still have one person knocked to the floor by another and apparently this is not assault.
As to the cyclist being too close, what does that mean? do you expect 1.5m on a shared use pavement? even though a bicycle is not a car, and Mrs Ward was almost certainly not travelling at high speed.
Always a bad sign when
Always a bad sign when someone exceeds the HP threshold.
Bring back the post count please, then we’d have more idea of whether the person is newly signed up.
Hirsute wrote:
It’s usually fairly obvious, but victim blaming a dead person is a clear giveaway
Yep. Either newly signed up
Yep. Either newly signed up or a PBU.
Well said.
Well said.
Clearly here as a WUM.
Clearly here as a WUM. Another one to add to the ignore list.
carefulrider wrote:
Shouting, swearing and gesticulating at somebody in a way that would make a reasonable person believe that violence might follow is an assault. Grey did all these things. She also admitted that she made contact with Mrs Ward, which also constitutes assault.
The f-word is so common these
The f-word is so common these days that it hardly constitutes assault! Come on. She called out from a distance and the cyclist probably didn’t hear her anyway. If she had heard then a reasonable, considerate person would have stopped cycling. The gesticulating was fine and probably just intended to attract attention – it was also not seen or ignored. There is no assault, it just looks bad (to some) because it is shortly followed by a near collision with a cyclist (which is the cyclist’s fault).
carefulrider wrote:
Good, you won’t mind if I tell you to fuck off then as it’s “so common these days” (I should imagine if you are anything like this in real life then you are quite used to it). Not only are you blatantly trolling but your victim blaming of an elderly woman who (at best) was frightened by the aggressive acts of another person into falling to her death is utterly disgusting. No more responses to you from me but as a Parthian gift you may wish to consider this line from the appeal court’s judgement:
You have just proved his
You have just proved his point about the use of language.
But (presumably) they didn’t
But (presumably) they didn’t fall in the road…(or just off the thread)?
If our new friend had stopped at their first post – and per quiff below (apparently they are a lawyer) that would be as I understand it. The appeal court’s point was whatever “actually happened” and whoever bears responsibility assault was not proved the first time round, and could not have fairly been proved with the evidence in court.
Unfortunately they didn’t leave it there…
Is that germane to the
Is that germane to the question of whether a base offence was committed though?
I think Rendel failed to
I think Rendel failed to cause offense, base language or no… our new friend having been “within the bounds of probability” at the beginning appears to now be going beyond.
As for the case I’ll leave this one to the legally experienced.
The quote from the appeal
The quote from the appeal court judgement is not saying that Auriol Grey did anything wrong. That is the essence of the judgement. Her actions contributed to Mrs Ward’s death so lots of people (including the police, the judge, the CPS etc) jumped to the conclusion that she had done something wrong and unlawful. This was incorrect – she hadn’t done anything wrong. However, it seems that some still cannot see that.
Not a lawyer myself but
Not a lawyer myself but having read their judgement (thanks quiff) the appeal judges are also explicitly denying assault could have been proved under the letter of the law.
They set out what is legally required to establish assault. They were very clear that they believed that none of the evidence lead at trial – even broadly considered – would have served to prove the intent / mental part of this.
I find the whole concerning (and also faulty prosecuting AND judging in the original) – but they do appear to have firmly closed that door in this case.
chrisonabike wrote:
Indeed but their reasoning seems dubious at best to me, this is where appeals become a matter of opinion where the judges are saying that if the jury had been asked to consider the baseline assault charge as required then they would have reached a different verdict; whether or not one believes that there was sufficient intent on the part of Grey to prove an assault charge, it is at least arguable either way and it seems bizarre that the judges have allocated themselves the right to second-guess what the jury would have done had the case been presented differently. One has to question why they denied the application for a retrial where the facts of the matter could once again be put before a jury with a full explanation of the legal niceties, which would have been the fairest alternative.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think that the problems are (1) the amount of media coverage there’s been would make it practically impossible to achieve a ‘fair’ trial, and (2) the culture wars have been stoked up so much over the last year that most of the legal system and the media would probably now settle for nothing less than for Grey to be sanctified and Ward’s broken bicycle put on public display ‘pour encourager les autres’.
brooksby wrote:
disagree, I think outside of this website I would not have heard of the case at all.
Possibly it has been
Possibly it has been particularly prominent on this site, but it certainly has been widely reported in the general media. Just searching “Auriol Grey” on google and stories come up from Sky News, BBC News, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Independent etc.
IDK – but it seemed to me as
IDK – but it seemed to me as OnYerBike has noted. “They do not believe the evidence provided was sufficent that there was any potential to prove an assault occured.”
Again I’m concerned about the overall look. And there is always some possibility of a different result if you throw the dice again, no matter the quality of evidence (e.g. instruct a Johnnie Cochran).
And things can change if new evidence emerges.
But… unless they in turn were completely mistaken about the evidence and how it looks (to a jury of non-cyclists… and of course “beyond reasonable doubt”) I guess the appeal court has done its job.
The problem that the Court of
The problem that the Court of Appeal judgment makes clear is that the offence of assault has both an actus reus (the ‘physical’ component) and a mens rea (the mental component). The video is not capable of showing the mental element of the offence, and the jury was not properly directed / evidence was not led on the necessary elements of the offence.
Thank you for this,
Thank you for this, completely agree with you. It may well have unsettled Celia too so that she forgot to put her foot down when she stopped. So whether Auriol pushed her or not (deliberately or otherwise) all her preceding actions were deliberate and illegal. You could even argue that she chose to stop by the lamppost to force Celia into the road. Certainly got what she wanted, but not in a good way.
You may not like my posting
You may not like my posting and it is true that I have (almost) only ever posted on about this case, starting last year after the conviction.
You could have said the same thing last year about me simply being a WUM etc.
It turned out that I had a point though didn’t it? I could see what even the police and the judge couldn’t (or didn’t want to) see. The pedestrian committed no crime.
The actions of the pedestrian
The actions of the pedestrian 100% caused the cyclist to crash and die!
Their point (minimal reading)
Their point (minimal reading) is that the appeal court have said that the particular crimes could not be proved on the evidence given. Not even assault – even if they had only charged that rather than manslaughter*.
That is not quite the same as “bears no responsibility”, “did nothing wrong”, “should never have come to court”, or (without further qualification) “committed no crime”. I know the latter is somewhat “semantics” (we only generally consider crimes as charged). Perhaps it’s best just to point to the appeal court judgment (p. 35 / 36) which reads (I’ve shortened slightly):
[…] There was, in our judgment, simply no proper basis for the appellant to be convicted of manslaughter in this very tragic case.— R v. Auriol Gray
Assuming they’re right on the details (which I have to, not having the legal chops) at least the Court of Appeal has done what they’re supposed to do. And reasonably quickly, for them.
None of this “brings anyone back”, nor advances the plot for “protecting vulnerable people” (both victim and accused were vulnerable in different ways). Both were failed by our street designs: encouraging conflict by use of shared space and putting cyclists (or pedestrians for that matter) right next to motor vehicles travelling at speeds where death in a collision is quite likely.
* There were two failings in the original trial – even had they sufficient evidence to establish e.g. there was an assault they failed to follow the process to make that work as the “base offense” for the manslaughter part.
The appeal judgement is
The appeal judgement is completely neutral on the question of whether Auriol Grey did anything wrong or unreasonable. Its only concern is whether she did anything unlawful and it is clear that the unlawful act was not even identified let alone proved. It says that her actions contributed to the death, but lots of things contributed so that really is not saying much at all.
I only just read this. Fuck
I only just read this. Fuck me, no-one can doubt that she actually pushed her, and the judge (I think it was) said as much at the time ..