* On 8 May 2024 Auriol Grey’s manslaughter conviction was overturned at appeal. *
A pedestrian who aggressively confronted an elderly cyclist who was riding on the pavement, causing her to be killed after she fell into the path of a vehicle, has been jailed for three years for manslaughter.
Auriol Grey, aged 49, was convicted of the offence by a jury at Peterborough Crown Court last month, and returned there today for sentencing, where Judge Sean Enright told her she was “territorial about the pavement” and “resented” the presence of the cyclist reports BBC News.
Her trial in February heard that Grey had acted in a “hostile and aggressive way” towards 77-year-old Celia Ward, including shouting and gesturing at her, causing her to fall from her bike and into the carriageway on 20 October 2020 on a pavement alongside a ring road in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire.
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.”
But passing sentence, the judge told her she had given a “dishonest account in interview” and that there had been “not a word about remorse until today.”
While the trial last month heard that Cambridgeshire Constabulary were unable to “categorically” ascertain whether Mrs Ward had been cycling on a shared use path, the judge said today in his sentencing remarks that it was a shared facility.
CCTV footage shared by Cambridgeshire Constabulary showed Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted, shouting at Mrs Ward, described by her widower as an “experienced and competent cyclist,” to “get off the f*ck*ng pavement.”
Speaking in mitigation at today’s sentencing hearing, Miranda Moore KC said that Grey plans to appeal against the sentence and claimed that “she does not pose a risk or danger to the public.”
But the judge told Grey: “These actions are not explained by disability.”
Investigating officer Detective Sergeant Mark Dollard said: “This is a difficult and tragic case. Everyone will have their own views of cyclists on pavements and cycleways, but what is clear is Grey’s response to the presence of Celia on a pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be unlawful, resulting in Celia’s untimely and needless death.
“I hope it is a stark reminder to all road users to take care and be considerate of each other.
“I want to take the time to acknowledge Celia’s family and thank them for their patience and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial,” he added.
In a victim impact statement, Mrs Ward’s husband David said: “After 53 years of happy marriage, Celia was taken from me in a most horrific way, leaving me with only my memories. She was kind, calm, careful, cheerful and competent in all that she did.
“Her death has caused me great suffering. We relied on each other, shared the same sense of humour and outlook on life, and enjoyed each other’s company. I miss her terribly.”
52 thoughts on “Three years in jail for pedestrian convicted of manslaughter after cyclist’s death”
Blimey, that’s unexpected.
Blimey, that’s unexpected. Something very odd about this case, given the usual response of the courts to drivers who kill.
Without getting involved with
Without getting involved with the pointless bunfight downthread I agree.
I’d rather see the council gone after for inadequate walking and cycling provision – fix the root cause. If cyclists and pedestrians are given scraps these kind of conflicts over them are inevitable.
Whilst this cycling
Whilst this cycling infrastructure is poor, I think it represents the most common type found in the UK.
To blame the council for creating a conflict would be a dangerous distraction in my view. It would fuel resentment for cyclists using this type of facility across the country.
The perpetrator was fortunate the critical moment was out of view of the camera. Had a definite push into the traffic been seen, then I think the charge would have been murder.
A bit like the Alliston case
A bit like the Alliston case the real issue here is that there isn’t a lesser offence available. Drivers their own set of laws to deal with when then KSI someone. Alliston couldn’t be prosecuted under those, so they had to use wanton and furious. And a pedestrian can only be dealt with I assume under offences against the person charges – e.g. various types of assault and manslaughter/murder.
It does set an interesting precedent, in the same way Alliston’s case did. Imagine a scenario where a pedestrian caused a driver to be killed, or caused that driver to kill a third party. That’s not beyond the realms of possibility – e.g. negligently entering the carriageway, driver swerves and hits tree or hits another road user. Just as in this case the pedestrian caused the action, so could they be charged with manslaughter of the driver/third party? It’s notable that the driver who killed the victim was quite rightly not charged – as was also the situation in the David Irving case where he was knocked off his bike by a van driver but actually killed by a following car driver.
kil0ran wrote:
The difference in this case, is it’s impossible for the perpetrator to claim “the sun was in their eyes”, “just didn’t see them” etc.
If a driver had recorded themselves with a dashcam shouting “get off the road” at a cyclist with footage of them appearing to turn the steering wheel towards them at the point of impact, then I think the sentence would be similar, if not longer.
If there had been no CCTV here, I don’t think they would have been charged with anything.
It’s the other cases that are
It’s the other cases that are odd.
I’ve added this to my
I’ve added this to my comments below but I think it deserves more attention to be drawn to it:
It should also be noted that the defence made no attempt to claim that it was not a shared pavement in mitigation, something they would definitely have raised if it was thought to be the case. Certain people who have, disgracefully, tried to claim that Mrs Ward was breaking the law when she tragically became a victim of a homicide should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Why is it on the defence to prove that something does not exist? The prosecution should have the burden of proving that there was a shared path where the pedestrian was standing. If they cannot prove this, it did not exist. I certainly cannot see any evidence of a shared path, can you?
Be in no doubt, this is an unsafe conviction and a travesty of justice. I hope that the legal system proves itself fit for purpose by overturning the conviction and prison term.
It is without a doubt a tragedy for both parties here, I sorry for both the family of the cyclist and the pedestrian.
The Accountant wrote:
There are shared path signs on the sections of pavement leading up to and leading away from the scene of the incident and no signs indicating the end of a shared path. The judge has stated that it was a shared facility. There is no burden upon the prosecution to prove that it was a shared path, as this does not materially alter the fact that the defendant’s aggressive actions were what caused the cyclist to fall into the road and be killed. That would be manslaughter regardless of the status of the path; strangely enough it is not permissible in UK law to kill someone because they’ve annoyed you with a minor traffic infraction. However, if the defence could show that the cyclist was breaking the law that would certainly be a mitigation in terms of sentencing; the fact that they did not even attempt to do so, and the judge’s comments, demonstrates that all parties tacitly accepted that there was no evidence of the cyclist riding illegally.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well well well, isn’t this all a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
What would your opinion have been if the Blue Peugeot at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjU4cQRnPs0 had crashed after this cyclist shouted abuse for the minor traffic infraction that took place? After all, a judge agreed that there was insufficient evidence that the driver commited an offence.
Have you ever thought “there for the grace of God go I”?
I rather doubt that he could
I rather doubt that he could hear me, given that he was driving away at nearly twice the speed limit having come within inches of killing me, so the eventuality is unlikely. You are Nigel, aren’t you?
He didn’t “almost kill you”
He didn’t “almost kill you” though did he? A judge accepted that, in fact, you made no checks behind you before veering wildly into the motorist’s right of way.
Anyway, I’m not letting you hijack this tragic case to talk about yourself, so I’m not going to write anything else on the matter.
The Accountant wrote:
*Morgan Freeman voice* it was not in fact, the motorist’s right of way.
The Accountant wrote:
You add nothing to the conversations on this site so maybe this is indeed for the best.
You are the hijacker! Don’t
You are the hijacker! Don’t you see that?
AltBren wrote:
Hilarious, isn’t it, he goes to my YouTube channel and shares a (totally irrelevant to this case) video from it and then says I’m not letting this thread become all about you. His trolling skills clearly have not improved since his previous iterations.
The Accountant wrote:
Thanks for outing yourself as Nigel.
Insufficient evidence.. doesn
Insufficient evidence.. doesn’t mean it wasn’t a crime, just that they got away with it. I’m struggling to see what your point is. Thank you for shutting up.
Three place where the
The place where the deceased was cycling was a highway. Cyclists are allowed on the highway, with the exception of sections reserved for walking. On the basis that neither the prosecution not the defence suggested that the cyclist was not allowed to cycle where the cyclist was cycling, it would be sensible to surmise that the cyclist was indeed allowed to cycle there.
If you know different then you know something the police, prosecution, defence, jury and judge do not. Unlikely, I think.
I think this case is terribly
I think this case is terribly sad and the pedestrian acted awfully, but I also can’t see any evidence of it being a shared path. The other side of the road is definitely a shared path. I worry this will end up being retried, and that the police have wasted the courts time by not presenting evidence on the path, which the judge relied on in sentencing.
section of road here.
edit: wrote “cited” when I meant “acted”
There is a shared use sign
There is a shared use sign for this pavement further up the road. If you were cycling along this road, you would conclude this was a shared use path:
https://goo.gl/maps/m7LnXYV5BC986r5o8
It’s irrelevant in any case whether it’s shared use or footway. Police policy is to use their discretion to not prosecute cyclists who ride carefully on the pavement.
There is no physical difference between the shared use pavement on both sides of this road. In fact, the side that has more frequent shared use signs looks to be narrower at this point, the pavement where the crime took place seems a better place to cycle, as there are no overhanging bushes or railings encroaching the path.
Good spot, I missed that one.
Good spot, I missed that one. Either side of the road, those are some terrible shared paths.
d10brp wrote:
Indeed. It’s a shame the signage isn’t better, but there is signage. The content of my previous comment was accurate.
d10brp wrote:
Agree. But there are a lot of shared paths like this and plenty that are even worse. You can’t go shoving people in front of traffic just because you don’t like what they’re doing.
This case has some similarities with the infamous (and still at large) “Putney Pusher“. Differences are the bus driver managed to swerve and the victim survived, plus the pusher was probably not aware of the bus approaching as it was behind them. There was clearer CCTV of the push in this case too.
I wonder what the putney pusher would have been charged with had the victim died and they’d been apprehended.
HoarseMann wrote:
Absolutely agree. I just also think this death is as attributal to a combination of poor infrastructure and Daily Mail hate campagining, as it is to the actions of one person.
.
.
Good point. So who did present the ‘evidence’, if not the police?
.
That statement from her
That statement from her husband is so sad!
The Troll has no shame.
The Troll has no shame.
Which one?
Which one?
Or are you privy to information we don’t have, or a Unitarian in these matters?
I’ve made my own extension
I’ve made my own extension for Firefox that uses a bit of JQuery to add a “hidden” style attribute to any comment-container div that contains a span of class “username” with an “about” attribute that matches a list of users that I’m getting pissed off with. Whenever I Ioad the page, all thier comments are gone. It makes the site so much better.
.
English, please.
.
Ta.
.
.
English, please.
.
Ta.
.
I forgot to add you to the
I forgot to add you to the list. Thanks for reminding me.
BTW, the enter key on your keyboard is still broken.
Up here in bonnie Scotland, a
Up here in bonnie Scotland, a woman was allowed to walk free after causing the death of a woman and injuring others.
She lost control of her powerful Range Rover and caused chaos before crashing into the group of people, who were all from the same family.
I do not believe that she showed any remorse or even apologised to the family of the lady she killed.
Yet, we have a pedestrian jailed for 3 years. Beggars belief, killing someone will driving is state sanctioned murder.
See also the Harry Clarke bin
See also the Harry Clarke bin lorry case in Glasgow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Glasgow_bin_lorry_crash
First I have to give my
First I have to give my sympathy to the friends and family of Celia Ward, not only for their loss but for the horrible publicity.
I’ve just looked at the Daily Mail page to read some of the profound and considered comments from the readers.
On the Front page the video clip which we have all seen is running in an endless loop.
Looking at it in this way shows Grey walking and gesticulating at the oncoming cyclist, as she is going out of frame she turns towards the road, her shoulder goes down, her hip comes out, then she turns back to continue walking along the road. That is a deliberate push!
If there is an appeal, get an expert witness in biomechanics to view this. The appeal court has the power to increase the sentence.
Yes, I just looked at that:
Yes, I just looked at that: there seems to be a fraction of a second more than the video posted on here which makes it appear (much more) likely that a push was involved.
Dear Mods.
Dear Mods.
Please close this to further comments. The trolling, with the repeated lying about actual facts (rather than differing interpretations or priorities), when there is a death involved, is just beyond tasteless.
Getting your kicks out of winding people up is one thing, but doing it whilst lying about a death is another. It is beyond bad taste.
Great to see in judgement and
Great to see in judgement and in police comments about sharing space. Time now to pass the message to motor vehicle users who are the most lethal users who are needed to massively up their game when it comes to sharing road space. The HC hierarchy makes sharing clear and responsible behaviours that need to be shown. If the courts gave this much gusto to sharing pavement space, why not do the same with road space?
What a shit show this site
What a shit show this site has become.
I should change my username to roadccistoxic.
Road.cc are you ever going to do anything about the trolls and pbus ?
Maybe you should change your
Maybe you should change your username to “youareallcyberbullies”? Oh, looks like that one’s in use currently…
Yeah, the provocateurs and
Yeah, the provocateurs and distraction-merchants get more than tiresome over time.
Thinning out those here to play the attention and outrage game would be good. Dealing with at least one person who’s been determined to be here for years and has experience gaming the system could take up time though.
Maybe road.cc is concerned that some mods would be a little … over-enthusiastic? Overall I appreciate that “cyclists” eg. people who ride in countries where it’s not encouraged can have strong and differing opinions!
Really, the best solution is
Really, the best solution is to simply not engage or reply. They get satisfaction from knowing that they are being irritating. Debate and honing your logic against honest opinion is one thing and might even unearth some previously unknown aspect of the argument but as soon as you deem that reasoned debate is not their objective then best to ignore, even if that looks like they got the last word. It can be difficult to let it lie, but there is so much satisfaction in seeing the effort of an inflammatory post without replies beneath it. That must drive them nuts.
Not sure which poster, but
Not sure which poster, but one said the other day they had had enough of it. AlsoSomniliquism is on sabbatical again and I wonder if he will bother to return.
Admin should put these threads in a dead horses area leaving those who want to shout at each other to do that whilst the rest have a reasonable discussion.
HP not seen recently either
HP not seen recently either but maybe they’re having a holiday IRL? (Possibly to Snaizeholme,
https://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/about/wildlife/places-to-see-wildlife/snaizeholme-red-squirrel-trail/
or maybe the Caledonian forest?)
Been guilty myself but yes, dragons lighting fires attract white knights to battle them, which keeps the dragons fighting – and round we go. The point under discussion – and even some villagers – lost to collateral damage.
Helmet row is tedious but we’re stuck with that but it’s every other thread now, and some character is at it even in the kit ones…
The vast majority of people
The vast majority of people in the country have similar opinions to those Martin and I have articulated on this thread. There has been a miscarriage of justice here.
You are in the minority, and on most other forums and websites, people with intolerances such as your own would be trying to censor your opinion. You should be careful what you wish for.
Personally I wish you would
Personally I wish you would drive through a chrono-synclastic infundibulum. That way we would only have to put up with your toxic garbage once every 59 days, and then only for an hour. And give Martin a lift while you’re at it.
The Accountant wrote:
Oh, has there been an opinion poll? Or are you justifying your nonsense on the basis that it agrees with the majority of the posters on “award-winning newspaper website” the Daily Mail?
Police are requesting people
Police are requesting people to stop making un-informed postings about this incident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197
Maybe Road.cc mods could shut this thread down as it has become a target for just such bad faith actors.
I’m afraid all that article
I’m afraid all that BBC article does is raise the same questions about why the judge claimed it was a shared use path.
Why did the judge claim, with such certainty, that it was a shared usage path when no one else did? What was his evidence? Why hasn’t this evidence been presented?
I’m sure the police do want to shut down this discussion, but (not of today at least) we don’t live in a police state, and we have a basic right to scrutinize judicial rulings, as well as the conduct of the police, prosecution, defence and CPS.
So what Det SgT Dollard is
So what Det SgT Dollard is actually saying is that the complete video shows MS. Grey pushing Ms. Ward into the path of the car.
Willt the trolls now shut up? Not sure, unfortunately.
Er no. No he isn’t saying
Er no. No he isn’t saying that. Because if there was a visible push, the video would have been released (the push, not the aftermath).
And also the BBC video raised more questions… If it’s a shared path, and the BBC are literally stood on it to do their reporting, why did they not show the signage?
The suspicion is they didn’t show the signage *because there isn’t any*. And it certainly doesn’t look like any shared path I’ve ever seen.
I therefore wonder if the council don’t have some kind of culpability in this? It strikes me as odd that they couldn’t tell if it was a shared path or not… Like it was meant to be designated as one but they forgot (or were too lazy) to actually do it.
Read. If you’re able to.
Read. If you’re able to.