A pedestrian who shouted at and gestured towards a cyclist in a “hostile and aggressive way”, causing the rider to fall from her bike and into the path of a passing motorist, has been convicted of manslaughter.
Yesterday at Peterborough Crown Court, Auriol Grey, 49, was found guilty of causing the death of 77-year-old Celia Ward, in a dispute over the cyclist riding on the pavement, and will be sentenced on 2 March, the BBC reports.
Mrs Ward, described by her husband as an “experienced and competent” cyclist, was riding her bike on the pavement next to a ring road in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, on 20 October 2020, when she encountered Ms Grey, who was travelling in the opposite direction.
Ms Grey – who the court heard this week has cerebral palsy and significant eyesight issues, but does not consider herself to have a mental disability – was “angered by the presence of a cyclist on a footpath”, prosecutor Simon Spence KC said.
CCTV footage of the incident (below), shared by Cambridgeshire Constabulary, shows Ms Grey telling the 77-year-old cyclist to “get off the [expletive] pavement”, before gesturing towards her in a “hostile and aggressive way”.
While Mr Spence admitted in court that it was unclear from the footage whether there was any physical contact, he said the gesture had caused Mrs Ward to fall off her bike and into the road, where a driver, who had “no chance to stop or take avoiding action”, collided with her, causing her death.
The court also heard that Ms Grey left the scene before the emergency services arrived and continued on to Sainsbury’s to buy groceries.
She was arrested a day later and told police that she was partially sighted and described the cyclist as travelling “at high speed” in the centre of the pavement.
Ms Grey then stated that she was “anxious I was going to get hit by it”, and that she “flinched out with her left arm to protect herself”.
But after being shown the CCTV footage and asked by police why she shouted at Mrs Ward as she approached, the pedestrian replied: “I don’t know”.
The court also heard this week that Cambridgeshire Police could not “categorically” state whether the section of the pavement where the tragic incident took place was a shared-use path, despite signs permitting cyclists to use the path existing on other parts of the road.
Following the verdict, Det Sgt Mark Dollard said: “This is a difficult and tragic case.
“Everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements, and cycleways but what is clear is Auriol 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 am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all road users to take care and be considerate to 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.”
71 thoughts on ““Hostile and aggressive” pedestrian found guilty of killing 77-year-old cyclist in pavement cycling dispute”
“The court also heard that Ms
“The court also heard that Ms Grey left the scene before the emergency services arrived and continued on to Sainsbury’s to buy groceries”
…
This is the bit that got me.
This is the bit that got me. Literally right in front of her an obviously elderly lady was hit by a car as a direct result of her actions.
And she just walked off to the shops as if nothing had happened.
It’s almost worse than the hit and runs we hear about where the driver ‘didn’t realise he’d hit a cyclist’. This was literally right in front of her and she walked away from the unfolding tragedy.
This would have played a key
This would have played a key role in the sentencing. Those on here ciriticising the severity of it, should realise that her subsequent acttions afterwards would have paid a critical role in the judge’s decision.
Everything about this case is
Everything about this case is sad not least of course is Mrs Ward’s wholly avoidable death. Anyone posting a comment should be mindful that the presentence reports will probably reveal the true extent of the defendant’s mental disability.
No doubt there will be a sob
No doubt there will be a sob story, but if she was capable enough to be out unacompanied, then she’s capable enough to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions…
Which is why she stood trial.
Which is why she stood trial. If she lacked capacity she’d not have done so. A pre-sentence report is independently prepared and is nothing to do with her lawyers.
Kinda my point, it would
Kinda my point, it would never have got do this point if she lacked capacity, therefore “the true extent of the defendant’s mental disability.” has no bearing on what I think of her and what should be her punishment.
I hope they throw away the damn key.
This could be the same person
This could be the same person:
https://www.huntspost.co.uk/lifestyle/22964997.duchess-officially-opens-saxongate/
HoarseMann wrote:
Quite possibly. Still not moved in the slightest.
FlyingPenguin wrote:
I agree with you. This person is a danger to others.
Unlikely given her health
Unlikely given her health issues. Involuntary manslaughter can be sentenced with a suspended sentence or community service.
A custodial sentence was
A custodial sentence was handed out for this case. Is attempted murder seen as more serious than manslaughter? I don’t know, but it’s a similar situation, albeit one in which nobody died:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/24/man-jailed-for-life-for-pushing-91-year-old-on-to-tube-tracks
Momentary lapse defence? Oh
Momentary lapse defence? Oh no, he’s not driving.
Gosh, what a disaster for
Gosh, what a disaster for everyone concerned …
The end of that video was terrifying.
My condolences to the cyclist’s husband.
the fact that no one is quite
the fact that no one is quite sure whether or not this is a shared path is both unsurprising and deeply frustrating.
How can the council be not
How can the council be not sure? Shows really poor process management.
There will probably be maps
There will probably be maps showing as a shared route and maps showing as not.
Reading likes putting NO CYCLING signs on their mapped cycle routes.
There is a map (here – and
There is a map (here – and below). It’s not very clear, but it does seem the pavement was not shared use at that point. However, there is a shared use sign further up the road and no indication on the ground that the cycle path has finished. There are no ‘cyclists dismount’ or other signage. So it’s entirely possible that you would think this was a shared use cycle path.
But arguing the toss about this is pointless, as the shared use cycle path on the other side of the road is exactly the same – it is no wider, nor does it have any other discerning features. This is why I find it disappointing that the police chose to begin their statement with some vague sentence about everyone having their own views about cyclists, pavements and cycleways.
There’s an argument for better infrastructure, or roads that cyclists feel safe to ride on, but we are stuck with what we have in this case. I would not begrudge a child or an elderly cyclist or a cyclist of any age, the option to ride carefully on the pavement if they are afraid to ride on the road. Especially when that pavement is *exactly* the same as council sanctioned ‘cycling infrastructure’.
Terrible. In my humble
Terrible. In my humble opinion why blame the infrastructure. From the video it was clearly the person on the bike making a decision to turn into incoming traffic regardless of what occurred on shared path. It looks like a person on a bicycle with poor control. It was a failed move that resulted in disaster. Don’t blame the foul-mouthed pedestrian in this case, even though the person’s behavior was not exactly deserving of praise.
Blackthorne83 wrote:
Good heavens. Even by the victim-blaming standards of some of our resident bridge dwellers that’s extraordinary. Even in this abbreviated video it can clearly be seen that the poor woman is beginning to fall off her bike into the road, whether impelled by a push from the defendant or not only she will know. Do you think that if there was a scintilla of evidence that she was voluntarily turning off the pavement the defence wouldn’t have raised it as mitigation? If that’s how you interpret evidence I hope to goodness you’re never called to sit on a jury.
What a stupid, nasty,
What a stupid, nasty, inappropriate comment.
Blackthorne83 wrote:
There is no evidence in that video to support your extraordinary claim.
Blackthorne83 wrote:
Ban this sick filth. (No I’m not joking). What a tosser.
I made some bad word choices
I made some bad word choices that sounded like victim blaming. I regret it, and it was not intended. Like I said, terrible tragedy. My initial assumption was if no physical contact occurred, it appears the cyclist abruptly turned her handebars and entered the street. Having watched it again it seems more plausible to extrapolate that she was in fact pushed as the mad woman goes out of frame, which would explain the sudden loss of agency, both legs still on the pedals.
You’re forgetting also, the
You’re forgetting also, the court could see the entire video. It’s rightfully been cut for us here. They had more evidence to base their verdict on.
Wow, are you for real ?
Wow, are you for real ?
The more I watch it, the clearer I get the impression that the pedestrain actually pushes the cyclist at the end of the video. There is no other explanation why she would suddely turn and in such a manner.
Have you read the story? She
Have you read the story? She was found guilty.
Terrible. I had something
Terrible. I had something very similar. I was cycling on a shared park and a woman deliberately walked in front of me just I was passing making me swerve dangerously. I too ended up on the road but it was all OK. I looked back at her in disbelief. And then cycled on. I’m trying to be zen about provocations like that.
Let’s hope that justice is
Let’s hope that justice is served in the sentencing. A strong message needs to be sent out that pedestrians should tolerate cyclists on shared use paths AND pavements. It’s a shame the police statement didn’t make reference to the NPCC guidelines, which effectively decriminalise careful cycling on the pavement:
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement
Bizarre. Are you so
Bizarre. Are you so conditioned to car use that pedestrians and cyclists must fight each over scraps of pavement? What about punishing the people that created conditions of conflict in the first place? Or heaven forbid the council taking some action in memory of the lady who died.
Shes done herself no favours but manslaughter seems a pretty extreme charge compared to what drivers get away with every single day.
I don’t think anyone wins from a severe sentence. She’s ill and likely prison will exacerbate her conditions. I’m also personally unconvinced there isn’t mental illness either.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Really? What charge would you have gone with then?
It’s an extraordinary charge.
It’s an extraordinary charge. Would love to see the CPS logic/process behind it. I’m guessing it’s because it’s so rare that a pedestrian kills anyone and it was the only available charge. Would be great to see the same approach taken with drivers who kill in aggravated circumstances, e.g. road rage, punishment passes, etc.
Can anyone imagine a
Can anyone imagine a manslaughter charge if this woman, with her disabilities, had been beyond the wheel of a car that ran over and killed a cyclist? Is there some reason pedestrians are held to a higher standard than motorists?
cmedred wrote:
Yes. Because most police, magistrates, judges and juries drive cars and are thinking “I’m a safe competent driver and I often speed, have lapses of concentration and don’t see pedestrians, cyclists and red lights myself so that could have been me”.
” . . . where a driver, who
” . . . where a driver, who
could have been traveling at a lower speed because they were in a large heavy machine with lots of vulnerable humans around, observed and anticipated potential danger, braked or turned the steering wheel but otherwisehad “no chance to stop or take avoiding action”, collided with her, causing her death.”Also why is being “Hostile and aggressive” only an issue when the justice system deals with pedestrians or cyclists but usually ignored when dealing with drivers?
EDIT: I answered my own question when replying to cmedred.
Homo homini lupus.
Homo homini lupus. Increasingly, it feels.
Riding along a busy road this week, a roving male pedestrian walking along the pavement stepped towards me as I passed him and he shouted “Woa!!!” at the top of his voice right into my face. Just such needless and completely irresponsible behaviour.
I was once shouted at quite
I was once shouted at quite aggressively by a lady walking her dog who was exceedingly convinced that pedal cyclists were not allowed on the (clearly signed) bridle path. But this doesn’t mean I think that all dog walkers are bad people intent on causing trouble.
I’m sure that there are some absolute ‘A’ holes who use bicycles in all cities and it would be great if every now and again they got hauled up by authority for their behaviour. However, in a reality of limited resources for policing public behaviour, cyclists in general are way down the list of targeting priority.
And I was once driven at
And I was once driven at aggressively and shouted at by a motorist for not using a shared path (well, in fact, it wasn’t even a shared path, but he thought it was because it was further back up the road). Sometimes you really are damned whatever you do.
I’ve just been staying a
I’ve just been staying a couple of nights in Ferndown which has one of the main routes down to Poole running through it. Though nearby the council have introduced bike schemes, here the surrounding residential roads have a wide 40mph single carriageway, with a 1 lane wide hashed separator in the middle, some pedestrian refuges, and narrow pavements. Nearby, the A31 is dualled past Sainsbury’s.
What I noticed was that there were a fair smattering of cyclists and they had mostly adopted using the pavement – an older roadie, a lady on a sit up and beg, a older couple on e-bikes. In fact I only saw one old boy in the road – or rather, in the gutter.
We were the only people walking the pavement. It wasn’t a pleasant stroll with the 40mph (and a bit more) traffic. We could see exactly why the locals used the pavement and we didn’t begrudge sharing our narrow refuge with them.
A347
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fNE3YokGpffbxEpo7
From the Premier Inn we were 15 minute neighbourhooding for morning coffee and evening curry.
If only the road was a bit
If only the road was a bit wider…
I was Googling when the
I was Googling when the ministerial guidance for permitting cycling on a pavement was last updated, and I haven’t come across any suggestion that the guidance from 25 years ago has been withdrawn, but I did come across this:
https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement
Perhaps Simon can risk checking if this is still the case?
Those quoting the law should be aware that in court, such ministerial pronouncements have weight and are taken into consideration.
The Association of Chief
The Association of Chief Police Officers – now NPCC. Issued the same statement.
As a elderly lady – I’m sure she would have recieved the same discretion, even without the utter ambiguity of the path markings. That HMann put up.
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement
I can’t quite get over the
I can’t quite get over the report that the police couldn’t say whether or not it was a shared path? How difficult can it be to go and look? (And, if you can’t tell when you do, then there’s clearly a major issue about signage?)
Steve K wrote:
HoarseMan has done a brilliant job of documenting this – its overflowed to the 2nd page of this thread now.
This is such a sad case and I
This is such a sad case and I feel sorry for both parties and their families. I am, however, interested in the point of law in question. There is no proof of contact between the two parties, so, on what grounds is the pedestrian being prosecuted? Does anyone know? Shouting and gesticulating with the intent of forcing someone into the path of a moving vehicle?
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Manslaughter does not require physical contact between the parties, it is sufficient for the accused to have acted in a way which caused the death of the victim. In this case I assume, although it is not reported, the charge was involuntary manslaughter, where the defendant “has committed an unlawful killing without an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the victim, causing the death by recklessness or gross negligence instead.”
Ditto Assault charges dont
Ditto Assault charges dont require physical contact either afaik.
Indeed not, you can be
Indeed not, you can be charged with Common Assault for making a threat against someone in a way that makes them believe they are in danger of imminent harm from you even if you don’t carry through on the threat.
What an awful thing…
What an awful thing…
Watching the video, I would say the balance of probability is that the poor woman was physically pushed. The angle of the turn just seems unlikely if voluntary. If someone was simply crowded off the pavement I’d expect the angle to be far less acute.
However, you have to respect the prosecution for not going down this route and instead focus on just the shouting and gesticulation.
Look at the feet of the
Look at the feet of the pedestrian. Clearly she pushes the cyclist.
I see the resident troll is
I see the resident troll is creating straw men just so they can have an argument.
It’s best not to engage with those who cannot argue in good faith.
Perhaps new charges, such as
Perhaps new charges, such as causing death by dangerous walking, should be introduced. Failing that, remove the driving equivalent(s) and charge drivers with manslaughter for similar offences.
tootsie323 wrote:
I’m sure Mr Briggs will be campaigning for that… any minute now.
What speed was the old dear
What speed was the old dear riding at on the pavement, that a gesticulation caused her to crash onto the road? I suspect being 77 had a lot to do with her inability to control her bike when she got surprised by the pedestrian behaviour.
grOg wrote:
Firstly, it appears quite likely, though not proveable, that she was pushed into the road; secondly, someone of any age can become nervous and make a mistake when faced with aggression; thirdly, people of 77 – and much older – are perfectly capable of riding safely; lastly, she’s someone’s wife and family member who is the victim of a homicide, so kindly show some respect instead of describing her in patronising and ageist terms.
Watch that f… video. She
Watch that f… video. She was pushed.
Watched the video. It didn’t
Watched the video. It didn’t show anything of the sort.
Seems like a ridiculous conviction if that was all the evidence they had. I’d like to remind readers that – to be found guilty in a court of law – you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt… And that doesn’t include watching an inconclusive video and saying “yeah she was prolly pushed”
In the last couple of days
In the last couple of days you have tried to be as offensive as possible. What do you get out of it?
I can’t see the video now but
I can’t see the video now but this does have me worried. There is a realistic chance that the same social prejudice that works against cyclists may be working against the visually impaired perpetrator. An issue with shared space is how unpleasant it is for physical impairments. I’m also going to add more detail in another comment about how she likely has learning difficulties.
Watched the video. I thought
Watched the video. I thought the opposite that it implies she wasn’t pushed. It seemed the cyclist tried to go around, lost to much speed and fell which becomes easier to do as you slow down.
But you haven’t seen the full
But you haven’t seen the full video that the police and jury saw.
The police specifically commented on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197
The Accountant wrote:
And she was found to be so, in that her actions in being aggressive towards the cyclist were the cause of the cyclist falling into the road. That’s why she was convicted of manslaughter. If there were conclusive proof that she had pushed Mrs Ward into the road, she would most likely have been on a charge of murder.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It’s pretty academic at this point, but I’m not convinced the “intent” would have been there for a murder charge. Murder doesn’t require intent to kill, but it does require intent to cause GBH. I think you’d have to argue that not only did the accused deliberately push the cyclist, but that she did so with the intent of the cyclist being hit by the car.
She wasn’t convicted for
She wasn’t convicted for murder because the actual push is just out of the frame, but if you’re not wilfully blind, you see that that is what happened. There is no doubt.
3 year custodial sentence.
3 year custodial sentence.
I work as an adult SEN
I work as an adult SEN teacher. I think there is a reasonable chance this lady has learning difficulties. The phrase she does not consider herself to have is odd. Normally it’s asked that way because people might not self identify but others, usually professionals may disagree. The nature of co-morbitities means that this is more likely with the cerebral palsy and VI. The fact she went shopping after is the bit that really got my attention. Her behaviour would be very predictable (VI, poor processing, frustrated response). You can then say she is a danger but take account all she is trying to do is walk down a pavement (that is not well designed dual use). I would be very careful of making strong judgements without more information to rule this out . If the police haven’t picked up on LD issues they may not have had a responsible person present and she may not have had an appropriate defense. This is a known issue with the justice system and police behaviour.
I’m very upset that someone died, someone that could be me (I prefer cycling over driving) but their is sadly the opportunity for both parties to be victims here though one is clearly a more immediate tragedy.
If anyone can find more information about the case could they post link as I can’t find much. In the future more might come out about this or there may be an appeal.
Found the video and BBC
Found the video and BBC article. This does look like a miscarriage of justice. That lady can’t move her body powerfully and is waving her hand around. There is no forceful hip movement that I’d expect for a shove she’s still rocking side to side right to the end. The cyclist absolutely should have stopped, it’s clear the pedestrian can’t walk correctly and there is not enough room.
The reporting that there was nothing the car could do is not true.
That’s a hazard perception fail ( yes your supposed to watch the pavement that’s where people cross from). No way the driver would be prosecuted but it’s simply not true there was nothing they could do. Skilled, defensively trained drivers would have had a reasonable chance of slowing down and reducing or preventing injury.
In an ideal world there will be some pronbono legal support for the lady to assess her capacity and check everything was done correctly and the council would be sued for failing to correctly manage a percieved shared space (good chance no one actually know now if it’s shared or not due to poor signage and infrastructure).
This kind of one sided, poorly analysed reporting is exactly what we cyclists have to deal with. I think we have just passed it on.
Reminds me about an old women’s suffrage poster. It said these people have the vote but we don’t. There was an image of a conscientious objector, a shell shocked coward and a criminal. We only tend to see forms of discrimination we experience.
(Even with no LD that lady has clear and significant physical impairments)
Look at the language. Swore,
Look at the language. Swore, aggressive. That’s exactly how cyclists are reported, I’ve sworn at drivers comming directly at me. I’ve shouted at cyclists riding to fast at me while walking on the canal. There is absolutely nothing criminal or unreasonable there, it’s a normal reaction. If you watch the BBC lady reporting you get to see a man on a bike ride dangerously close and to fast past her (I am not saying the lady was riding to fast, I’m pointing out that it’s likely a common occurrence that some cyclists do, that it’s a reasonable expectation. The pedestrian has no more reason to move aside then I would if I was riding primary on the road. It’s their choice and they are protecting their space.
I’d hazard a guess that it was the leaving of the scene that got the sentence here. I really do hope they had a proper cognitive assessment done. I strongly suspect they did not.
Generally we ride prime to
Generally we ride prime to deter car drivers from squeezing past us in situations where there is no space to safely overtake, not the situation that applies here. In similar situations as a pedestrian I always step to the side to make room, admittedly had I been the cyclist I would have probably stopped rather than trying to edge past an obviously hostile person, but then I’m reasonably fit 63 year old male, not a frail 77 year old. There is nothing normal about aggressively swearing at people, fortunately, most of don’t and content ourselves with raised eyebrows and a sotto voce ‘really” or some such in such situations.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11817879/Inside-lonely-life-disabled-pavement-killer-Auriol-Grey.html
Can’t believe the Daily Hate actually did a better job. It’s the Judge they are incompetent. To say someone has no learning difficulties but then aknowledge they have a cognitive impairment is double speech. They are the same thing that’s what cognitive means. It’s a brain impairment. Clear sign of temper control, clear access to social housing and support, ticks the boxes for a vulnerable adult. That phrase they said they don’t have,. That’s sounds like an attempt to avoid liability.
I do wonder the social status of the victim who sadly died. I think it may have played a part in how the judge behaved and unconscious bias (a know issue in court, judges are in no way any better then anyone else, they give harsher sentences just because they are hungry).
What a horrible tragic mess.?
Apparently Ms Gray has lodged
Apparently Ms Gray has lodged an appeal against the sentence.