Auriol Grey - Manslaughter conviction overturned

uber soldat said:
If the cyclist was cycling legally on the road she would still be alive today.....just saying.
Click to expand...

This is part of my view as to why the prosecution shouldn't have gone ahead in the first place.

Ward made a decision to break the law by riding on the pavement. The altercation with Grey was a product of that decision which ultimately lead to her death.

Did Ward deserve to die for her decision, obviously that's a no. To say she did would be incredibly vile. However Grey shouldn't be held responsible for Ward's actions.
 
Resident said:
This is part of my view as to why the prosecution shouldn't have gone ahead in the first place.

Ward made a decision to break the law by riding on the pavement. The altercation with Grey was a product of that decision which ultimately lead to her death.

Did Ward deserve to die for her decision, obviously that's a no. To say she did would be incredibly vile. However Grey shouldn't be held responsible for Ward's actions.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with you, should Grey be held responsible for her own actions? Which in this instance directly led to Ward's actions.
 
Resident said:
This is part of my view as to why the prosecution shouldn't have gone ahead in the first place.

Ward made a decision to break the law by riding on the pavement. The altercation with Grey was a product of that decision which ultimately lead to her death.

Did Ward deserve to die for her decision, obviously that's a no. To say she did would be incredibly vile. However Grey shouldn't be held responsible for Ward's actions.
Click to expand...

Grey isn't and was never being held responsible for Ward's actions.

She was prosecuted as, following an evidence review by CPS, it was deemed there was sufficient evidence to prove a case of manslaughter- and she was convicted following a jury trial. That's pretty damning- a jury thought she was guilty.

It may not be manslaughter (following an appeal against the conviction) but it was a selfish and dangerous thing to do.

If this had been a child would people think differently?
 
Last edited:
potatolord said:
It may not be manslaughter (following an appeal against the conviction) but it was a selfish and dangerous thing to do.
Click to expand...
Cycling in the footpath was a pretty selfish and dangerous thing to do too though.
potatolord said:
If this had been a child would people think differently?
Click to expand...
A child would almost certainly have been accompanied by an adult and while technically it’s illegal for anyone to ride on the footpath it’s generally accepted that young children are ‘exempt’ from that (not technically but I’m sure you know what I mean)
 
As I see it (IANAL) the law can only look at the events as they happened when judging guilt, rather than looking at the "what if" such as "well if X hadn't done Y then Z wouldn't have happened in the first place so she should be found not guilty" type stuff.

In this case the law could only judge "did her actions of bumping/pushing the cyclist directly lead to her death" and the jury decided that, Yes, her actions did lead to the death of the cyclist and so she was found guilty. Thats a simple case.

Where I think the judge should have shown a little more leniency is with those "surrounding circumstances" such as "should the cyclist have been there in the first place" etc which could then be used (after guilt has been proven) to reduce the sentence they gave down to no more than a suspended sentence, because jailing this lady clearly wasn't in the overall public's best interest, but she would still have had the conviction.
 
Last edited:
Residem said:
cycling on pavements is an offence but one in which the police can use discretion in enforcing
Click to expand...
I remember a time when only very young kids could ride on the pavement. If you are not going to ride on the road, you push the cycle on the pavement.

There was always a copper about back then.

I even got in to trouble for sitting on a moped i had parked up off the road as i had run out of petrol, i was waiting for some one to bring some in a petrol can. Then when i started pushing it further along i was told i had to put my crash helmet on.

UTmaniac said:
I was under the impression it was a shared pathway, the cyclist had every right to use.
Click to expand...
Going by the video there was not enough room on that pavement to be shared.
 
Gepetto said:
The pavement is listed as 2.4 metres wide. I would have thought that a cyclist and a pedestrian would have had plenty room.
Click to expand...
That may be the case, still a pretty selfish and dangerous thing to do.

Don’t get me wrong, the woman doing the gesticulating and shouting is clearly a horrid human being (whether caused by her mental disabilities or not) but sadly for the cyclist had she not been on the footpath to begin with she’d not have had the interaction with this person that caused her death.

Very sad case when all is said and done.
 
Thekwango said:
A child would almost certainly have been accompanied by an adult and while technically it’s illegal for anyone to ride on the footpath it’s generally accepted that young children are ‘exempt’ from that (not technically but I’m sure you know what I mean)
Click to expand...

Loads of kids go out on their bikes with their mates. I see that daily.

The fact that it is illegal to ride on a pavement does not mean that manslaughter cannot be proved- an initial trial found Grey guilty.

There is no exemption in law as far as I know. But I don't know.

The case has been overturned on a technical finding to do with the way the manslaughter charge did not apply an assault charge correctly.

It would be interesting to see the judge's direction to the jury, and the evidence that made them convict.
 
Thekwango said:
That may be the case, still a pretty selfish and dangerous thing to do.
Click to expand...

Which party? :cry:

You are absolutely right though, it is sad.

I still believe Grey's actions had a bearing on Ward's death though. Otherwise, you might as well say if neither of them had been there this wouldn't have happened.

I can see both the Jury's and the Appeal Panel's reasoning, although if it was my Mum, wife, sister etc. that was dead, I know how I would feel.
 
Last edited:
ianh said:
Where I think the judge should have shown a little more leniency is with those "surrounding circumstances" such as "should the cyclist have been there in the first place" etc which could then be used (after guilt has been proven) to reduce the sentence they gave down to no more than a suspended sentence, because jailing this lady clearly wasn't in the overall public's best interest, but she would still have had the conviction.
Click to expand...

That she was cycling on the pavement i.e. in a place she shouldn't have been is reaching a bit in terms of culpability on the part of the victim - we're not talking about a trespasser or a burglar here! It's true, she shouldn't have been on the pavement but it's a bit weak relative to what happened.

More to the point this Auriol Grey character seems like a nasty piece of work, seemed to be acting in a vengeful manner not just a reaction to the appearance of a cyclist IMO and also left the scene.

It's pretty callous to cause the death of an elderly person and then just walk off and when questioned by the police just go off on one about how cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. Personal view is that she's a scummy individual and I'm glad she got locked up.
 
It's rough because I don't think anyone would expect a 77y/o cyclist to be frank. On their merit - semi nuts women screaming at clouds is OK, and so is a 77y/o using the pavement to cycle on.

Just a case of wrong time, wrong place. If it was a scrote of a kid they probably wouldn't have bailed so badly. If it was a more reasonable human, they would have probs just let them by and ignored it.

I often cycle on the pavement when I have my 3/yo in the back but I am a competent enough cyclist to avoid people, even looneys that want to throw shade.
 
Yeah I think it's too harsh to go down for manslaughter for that.
Its was a series of unfortunate events.
She absolutely shouldn't have been on the pavement. And I don't think the pedestrian pushed her.

Its just about 3-4 things happened all badly.

Old
On pavement
Stroppy pedestrian
Fell into the road
Car coming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom