Auriol Grey - Manslaughter conviction overturned

It sounds like she got off on a technicality that relevant matters weren't fully discussed.

Though the BBB seems to be saying that because it couldn't be established if the lashing out made contact, and if it didn't there wouldn't be an underlying offence. I find that odd.

It seems to be saying if someone jump scares you and you react and hurt yourself that the person who triggered the event isn't liable?
 
BowdonUK said:
Though the BBB seems to be saying that because it couldn't be established if the lashing out made contact, and if it didn't there wouldn't be an underlying offence. I find that odd.
Click to expand...

There's a bit more to "assault" - it could also be assault if she intended to hit/make contact and didn't manage to - or indeed acting recklessly and someone getting hit or believing they're about to be can be assault too AFAIK:

"any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence"

Like, for example, throwing a punch at someone can be an assault even if the person ducks and the punch misses.
 
dowie said:
There's a bit more to "assault" - it could also be assault if she intended to hit/make contact and didn't manage to - or indeed acting recklessly and someone getting hit or believing they're about to be can be assault too AFAIK:

"any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence"

Like, for example, throwing a punch at someone can be an assault even if the person ducks and the punch misses.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Now to me, her waving her arm like that, as close as they are, is indeed assault, with the cyclist fearing an unlawful touching, hence the swerve….
 
Resident said:
Grey shouted at Ward to "get off the ****** pavement". Ward then swerved into the road and was struck by an oncoming vehicle. There was no physical contact reported between the two involved.
Click to expand...

Are you making things up as you go. Grey gave a statement that she made physical contact with the cyclist.

www.bbc.co.uk

Huntingdon: Cyclist death accused was 'anxious' for her own safety, jury told

Auriol Grey is accused of gesturing in a "hostile" way to a cyclist who fell into the path of a car.
www.bbc.co.uk

I am surprised the prosecution failed to stick "a" charge and that they reached for manslaughter and stuffed it.
 
dowie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm team dowie on this one and regret nothing*

* until he says something stupid *

* which he will not
 
I've not really followed the details on this one so possible she was encountering that cyclist or others regularly and nearly getting hit or whatever by them and eventually so wound up she lashed out but at face value regardless of whether there was contact or not she took matters into her own hands IMO with tragic consequences and should pay for that. Well within her right to remonstrate with the cyclist but she would not have been inconvenienced by moving over and letting the cyclist past unmolested.

I'm sick of people who may be in the right or have good intentions but use that to justify taking all kinds of actions which are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Resident said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Auriol Grey has cyclist manslaughter conviction overturned

Auriol Grey's family say they are relieved her ordeal is now over following the Appeal Court ruling.
www.bbc.co.uk


Quite rightly so.

I think almost everyone would tell a cyclist riding towards them to get off the pavement.

The only real offence that lead to the death of Celia Ward was that of riding a bicycle on a pavement, an offence committed by Ms Ward.
Click to expand...

It wasnt clear it was a pavement and may have been a shared use path
 
Last edited:
Thekwango said:
They were unable to prove that unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are correct, I was editing my post whilst you wrote yours.

On the afternoon of 20 October 2020, Mrs Ward had cycled on a stretch of pavement that Cambridgeshire Constabulary was unable to "categorically" determine if it was a shared-use path or not. Following the sentencing and much campaigning, improved signage and updated maps were introduced to indicate Huntingdon footway routes where cycling is permitted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There are shared footpath signs here (around quarter of a mile along the road from the incident) these also mostly exist on older street view dates.

maps.app.goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl

Also some the other side of the incident location but quite vague.

But none nearer the location:

maps.app.goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl

It is likely people, who took any notice of the signs, using the area would assume the footpaths along that stretch in general were shared use.
 
Last edited:
Fubsy said:
No one going to comment on the cyclist on the pavement in the BBC article video piece near the end?

Seems setup to make a point.
Click to expand...

Makes a point by completely missing the point in the first place.

As a cyclist it is your responsibility to give way to pedestrians. If you cannot pass them safely, stop and let them pass. In this case its clear the person in question has a disability and extra space should have been considered. It's a tragic event but one that could have been entirely avoided by just following the extremely simple road hierarchy of users.
 
Last edited:
MadMossy said:
Makes a point by completely missing the point in the first place.

As a cyclist it is your responsibility to give way to pedestrians. If you cannot pass them safely, stop and let them pass. In this case its clear the person in question has a disability and extra space should have been considered. It's a tragic event but one that could have been entirely avoided by just following the extremely simple road hierarchy of users.
Click to expand...

Ideally yes, it was however a reasonably wide stretch of pavement even at the points narrowed by street lights, etc. as can be seen in the BBC video even with the presenter standing fairly centrally the bike was able to pass OKish. Hierarchy of road users doesn't divest anyone from their responsibility as well.
 
Regardless of her hand or loud mouth causing the old lady to swerve into the road and get hit in front of her, the fact she just continued to the supermarket and carried on with her shopping and then lied whilst in custody is shocking.

I've just done a quick search for video of her in custody and checked on Google Earth for the exact spot the incident happened, which hopefully many here have already done!

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Ideally yes, it was however a reasonably wide stretch of pavement even at the points narrowed by street lights, etc. as can be seen in the BBC video even with the presenter standing fairly centrally the bike was able to pass OKish. Hierarchy of road users doesn't divest anyone from their responsibility as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, there is a degree of personal responsibility involved in all matters of life, but again Aurel Grey is not a typical person. She has the mental age of a child and children are basically stupid. Common sense would mean you position yourself like the presenter did, with enough space for others, a child wouldn't necessarily think to do that.
 
aVdub said:
Regardless of her hand or loud mouth causing the old lady to swerve into the road and get hit in front of her, the fact she just continued to the supermarket and carried on with her shopping and then lied whilst in custody is shocking.

I've just done a quick search for video of her in custody and checked on Google Earth for the exact spot the incident happened, which hopefully many here have already done!

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...

Again completely ignoring the fact she is mentally handicapped and childlike. The entire event was a tragic and avoidable, but conviction and prison were the wrong thing to do, she needed assistance and care, an unfortunate consequence of our very broken mental health system, it's bad now, but god knows what it will be like in 10-20 years where teens today require it, as they are royally messed up.
 
MadMossy said:
and childlike
Click to expand...

An interesting point, even when driving I generally consider other road users differently depending on whether they appear like a child or adult physically, you can't often tell an adult with a childlike mental ability from a distance. Though these days you have to treat so many pedestrians like children given how many have headphones in, head down looking at phone, etc. and will wander out into the road without a care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom