Auriol Grey - Manslaughter conviction overturned

MadMossy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying anything that the defence actually ran with. I can't see her being treated as or claimed to be mentally subnormal anywhere.

If anything you've picked up the comment that the judge originally made and flipped it on the victim.

Sentencing Grey, Judge Enright said she was "territorial about the pavement" and "resented" the cyclist being there.
The trial heard Grey had cerebral palsy and was partially sighted, but the judge said: "These actions are not explained by disability."
He said that she had given a "dishonest account in interview" and there was "not a word about remorse until today".
Judge Enright added that "consideration of other road users is the lesson of this tragic case".
Click to expand...

That reads as if Grey is being treated as someone with full responsibility of their actions.
 
Rroff said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think thats a fair assumption, especially when you follow the direction of travel of the cyclist further up the road. When the footpath ends, the footpath swaps to the other side of the road and continues with a shared path sign https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.3...GUCsnbfoj8NTqnWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
 
Hotwired said:
Are you saying anything that the defence actually ran with. I can't see her being treated as or claimed to be mentally subnormal anywhere.

If anything you've picked up the comment that the judge originally made and flipped it on the victim.



That reads as if Grey is being treated as someone with full responsibility of their actions.
Click to expand...

She was mentally handicapped, she was born with brain damage and had a partial left hemispherectomy (basically part of her brain was removed) as a child. She suffers from multiple physical disabilities and a degree of impaired cognitive function, along side partial blindness (she has very limited or no peripheral vision in her right eye, and limited use of her right limbs).

There's way more to consider here than just angry person causes cyclist death. Basically she should never have been charged with manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
Would the views of the OcUK jury be different if this were a child cycling on the pavement? Genuinely interested as a cyclist with young kids who are keen cyclists.

For the avoidance of doubt or bias - as an adult cycling on my own I exclusively cycle on the road and cycle as though I were riding a low powered motorcycle (stop at pedestrian crossings and traffic lights etc).
 
Hotwired said:
Are you saying anything that the defence actually ran with. I can't see her being treated as or claimed to be mentally subnormal anywhere.

If anything you've picked up the comment that the judge originally made and flipped it on the victim.
Click to expand...

According to the court documentation:

She had suffered cerebral palsy since birth when she sustained brain damage that resulted in epileptic seizures; and as a child, she underwent brain surgery to remove the part of the brain causing the epilepsy. As a result of that operation and brain injury the appellant had been left with a weakness to the right side of her body, significantly impaired vision and a degree of cognitive impairment. She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed, she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e. each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that is what it looks like). At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported accommodation.
Click to expand...

When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had a mental disability
Click to expand...
 
MadMossy said:
She was mentally handicapped, she was born with brain damage and had a partial left hemispherectomy (basically part of her brain was removed) as a child. She suffers from multiple physical disabilities and a degree of impaired cognitive function, along side partial blindness (she has very limited or no peripheral vision in her right eye, and limited use of her right limbs).

There's way more to consider here than just angry person causes cyclist death. Basically she should never have been charged with manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a no, the defence did not claim she had "the mental age of a child".

So that's the judge, the defence, and Grey herself that did not consider that she was mentally incapable of responsibility.

Separate to that is whether manslaughter was the correct charge to go with or if it was the correct charge but the prosecution was incompetent, leading to the outcome being voided.
 
Hotwired said:
I'll take that as a no, the defence did not claim she had "the mental age of a child".

So that's the judge, the defence, and Grey herself that did not consider that she was mentally incapable of responsibility.

Separate to that is whether manslaughter was the correct charge to go with or if it was the correct charge but the prosecution was incompetent, leading to the outcome being voided.
Click to expand...

The initial reporting of the incident had people who knew her, describing her as child like. I may have jumped to conclusions on that matter, but she was far from "normal" either way.
 
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...

So now that you know the facts of the case, have you reconsidered it was really Ms Wards fault?
 
MadMossy said:
The initial reporting of the incident had people who knew her, describing her as child like.
Click to expand...
Did the defence use it as mitigation or not? The actual judges remarks paint a different picture to what you are saying and I think they have more information to make those comments as well.
 
potatolord said:
That's pretty damning- a jury thought she was guilty.
Click to expand...
But only because the judge in the case failed to point out the actual requirements in order to convict, as the appeal judge pointed out. The judge is there to advise the jury on the legal matters of the case (but not the evidence itself), and in this case that explanation was lacking, hence why it's been overturned on appeal. If the jury had the correct legal advice, would they still have convicted, the appeal seems to say not.
 
Last edited:
Bear said:
I think society would benefit from her being restricted in her movements outside of her supported accommodation. To cause the death of an elderly person and not give a crap and carry on with her day, would indicate she is not safe around others on her own
Click to expand...

This is why the case was appealed and ultimately quashed. The assumption that she caused the death and something the jury were never even instructed to consider.

This is a good enough explanation of it.
www.youtube.com

Court of Appeal Quashed Auriol Grey Conviction

Because @CharlesVeitch asked for it. Otherwise you'd have had no video today! Free £50, bonuses, and more:https://share.octopus.energy/happy-human-326AND M...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
MadMossy said:
This is why the case was appealed and ultimately quashed. The assumption that she caused the death and something the jury were never even instructed to consider.

This is a good enough explanation of it.
www.youtube.com

Court of Appeal Quashed Auriol Grey Conviction

Because @CharlesVeitch asked for it. Otherwise you'd have had no video today! Free £50, bonuses, and more:https://share.octopus.energy/happy-human-326AND M...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
Click to expand...

Is this up there with your misunderstanding of the law which you're showing in the Trump thread in SC? You and dis should team up: Lawyers R Us*

* not lawyers
 
[FnG]magnolia said:
Is this up there with your misunderstanding of the law which you're showing in the Trump thread in SC? You and dis should team up: Lawyers R Us*

* not lawyers
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate or just slinging mud for the sake of it.

According to appeal judges, the charge of "unlawful act manslaughter" was never met, the jurors were never asked to decide on the fundamental question of whether the base offence was even established to secure the conviction. There was no evidence to establish if contact was made, only a statement given during questioning where she "believed" she had made light contact.

Hotwired said:
snip
Click to expand...

Auriol Grey did have a diagnosis after the case for Autism, which had it been done earlier, would have resulted in a different outcome entirely.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
But only because the judge in the case failed to point out the actual requirements in order to convict, as the appeal judge pointed out. The judge is there to advise the jury on the legal matters of the case (but not the evidence itself), and in this case that explanation was lacking, hence why it's been overturned on appeal. If the jury had the correct legal advice, would they still have convicted, the appeal seems to say not.
Click to expand...

The appeal ruling is here:

Para 36 sets out the key part of why the appeal succeeded.

I did mention in a later post the reason the appeal succeeded.
 
potatolord said:
The appeal ruling is here:

Para 36 sets out the key part of why the appeal succeeded.

I did mention in a later post the reason the appeal succeeded.
Click to expand...
You said being found guilty was damning,

Paragraph 36 says;
The judge’s legal directions contained
fundamental and material misdirections of law.

So that's different from what I said how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom