[News] Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter

[Herr Tubthumper]

Because this is a subject you're obsessed with. You and others on this thread aren't capable of being objective, the default stance is cyclist = victim, everyone else = evil.

Think you’re being unfair here.

 

[Stat Brother]

Think you’re being unfair here.

To put it mildly, but there's clearly no point conversing with them.

 

[brightn'ove]

Which post are you aiming that last sentence at ? Pretty reasonable discussion as far as I can see, including your post.

Nobody in particular!

 

[warmleyseagull]

It shouldn't matter whether it was shared or not. It is manslaughter.

If I drive at and end up killing someone on an electric scooter because I've decided they should not be on the road then I deservedly get tried and convicted for manslaughter. I may not have intended to kill them, I may have wanted to show them that I'm in the right and they are in the wrong, however bizzare that sounds. But my reckless behaviour resulted in their death. Guilty.

This thread reminds me to an extent of the horrendous views on rape cases, "well she wore a short skirt..." Utterly despicable to defend.

Woah! It seems unclear as to whether this is a shared path or not. From the video, I would suggest it is unlikely as the pavement is narrow and in poor condition and there is no defining solid white line. Even if it is shared, the pedestrian could very reasonably IMO say that she was unaware of that.

Either way, take time to reflect on whether someone pushing a double buggy would have the slightest chance against a bike; even a single buggy would be put in danger by a cyclist. If a collision had occurred and a buggy went in the road, where would your sympathies lie?

OK, so that wasn’t the case, and abuse against someone elderly (even if breaking the law) is unacceptable. But As a cyclist I am not comfortable with the outcome.

 

[Deleted member 37369]

Woah! It seems unclear as to whether this is a shared path or not. From the video, I would suggest it is unlikely as the pavement is narrow and in poor condition and there is no defining solid white line. Even if it is shared, the pedestrian could very reasonably IMO say that she was unaware of that.

Not all shared paths have white lines. This is part of the National Cycle Route 2 which I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Woah! It seems unclear as to whether this is a shared path or not. From the video, I would suggest it is unlikely as the pavement is narrow and in poor condition and there is no defining solid white line. Even if it is shared, the pedestrian could very reasonably IMO say that she was unaware of that.

Either way, take time to reflect on whether someone pushing a double buggy would have the slightest chance against a bike; even a single buggy would be put in danger by a cyclist. If a collision had occurred and a buggy went in the road, where would your sympathies lie?

OK, so that wasn’t the case, and abuse against someone elderly (even if breaking the law) is unacceptable. But As a cyclist I am not comfortable with the outcome.

No, it wasn’t the case.

 

[Pondicherry]

I personally suspect this will be overturned on appeal.
It seems at best unclear whether this was a shared path and regardless of that, even on a road, let alone a footpath or shared footpath, cyclists and all other road users are meant to give way to pedestrians.
I suspect the unfortunate lady who was killed was cycling on the path because she did not feel safe cycling on the road. This is understandable but by cycling on a path she in turn made a pedestrian feel unsafe. The pedestrians actions were excessive and exacerbated the situation and she deserved some sort of sanction.
However, I can't see how a three year jail sentence is in the public interest here.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I personally suspect this will be overturned on appeal.
It seems at best unclear whether this was a shared path and regardless of that, even on a road, let alone a footpath or shared footpath, cyclists and all other road users are meant to give way to pedestrians.
I suspect the unfortunate lady who was killed was cycling on the path because she did not feel safe cycling on the road. This is understandable but by cycling on a path she in turn made a pedestrian feel unsafe. The pedestrians actions were excessive and exacerbated the situation and she deserved some sort of sanction.
However, I can't see how a three year jail sentence is in the public interest here.

If I threatened a 77 year old lady such that she fell into a road and got run over I’d fully expect a prison sentence.

 

[jcdenton08]

If I threatened a 77 year old lady such that she fell into a road and got run over I’d fully expect a prison sentence.

If indeed it was only a threat. Frame by frame study of the video leaves it inconclusive whether there was actual physical contact - therefore an assault. Additionally, she appears to deviate into the incoming path of the cyclist. If she was truly fearful of being struck, she would do the exact opposite of what is shown in the video.

 

[Pondicherry]

If I threatened a 77 year old lady such that she fell into a road and got run over I’d fully expect a prison sentence.

I guess in a case like this a judgment has to be made whether someones actions were proportionate. So you threatening a 77 year old woman who may have been perceived as illegally cycling on a footpath causing her to fall into the road and get run over might be considered disproportionate. However a partially sighted 49 year old woman with mental and physical issues doing the same thing might have her actions considered as less disproportionate.
I don't think the pedestrian intended to kill the cyclist. The footpath is not marked up as a shared footpath. I suspect the pedestrian had in her mind that the cyclist was cycling illegally (whether she was or wasn't). Obviously no cyclist should die because they are cycling on a footpath and the case is tragic. However in this case a three year custodial sentence does not look like justice to me.

 

[Weststander]

I guess in a case like this a judgment has to be made whether someones actions were proportionate. So you threatening a 77 year old woman who may have been perceived as illegally cycling on a footpath causing her to fall into the road and get run over might be considered disproportionate. However a partially sighted 49 year old woman with mental and physical issues doing the same thing might have her actions considered as less disproportionate.
I don't think the pedestrian intended to kill the cyclist. The footpath is not marked up as a shared footpath. I suspect the pedestrian had in her mind that the cyclist was cycling illegally (whether she was or wasn't). Obviously no cyclist should die because they are cycling on a footpath and the case is tragic. However in this case a three year custodial sentence does not look like justice to me.

In court, to reiterate:

“These actions are NOT explained by disability”.

The feelings of car drivers hundreds of miles away have no bearing.

 

[Acker79]

Not all shared paths have white lines. This is part of the National Cycle Route 2 which I mentioned in an earlier post.

View attachment 157897

Can also point to the quite newly built victoria gardens/st peter's church part of brighton. Built so recently it was designed to encourage cycling. There are cycle paths on one side that are clearly marked, but much of the paths around the area are shared and no lines (particularly on the london road side). Also that bit of the path from Barcombe close down past Woollard's park on the walk through the estate to the Amex is a shared path without lines. The little area between sydney street and kensington has no lines and is shared path.

 

[Weststander]

Judge Sean Enright, sentencing Grey to three years in prison, said Grey has no mental disorder or learning difficulties and claimed the pavement was 2.4 metres wide at the relevant point, describing it as a “shared path on the ring road”. He added “these actions are not explained by disability”.

 

[Pondicherry]

The judge did acknowledge the partial blindness, cognitive and mobility issues and cerebral palsy that she suffered from though. What is cognitive impairment? Cognitive impairment is when a person has trouble remembering, learning new things, concentrating, or making decisions that affect their everyday life.
Yes he did say the actions were not explained by her disability. That was his opinion but I suspect an appeal is likely to be successful in some way. Just acknowledging the partial blindness on its own may partially explain her actions. And as has been stated in this thread, he made a statement regarding the status of the footpath that was not supported by the police in their evidence. And in reality, the footpath is not physically marked up in any way as a shared footpath whether it holds that legal status or not so I fail to see how a member of the public would know whether it was a shared footpath or not.

 

[Weststander]

The judge did acknowledge the partial blindness, cognitive and mobility issues and cerebral palsy that she suffered from though. What is cognitive impairment? Cognitive impairment is when a person has trouble remembering, learning new things, concentrating, or making decisions that affect their everyday life.
Yes he did say the actions were not explained by her disability. That was his opinion but I suspect an appeal is likely to be successful in some way. Just acknowledging the partial blindness on its own may partially explain her actions. And as has been stated in this thread, he made a statement regarding the status of the footpath that was not supported by the police in their evidence. And in reality, the footpath is not physically marked up in any way as a shared footpath whether it holds that legal status or not so I fail to see how a member of the public would know whether it was a shared footpath or not.

Cognitive is a mental facet.

The judge was crystal clear that she has no mental disorder or learning difficulty, so no mitigation for the aggressive behaviour.

Two purely physical disabilities do not explain the aggressive behaviour, immediately leaving the scene of the crime and to the bitter end showing zero remorse.

Hence the CPS actions, jury and judge justice served.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yes but, they had full access to all the facts, evidence and relevant law.

Fact.

The legal system proved that.

Cognitive is a mental facet.

The judge was crystal clear that she has no mental disorder or learning difficulty, so no mitigation for the aggressive behaviour.

Two purely physical disabilities do not explain the aggressive behaviour, immediately leaving the scene of the crime and to the bitter end showing zero remorse.

Hence the CPS actions, jury and judge justice served.

I guess in a case like this a judgment has to be made whether someones actions were proportionate. So you threatening a 77 year old woman who may have been perceived as illegally cycling on a footpath causing her to fall into the road and get run over might be considered disproportionate. However a partially sighted 49 year old woman with mental and physical issues doing the same thing might have her actions considered as less disproportionate.
I don't think the pedestrian intended to kill the cyclist. The footpath is not marked up as a shared footpath. I suspect the pedestrian had in her mind that the cyclist was cycling illegally (whether she was or wasn't). Obviously no cyclist should die because they are cycling on a footpath and the case is tragic. However in this case a three year custodial sentence does not look like justice to me.

I also think there will be a successful appeal. It will involve the judge’s assertion that this was a shared pathway despite no evidence for this being presented at trial. It will also involve experts in learning disabilities.

Westander, sorry to quote you 3 times. It’s this new version of NSC and I can’t be bothered to edit all of that. Basically, this is what the appeal system is for. Justice doesn’t finish with one judge. Too soon for such definitive opinions.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Judge Sean Enright, sentencing Grey to three years in prison, said Grey has no mental disorder or learning difficulties and claimed the pavement was 2.4 metres wide at the relevant point, describing it as a “shared path on the ring road”. He added “these actions are not explained by disability”.

This is very questionable from the judge.

Grey has cerebral palsy which was acknowledged:

"Judge Enright acknowledged the partial blindness, cognitive and mobility issues and cerebral palsy that Grey suffered from"

She lives alone in adapted accommodation and has no family. By any stretch of the imagination she is a vulnerable person. But people in this thread are calling her a "scumbag" and a "bully"

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

This is very questionable from the judge.

Grey has cerebral palsy which was acknowledged:

"Judge Enright acknowledged the partial blindness, cognitive and mobility issues and cerebral palsy that Grey suffered from"

She lives alone in adapted accommodation and has no family. By any stretch of the imagination she is a vulnerable person. But people in this thread are calling her a "scumbag" and a "bully"

Indeed. There is a lot of ignorance of learning disability and vulnerability in the general population.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I personally suspect this will be overturned on appeal.
It seems at best unclear whether this was a shared path and regardless of that, even on a road, let alone a footpath or shared footpath, cyclists and all other road users are meant to give way to pedestrians.
I suspect the unfortunate lady who was killed was cycling on the path because she did not feel safe cycling on the road. This is understandable but by cycling on a path she in turn made a pedestrian feel unsafe. The pedestrians actions were excessive and exacerbated the situation and she deserved some sort of sanction.
However, I can't see how a three year jail sentence is in the public interest here.

The defendant has to be given leave to appeal first. Is it appeal against the conviction or appeal against the sentence?

 

[Eric the meek]

In the court,

Indeed. There is a lot of ignorance of learning disability and vulnerability in the general population.

Perhaps. But back to the trial, and the woman's medical records were investigated at length during it.
The bottom line is that despite her medical history, her actions were not caused by them, she committed a crime, and has been convicted and jailed for manslaughter.

Here is what Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire:

"I'll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.
"In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void."
He added that there were "considerations in relation to Auriol Grey's vulnerability" in their investigation.
"A lot of medical records... professional expert evidence was sought and presented to a jury, it's important to note, and with all that, in fact, she was found guilty of an unlawful act and that is why she was convicted," he said.