I understood the brother in law gave an interview to the times.
I don’t think it was glossed over so much as considered irrelevant?
Which I think it is, a complete red herring
It doesn’t matter if the cyclist was allowed on the path or not.
Even if she shouldn’t have been on the path it doesn’t justify Ms Greys behaviour
It doesn’t justify losing her temper, stomping towards the cyclist with her arms flailing, swearing, blocking her path, maybe making physical contact and causing an elderly ladies gruesome death. Let’s not forget that’s what she did before letting her play the victim card
If she can’t keep herself under control when things don’t go her way, then she’s a danger to the public and should be supervised
And if the council and the police aren’t sure if it was a cycle path or not, then how could the cyclist? I don’t think the cyclist was doing anything wrong at all. She and the motorist are the victims, Auriol Grey the aggressor
Not that it matters anyway, the cyclist’s dead because of Ms Grey’s nasty aggressive behaviour and the punishment for cycling on the pavement isn’t death by being run over in the road because of the actions of an unpleasant, aggressive, out of control woman
3 Likes
which is why the council should be liable in this case.
2 Likes
I would hazard a guess that there will be parents and grandparents on here who have children and grandchildren with disabilities or who could develop problems following accidents who will be astounded at your ignorance of how the brain works.
The Police realised she had difficulties as they arranged for “an appropriate adult” to accompany her at her initial interview which they have to do if there is any doubt.
2 Likes
The council didn’t force Celia Ward into the path of a car - Auriol Grey did. A jury was unanimous in finding her guilty of manslaughter and she is not appealing against the verdict.
4 Likes
If she can’t control herself and behaves aggressively then I think she is a danger to the public
She was certainly a lethal danger to the cyclist, wasn’t she?
It wasn’t just the swearing, it was the flailing arms, stomping towards and deliberately walking in the centre of the path and blocking the cyclist, maybe making physical contact with her
Of course her advisors will play up her disabilities for the the appeal against the sentence
I believe the appeal is against the length of the sentence, not the guilty verdict and there is a counter appeal against the sentence being too lenient? In my opinion the maximum five years would have been better for causing the death of another human being in this way
I think her not knowing what’s happening and not knowing she’s in prison is tosh because in earlier reports she was quoted as saying she was afraid of going to prison in case she was bullied.
If she understood then that prison was a potential consequence of her crime then she understands now that it’s happened and that’s where she is
I’m sure they’ll get her sentence reduced but I think it’s very wrong and very disrespectful to the memory of the cyclist and her family
3 Likes
Was that in the Times, too?
The council aren’t responsible for Ms Greys violent reaction, she is
And it was that violent reaction that caused the cyclist’s death, not the lack of signage in the path
We all see people doing things that annoy us and we think are wrong everyday, we don’t usually react in a way that causes their death
The only person liable here is Ms Grey
3 Likes
I believe that Grey actually said “get off the [expletive] pavement” and that’s not an expression that I’m accustomed to hearing.
The police aren’t qualified to diagnose “difficulties” so they would quite rightly arranged an appropriate adult if they suspected some.
The judge having heard and seen all the evidence decided these difficulties didn’t cause her to behave as she did and that she knows the difference between right and wrong.
People with learning difficulties can and do commit crime and when they do they should be punished appropriately like everyone else, it’s not an excuse to behave however they like
I still think there’s some anti-cyclist sentiment behind all this sympathy for her
People with learning difficulties, isolation deprived family and social backgrounds get sentenced for crimes and sent to prison all the time, and the reaction from the public is usually that it doesn’t justify what they did and they are just using it as an excuse?
Is the difference in this case that the victim is a cyclist?
2 Likes
The council is responsible for safe cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. They have clearly failed. This path continues to be dangerous for both and is without clear markings. It’s not just here but around the country we see the same failings from local authority planners. Half-hearted attempts due to a lack of interest and funding.
1 Like
That doesn’t make the council liable to a charge of manslaughter, though.
All three sides can sue the council for negligence. They have a duty of care to provide safe roads.
You didn’t mention negligence - you just said “the council should be liable in this case” - not what for or in what sort of charge/suit. In English common law, negligence is a tort (a civil wrong) and a claim in negligence can provide a remedy for personal injury, damage to property and economic loss.
If suing is involved then, obviously, the cyclist’s family and the car driver could sue Grey.
Negligence occurs when someone causes injury or a loss to someone else because of their reckless or careless behaviour.
In English common law, negligence is a tort (a civil wrong) and a claim in negligence can provide a remedy for personal injury, damage to property and economic loss.
Situations in which negligence can arise could be on the road, at work and through faulty products.
Causation and loss
The claimant needs to show that the defendant has caused the claimant to suffer loss. A claimant needs to show that there is factual and legal causation for the claim to succeed:
• Factual causation - a claimant must prove that ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence, the claimant would not have suffered any loss.
• Legal causation - the loss caused must be within the scope of the duty owed by the defendant to the claimant and must be foreseeable.
Wiki says:
Negligence (Lat. negligentia) is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness (1) possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
Someone who suffers loss caused by another’s negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages.
(1) In Grey’s case, she was judged to be not just careless but reckless and indifferent to the consequences to others.
Whether they sue the council or each other there would be mitigation of any claim by all three sides for contributory negligence. I’m not sure whether there’s an equivalent in criminal trials.
So, Grey, as well as her criminal conviction, would be involved in complex and, undoubtedly, protracted civil proceedings with, probably, 3 (or more) plaintiffs … 
Frankly, that’s not a course I would recommend for anyone but especially someone with alleged “disabilities”.
1 Like
I think the victims family could probably sue her for damages and have a good case. Likewise the car driver. But she doesn’t have any assets to pay it sounds like? They might want to do it anyway to get some closure, I suppose
Could they sue the council, no I don’t think so
It’s not like a pot hole that directly caused an accident. Nor did lack of signage cause the accident. The council can’t be responsible for someone’s violent reaction to a cyclist being somewhere they thought they shouldn’t be, just because there was no sign saying they should or shouldn’t be there
It was the out of proportion reaction and behaviour that caused this, not lack of signposting
And could Auriol Grey sue the council because they didn’t put up a sign and so she didn’t know if the cyclist should be on the pavement ir not? And therefore she got angry and behaved as badly as she did?
No, because we all have personal responsibility to control ourselves and behave like decent human beings, regardless of provocation or lack of signposts
There being no sign didn’t cause her to behave as she did and doesn’t excuse it or make the council responsible for her choices
3 Likes
Anyone can sue anyone but the questions to ask are “How much is it going to cost?” and “Is it worth it?”
The “manslaughter” was over two years ago - it might take that and more to bring a civil case to court and a verdict which satisfies no-one, except the lawyers … 
It’s sad that Ms Grey and her family became estranged for so long - it happens in lots of families so I’m not judging anyone for that - but now they have chosen to step back into her life, I hope they will continue their support while she needs them - if they are a wealthy family, they may at least be able to help with storing her possessions and helping her get set up in a home when she is eventually released.
(I’m not getting involved with the ongoing arguments on this thread re whether the trial judgement was correct - that was the Jury’s job - and I think we should leave the arguing over the sentence to the appellants in the Appeal Court. )
2 Likes
It’s frequently heard on TV these days. Maybe you don’t have a TV. I don’t like it either by the way but High school kids use it all the time.