Sorry to say … it was a tragic accident.
A woman that was overly aggresive, had a club foot, had vision problems
And a woman on a bike, aged 77, who seems somewhat doddery anyway, who could have, should have …but did not get off her bike when she saw a pedestrian coming.
A lack of compassion and going to the shops regardless of the accident is not manslaughter … though it doesn’t make her sound a particularly nice person.
Manslaughter though? 3 years? Very harsh. Whatever happend to just causing an obstruction on the pavement,.
Drunk drivers get less.
Aside from that … cyclists should NOT be on pavements, especially at 77 years old.
As a pedestrian I get sick of cyclists tinkling their bells for attention behind me, only for me to turn and find one right up my exhaust with no intentnion of slowing down. They expect me to shift for them. Never occurs to them to nip into the road and go around me and overtake.
But with dog walkers, pedestrians, cyclists, kids, women with pushchairs, mobility scooters , kids on scooters, and now e-scooters … pavements are not fit for the job. No wonder it has rresulted in tragedy.
We’re probably all safer in the road, if we could get motorists to all drive at 5 to 10 mph. (Only joking about that bit)
I really don’t know what to say about this terrible heartbreaking incident…two Women left Home that day to go about Their everyday Lives…then…tragedy!..One’s dead…the other locked up in jail…I feel so so sorry for All involved.
It sounds to me as if she got off rather lightly and certainly earned her sentence
She stuck aggressively to the centre of the pavement, swore and swung her arm towards the woman.
And it sounds to me as if the film of the incident that they can’t show to the public, presumably because of graphic images of the cyclists death, confirms her arm did make contact with the cyclist, either as a blow or a push, and she confirmed as much herself
Hence the sentence handed out by the judge, she did kill the cyclist by her aggressive behaviour
And I do get tired of entitled people who think their ‘rights’ trump their duty to behave like a decent, civilised human being
Whatever she thought about a cyclist on the pavement it didn’t justify barging towards them, swearing and swinging at them
The cyclist had as much right too be there as she did
And even if she didn’t, the sentence for riding where you shouldn’t isn’t being crowded off the pavement to your death
The judge said she showed no remorse and the shopping incident makes me think that she’s one of those people who thinks she’s so right death is too good for those who cross her
I’m not sure she’ll learn humility. By all accounts she’s had learning difficulties all her life, and there are claims she was bullied as a child because of a club foot.
Perhaps she was. Who knows.
To me it’s a classic case of both pavement users believing they had an equal right to use the pavement , or even a priority over the other user, and so either would not move aside, or stop and get of their bike.
Clearly cycling on the pavement should not result in a death.
But neither does been horribly obnoxious with learning difficulties which is a character failing or a failing of birth … earn a sentence of manslaughter… and a jail term rather than a suspended sentence.
I blame the councils. They make inadequate provision for pavements users in some area and invest vast sums in cycle lanes that stop abruptly and go nowhere in others.
What would I have done? As a pedestrian once I’d seen her coming and that she was not going to stop I’d have stepped out into the road whilst tellihg the cyclist in no uncertain terms that that is where they should be, not me … in the road.
Neither of them was sensible.
It staggers me that some people on here have absolutely no understanding of people with learning difficulties which she clearly has, as well as partial sight and cerebral palsy. Imagine walking along and seeing a dark shape coming towards you on a path. Incidentally, a path with no markings or signs that says it is a “shared” path and you only have partial sight and you know that due to your other disabilities you will be unable to move out of the way quickly!
People with learning difficulties or special needs think and act differently to most people. Their reactions are completely different and things have to be explained to them sometimes repeatedly and in different ways until they understand. Sometimes they think very black/white and they don’t do grey at all. I suspect she is on the autistic spectrum actually and is of the age group who missed out on getting diagnosed but it was up to the judge to arrange for thorough tests to be carried out but he clearly didn’t.
Now a good friend and a few neighbours have come forward and said she is a nice person, very immature and childlike and lives alone in sheltered housing and they don’t believe she should be in jail. Finally her estranged and wealthy Mother has emerged too and says that she was brain damaged at birth and struggled and was very bullied as a child and called awful names because of her disabilities.
She didn’t push the cyclist off her bike, the lady tragically fell and the poor woman who drive over her will probably never get over it. Dreadful all round.
People commit terrible crimes and they get a suspended sentence. I hope that the prison staff take kindly to her and she may even get more help and friendship in there than she ever did in her outside life.
Something very similar happened to me about 10 years ago but I am not feeling I want to share it tonight.
These are both issues that the local authority is responsible for. Yet they are not in the dock. They should be. I wonder what triggers the prosecution. IMO it’s far easier to convict those who are less able to defend themselves than institutions who have politically oiled palms…
If you think our legal system is above reproach good luck to you! The country is sliding down a greasy pole if you examine the facts, just looking at the government’s recent shenanigans is surely enough proof that there is one law for some and another for the little people.
So much common sense being written here , i also believe both were being stubborn , but again I must say , if I had been the cyclist I would have stopped and moved over, got off , whatever . Its an awful situation .
There is so much aggression nowadays where has kindness gone
Well, I just watched the video again and I can’t see any evidence of them both being stubborn
The path is 8ft wide, plenty of room for both
And it’s obvious the cyclist was keeping to one side, by the kerb, that’s why she fell into road when Auriol Grey’s aggression caused her to tumble
Auriol Grey, on the other hand, is clearly barging down the middle, cursing and flinging her arms about, possibly making physical contact with the cyclist, who fell off to avoid her
I think it’s too easy to pass the buck to the local authority on this one
They provided an adequate 8ft pathway, plenty big enough for both cyclists and pedestrians to use if they both have some manners and common sense
And encouraging cyclists and providing safer off road paths for them is a good thing.
The local authority has a duty of care to make provision for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
I think they could have made it clearer that the pathway was for mixed use.
Our local pathways have symbols painted on them, cyclists to left, pedestrians to the right, but would Auriol Grey have taken notice of that anyway?
I sympathise with her disabilities but there’s no evidence that her poor eyesight meant she didn’t see this cyclist from a good way off, quite the opposite in fact
And neighbours say she’s often bad tempered and sweary and the judge that she was untruthful
She seems to be getting some support as she lives in a specially adapted flat provided by a charity and an income provided by state benefits.
But she does sound isolated and in need of more help
But I think this was manslaughter and it’s her alone that is responsible for the cyclists death, not the local authority, not the cyclist
And you trust the Police to do a thorough job? Right at the beginning of all this the judge said Auriol Grey had no learning difficulties!! What? She very clearly has and her neighbours, friend and Mother all say she has been brain damaged since birth.
I had to support a young person with LD who got into an awkward situation and the Police were involved. Nothing serious by the way. Two policemen called and I explained that the person was on the autistic spectrum and they had never even heard of it and I had to try and explain to them but I am sure they left knowing no better. This was just 3 years ago.
Many people (like myself, have worked with people with Learning difficulties for many years) so you can call us internet “experts” if you like because we compared to the Police, we are!
It wasn’t the police or the Judge who found Ms Grey to be Guilty of Manslaughter - it was a Jury, made up of 12 ordinary people, after seeing and hearing all the evidence presented during the trial.
According to the Det Sgt who led the police enquiry
“ 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,”
I cannot comment on whether the medical enquiries and evidence presented was thorough enough because I wasn’t in Court to see and hear all the evidence during the trial - I doubt many online dissenters about the verdict heard all the evidence that the Jury heard, so why do so many people these days think they know better than the Judge or the Jury when they haven’t heard all the evidence.
Let’s not forget that Ms Grey will have had a legal defence team, putting forward any relevant evidence in her defence. If they had any relevant medical evidence to explain or excuse or mitigate her actions, her defence team would (or should) have presented it to the Jury during the trial.
If her defence team thought any of the family and friends who have been speaking up after the trial had anything useful and material to say in Ms Grey’s defence, they would or should have been called to give evidence.
Presumably, your knowledge of this case comes from the media and not from the case/court notes. Unless you have access to the later you can know barely anything about this case. Anyone who has served on a jury, as I have, will know that a few paragraphs in the media, concerning a Crown Court case, will not even begin to describe the proceedings involved.
AFAIK, this last trial was a retrial and, now that an appeal has been submitted, there may be a third one. The resources allocated to this case have been significant and there must be boxes of files and evidence by now, most of which, including uncut CCTV footage, will be unavailable to internet “experts”.
