A jury would have “manslaughter” described thus by the judge:
Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:
Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill (“gross negligence manslaughter”); and
Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death (“unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter”).
The term “involuntary manslaughter” is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as “voluntary manslaughter”.
I guess that isn’t what I meant by my question. The local authority surely has a duty of care to road users (be they pavement or highway). Presumably the police decide who is the guilty party here because a car killed the cyclist. Had there been no car on the road we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I’m curious as to why in this case it was the pedestrian on trial.
But if she was sensible … she would have got off her bike.
You can’t blame one of the ladies involved for been inconsiderate without blaming the other for the same oversight …
Personally I’ve always thought allowing cylists on the pavement is asking for an accident to happen one day … but of course, cyclists feel at risk cycling on the roads nowadays as they are so busy. I can sympathise with them.
Everywhere is just so busy.
Even as a kid I can always remember mum and dad telling me … if you do go on the pavement to ride on your bike (and this was a small kid’s Raleigh bike not an adult bike) and you see a pedestrian you must get off your bike and wait for them to pass, but do not step into the road becasue of traffic.
Would everyone have felt differently if it had ben a 20 something fit fella on the bike instead rather than a 77 year old grandmother?
I really don’t understand how this can criminalise the lady with learning difficulties.
If you saw someone coming along the pavement, hogging it, as you say … cursing and flinging her arms about … what would you do?
I’d probably think, privately, … Here’s is someone who is not quite ‘on the ball’ … and I’d get off my bike.
This lady didn’t and it’s not a question of who was right or wrong or guilty or stubborn … it was an accident that could have been avoided.
Did you watch it all the way through ? … by the time he gets to the end it is evident he is on the cyclists side and is quoting cyclists deaths on the road and their injuries…
I do see what you’re trying to say though … . the police, at the scene, were apparently unsure themselves whether it was a shared pavement but the Judge at the trial called it ‘shared’.
There is indeed, a sign shown on the pavement but how close it was or how visible I don’t know.
To be honest, as a pedestrian it’s never entered my own head to look for signnage when I walk on a pavement. I’m a pedestrian … that is where the law tells me I’m expected to walk and I expect to be safe there.
This subject is getting so problematic, it’s worthy of a whole thread of it’s own.
There has been another case in the paper today of a pedestrian ( 71 years old) killed on the pavement by a 14 year old boy riding on the footpath at 20 mph on an electric scooter. The lad was found ‘guilty’… was remorseful and apologetic and got a one year referral order , in other words, some community service and a ‘warning’ but with no criminal record.
This might seem reasonable due to his age, of 14 … though someone with cerebral palsy with learning difficulties was not allowed the same leniency … Why? Because she swore, seemed aggressively rude and unpleasant and seemed unable to comprehend the severity of what had happened.
I think because the car driver had no chance to avoid the cyclist when she fell in the road?
The pedestrian caused that by her aggressive and unreasonable behaviour, so she was responsible for the death and quite rightly tried for manslaughter
I expect the cyclist was scared. I would be if I saw a big woman like that stomping towards me, swinging her arms and swearing
That’s probably why she didn’t get off her bike or stop, she just wanted to keep going, and get past the aggressor, fearing physical confrontation
I think it’s an awful thing to have happened to the poor woman just quietly riding her bike in a place where she was entitled to and minding her own business
You can’t read motive into someone’s actions unless you have a psychic link to them … this is all hypothetical speculation and exaggerated at that.
I could just as easily claim the cyclist didn’t give a stuff as she believed she had the right of way as she was on a bike, bigger so needed more room and was more entitled.
I prefer to take the unbiased approach and just call it an accident that need not have happened … if one or the other of them had acted sensibly or with some caution … and neither of them did.
The one who is entirely blameless now suffers from PTSD.
I think it sad that three women’s life have been either abruptly snuffed out or brutally damaged.
Auriol Grey’s legal team has now submitted an appeal on her behalf. She had been charged with manslaughter but pleaded not guilty when she was put on trial. In the retrial - after the first jury failed to reach a verdict - she was found guilty and imprisoned for three years on Thursday last week by a judge at Peterborough Crown Court.
A spokesman at the Criminal Appeal Court said on Tuesday: “I can confirm that an appeal against the sentence imposed has been received by the Criminal Appeal Office in respect of Auriol Grey. The appeal application is now being processed accordingly." He stated that no date had yet been fixed for the hearing, adding: “The sentence appeal process has a timetable of five months.”
As I understand the latest reports, the appeal is not against the verdict, but the sentence.
A source close to her defence team said: “She was warned she could face a custodial sentence but had been anticipating a suspended sentence. She is shocked and devastated by the outcome. Her lawyer had desperately tried to get her out on bail while during an appeal process but it was a failed application.”
If Grey is not appealing the verdict then she should have pleaded guilty to the charge - a lesser sentence would, probably, have been imposed.
As it is, Grey will now spend several months in prison before her sentence is reviewed.
I must admit, I was surprised that Ms Grey was given a jail sentence - because of her disabilities, I thought she may receive a conditional suspended sentence.
She may have received a more lenient sentence if she had pleaded guilty or shown remorse because they would have been mitigating factors.
One thing that should be borne in mind is that, if the full CCTV footage seen by the Police, CPS and the Jury did establish that it was Ms Grey’s actions which caused the cyclist to fall into the road, then a Manslaughter verdict was inevitable.
The only question would be which type of Manslaughter charge should be applied.
Even “Manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility” carries the possibility of a jail sentence - according to this chart it is a minimum of 3 years for the lowest level of responsibility, so even if the folk who say she has learning difficulties and does not understand the consequences of her actions are correct, she still may have ended up with a custodial sentence.
What strikes me is … when, as a society, did we stop offering leniency for the disadvantaged, the disabled, those with learning difficulties?
There are some hard hearted people out there now.
