Pedestrians versus Cyclists - Who's to Blame?

[Morticia]

@Omah

What do think of the lawyers?

Lawyers … irrespective of this case or any case tried in court … not a lot. They bend or omit or present the truth in the best way that best serves their client. Often as not the best worsmith wins the case.
Perhaps you should have asked what I thought of the jury?
In this case … They found her guilty which is fair enough.

[Omah]

@Morticia

Perhaps you should have asked what I thought of the jury?
In this case … They found her guilty which is fair enough.

OK …

[Morticia]

@Omah …yes? And your point is?

I was referring to the sentencing not the degrees of manslaughter.
None of that alters the fact that I think the judge was harsh in his sentencing when he clearly has leeway within the Law.

[Morticia]

@Omah

What do you think of the jury?

@Morticia

In this case … They found her guilty which is fair enough.

Perhaps I should clarify that … I can see what you’re aiming at . Place the onus of the due process of law upon the jury … to see if I believe they are wrong in their verdict.
How can a jury be wrong in their verdict?
They are composed of members of the public who form an opinion by the evidence presented to them, and how it is presented to them.
And a Judge’s summing up at any trial is not always as impartial as it could and should be.

You’ve reminded me of one thing though … it was a retrial wasn’t it?
I wonder why that was?

[Omah]

The “degrees of manslaughter”, i.e. the “category” is used to determine the appropriate sentence.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/unlawful-act-manslaughter/

[Morticia]

@Omah … you’re a court usher in disguise aren’t you.

I’m not sure why we need to be getting bogged down in the intricacies and minutiae of the various degrees of manslaughter.
I have said it was over harsh in my opinion.
I’m not sure where you want me to go from there … or should that be here ?

[Omah]

@Morticia

@Omah

What do you think of the jury?

@Morticia

In this case … They found her guilty which is fair enough.

Perhaps I should clarify that … I can see what you’re aiming at . Place the onus of the due process of law upon the jury … to see if I believe they are wrong in their verdict.
How can a jury be wrong in their verdict?
They are composed of members of the public who form an opinion by the evidence presented to them, and how it is presented to them.
And a Judge’s summing up at any trial is not always as impartial as it could and should be.

You’ve reminded me of one thing though … it was a retrial wasn’t it?
I wonder why that was?

No … that’s not my aim. I was just curious as to whether your dismissive attitude extended to all participants in the judicial process.

It was a retrial because the original jury couldn’t agree. As I know from experience, some jurors just like to be difficult - perhaps there was one or more on that jury …

[Omah]

@Morticia

@Omah … you’re a court usher in disguise aren’t you.

I’m not sure why we need to be getting bogged down in the intricacies and minutiae of the various degrees of manslaughter.
I have said it was over harsh in my opinion.
I’m not sure where you want me to go from there … or should that be here ?

You are, of course, entitled to an opinion.

Grey may yet have her sentence increased:

Auriol Grey: Cycleways could be reviewed after manslaughter

Separately, the Attorney General’s Office confirmed it had received a request for Grey’s three-year imprisonment to be reconsidered under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

[Morticia]

@Omah

I was just curious as to whether your dismissive attitude extended to all participants in the judicial process.

I don’t have a dismissive attitude … though I do sometimes question the Law. Shouldn’t everyone if they hope or expect it to be even handed?

I know you’ll say this is off topic … so I’ll be as brief as I can and I’ll only include it only because it is necessary to help explain my viewpoint.

So as a comparison … what do you think of the 14 year old boy on an e-scooter, riding on the pavement, travelling at 20mph who hit a 71 year old lady pedestrian who suffered head injures and died 6 days later in hospital.
He admitted causing death by driving a vehicle without a licence and causing a death by driving whilst uninsured.
He said he was sorry. He stayed at the scene and called 999. He was served with a ‘referral’ for 12 months. Disqualified for driving for 5 years.
His parents must pay £85 costs, with a £26 victim surcharge and both were handed 6 month parenting orders.
Boy, 14, sentenced for causing death after crashing into woman with e-scooter | Nottingham | The Guardian.

And that is why I feel entitled to say, at times, the law is an ass.
And 14 is old enough to know better …

[Morticia]

@Omah

It was a retrial because the original jury couldn’t agree.

Thanks … I didn’t know. But from my viewpoint that just reinforces the fact that it was a complex case and not as straightforward or textbook as some might like to think or present it.

[Omah]

@Morticia

@Omah

I was just curious as to whether your dismissive attitude extended to all participants in the judicial process.

I don’t have a dismissive attitude … though I do sometimes question the Law. Shouldn’t everyone if they hope or expect it to be even handed?

I know you’ll say this is off topic … so I’ll be as brief as I can and I’ll only include it only because it is necessary to help explain my viewpoint.

So as a comparison … what do you think of the 14 year old boy on an e-scooter, riding on the pavement, travelling at 20mph who hit a 71 year old lady pedestrian who suffered head injures and died 6 days later in hospital.
He admitted causing death by driving a vehicle without a licence and causing a death by driving whilst uninsured.
He said he was sorry. He stayed at the scene and called 999. He was served with a ‘referral’ for 12 months. Disqualified for driving for 5 years.
His parents must pay £85 costs, with a £26 victim surcharge and both were handed 6 month parenting orders.
Boy, 14, sentenced for causing death after crashing into woman with e-scooter | Nottingham | The Guardian.

And that is why I feel entitled to say, at times, the law is an ass.
And 14 is old enough to know better …

If you have an issue to raise then create a thread - don’t hijack others.

[Morticia]

I knew you’d say that.
But if the thread is to be constrained to just the one case, and the verdict … it must surely have now reached it’s end unless it is to continue , slightly deviated … along the lines of an appeal, in which you point out her sentence could be increased.

[Morticia]

@Omah

If you have an issue to raise then create a thread - don’t hijack others.

I don’t believe there was any need to be so abrupt or rude there Omah … but as you insist … I will cease to disrupt your thread.

[Maree]

@Omah

Since there will, no doubt, some discussion of the judge’s remarks, here they are in full:
Why Grey got three years - by Joshua Rozenberg

You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.

Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.

The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.

This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.

I have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.

You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities. Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.

I have been referred to the guidelines on unlawful act manslaughter issued by the Sentencing Council and have heard submissions from both parties.

In terms of the guidance, looking at these matters in the round, culpability C is made out, but towards the lower end of the scale.

A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to whether harm would be caused.

I reject the submission that this is best framed in terms of category D for reasons I have indicated.

Aggravating factors

The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.

The effect on Mrs Carla Money (in so far as her first statement extends). Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable.

Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation

You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.

You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years old. This stands to your credit.

Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.

Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.

As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.

Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your disabilities and do not hold it against you.

There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.

I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.

Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment.

Gosh, well done that judge

I think a good sound decision based on the facts and evidence and law and not being swayed by the disability issue as that clearly didn’t account for or justify how she behaved, as the judge explained

I just hope the good work doesn’t get undone at the appeal. And I’m glad they’re only appealing the sentence, not the verdict, as guilt seems to have been clearly established

[AnnieS]

@Omah

According to the judge, Grey was aggressive, reckless, left the scene of the incident, lied in interview, displayed no remorse, denied intellectual impairment and gave no evidence - no wonder that the jurors were unanimous in finding her guilty, despite previous “good character” and acknowledged disabilities.

All that sums up to me that as well as her physical disabilities she has a possibly undiagnosed personality disorder or learning disability. According to this article her mother said she was brain damaged at birth. Perhaps Auriol doesn’t think so but perhaps she doesn’t have capacity to make that assertion?

Mother of Auriol Grey reveals daughter suffered brain damage at birth

[spitfire]

I walked in front of someone’s window today, OMG the reaction, it’s really dangerous out there, there are so many Human Tinderbox’s

[galty]

Do wonder if she might have her sentence increased to 4 years.

[Morticia]

It’s not unheard of … putting in an appeal carries it’s own risk and there are always internet keyboard vigilantes that would cheer over it.
This case does seem to have caught the public’s eye and as said before, any news to do with cyclists is in the media spotlight just now since the change in the Highway Code’s shift toward awarding cyclists a higher level of priority than they had before.
Most cases are motorists penalised or fined over aspects of road usage, usually about insufficient road space for both users, the current focus falling on allowing enough overtaking width for cyclists.
I suppose the Law is trying to establish a concrete legal position and set of rights for those on bikes, regardless of whether that is on the road with motorists or alongside pedestrians.

So it might not be a good move for the lady to appeal. There is no point asking for clemency when the bullet has already been loaded and been shot . Some Judges are just out of touch, or too old to appreciate the constraints or complications of modern life or the people who live in it .

[Morticia]

I believe this sums up how tragic the case is … that has cost one woman her life and ruined, perhaps irreparably, the lives of two others.

During sentencing, Judge Sean Enright said: ‘This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go round the busy ring road.’

Auriol was, the judge said, ‘territorial about the pavement’ and ‘resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist’.

But the police, in their evidence, said they could not categorically state that the route in question was a shared cycleway and the county council could find no legal records showing that it was.

And possibly the most damning … but no surprise that the County Council could find no legal records which might, or might not, have implicated them in any negligence.

And according to Department for Transport guidance on cycle infrastructure design — issued to councils in July 2020 — shared routes should be at least three metres wide on roads used by up to 300 cyclists per hour and 4.5 metres wide on roads used by more than 300 cyclists per hour.

The stretch of pavement where Celia Ward fell off her bike into the path of an oncoming Volkswagen Passat was just 2.4 metres wide and there wasn’t a sign indicating a ‘shared path’.

The pavement was certainly used by cyclists but unlawfully, it seems.

Given the evidence and confusion over the pavement the judge could at least have given a suspended sentence.

Did 'pavement killer' deserve 3 years for shooing cyclist onto road?

[Boot]

I am a bit confused about this sentence in a BBC report

“ Separately, the Attorney General’s Office confirmed it had received a request for Grey’s three-year imprisonment to be reconsidered under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.”

Is this in addition to the sentence being appealed by Ms Grey and her defence team? - presumably they have appealed it for review because they are hoping for a reduced sentence?

“Anyone can ask the Attorney General to consider whether a sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, including a victim, a relative of a victim or a member of the public.
The Attorney General will consider whether the sentence is unduly lenient. If the Attorney General considers that it might be, then they refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for review.”

I wonder who has asked the Attorney General to appeal it for being “unduly lenient”
If I am understanding this correctly, if the AG does decide to refer it to the Court of Appeal, the Appeal Court will have two Appeals about the same sentence - one claiming it’s too lenient and one claiming it’s too harsh!

Personally, although I agreed with the Guilty verdict, I think Ms Grey’s personal situation warrants a bit more leniency in sentencing rather than a longer prison sentence.