[News] Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter

[Neville's Breakfast]

In the court,

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.

Indeed. The conviction is not my concern. That’s for the courts, although it’s interesting how little regard there usually is on NSC for the police and legal system. My comments are on the horrendous attitudes of some towards people with difficulties. People in this situation need advocates and this is amply illustrated on this thread.
Perhaps if the bicycle was taken out of the equation there would be a clearer minded and more compassionate debate. I can imagine a scenario where this could happen between two pedestrians, particularly if some of the more lurid allegations on this thread are true. There would be the same moral arguments but we would be free from the interminable bicycle/car/pedestrian political vendettas and it would be a different debate.

 

[Horses Arse]

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.

Makes no difference to the action and result whether it was shared or not.

Folk not understanding that is why this sort of thing happens.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Indeed. The conviction is not my concern. That’s for the courts, although it’s interesting how little regard there usually is on NSC for the police and legal system. My comments are on the horrendous attitudes of some towards people with difficulties. People in this situation need advocates and this is amply illustrated on this thread.

But it’s been said a number of times her health was taken into consideration at the court by numerous experts. Mental and/or physical difficulties do not necessarily preclude you from guilt.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

But it’s been said a number of times her health was taken into consideration at the court by numerous experts. Mental and/or physical difficulties do not necessarily preclude you from guilt.

Indeed they don’t. They make it more complicated than some of the abusive posts on this thread suggest though.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Indeed. The conviction is not my concern. That’s for the courts, although it’s interesting how little regard there usually is on NSC for the police and legal system. My comments are on the horrendous attitudes of some towards people with difficulties. People in this situation need advocates and this is amply illustrated on this thread.
Perhaps if the bicycle was taken out of the equation there would be a clearer minded and more compassionate debate. I can imagine a scenario where this could happen between two pedestrians, particularly if some of the more lurid allegations on this thread are true. There would be the same moral arguments but we would be free from the interminable bicycle/car/pedestrian political vendettas and it would be a different debate.

People with cerebral palsy and/or autism do not suffer anger issues. This defendant lashed out in anger, first verbally and then physically.
This resulted in a poor lady’s death.

 

[BLOCK F]

A very tragic case, but whatever the rights and wrongs laid out by posters on this topic, my gut instinct suggests to me that a three year sentence appears a tad harsh. Some will agree and some won’t, but I wouldn’t be surprised that if the defendant appeals, then the sentence, if not the conviction, will be reduced. A caveat being, that unlike DS Dollard, I haven’t seen the whole of the CCTV that he describes as horrific.

 

[Eric the meek]

Indeed. The conviction is not my concern. That’s for the courts, although it’s interesting how little regard there usually is on NSC for the police and legal system. My comments are on the horrendous attitudes of some towards people with difficulties. People in this situation need advocates and this is amply illustrated on this thread.

I understand your concerns, but important as they are, they are peripheral to this case. The vulnerabilities of people with neuro-diversity are a separate issue, and they should remain so. This case was not about them. It was about an elderly woman on a bicycle was ended up in the road, killed, after Auriol Grey's actions.

After lengthy examination of the woman's medical records, with professional experts presenting to the jury, the verdict was that they didn't explain her actions, and she was duly convicted of manslaughter.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

People with cerebral palsy and/or autism do not suffer anger issues. This defendant lashed out in anger, first verbally and then physically.
This resulted in a poor lady’s death.

I’m sorry but that statement is completely wrong. In any case that is not the part of the discussion I am taking part in.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I understand your concerns, but important as they are, they are peripheral to this case. The vulnerabilities of people with neuro-diversity are a separate issue, and they should remain so. This case was not about them. It was about an elderly woman on a bicycle was ended up in the road, killed, after Auriol Grey's actions.

After lengthy examination of the woman's medical records, with professional experts presenting to the jury, the verdict was that they didn't explain her actions, and she was duly convicted of manslaughter.

It’s a process. Let’s see what happens on appeal. As I mentioned earlier in the thread a Labour councillor and disability campaigner has asked for clarification of the judge’s claim about shared usage as it does not seem based on fact. There are also grounds for disputing the length and apropriacy of sentence. All of these issues would be discussed in a very different way were there not a bike involved.The OP even framed the debate as if that is all that matters.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It’s a process. Let’s see what happens on appeal. As I mentioned earlier in the thread a Labour councillor and disability campaigner has asked for clarification of the judge’s claim about shared usage as it does not seem based on fact. There are also grounds for disputing the length and apropriacy of sentence. All of these issues would be discussed in a very different way were there not a bike involved.

As I said before, if she is given leave to appeal. An appeal is not automatic and there has to be good reasons to grant an appeal hearing.
Even then an appeal hearing may not reach a different decision.

 

[Eric the meek]

It’s a process. Let’s see what happens on appeal. As I mentioned earlier in the thread a Labour councillor and disability campaigner has asked for clarification of the judge’s claim about shared usage as it does not seem based on fact. There are also grounds for disputing the length and apropriacy of sentence. All of these issues would be discussed in a very different way were there not a bike involved.

I'm sorry, but you're going off on yet another irrelevant tangent.

It doesn't matter whether there was a bike involved. It also doesn't matter whether the path was shared usage or not !

If there hadn't been a bike involved, and Auriol Grey had forced/pushed the elderly woman into the road, would that have changed the crime, conviction and sentence?

The cold, hard, brutal fact is that there was a bike involved, and it is irrelevant and distracting to speculate what might have happened if there wasn't.

 

[birthofanorange]

If nothing else, an incident like this should show us all to treat everyone on the road/pavement/shared path/whatever with tolerance and respect. Whether you are pedestrian, cyclist, scooterist, car driver - simply give way to others, if it's easier and safer for you to do so.
It's not that hard, is it?

 

[Eric the meek]

If nothing else, an incident like this should show us all to treat everyone on the road/pavement/shared path/whatever with tolerance and respect. Whether you are pedestrian, cyclist, scooterist, car driver - simply give way to others, if it's easier and safer for you to do so.
It's not that hard, is it?

Absolutely. Be kind.

If Auriol Grey had been kind, the elderly lady would have still been alive today.

 

[Triggaaar]

In some respects it’s irrelevant whether or not the path is mixed use. Her response wasn’t proportionate and sadly the outcome of her response has consequences.

Firstly, I didn't sit through the case, so I'm not in a position to judge properly. The basics are that an old lady was cycling towards the pedestrian, who waved at her, causing her to crash and get run over. I don't know whether the pedestrian could see the age of the cyclist (apparently she was partially sighted). While age isn't always a defining factor I personally would feel differently towards a cyclist who was doing tricks on their bike and clearly in full control of it, than say a 5 year old or 80 year old. I also don't know the background of the pedestrian. For all I know she could have been hit by cyclists on the same path multiple times, and feel the need to attempt to slow them down. When my kids were at primary school I'd walk them in, crossing some traffic lights. Over the years a few cyclists have jumped the lights and nearly knocked the kids over, and I have put those cyclists at risk of falling off in order to protect vulnerable children. I wouldn't have done that if it was us jumping the red light, rather than the cyclist, and I do think it is relevant whether or not it was a shared pavement. If it was, pedestrians should be more aware to make space for cyclists on the path. That obviously doesn't mean death to all those cycling where they shouldn't, but I do think it's a relevant factor.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

How do you know that path is shared? Let me guess - there are signs? Were there signs on the path in this incident?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm sorry, but you're going off on yet another irrelevant tangent.

It doesn't matter whether there was a bike involved. It also doesn't matter whether the path was shared usage or not !

If there hadn't been a bike involved, and Auriol Grey had forced/pushed the elderly woman into the road, would that have changed the crime, conviction and sentence?

The cold, hard, brutal fact is that there was a bike involved, and it is irrelevant and distracting to speculate what might have happened if there wasn't.

Quite. On this occasion it was a bike. Who knows what else fuels this woman’s anger.

Firstly, I didn't sit through the case, so I'm not in a position to judge properly. The basics are that an old lady was cycling towards the pedestrian, who waved at her, causing her to crash and get run over. I don't know whether the pedestrian could see the age of the cyclist (apparently she was partially sighted). While age isn't always a defining factor I personally would feel differently towards a cyclist who was doing tricks on their bike and clearly in full control of it, than say a 5 year old or 80 year old. I also don't know the background of the pedestrian. For all I know she could have been hit by cyclists on the same path multiple times, and feel the need to attempt to slow them down. When my kids were at primary school I'd walk them in, crossing some traffic lights. Over the years a few cyclists have jumped the lights and nearly knocked the kids over, and I have put those cyclists at risk of falling off in order to protect vulnerable children. I wouldn't have done that if it was us jumping the red light, rather than the cyclist, and I do think it is relevant whether or not it was a shared pavement. If it was, pedestrians should be more aware to make space for cyclists on the path. That obviously doesn't mean death to all those cycling where they shouldn't, but I do think it's a relevant factor.

The defendant was angry and threatening. This caused a death. If you or I ventured out onto the streets and was angry, aggressive and threatening and this resulted in a death, regardless of sex, age, bicycles or not, we’d expect severe consequences. The moral of this story is don’t be a prick. It’s this simple.

 

[Triggaaar]

The defendant was angry and threatening. This caused a death. If you or I ventured out onto the streets and was angry, aggressive and threatening and this resulted in a death, regardless of sex, age, bicycles or not, we’d expect severe consequences. The moral of this story is don’t be a prick. It’s this simple.

Was she angry and threatening when she left her home, or did she become angry when she saw a bicycle heading towards her?

Also, her actions were not the only factor leading to the accident. I'm confident that if the same thing had happened with Stat Bro being the cyclist, there would have been no deaths, because he'd have either used his brakes and stopped, or cycled around her.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

So if a 77 year old lady grabbed your man bag and ran off with your money, and you shouted 'I'll get you for this' and she looked back at you, stumbled onto the road and got run over, you'd expect to go to prison?

The point being that it's not as simple as 'threatened someone and they fell and died', it depends on the details of the case.

Does the pedestrian just go around threatening people because they're an angry aggressive individual, or did they react because they were worried for their own safety?

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

That's the sort of thing that would make it more of an offence from the pedestrian IMO, but having read your point I've just re-watched the video, looking at the line she was taking, and it doesn't seem to change at all?

 

[Triggaaar]

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

Mental disorders and learning difficulties would not be the only things that could mitigate her behaviour. Her physical disabilities (and I don't know how bad her eyesight is) could easily explain why someone might be more concerned for their safety when a bike is coming towards them.

immediately leaving the scene of the crime and to the bitter end showing zero remorse.

Her immediately leaving the scene does feel disgusting.