[News] Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter

[Triggaaar]

Also from the police interview:

'She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.'

Did they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that's not what happened, and that she deliberately pushed the cyclist?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Did they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that's not what happened, and that she deliberately pushed the cyclist?

If she said it in interview, then the evidence is on tape. It may even have been an accidental push, but that is still manslaughter.
Note, when the victim fell and got run over, the defendant didn't stop but went and did her shopping.

 

[Triggaaar]

If she said it in interview, then the evidence is on tape. It may even have been an accidental push, but that is still manslaughter.

But the quote didn't say she pushed her (accidentally or not) it said she may have protected herself. I'm not saying she did, but that's what the quote says.

 

[Eric the meek]

Did they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that's not what happened, and that she deliberately pushed the cyclist?

I've no idea. I don't have access to the prosecution case notes.

 

[Triggaaar]

I've no idea. I don't have access to the prosecution case notes.

It's a question of law, not specific to this case.

For example, in murder trials, guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'm wondering if it's the same for a manslaughter case.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's a question of law, not specific to this case.

For example, in murder trials, guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'm wondering if it's the same for a manslaughter case.

Any conviction has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Generally it is unanimous but sometimes a judge will accept a majority verdict, but it has to be 10/12.

 

[Eric the meek]

It's a question of law, not specific to this case.

For example, in murder trials, guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'm wondering if it's the same for a manslaughter case.

Again, I'm not qualified to answer on that. Bodian's post #145 details the criteria for manslaughter though.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It is also worth noting that when the defence said they wanted to apply for an appeal, the judge refused bail.

 

[Eric the meek]

It is also worth noting that when the defence said they wanted to apply for an appeal, the judge refused bail.

I'd forgotten about that. I'd like to know the background to that decision.
You know how sometimes, a comment sticks in your mind and shapes your thinking?

For me, the most important comment we've seen recently, is #216 from @rogersix
'the cover up gives us the truth of the incident'

If it had all been a terrible accident, then she wouldn't have sought to cover it up.

 

[Triggaaar]

Again, I'm not qualified to answer on that. Bodian's post #145 details the criteria for manslaughter though.

That post seems to talk most about involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence, when a person owes a duty of care to someone, which seems to be mostly about professionals owing a duty of care to patients.

If the pedestrian pushed the cyclist, that seems less about negligence, and more about intent to harm (ie, pushing someone over will often harm them).

​

 

[Stat Brother]

Somewhat loathed to open this up again, as so many have seem to have lost sight of the victim being 77 years old.

 

[Eric the meek]

Somewhat loathed to open this up again, as so many have seem to have lost sight of the victim being 77 years old.

Her replies to the questioning tell you all you need to know. She was lying through her teeth, to cover her arse and minimise the crime.

Not only did she give a dishonest account in interview, but by leaving the cyclist for dead, and going off to do her shopping, showed no remorse.
Having subsequently been convicted of manslaughter, she says she is devastated at the verdict and/or sentence, and is considering an appeal.

So having killed someone for being on her pavement, she is convinced a travesty of justice has occurred.

I don't think anyone has lost sight of the victim being 77 years old. The cyclist just happened to be 77. The victim could have been any age - a child, teenager, adult or elderly.

Auriol Grey is a danger to all the public, not just the elderly.

 

[Horses Arse]

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?

Haha, how silly. What is your beef with cyclists? Or sense in general?

 

[Triggaaar]

Haha, how silly. What is your beef with cyclists? Or sense in general?

I've no beef with cyclists. What, specifically, did you disagree with about my post (yes, I know, the words, but explain what you disagree with about the words)?

 

[Horses Arse]

I've no beef with cyclists. What, specifically, did you disagree with about my post (yes, I know, the words, but explain what you disagree with about the words)?

Nurse!

 

[Triggaaar]

Nurse!

Well it's difficult to disagree with such an eloquent argument

 

[Weststander]

Somewhat loathed to open this up again, as so many have seem to have lost sight of the victim being 77 years old.

More interested in getting her groceries. Such a nice human being.

 

[Stat Brother]

Her appeal has failed.

Auriol Grey: Huntingdon cyclist killer fails in appeal bid

Auriol Grey confronted Celia Ward, who was cycling on a pavement and fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[cjd]

Was it a cycle path the victim was on ?

 

[Acker79]

Was it a cycle path the victim was on ?

Despite the council being unable to confirm one way or the other, the judge believed it to be a shared path.

Factoring in general police philosophy to cycling on pavements (common sense approach, not generally prosecuted when peopel are not cycling wildly), and that no one is arguing the 77 year old cyclist was cycling in a reckless manner, it's a moot point.