www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
Despite evidence to the contrary judge asserts its a shared path, defendant did not touch the cyclist in any way, defendant was disabled - cerebral palsy and was partially sighted therefore at risk from the cyclist.
The cyclist fell off from a place they should not have been. Its disgraceful.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
>>
>> Despite evidence to the contrary judge asserts its a shared path, defendant did not touch
>> the cyclist in any way, defendant was disabled - cerebral palsy and was partially sighted
>> therefore at risk from the cyclist.
>>
>> The cyclist fell off from a place they should not have been. Its disgraceful.
Not at all disgraceful. As of now I cannot find a copy of the Judge Enright's actual remarks. However the BBC report says the neither the Police nor the Highway Authority were able to say with any certainty whether or not that bit of footway was shared use.
Whatever the merits of the sentence that followed, the defendant was convicted by a Jury. She was not honest with the police and, per that report, showed no remorse until very late on.
If you were similarly challenged while on railway land where may not have any right to be and fell in front of a train would that be a case of too bad; he was where he should not have been.
|
>> However the BBC report says the neither the Police nor the Highway
>> Authority were able to say with any certainty whether or not that bit of footway
>> was shared use.
>>
...I suspect they were covering their backsides whilst going back through definitive documentation.
It would appear not to be signed as shared space (or indeed appropriate for it), but the other side of the road, or at least parts of it, in the immediate vicinity is.
I think it's a safe, if somewhat unsatisfactory, verdict. Sentence is a matter for the judge within guidelines, and usually affected by the conduct of/in the trial.
|
>> If you were similarly challenged while on railway land where may not have any right
>> to be and fell in front of a train would that be a case of
>> too bad; he was where he should not have been.
Yes? of course it would. It would be the trespassers fault.
The point is, in an area that IS NOT definitively a shared space should the cyclist have given way to a pedestrian? Of course they should.
|
|
There's plenty of space for both of them until the pedestrian started shouting, gesticulating and generally being an ass hat.
|
|
As the cyclist rides passed the reporter on the footpath at not inconsiderable speed.
|
|
How much is 'plenty of space'? The same distance a motorist must give a cyclist?
|
|
I find even clearly marked shared paths to be troublesome. I use one to get to and from the station, and if there are pedestrians I will slow down almost to a stop. Despite that I often get glares from said pedestrians, as if to say 'get off the (shared) pavement'. Or if approaching from behind I ring the bell and get the same response, unless they're wearing headphones of course, in which case I just get ignored.
|
>> There's plenty of space for both
Not the video I saw
|
>> >> There's plenty of space for both
>> Not the video I saw
Nor I. The footpath where the incident occurred was described as narrow and there's a lamppost on the footpath too, reducing its width even further.
Cycling on the footpath is a criminal offence. The cyclist was committing a criminal act causing their death.
I cycle on clearly defined cycle tracks and shared paths. If there's no clear definition, I don't use it.
|
|
An act of extreme rudeness and aggressive behaviour resulting in a tragic and unnecessary death. Whether or not it was a cycle path is rather irrelevant. Should there be a jail sentence? I think not and suspect it will be changed on appeal. A lesson surely that aggressive behavior can have unforeseen consequences.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
>>
>> Despite evidence to the contrary judge asserts its a shared path, defendant did not touch
>> the cyclist in any way, defendant was disabled - cerebral palsy and was partially sighted
>> therefore at risk from the cyclist.
>>
>> The cyclist fell off from a place they should not have been. Its disgraceful.
>>
Accused's disabilities were found not to be an issue, and clearly the accused had enough sight to see the cyclist. Judge held the pavement to be shared, so cyclist did have a right to be there, until such time as the judgement is overturned.
|
>>Judge held the pavement to be shared
I've popped back in after a long break as I guessed this issue might be discussed here and I remembered there was someone who was good at linking to the proper recorded court documents such as the judges actual summary rather than the media reported version. Was that Bromptonaut?
Anyway it's of particular interest as I've known this location well for over 40yrs, drive past it several times a week and the CCVTV footage was taken from the complex that includes mum's doctors of the past 20yrs.
The road in question is a two lane one way inner ring road of the older parts of Huntingdon. The path in question is a footpath not a shared path/cycleway and I'm surprised the judge felt unable to clarify by taking that position. It seems both police and local authority felt unable to say for certain so with a death on their hands took the easy option that it might have been deemed shared which the judge seems to have echoed.
To explain why I don't believe it was ever intended to be shared use anywhere near the incident...
There is a footpath either side of these two traffic lanes... both paths never wider than a medium width and in places hardly the width for two pushchairs to meet.
The footpath the other side of the two traffic lanes is clearly marked with the blue pedestrian/cyclist symbol signs. On average these are placed every 56m and face both directions.
The footpath on the side of the incident has no such signs from its start in the direction the pedestrian was walking and just one sign if you were walking from the other direction and that is on a totally different section of the ring road three junctions and 400m away.
So I'd draw the inference the section of the incident even taking in several hundred meters either side was not shared use.
My second issue is allowing for the slight restriction of the path located lamp post at the point of the incident the path wan't wide enough for a cyclist to meet and pass a pedestrian without risk of clipping them unless they placed their wheels so close to the kerb there was a risk of falling off the kerb anyway. So unless the deceased cyclist was intending just to run into the pedestrian I'm not sure how they intended to pass. Certainly not in control of the bike or riding with due caution because the correct course of action would have been to stop so their own actions a huge contributory factor.
Lastly... and this may be controversial... as a driver using this section of road you need to drive with 110% due care and attention as it's busy with folks using all sorts of conveyance to and fro shops, doctors and the residential area. To run over someone who fell/stumbled into the immediate nearside section of the road was... how shall I say... more than unfortunate.
But as I said at the start... I've posted more to see if anyone can get a link to the actual court record of judgement.
|
In reply to Fenlander it probably was me. Not just in court reports but in anything generating public controversy the best place to start is with a source document.
I've looked for a copy of Judge Enright's sentencing remarks but cannot find anything on either the Judiciary Website or that of National Archives.
I think there is an intention publish more and eventually all sentencing remarks. At the moment though it's mostly limited to murder and a few other high profile cases such as those involving people in the public eye, eg Rolf Harris.
Unfortunately what gets reported by the media, even those segments without an axe to grind, in court cases is very much like an iceberg; most of it remains hidden. We'll here opening remarks reported, a few bits of evidence where they're either key or 'juicy' and eventually closing speeches, verdict and sentence.
Even in a high profile murder trial, like that of Lucy Letby, there are days and weeks without anything appearing in the papers or TV/radio.
So far as I can see there was little in the media, even locally, about the current case until verdict and sentence. Some reports have stated this was a retrial presumably after, for whatever reason, a previous version failed to reach a conclusion.
My own view is summarised by a post over on Cyclechat:
A person lost their life due to the stupid aggressive actions of another. The pedantry of whether it was a shared path or not, is meaningless.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 4 Mar 23 at 12:46
|
I have seen no previous mention of it being a second trial -presumably because a previous jury failed to agree? I can imagine that the make up of a jury would have a great effect on the outcome.
Irrespective of the evidence presented in court, I suspect a jury of cyclists would likely find her guilty, but a jury of 65 year old pensioners would be likely to return a not guilty verdict.
The published statement from a cycling forum is always likely to show a biased element.
- A person lost their life due to the stupid aggressive actions of another. The pedantry of whether it was a shared path or not, is meaningless.
It could be easily rewritten as
- A person lost their life due to their aggressive cycling on a pavement , failing to slow down and maintain control of their machine when failing to yield in response to a passive aggressive action from an elderly pedestrian.
In my eyes if a shared path - possibly guilty, not shared - not guilty. Based on the the local input above, there seems to be little support for the shared aspect. Would be interesting to know how the defence presented the evidence?
Is there likely to be an appeal?
|
>> It could be easily rewritten as
>>
>> - A person lost their life due to their aggressive cycling on a pavement
>> , failing to slow down and maintain control of their machine when failing to yield
>> in response to a passive aggressive action from an elderly pedestrian.
I read comments like this and wonder if we're actually seeing the same video. Although we can only see her for a very short time I can see no evidence that the deceased was riding aggressively and she appears to have slowed to walking pace before tumbling into the road. The action of Miss Grey is way beyond passive. She appears to actively seek confrontation and, in some edits with a few more frames than on the BBC, to lunge at the cyclist. The Police say there was a probability of "light contact" between the two women.
>> In my eyes if a shared path - possibly guilty, not shared - not guilty.
>> Based on the the local input above, there seems to be little support for the
>> shared aspect. Would be interesting to know how the defence presented the evidence?
Why does it make any difference? Manslaughter is Manslaughter. Maybe different if you're defending your home against an intruder but defending your patch of the footway?
>> Is there likely to be an appeal?
I think I've seen a suggestion that Grey is appealing the sentence (which may have some merit) but the consensus seems to be that on ALL of the evidence as seen by the Jury the conviction is bombproof.
>>
|
She appears to actively seek confrontation and, in some edits with a few more frames than on the BBC, to lunge at the cyclist.
OK I based what I said on the BBC video - did not see any evidence that she actually hit or lunge as opposed to threaten. Would be interesting to see an un edited version? Which may modify my view.
Cyclist presumably had obvious sight of pedestrian for some time before reaching her and would have seen the gesturing. The pedestrian had actually moved to her right giving the cyclist some additional clearance, that is not consistent with 'lunging'. The cyclist travelled past the the pedestrian before losing control, turning the wheel to the right only after passing the pedestrian. a frame by frame analysis would be needed to show whether she was travelling at walking pace, (but my subjective view was that she appeared to be going somewhat faster). Later frames would show if she fell off into the path of the car or turned and rode into the road.
|
|
I do wonder that as she's reported to be a 'loner' with physical and mental health problems if she may receive better care in prison?
|
Not sure I would forecast an anti-cyclist result from from a jury of 65 yo pensioners. The deceased cyclist was a 77 yo lady, who clearly wasn't riding without regard...she was pretty slow and keeping well to one side.
An approaching pedestrian would not have found it difficult to keep out of the way, instead of which the offender here not only steadfastly held her course but swore and waved her arm about.
In other words, it could have been a model for cooperation. The 77 yo lady did her bit, given that she was riding on the footpath, and the offender wilfully didn't. I can well understand why she was on the footpath although she might have been better pushing it.
I don't think I would have expected a custodial sentence, which was possibly intended to be exemplary, but I would say guilty. Full disclosure, I'm 69 & 53/73rds, and a cycle user.
Regarding bias, that towards cyclists generally seems to be at an all time high, as, not surprisingly, is the hostility of some cyclists (most likely to be drivers themselves) to drivers. There is no equivalence in the risk to life posed by inappropriate behaviour of these two groups. The difference of course is that the cyclists basically can't hurt the drivers.
Even so, over 60% of "motorists" surveyed say aggressive cyclists "threaten their safety".
www.lbc.co.uk/news/majority-of-drivers-say-aggressive-cyclists-threaten-their-safety-on-britains-ro/
Leaving out the cyclists, a lot (maybe 25%) of motorists out there are a menace, with no regard for their relative speed or proximity to vulnerable road users. I would say the inverse proportion of cycle users worry every day about the risks they are subjected to.
|
|
There is another party in this matter namely the driver of the vehicle under which the cyclist fell. They will have to live with that trauma. All because of somebody’s, unthinking and selfish angry actions.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 6 Mar 23 at 14:01
|
>> There is another party in this matter namely the driver of the vehicle under which
>> the cyclist fell. They will have to live with that trauma. All because of somebody’s,
>> unthinking and selfish angry actions.
They may share some of the blame, observation would have seen what was developing.......
|
|
Jurors heard the vehicle had "no chance to stop or take avoiding action"
|
>> Jurors heard the vehicle had "no chance to stop or take avoiding action"
Given that the segment of CCTV released ends as the cyclist hits the deck I think that's right. But the driver of the car will forever be asking herself 'what if...'
|
>> Jurors heard the vehicle had "no chance to stop or take avoiding action"
The jurors were told it was a shared cycleway, thats not proven either. It was unfolding for 5 seconds, the scene was setting itself for another 5, observation may have mitigated it, you dont know that.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 6 Mar 23 at 14:52
|
>> The jurors were told it was a shared cycleway, thats not proven either.
>>
Well the judge held that it was a shared use path, so until such time as the decision is appealed, it is a shared is path.
|
>> They may share some of the blame, observation would have seen what was developing.......
The deceased was wearing neither hi-vis nor a helmet. Someting I wouldn't consider cycling without as a septuagenarian cyclist.
|
>> >> They may share some of the blame, observation would have seen what was developing.......
>>
>> The deceased was wearing neither hi-vis nor a helmet. Someting I wouldn't consider cycling without
>> as a septuagenarian cyclist.
Would the presence of either have changed the outcome for the deceased or, if they might have, any difference to verdict or sentence?
|
|
How a helmet (Designed to protect against an impact up to 12mph) would have saved someone who had a car run over them beats me. And you could be lit up like a Christmas tree but if you suddenly swerve into the path of a car it would make no difference.
|
Without knowing what she actually died of you can't really say that.
I remember once running over a dog. i was braking heavily. Something hit the car repeatedly as I came to a stop, and I always assumed it was his head, bouncing off the underside of the car and the road.
I imagine a helmet designed for protection up to 12mph would certainly give some protection against a head trauma in similar circumstances. (The dog ran away btw, over a fence, a bit lamely. So I reported it to the police and heard no more)
An awful experience for the motorist. He was probably fortunate to have avoided a penalty though. I watched a police programme the other night where there was a motorist waiting to turn right into a petrol station, who was indicating, and who pulled away just as a high speeding motorcyclist went round him. I think he was killed. There was CCTV footage of it, which they said was studied carefully to ensure that the motorist had taken all precautions when turning to make sure it was safe before he moved. I'm not suggesting he shouldn't do that, but really it was nowhere near being his fault.
|
>> seen by the Jury the conviction is bombproof.
>> >>
Given that its a second trial, the first not reaching a verdict, I'm not planning to use you to design my bomb shelter.
|
Z, is there a link to the first trial at all?
I can't find mention of any outcome ie. Was it a split jury/sick jurors/ stupid jurors?
|
>> Z, is there a link to the first trial at all?
>>
>> I can't find mention of any outcome ie. Was it a split jury/sick jurors/ stupid
>> jurors?
Not that I have seen, it appears to mentioned in passing.
|
>> Not that I have seen, it appears to mentioned in passing.
A mention in passing here and/or on other forums was all I could find too.
If there was an abortive trial with no verdict etc then I'd expect a search of the defendant's name to give a result of some sort reporting it.
|
Seems straightforward to me. If you behave in a way that indirectly leads to the death of someone who caused you no harm whatsoever, you pay the price.
The only irony is that if she'd driven over the cyclist herself she likely wouldn't have faced a custodial sentence.
|
>> Z, is there a link to the first trial at all?
>>
>> I can't find mention of any outcome ie. Was it a split jury/sick jurors/ stupid
>> jurors?
>>
Or a unanimous jury/fit and well jury/intelligent jurors?
|
>> Or a unanimous jury/fit and well jury/intelligent jurors?
If there was a previous attempt to try Ms Grey then a unanimous verdict, either way, would have ended it.
My guess, if there were such a trial, would be a failure to agree even a majority verdict but there are other possibilities as already recited.
|
The Judge's remarks on sentencing have been published by the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg:
rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years
They need no further explanation but make clear this was a re-trial but don't say why the first attempt failed. Also stated that Ms Grey chose not to give evidence at either trial.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 7 Mar 23 at 15:12
|
>> why the first attempt failed. Also stated that Ms Grey chose not to give evidence
>> at either trial.
Under advice from her legal team perhaps? There must be something somewhere indicating why the first trial folded.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 Mar 23 at 15:55
|
>> Under advice from her legal team perhaps?
Almost certainly.
>> There must be something somewhere indicating why the first trial folded.
There's a user comment on the Rozenberg substack saying it was a hung jury unable to agree a verdict with a sufficient majority.
|
www.specktator.co.meh/article/pedestrians-shouldn't-push-cyclists-into
-the-road
Have a look at the pavement here in the video at 0:31 - I would suggest they dude ripping past on a pushbike is very much going too fast but has tons of room despite the reporter being in the middle of the pavement.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
|
Aggravating factors:
"The effect on Mrs Carla Money (in so far as her first statement extends). Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable."
Seems irrelevant for sentencing inasmuch as the victim of the offence was the cyclist.
But then I'm not a judge.
|
In sentencing a 14-year-old illegally riding an e-scooter today for killing a woman, the judge said:
Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type
I wonder if that will set a new precedent?
|
Having studied the footage again the actual point at which the bike and the pedestrian are alongside is just out of shot.
The sudden change in direction suggests to me that there was physical contact to the point of a push.
|
Auriol Grey has been refused leave to appeal her 3 year sentence:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65645364
'Not manifestly excessive'.
|
I'm pleased to see after one failed attempt that an appeal is now to be allowed this May as a source below explains...
Auriol Grey has been granted leave to appeal her 2023 conviction for manslaughter. Adrian Darbishire KC of QEB Hollis Whiteman and Chris Henley KC of Mountford Chambers led the new team, instructed by Ben Rose of Hickman and Rose, all acting pro bono for Auriol Grey.
In October 2020 Ms Grey, who is disabled, autistic and partially sighted, was walking along the pavement in central Huntingdon. At the same time Celia Ward aged 77 was cycling along the same section of pavement towards Ms Grey. Ms Grey shouted that the cyclist should get off the pavement and gestured with her left hand. As Ms Ward reached Ms Grey she lost balance and fell into the path of an oncoming car. She died instantly.
The basis of the appeal is that the Judge misdirected the jury on unlawful act manslaughter; no base offence was identified. It will be argued at the full hearing, which is scheduled for May, that Ms Grey’s actions were incapable of amounting to the offence of manslaughter.
|
|
Thanks Fenlander, will be interesting to see how that goes.
|
Conviction overturned:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335
Cannot find the published judgment yet but will link it here when I do.
|
|
Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey, said: "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury."
|
>> Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey, said: "In our
>> judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury."
That quote, taken out of its context, is a tad misleading.
The court is critical of both prosecution and defence for failing to identify the point about a base offence.
That is to say a criminal act such as assault which Miss Grey committed so that unlawful act manslaughter could be proven.
Judge Enright also gets a kicking for failings in his summing up.
|
Article in the Times today (paywalled) throws some interesting light:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/auriol-grey-manslaughter-conviction-brother-in-law-interview-v9mqmvpj6
Auriol Grey's brother in law, her sister's widower, knew nothing of what happened until he saw her conviction in the media. Apparently she told the police she had no family.
He seems then to have taken up cudgels for her which presumably included the new legal team. It would be interesting to know how they got introduced and instructed. I'm not for a minute suggesting anything improper but was it a question of people having influence through social etc connections?
I think there are also systemic questions about how Ms Grey, whom it seems has incapacities more serious than were admitted at trial, was treated. There are wider questions there for the justice system about how vulnerable defendants are identified and supported.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 12 May 24 at 16:17
|
>> I think there are also systemic questions about how Ms Grey, whom it seems has
>> incapacities more serious than were admitted at trial, was treated. There are wider questions there
>> for the justice system about how vulnerable defendants are identified and supported.
>>
Bit like Stefan Kiszko
|
Miscarriage of Justice? - Bromptonaut
