Woman convicted of manslaughter after swearing and gesturing at 77 year old cyclist.

[Ming the Merciless]

It was observed that had the cyclist not have been hit by the car and lived, then the cyclist herself would probably not have reported the incident as an assault.

Speculation, which should have been dismissed. There was no way of knowing what the victim would have done.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I like the way someone dismissed something as being a legal technicality. Isn't that what all matters of law is, a legal technicality? as in often depending on the finer details of the law?

There is something wrong imho about the dismissive comment like "just a legal technicality!". I am certain if you ever get to become a defendant in a court of law you will be glad of the legal technicalities, but it is ok to dismiss them now that you are not in that position. It is all just legal process and I for one am glad we have it!

The 'technicality' here being that the lady went to prison for over a year on the basis of an unfair trial.

 

[matticus]

The 'technicality' here being that the lady went to prison for over a year on the basis of an unfair trial.

Agreed. (although "unfair" is rather a vague term. I know what you mean in this context ... )

But IMHO, given the evidence ("facts") available, and the death that she directly caused, a year in the clink seems a fair outcome to the whole messy business. That's a moral judgement, not a technical one.

 

[icowden]

I like the way someone dismissed something as being a legal technicality. Isn't that what all matters of law is, a legal technicality? as in often depending on the finer details of the law?

No one dismissed it. It was pointed out (by me) that the appeal was granted on the basis of a legal technicality - that means that it has nothing to do with Auriol Grey's guilt or lack thereof. The appeal court ruled that there was an error in the basis of law under which she was convicted and as such quashed the conviction. Further they ruled that she could not be retried.

And yes, Law is technical and requires precision, otherwise loopholes will be found. The full appeal ruling is here:-
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf

It is highly critical of the Judge and his directions to the Jury.

 

[newts]

The aggressive actions of Ms Gray certainly had an effect on the 'accident' or whatever you want to call it. Any sympathy should be with the victims family who are missing a wife/mother/grandmother.

 

[BoldonLad]

I know there's two kids of a wider family member who is autistic. Right and wrong for one of them isn't the issue. When he's in what could be called a meltdown knowledge of right and wrong isn't a factor. He's violent and not in control. I could quite easily see how he could have put that woman into this road if he'd been there in the wrong circumstances, such as agitation.

This guy is about 40 now and a 6 footer plus heavy set. It's seriously amazing how much his mum is able to control him when things are going wrong with him. Nobody can do that anywhere close to her. Not even carers who have been with him for a long time.

The other kid, who is about 3 years younger, is higher functioning but less social. Not as violent in meltdown but still. It isn't guaranteed that the younger sibling would be safe in this original situation.

I do not know enough about this woman to know how much of an issue her ASD was but a bit of compassion for her difficulties is warrantied. She might not be a nasty old bat. I think that's unfair. However, an unnecessary death is always a bad thing. Imho the biggest takeaway I can see is that pedestrians and cyclists aren't exactly compatible. We really need better provisions and infrastructure for cycling and pedestrians. Holland and Belgium do this well. We need that too!

Good point about the infrastructure. I haven’t followed the case closely, but, I do recall that neither local authority or police were able to confirm or deny if the path in question was designated as a shared path.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Good point about the infrastructure. I haven’t followed the case closely, but, I do recall that neither local authority or police were able to confirm or deny if the path in question was designated as a shared path.

I am sure we all know cycle paths that are like this
Many round here start up as a wide pavement and then at some point it is narrower - with no signs of any termination of it's category as a shared path

So the cyclist could well be cycling along a clearly marked cycle path and then arrive at a point where a walker coming the other way has seen no sign if it being a cycle path


On this point - as a retired teacher I have attended a lot of "training" sessions about all sorted of Special Needs - including ASD (autism)
and I have taught pupils who have a diagnosis of this

One of the things we were told is a common characteristic of ASD is a sense of what is right and wrong that is quite judgemental and absolute

Hence someone who thinks that the rules say this - can become very annoyed (or worse) if they see someone not following these rules
an example given was an empty supermarket car park
a normal person would happily drive diagonally across all the marking because there are no other cars there
some people with ASD would regard this as totally unacceptable

In school we were told to be careful and make sure they were aware of the rules and be aware that they might have problems if other pupils didn;t follow them


The same could apply here
She saw someone who was cycling on a pavement which is prohibited by the Highway Code - AKA The Rules
This could be a serious trigger for some ASD people

whether or not this is the case only people who know her - especially medical people - would know

but she might be one of the victims here - although I will save my sympathy for the family of the cyclist and the car driver and her family

 

[Time Waster]

The 'technicality' here being that the lady went to prison for over a year on the basis of an unfair trial.

My comment about dismissive use of the words legal technicality. As in:-

"She got off on a legal technicality"​

These technicalities are the finer points of our laws and as such there's no getting off only correction when some aspect of the laws and judicial procedures weren't adhered to. My point that if any of us were to be a defendant in a court of law, innocently I hope, we'd then be pretty keen than those technicalities get followed and we don't end up in prison until being cleared on appeal.

I think you kind of agree with that in probably a clearer comment.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

My comment about dismissive use of the words legal technicality. As in:-

"She got off on a legal technicality"​

These technicalities are the finer points of our laws and as such there's no getting off only correction when some aspect of the laws and judicial procedures weren't adhered to. My point that if any of us were to be a defendant in a court of law, innocently I hope, we'd then be pretty keen than those technicalities get followed and we don't end up in prison until being cleared on appeal.

I think you kind of agree with that in probably a clearer comment.

Justice and a fair trial is a non-negotiable. This was neither. That's not a legal technicality, nor a finer point, it's a, in fact the central principle of the entire process. Here the unfortunate lady was not charged correctly, the Judge failed to outline the law and standard of proof attached to the erroneous charge, neither prosecution nor defence addressed these, and the Judge's summing up and instruction to the Jury was wholly deficient. The lady spent in excess of a year in jail, and the family of the deceased lady have had yet further heartbreak.

So forgive me if I suggest that getting off on a legal technicality underplays matters somewhat.

But fundamentally we agree, yes!

 

[numbnuts]

Not seen this before...."I don't rembember"

View: https://youtu.be/iAwUuflXUmQ?si=l1Nbwm6As33sAbd

 

[Slick]

Not seen this before...."I don't rembember"

View: https://youtu.be/iAwUuflXUmQ?si=l1Nbwm6As33sAbd

She's probably just misunderstood.

 

[Cycleops]

Some of you might be interested in this video by the black belt barrister who analyses why the conviction was quashed:


View: https://youtu.be/ALgXy5vq6DM?si=Qi9FrTlzqqzq-bXI