Posted on 05/08/2024 10:20:20 AM PDT by RandFan
A woman who shouted and waved aggressively at a cyclist on the pavement (sidewalk), causing her to fall into the path of a car, has had her conviction for manslaughter overturned and walked free from court.
CCTV showed Auriol Grey shout "get off the f****** pavement (sidewalk)" as Celia Ward approached her in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, in October 2020.
The 77-year-old then veered off the 2.4m-wide path into the road.
Mrs Ward, a grandmother, died after she was struck by a car.
Grey, who has cerebral palsy and was described by her lawyer as "partially blind", was given a three-year jail sentence in March 2023 after being convicted of manslaughter.
But the Court of Appeal ruled today that the manslaughter conviction should be overturned and she walked free from court.
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."
She added: "In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant's conviction for manslaughter is unsafe."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.sky.com ...
I’d say an unfortunate incident but correct result.
Bikes are typically not allowed on sidewalks in the UK so Grey really did nothing wrong asking her to get off the sidewalk by waving her arms. Sadly, Ward at 77, probably felt unsafe riding her bike on the roadway.
Bikes are fair game for my truck.
In some places riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is illegal unless the walk has been designated as a multi-use path.
2.4 meters (8 feet) says, to me, that it is likely a multi-use path open to all non-motorized traffic.
If the biker had to swerve to miss the pedestrian, then the fault - and the unfortunate result - lies with the biker.
“At 77, Mrs. Ward has had plenty of time to know bicycles don’t belong on the sidewalk.”
Not necessarily true. It’s circumstantial. If the car lanes are so narrow that a bicyclist is either an obstruction to the cars or using the car lane is unsafe to the bicyclist, then the sidewalk, if there is one, is often a legal alternative.
I used to bicyle a lot in my area. There are some sections where both the car and truck drivers and I were all glad I had a section of sidewalk to use.
As to the conviction.
I think the shouting woman has some mental issue related to her disability.
I think that is fair to consider in any sentence, but is not fair as a total excuse, in terms of general innoence or guilt, as far as “negligence”. “Forgiveness” toward her should be tempered by the justice and mercy for the woman who died. Justice should be equal in some way to both.
Regardless, the case seems to have been handled poorly.
There are different ways in which someone is negligent in someone’s death, and they are not always “criminal”, but can still be considered negligent. The prosecutors (1) never seemed to make that distinction and (2) then never identified the law broken by the screaming woman. THAT legal fine line seems to be basis for the appeals court ruling.
How does that bumper sticker go? “If you don’t like my driving then stay off the sidewalk”. It’s scary sometimes riding a bicycle in traffic. Seems everyone wants to scratch your paint.
“Bikes are fair game for my truck.”
Just remember - you’re not a female New Mexico judge who can get off with just an $81 fine for killing one cyclist and putting another in intensive care. It’s a big club but you’re not in it.
But whether or not the victim had a formal legal right to be riding there, that didn't justify somebody shouting and gesticulating at her, especially as there was plenty of room for both to pass. Whether Auriol Grey's actions amounted to criminality is another matter. The police and prosecution insisted that they did, mainly because of video evidence of the actual fall and the moment the car hit which was never published. They were so confident of their case hat they pressed for a retrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict first time round.
The appeal appears to have succeeded after highly technical arguments about the criteria for manslaughter. Anyway a sad case for all concerned.
The only legal alternative should be: Dismount from your bicycle and continue as a pedestrian.
Regards,
“The only legal alternative should be: Dismount from your bicycle and continue as a pedestrian.”
That’s your thought. It’s not the case in many places.
In spite of the semblence that “sidewalks” are only for walking, there are many places where people actually using a sidewalk for walking are practically nil, and where simultaneously the roadway is totally unsafe for bycyclists. Practicality shows that bicyclists can safely use the sidewalk, many many times. That is what we do on our neighborhood street. The kids are told to ride on the sidewalk and stay off the street with their bikes.
Probably the right result but I bet the woman felt a sense of triumph when the old lady on the bicycle got killed.
Just my own wee club in northern Alberta heh. Bears need to eat.
Haha yes. Up here its very rare to see anyone on a bike. It’s 10 points for getting one, but 20 points if they stick to the grill heh.
Jokes aside, they’ve been a nuisance in most places I’ve seen, but I just don’t go into urban built up areas much. I can sympathize with some city folk though who deal with this a lot.
Although I don’t arrive at the same conclusion, I have to compliment you on your well thought out, finely reasoned logic, and excellently informed input.
Even by FR standards, which are generally logical, this is an excellent argument!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.