- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Celia Ward falls into path of car after being confronted by Auriol Grey (via Cambridgeshire Constabulary and BBC News)Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter over cyclist's death has conviction overturned
A woman who was sentenced to three years in jail for manslaughter after being found by a jury to have confronted an elderly cyclist, causing her to be killed after she fell into the path of a vehicle, has had her conviction overturned at appeal.
Auriol Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially blind, had her conviction overturned today by the Court of Appeal, the BBC reports, three judges ruling that the prosecution's case had been "insufficient even to be left to the jury" and that the "appellant's conviction for manslaughter is unsafe".
Ms Grey's lawyers had told the judges that they believed no "base offence" was ever identified during the trial, a manslaughter conviction requiring an unlwaful action to have caused the death of Celia Ward in 2020, the senior judge later stating in conclusion that, "Had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault."
The 50-year-old had been walking along a route in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, when she shouted at the cyclist to "get off the pavement" and gestured as she passed, Mrs Ward falling off her bike and into the path of oncoming traffic.
When Ms Grey was sentenced, Judge Sean Enright had called her "territorial about the pavement" and having "resented" the presence of a cyclist on it. However, whether the route was in fact a shared-use path was also questioned during the initial trial, Cambridgeshire Constabulary unable to "categorically" ascertain whether Mrs Ward had been cycling on a shared use path or pavement.
The case prompted campaigners to urge highways authorities to remove conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, with new shared-use signs installed in the town.
Grey left the scene before the arrival of the emergency services and went to a supermarket to do her shopping. She was arrested the next day, and claimed that Mrs Ward had been cycling "at high speed" and that she was "anxious I was going to get hit by it" so "flinched out with her left arm to protect herself".
CCTV footage shared by Cambridgeshire Constabulary showed Grey shouting at Mrs Ward, described by her widower as an "experienced and competent cyclist", to "get off the f***ing pavement" and the pedestrian was jailed for three years last year having been found guilty at a retrial.
However, appeal judges Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey concluded that they have "no hesitation" in concluding that the conviction was "unsafe" and that the prosecution's case had been "insufficient even to be left to the jury".
The trio of appeal judges agreed with Ms Grey's lawyers, one of whom — Adrian Darbishire KC — argued that no "base offence", an unlawful action to have caused the death was ever established during the trial.
Dame Sharp said the jury had never been asked to decide "the fundamental question of whether a base offence was established" and concluded that "had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault".
While her gesture towards the cyclist was described as "hostile", Darbishire KC responded: "Hostile gesticulation is not a crime, otherwise we would have 50,000 football fans each weekend being apprehended."
The Crown Prosecution Service's barrister Simon Spence KC told the court that it was accepted that "common assault as the base offence was not identified by name". He later asked for the case to be returned to the Crown Court for a retrial, a request that was denied.
In a statement released after the conviction was overturned, Ms Grey's family urged for "lessons to be learnt".
"Whilst we welcome the decision of the Court of Appeal, our thoughts today are also with the Ward family, and I am a sure a day doesn't go by when they don't remember their tragic loss," the statement said.
"We are very relieved that Auriol's prison ordeal is over and we would like to thank the staff and inmates of HMP Peterborough for the kindness and consideration they have shown over the last year.
"There has been unnecessary and prolonged suffering and vulnerable people like Auriol need better support from the justice system — we hope lessons will be learnt."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Veganpotter 5 min 54 sec ago
He should never be able to drive again.
- Veganpotter 13 min 37 sec ago
He wouldn't have gotten so far with a bent link. He could have hypothetically bent a link on a barrier but that can happen with any chain. This...
- David9694 44 min 54 sec ago
Vauxhall van and Salvatori delivery truck stuck in width restrictions in Church Road, Murston...
- chrisonabike 48 min 47 sec ago
Don't come round 'ere with your "why not fix it so that everyone can use it" nonsense!...
- chrisonabike 52 min 21 sec ago
Thank you for the local knowledge. One out of two ain't bad? And you get the best of both worlds currently... Presumably there are people who...
- Dhill 1 hour 57 min ago
I agree with you. Just enjoy riding a bike. Easy to forget that one simple thing.
- Steve K 2 hours 26 min ago
He also writes articles from there saying that people whom work from home are all skivers who should be back in the office
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 37 min ago
By no means claiming that Armstrong was the only doper in that period but your claim makes no sense: the average speed is taken on the time of the...
- wtjs 4 hours 5 min ago
I suffered a close pass by a BMW driver 2 or 3 years ago. 10 yards later he was stopped by temporary lights. It's all on video: there's no swearing...
- ManicDrummer 4 hours 55 min ago
Electromagnetic pedals you say? Call the witch finder general!
Add new comment
103 comments
Good, you won't mind if I tell you to fuck off then as it's "so common these days" (I should imagine if you are anything like this in real life then you are quite used to it). Not only are you blatantly trolling but your victim blaming of an elderly woman who (at best) was frightened by the aggressive acts of another person into falling to her death is utterly disgusting. No more responses to you from me but as a Parthian gift you may wish to consider this line from the appeal court's judgement:
You have just proved his point about the use of language.
But (presumably) they didn't fall in the road...(or just off the thread)?
If our new friend had stopped at their first post - and per quiff below (apparently they are a lawyer) that would be as I understand it. The appeal court's point was whatever "actually happened" and whoever bears responsibility assault was not proved the first time round, and could not have fairly been proved with the evidence in court.
Unfortunately they didn't leave it there...
Is that germane to the question of whether a base offence was committed though?
I think Rendel failed to cause offense, base language or no... our new friend having been "within the bounds of probability" at the beginning appears to now be going beyond.
As for the case I'll leave this one to the legally experienced.
The quote from the appeal court judgement is not saying that Auriol Grey did anything wrong. That is the essence of the judgement. Her actions contributed to Mrs Ward's death so lots of people (including the police, the judge, the CPS etc) jumped to the conclusion that she had done something wrong and unlawful. This was incorrect - she hadn't done anything wrong. However, it seems that some still cannot see that.
The problem that the Court of Appeal judgment makes clear is that the offence of assault has both an actus reus (the 'physical' component) and a mens rea (the mental component). The video is not capable of showing the mental element of the offence, and the jury was not properly directed / evidence was not led on the necessary elements of the offence.
Thank you for this, completely agree with you. It may well have unsettled Celia too so that she forgot to put her foot down when she stopped. So whether Auriol pushed her or not (deliberately or otherwise) all her preceding actions were deliberate and illegal. You could even argue that she chose to stop by the lamppost to force Celia into the road. Certainly got what she wanted, but not in a good way.
Judgment here for anyone interested in what the Court of Appeal actually said: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/487.html
It's interesting that Auriol Grey's new legal team worked pro bono.
"Had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault."
this is boggling to me, how can it not be assault to push someone off their bike?
Bike thieves on canal towpaths up and down the land will be rejoicing in their immunity
Unfortunately it seems the lesson that will be learned from this is not only can drivers endanger cyclists with impunity, but pedestrians are now free to assault them if they chose.
Where do you see that Grey pushed her?
"There was however no evidence to make the jury sure that the appellant pushed or in any way touched Mrs Ward"
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
In a police interview, she admitted to light contact.
"She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward."
Then
" The trial was told the incident was captured on CCTV which included sound, and how, prior to Mrs Ward coming off her bike, Ms Grey could be heard shouting "get off the [expletive] pavement". "
"After being shown the CCTV footage, interviewing officer Det Sgt Mark Dollard asked her why she said what she said, to which she responded: "I don't know." "
"may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself
Those are the words of a person who pushed someone and is trying to cover it up
The judge remarked in sentencing:
The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.
So either she pushed Mrs Ward or an attempt to do so caused her to fall.
The "or" is important. The Appeal Court said: "there was no evidence which could make the jury sure that the appellant had made any physical contact with Mrs Ward"
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
There's no doubt Grey was culpable for Ward's death, of course.
I don't think it is that important. It's an assault to make someone fear violence, not just if physical contact is made.
Maybe so, and causing fear in someone to this extent should certainly be a crime. My initial responses were to those who specifically said there had been a push and - in some cases - seemed to be suggesting legal carte blanche to shove cyclists under cars. But neither what they nor I think is important here and it's too sunny outside to spend more time on this.
the defendant admitted to light contact. the other witness is unable to testify whether the contact was light or firm, but I do not believe there was no contact.
So an assault 'base' charge was required for the manslaugher charge to be considered valid, is that correct?
Would the defendant's viewpoint (testimony?) of effectively acting in self-defence nullify this? I'm not suggesting it should (it seems that she was quite aggressive in her so-called 'defence'), just considering that point.
I don't see how a self-defence plea would work against a non-aggressive act i.e. carefully cycling. However, it would be fun if we could plead self defence to go and attack any non-attentive driver.
In this hypothetical, you would presumably be arguing that the cycling was not careful, and that you genuinely believed the cyclist was going to hit you if you didn't push them away.
Yes, but that wouldn't be confirmed by the video footage. Also see Rendel's reply.
It would also be rather difficult to prove self defence when the video shows that Grey deliberately walked into the path of the cyclist, if she had stood still or stepped to her right there was plenty of room for the cyclist to pass, she was deliberately seeking a confrontation, nothing in what she did could be classed as defensive as far as I can see.
Ah... I've not reviewed the footage recently and my memoy is not the best! I was going on the perspective of a partially blind person with cerebal palsy.
If she effectively initiated the confrontation, the self-defence argument does fall pretty flat.
Self defence could nullify it.
It wouldn't have in this case because the jury was asked to rule on whether it was self defence.
Effectively the prosecution + judge started from the assumption that it was assault rather than requiring the jury first rule on assault, then, as they did, on it not being self defence and if it caused death.
One looks forward to the tabloid headlines: "Outrage as "cyclist killer" is released on a technicality". Oh sorry, no, my mistake, she's a cyclist killer, not a "killer cyclist". No outrage required.
So it's got to the stage that even a pedestrian can be responsible for a cylists death but not held accountable. The fact a retrial had been refused leaves it open season, again, on cyclists.
A small silver lining - she has already spent a year in jail.
For an unsafe conviction and no established base offence. That's a strange kind of silver lining.
Pages