- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Rendel Harris 3 sec ago
Well yes but that's if you're looking at an equation x = n x 3 where n is any number less than 5. If you're looking for a number that is three...
- kingleo 1 hour 6 min ago
Does the coroner say that motorists and pedestrians who received a fatal head injury in a road accident should have been wearing a helmet, if not,...
- check12 1 hour 17 min ago
Get them back? They've never gone away for me, cheap tdf winning bikes on eBay with rim brakes and cheap rim brake aero wheels, just don't tell...
- Simon E 2 hours 52 sec ago
It used to be called Buy Nothing Day as a protest against the the Black Friday discounting madness. The constant BF adverts, promos and stuff...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 16 min ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 4 hours 36 min ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
- chrisonabike 9 hours 21 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 9 hours 33 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
- EK Spinner 9 hours 50 min ago
Arsehole in the van not with standing, how did they manage to get a risk assessment allowing a race (a group not a TT) group to be competing on ...
Add new comment
103 comments
There was more to it than just phrasing something correctly. In order for it to be manslaughter, the defendant had to have done something that constituted assault, which is then upgraded to manslaughter due to the deadly consequences. If she was merely being an arsehole, rather than behaving in an illegal way, she isn't guilty of manslaughter because no offence took place that could be upgraded.
It has always seemed bizarre that this vulnerable woman (albeit not a nice person) and who could not have reasonably foreseen the deadly consequences of her actions, was pursued to the full extent of the law, when drivers continue to kill a couple of cyclists every week and rarely see any jail time at all. If anything, this case further highlights the drivers' privilege over every other user of roads and footways.
I don't disagree with you about drivers but surely the whole point of manslaughter is that there wasn't an intent to kill and what I saw on the video surely counts as assault even if it wasn't explicitly called that in court?
Surely there can be no argument that she did do something that constituted assault: common assault can occur when "a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force". Shouting and swearing at Mrs Ward, waving her arms about and stepping into her path, ultimately by Grey's own admission lashing out at her, whether contact was made or not, clearly comes under this heading.
If she could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of her actions she could, and should, have been charged with murder. Manslaughter exists as an offence precisely for people who kill as an unintended/unforeseen consequence of their actions.
I would consider that shouting and waving your arms aggressively at someone is intended to cause fear and should count as assault or at the very least disturbing the peace. As a test, I would suggest doing that to a copper and seeing what the result is (not that coppers are necessarily experts in the law). I would think that it was the possible assault charge that could be upgraded to manslaughter as the cyclist entered the road purely due to fear of the defendant's threatening behaviour.
it should now be perfectly legal for anyone to scream at these three judges and shove them off the pavement whenever they are encountered.
you know, since that is not assault after all.
But the very lowest level of assault is exactly that, being an arsehole to someone, you don't have to hit anyone or die from an altercation as the defence lawyer seems to think, for it to be an unlawful act.
Unlawful act involuntary manslaughter does not require the offender to be able to foresee the death.
Personally, I'd say it is an obvious case of common assault by the victim being placed in fear of personal violence, so the Appeal Decision is a fairly blatant miscarriage of justice - even if technically correct.
It appears that the appeal decision was due to the original judge not mentioning Common Assault - not so much that it wasn't common assault, just that the judge hadn't explicitly mentioned it.
Certainly that appears to be my reading of it.
Basically 3 stages for this prosecution jury should have been ruling on:
1. Did her actions beyond reasonable doubt constitute assault
2. If they did constitute assault is it beyond reasonable doubt it wasn't self defence
3. Did it result in death.
Basically the judge and prosecution's submission to the jury started at step 2 rather than the jury being told to rule on step 1. While I would argue step 1 should have been met (clearly the cyclist was either hit or jumped back in fear of being hit, hence common assault...), but can also accept that the appeal is valid because this had to be determined by the jury.
The huge issue is the number of *bleeps* trying to argue she did nothing wrong rather than a technical error who will use it to justify attacking cyclists. And if anything this would be the best reason to consider a retrial rather than throwing it out (even if, given penalties for drivers, any sentence would likely already be served)
If you want to kill someone and get away with it, make sure they are riding a bike.
shouldn't that be
"If you want to kill someone and get away with it, make sure you are riding a bike"?
The OED offers a definition of "fantastic" as "imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality". Excellent choice of name.
Hilarious. I tell you what, I invite you to a duel. You can have my bike as a weapon, I'll drive your Chelsea tractor. I wonder who will win?
Pages