- 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)Auriol Grey seeks leave to appeal against manslaughter sentence
Auriol Grey, the pedestrian who was last week jailed for three years for manslaughter after causing 77-year-old cyclist Celia Ward to fall off her bike into the path of a car, has reportedly lodged an appeal against her sentence.
> Three years in jail for pedestrian convicted of manslaughter after cyclist’s death
The news comes as a leading legal journalist and author has published Judge Sean Enwright’s full sentencing remarks in the case, saying that “they deserve close attention.”
Grey, aged 49, was convicted by a jury in January, with the trial hearing that she had shouted at Mrs Ward, telling her to “get off the f*ck*ng pavement,” and gestured at her in an aggressive manner, causing the cyclist to fall off her bike and into the road.
> Remove conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, urge campaigners in wake of manslaughter case
After her sentencing, her legal team applied for her to be released on bail pending appeal, a request that the judge refused.
Now, Metro reports that a spokeswoman for the Criminal Appeal Court has confirmed that Grey’s application for leave to appeal against her sentence – as distinct from the jury’s verdict, which is not being challenged – has been lodged.
“As we have only just received this application we do not know when this case will be listed,” the spokeswoman said.
The sentence handed down to Grey has attracted a great deal of comment in the mainstream media, much of it sympathetic towards her due to the fact she has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted.
While it was widely reported at the time of sentencing that the judge did not consider her disabilities to be relevant to her actions that caused Mrs Ward’s death, and that mental disorder was not a factor either, the judge’s full sentencing remarks, obtained from the judicial press office by the legal writer and commentator Joshua Rozenberg, do shed more light on the reasons the judge handed down the three-year prison sentence.
Rozenberg, a qualified solicitor and honorary King’s Counsel and whose long-running media career includes past roles as legal correspondent at the BBC and the Daily Telegraph’s legal affairs editor, published the judge’s sentencing remarks on Substack, having obtained them from the judicial press office.
“As far as I know, they have not previously been published in full,” Rozenberg wrote. “They deserve close attention,” he added – something we at road.cc would also encourage, since they provide the fullest possible picture of why the judge imposed the sentence he did. Here they are:
You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.
Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.
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.
This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.
I have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.
You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities. Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.
The judge also set out the basis on which he had determined the length of the sentence handed down, based on the guidelines from the Sentencing Council relating to unlawful act manslaughter, and the representations made by both the defence and the prosecution. He told Grey:
A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to whether harm would be caused.
The judge also set out what he saw as the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, with the former potentially increasing the sentence to be imposed from its starting point, and the latter reducing it.
Aggravating factors
The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.
The effect on Mrs Carla Money … [the driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, and who made a statement to the court in which she spoke of the effect of the fatal crash on her] … Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable.
Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation
You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.
You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years old. This stands to your credit.
Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.
Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.
As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.
Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your disabilities and do not hold it against you.
There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.
I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.
Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment.
Rozenberg has also shared, on Scribd, the directions of law that the judge provided to the jury before its members retired to consider the case.
As with the sentencing remarks, the directions, which set out the relevant issues of law and also map out the route to the jury’s verdict, whether that be guilty or not guilty, were obtained via the judicial press office, which had been sent them by Judge Enright.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Veganpotter 2 hours 21 min ago
The funny thing is that tons of adults are walking with nothing better to do too😅
- Veganpotter 2 hours 23 min ago
Best to have a lifetime ban with a very long prison sentence for getting caught driving while banned.
- Veganpotter 2 hours 35 min 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 3 hours 6 min ago
Vauxhall van and Salvatori delivery truck stuck in width restrictions in Church Road, Murston...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 14 min 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 4 hours 19 min ago
I agree with you. Just enjoy riding a bike. Easy to forget that one simple thing.
- Steve K 4 hours 48 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 5 hours 59 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 6 hours 27 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 7 hours 17 min ago
Electromagnetic pedals you say? Call the witch finder general!
Add new comment
63 comments
Funny how the offender who was partially sighted could see the cyclist even though they were not wearing hi viz!!!
This is really bothering me as no one is mentioning it, but the video very clearly shows Mrs Grey pushes Mrs Ward into the road doesn't it? Does anyone else see that?
So am looking at the video as shown on the Sun website (I don't read that paper) as it is clear and will go full screen and pause (however it does cut off a few inches off the right hand side of the frame compared to other footage).
Now firstly, just as Mrs Wards front wheel comes into view you see Mrs Grey breaks her stride with her right foot falling short, at this point imo she has made the decision to brace her bodyweight in order to make a shove. You then see Mrs Grey's left hand raises from waist level up towards the approaching Mrs Ward. You then see Mrs Grey transfers her body weight from her right foot to her left foot and at the same time you see her torso dip as she places the shove on Mrs Wards left shoulder. You also see Mrs Grey's left elbow come back behind her at the same pace as Mrs Ward moves to the left suggesting constant contact between her hand and Mrs Wards body at that time. You then see Mrs Grey's body weight 'rebound' after she loses the resisteance from the push (as Mrs Ward falls) and her body weight transfers back to her right foot in an off-kilter way and she comes to a standstill.
In addition to considering that, you really have to ask, what causes Mr's Ward's handlebars to violently twist? She was, until a certain point, making a solid and well-paced pass and indeed looks to be competantly pacing her pass to remain fast enough to keep balance. Yet suddenly her whole body lurches as her bars twist. What explains that? Not an over balance, she was moving with too much pace and poise for that imo.
I think the thing is, that the footage doesn't clearly and without any doubt show her pushing the cyclist. But it doesn't have to, for her to be considered responsible for the cyclist going into the road.
That being said, the police implied that they hadn't released the full footage, for whatever reason.
More than implied, they said the full footage will not be released and if it were, a lot of the contrary views would be null and void.
Thanks for the reply. That would really be for a jury to decide I suppose, I do wonder if they were invited to consider if a push was given. I framed my post as a question, but really to me there's no doubt atall that she was given a heavy shove.
Regarding the whole footage, you see everything bar the car hitting poor Mrs Ward I'd imagine and certainly that's not released out of respect to the family and deceased.
Err, the jury did decide based on the evidence and Full Footage.
The Full Footage has not been released so your last para is inaccurate.
It wasn't proven that she made contact (and is actually irrelevant) but I think any cyclist would recognise that the movement of Mrs Ward is consistent with contact. I assume she was an experienced and competent cyclist and so would have remained in control when bumping down off the kerb. Instead she loses balance and twists as she falls, something really only explicable by an outside force being applied. I'm sure if it had been truly important to the prosecution an expert in body movement could have been called to explore this further.
FWIW, there is a shared use path installed near me where the only indication that it is shared use is an arrow on the road directing cyclists onto the pavement, now redundant because they moved the entrance at my suggestion away to before a dangerous pinch point, and at the end there is some more paint on the road allowing for exit onto a mandatory cycle lane.
I complained to the council about various matters, pointing out their legal liability for their incompetence with the intent that if there was an incident they could not claim they were not aware of the dangers. They replied that the shared cycleway was fully compliant with legislation.
I took this to mean that there is no legal requirement to mark a shared cycleway, it is sufficient for the council to declare it as such.
1334 Warwick Rd
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jz64uLU5QeptgLSCA
Knock yourself out and find a single blue sign from here.
My town this....and this conflict regarding shared "cycleways" has been a point of contention for many years. History is that the "cycle way" is on the Inside of the Ring Road at that section not the side the conflict happened. It is clearly marked on County Council mapping & Cycle streets as well as Open Street Maps. How this wasn't challenged is a matter for the defence council. Also at that time it was during covid 19 restrictions and the lane the cyclist ended up in was listed as a Tranche 1 scheme set aside as a 2 way cycle lane, BUT, it never happened. I was approved to be set aside as such by the then Tory run County Council. In fact very few of the approved schemes out of Cambridge City actually were implemented. Back to the Ring Road and cycleways....the Cycleway begins at the Bridge Hotel and is Cycle way 51 before it merges in part with Cycleway 12 and is on the outside of the ring road....then when it reaches the George Hotel and Brampton road it reverts to the Inside of the Ring Road, until it loops back to the start point. So in effect the section in question is not a cycleway. Now.....since this case there have been a sign and another painted cycle and arrow installed to suggest the outside of the ring road is a shared facility.....shutting the door and all that. Personally.... I use the road...it's safer and faster..... The fault for all of this in my opinion....lies with the County Council.....after years of neglecting the county Market towns and not just for cycling infrastructure.
Aside from the particulars of this case, surely it, and other cases like it, raise the question about whether shared use paths are suitable alongside busy roads? My opinion is that they are an admission of failure to make the roads safe, and lead to conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.
The real problem is the volume and speed of traffic endangering cyclists, and as we know, putting cyclists on the footway isn't much of a solution. Maybe if they mandated pedestrians to wear helmets and hi-viz it would solve the perceived shared use problems?
Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive but I'm not sure this is the right time or place for that kind of comment.
I am pleased to see comments citing the need to share the road space and consider vulnerable road users. This is an argument I would like to see used from now on for proper punishment of crimnal motorists who know full well that they must share but choose to intimidate and harass vulnerable road user groups.
Up to now I've avoided getting too deep into this story. But my initial reaction had been to consider that the sentence seemed long (especially when compared to sentences given to motorists, though that will be because they are too lenient). However, reading those comments in the article - particularly about both Grey and Ward having come to a halt, I'm now not so sure.
As this story won't go away, I would be interested to know if Huntingdon Council have clarified the signage on the route in question so that all users know that it's a shared use path?
I wonder also in light of this story whether other councils are reviewing their own paths to ensure correct signage is up?
I'm not holding my breath.
These poorly marked / implemented cycling facilities are everywhere. Here's a tragic case of a pedestrian killed by a kid on an e-scooter.
In the summing up the judge states: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."
I had a quick look at the scene and the pavement appears to be shared use but is littered with parked vehicles. I do wonder if pavement parking played a part in this by obstructing visibility and narrowing the path.
It seemed strange that the prosecutor seems to be suggesting it as mitigation for the defendant.
Kelly Shooter, prosecuting, said it was believed Mrs Davis could not have been seen by the boy before being hit as he travelled along the pavement past several cars parked along the kerb.
She said: "According to a witness, Mrs Davis stepped out from behind a Ford Transit van into [the boy's] path.
"It is likely that Mrs Davis, as she walked behind it, would not have been able to be seen, so it seems very likely that Mrs Davis did step out from behind the van into [the boy's] path."
I just don't understand why in these cases the council isn't obliged to review their risk assessment in the light of such cases and act on the findings.
In a well-behaved court, although we have an adversarial system, there is a duty on all participants to arrive at the truth. It is surely incumbent on the state prosecutor to bring to the court's attention all relevant facts, even if they do not help their case?
Seeing the picture that HoarseMann has posted, I would argue that the unlawful pavement parking, if a factor, suggests that the drivers of those vehicles should also have been brought to court for contributory negligence - after all it is quite foreseeable that parking on a pavement will cause problems, and if it turns out it is shared use, it is quite to be expected that cyclists will be progressing at greater than walking pace and the potential for collision is obvious.
I can only think of one story I know of where a motorist parked illegally was also charged with motoring offences for contributing to the incident but did escape charge from playing a part in the actual death.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/17214762.jaiden-mangan-three-died...
Yep, it's an odd one. If a pedestrian stepped out into the road from behind a transit van, I don't think a driver would even be arrested (probably should be though, as you have to anticipate that happening).
20mph is what I tend to drive past parked cars at (lower near schools); but if that is really what the kid was travelling at on the scooter, it is too fast for that narrow space - attributed to their lack of maturity/experience rather than malice I would assume.
I think in this case the illegal e-scooter aspect has taken over. It's downhill and quite possible a 14 year old could get up some speed on a regular scooter, bmx or even a skateboard. If cars parked on the pavement were involved in making the situation worse, or the signage of where cycling is permitted is not clear, then as you say, that really needs to be investigated and rectified by the council.
I don't really understand the judges comment "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."
If you pan back from the photo used by the BBC you can see the cycle path fizzle out so I presume he meant to say shared paths should be free of motorised vehicles of any type (Milton Keynes excepted).
At least drivers wouldn't park on the pavement next to a crossing in terrible weather as that would put pedestrians in danger . . . . . . Oh wait . . . .
I'm sure when I pass the same crossing on the other side of the dual carriageway it will be better . . . . . . . oh . . .
Im not sure on that case the council have any obligations, the boy was riding a private escooter illegally, and it might be a shared use pavement, but the onus is on the e-scooter rider to avoid hitting pedestrians.
that the boy might not have the age & world experience to expect or own that responsibility, having already fractured their thumb in another crash, is probably why the permitted escooter trials insist you have a valid driving license as a starting point
In the Netherlands it's very common for the road space to be reviewed and changed following a fatal collision. It does happen in the UK sometimes too: a road near me had its speed limit reduced from 60mph to 40mph and a section made no-overtaking in response to a couple of fatal car collisions.
The legality of the e-scooter is one thing, but it would be possible to hit 20mph down there on a kick scooter.
It's possible a factor in this case (and definately the Auriol Grey case) is the shared-use nature of the pathway was not apparant to the pedestrian using it. Even given the hierachy of vulnerability, there are not many pedestrians who would step out into a road from behind a van without looking, because it's obviously a road and they understand the danger associated with doing so.
Increasing visibility by banning pavement parking here and making it clearer where the pavement is and isn't shared use could reduce the risk of this happening again.
I would add to this that the parked cars were obviously discussed during the trial as being contributory.
The analogy I would give is, if in an industrial accident the finding was operator negligence but the HSE found that poor house keeping contributed the company could not just ignore housekeeping issues.
If only the UK's approach to the carriageway (and particularly driving) had more to do with "'elf and safety"...
https://sustainablesafety.nl/
Unfortunately it is a mess of ideas from times before motor vehicles, the effects of the hugely successful lobbying by the motor industry and supporters (thankfully we avoided "jaywalking" victim-blaming laws mostly) and efforts to put safety back in after the fact of mass motoring.
Exactly right. Vision Zero can only be achieved through a systematic approach. It goes to the fundamentals of health and safety. Accepting that councils have a duty of care, starting with the most vulnerable, and adopting risk based approach to incremental improvements.
I cycle down there occasionally - on my route to dancing. It's notorious for pavement parking, though I'm always cycling on the road.
The reaction to this compared ("Why wasn't the 14 year old child locked up?") to the reaction to the Huntingdon one is .. an education.
I've looked at this one less than the Huntingdon case.
We need legal actions against Councils or Police for failing to provide a safe environment under their Duty of Care, if possible. Just as we are seeing a Driver Liability practice develop piecemeal via Civil Action.
Yep, especially as the kid stayed at the scene and called emergency services, then pleaded guilty.
Compare that with the Huntingdon case where they left the scene, were evasive and pleaded not guilty.
I see they've now released the video of the Auriol Grey interview. Interesting how she can remember stuff up until the point the police reveal there's audio on the cctv: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64966865
Oh: that is awful.
(edit) - I presume that she had legal counsel in the interview with her?
(edit 2) - IIRC the judge in the case mentioned that she had lied under interview... I guess that this is it?
Pages