Cyclist killed by pedestrian

[GreyDave]

External Link/Members Only

At the peril of the Jury.....7 or 8 that like the other Jeremy ( Vine ) and yer fucked 

[Trenlover]

can we say that the actions of the pedestrian caused the cyclist to lose balance and veer into the road.

if yes then the verdict is correct.

[Adoniron]

Meanwhile....

BBC News - Linda Davis: E-scooter rider, 14, sentenced over woman's death
External Link/Members Only

[redveee]

It looks quite narrow to me on the video.

2.4m wide where the confrontation happened.

A lawyer explains it all:

External Link/Members Only

[Doc Holliday]

A lawyer explains it all:

External Link/Members Only

Thanks for that 

[Conkers13]

This morning on the school run with the grandkids an incident occurred with a cyclist.  I was walking along the pavement when a bell rung behind me.
On his bike was Mr lycia lentil pulling a buggy behind.with his 2 kids in. I got out of his way even though the pavement is hardly wide enough for 2 people to walk side by side.
He carries on ringing his bell but then ploughs into my granddaughter who is 8.
The idiot on the bike is then screaming and shouting at my granddaughter. 
I then intervened and he said he was allowed to cycle on the pavement because he was pulling a buggy.  Then a load of other parents joined in berating him and was told to get off his bike and walk in all the arguing one of the wheels on his bike was badly damaged and he then had to walk.
This pavement is totally unsuitable for cycling as it is narrow and cars are parked.
Any updates I will post on here

[Doc Holliday]

I hope your grandaughter is OK?

Just an observation, but there is a significant amount of identifying information in your post.

[RedKettle]

This morning on the school run with the grandkids an incident occurred with a cyclist.  I was walking along the pavement when a bell rung behind me.
On his bike was Mr lycia lentil pulling a buggy behind.with his 2 kids in. I got out of his way even though the pavement is hardly wide enough for 2 people to walk side by side.
He carries on ringing his bell but then ploughs into my granddaughter who is 8.
The idiot on the bike is then screaming and shouting at my granddaughter. 
I then intervened and he said he was allowed to cycle on the pavement because he was pulling a buggy.  Then a load of other parents joined in berating him and was told to get off his bike and walk in all the arguing one of the wheels on his bike was badly damaged and he then had to walk.
This pavement is totally unsuitable for cycling as it is narrow and cars are parked.
Any updates I will post on here

Based on your account the cyclist is an arrogant twat and gives us a bad name!

[yandex]

I've read this thread with interest and a fair amount of annoyance.

I very much doubt that any highway user, be that pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider or motorist has not met a dickhead or two whilst travelling from A to B. The reality is that there are twats of all flavours - from pedestrians so engrossed in their phones that they step into the road without looking, to car drivers who simply don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves.

It seems fairly clear to me - based on this:

2.4m wide where the confrontation happened.

A lawyer explains it all:

External Link/Members Only

that Grey's actions were intentional and that she therefore directly caused the death of another human being. That she almost certainly never meant the end result is immaterial. She deserves prison.

I'm astonished that people on here post that her sentence was too harsh because others have done worse and got less. That is a bullshit argument IMHO and simply points to the uselessness of the current judicial system.

[GreyDave]

A lawyer explains it all:

External Link/Members Only

Thanks explains it very clearly ....My question after reading this and my own experiance is maybe just maybe we ( as a society ) might benifit from an interim court 1 stage Mag 2nd 3 district Judges 3 stage Crown court with Jury 4stage Panel of judges selected for apropate experiance of law type.

It happens in Italy France and USA in diffrent ways ...But maybe it a can of worms Ive read all of the sercert Barristers books ...an eye opener on what a mess the syatem is 

[RedKettle]

that Grey's actions were intentional and that she therefore directly caused the death of another human being.

but you are missing the key fact - the person killed was on a bike so therefore regardless of facts was evil and deserved what they got.   

[jackdaw]

but you are missing the key fact - the person killed was on a bike so therefore regardless of facts was evil and deserved what they got.

Is there really no case for the guilty woman to get a lighter sentence?

She got irritated by a cyclist on the pavement, threw her arms up, ranted. You know…like hundreds of people do every year…except this time there were incredibly sad consequences that she would never have foreseen.

She’s 46, never been in trouble before, has had a tough life…and is unlikely ever to damage society again if not sent to jail. There was surely some sort of case for requiring her to do some useful work for society…litter picking, charity shop, whatever.

In addition the judge seemed to pull his absolute conviction that it was a shared use path out of thin air…neither the police evidence or council evidence established that.

I wouldn’t really be surprised if case went to appeal, would you?

[myothernameis]

Is there really no case for the guilty woman to get a lighter sentence?

On YouTube this case was covered by the black belt barrister, and it was suggested there might be an appeal, on the grounds the sentence is not-appropriate, and there could be other options

[Adoniron]

Is there really no case for the guilty woman to get a lighter sentence?

She got irritated by a cyclist on the pavement, threw her arms up, ranted. You know…like hundreds of people do every year…except this time there were incredibly sad consequences that she would never have foreseen.

She’s 46, never been in trouble before, has had a tough life…and is unlikely ever to damage society again if not sent to jail. There was surely some sort of case for requiring her to do some useful work for society…litter picking, charity shop, whatever.

In addition the judge seemed to pull his absolute conviction that it was a shared use path out of thin air…neither the police evidence or council evidence established that.

I wouldn’t really be surprised if case went to appeal, would you?

She could appeal against the sentence. The Court of Appeal could reduce it to 2 years (on grounds of say her health issues) and that then allows them to suspend it.

[chrishornx]

On YouTube this case was covered by the black belt barrister, and it was suggested there might be an appeal, on the grounds the sentence is appropriate, and there could be other options

'on the grounds that the sentence  is appropriate? not heard that one before

[myothernameis]

'on the grounds that the sentence  is appropriate? not heard that one before

Thanks, should have been not-appropriate 

[jackdaw]

On YouTube this case was covered by the black belt barrister, and it was suggested there might be an appeal, on the grounds the sentence is not-appropriate, and there could be other options

Cheers, just had a gander at black belt barrister…interesting view.

[timsussex]

I think the judge had it on for her throughout and may well have been the difference between the first and second  trials - pulling a shared pathway from thin and finally refusing bail pending an appeal.
He also contradicted himself in his sentencing notes saying
The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side.
and 2 paragraphs later
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

So did she stop before or not ?

[JontyR]

2.4m wide where the confrontation happened.

A lawyer explains it all:

External Link/Members Only

Thank you for this. Have a like.

Interestingly experts called stated there was likely to be some degree of cognitive impairment and yet the accused denied this in interview. 

[Conkers13]

Thanks doc she just has a bruise on her leg.
Apparently that is the third time he has run into someone in the last month.
That is why everyone had a go at him . 

I appreciate your concern about identifying myself but I don't take the grandkids very often and I do not know anybody in the area

[timsussex]

Thanks doc she just has a bruise on her leg.
Apparently that is the third time he has run into someone in the last month.
That is why everyone had a go at him . 

I appreciate your concern about identifying myself but I don't take the grandkids very often and I do not know anybody in the area

Good to hear - Not sure what you (and others) can do

Funnily enough there was an incident outside my granddaughters school last week - involving a range rover details are confused - but we have had a police presence for the last week - a PC or PCSO just stood around ignoring just about everything

Incidentally the road outside this school has no footpath one way and a very narrow single person wide one for part of the other direction. No parking spaces of course, its so narrow with all the parked cars and families walking in the road that a serious accident could never happen

Funnily enough when a local hairdresser wanted to become a fishnchip shop the police and council said no as there wasnt enough parking spaces - funny how they dont apply that to schools

[Jonestown]

I think the judge had it on for her throughout and may well have been the difference between the first and second  trials - pulling a shared pathway from thin ............

The Youtube video by the back belt barrister has a photo of one round sign mounted on a pole showing symbols for pedestrians and cyclists, somewhere along that pavement, he claimed to have found it on Google.

[timsussex]

The only sign I can find is quite a way away at Cowper Road pedestrian crossing and is on the opposite pavement



Hidden Image/Members Only

[myothernameis]

The Youtube video by the back belt barrister has a photo of one round sign mounted on a pole showing symbols for pedestrians and cyclists, somewhere along that pavement, he claimed to have found it on Google.

I have found the shared path sign, but its no where near to where, the cyclists was killed.  On google map, look for Bloomfield Park, and Sainsbury, around the traffic crossing you should see the sign for a shared path.  I believe this shared path, links to either going into the park or out

[Jonestown]

The only sign I can find is quite a way away at Cowper Road pedestrian crossing and is on the opposite pavement

External Link/Members Only

Its at 1.50 min in.

[timsussex]

External Link/Members Only

Its at 1.50 min in.

thats one I pictured (same guy on an invalid trike) its 3 junctions and 1/3 mile away and it's on THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD

[timsussex]

and there is another shared path side 100 yds the other side of the incident but again its on the pavement the OTHER side of the road

Hidden Image/Members Only

1 shows the obstructions on the pavement the pedestrian walked past and where she started to tell the cyclist to get off the effing pavement note the same red railings
2 marks the point shown here where the shared cycleway is clearly shown on the other side

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Watts.E.Dunn]

and their is another shared path side 100 yds the other side of the incident but again its on the pavement the OTHER side of the road



Has anyone got a road near them which has shared cycleways on BOTH sides of the road ?

Hidden Image/Members Only

One in Trumpington road cambridge one side is marked and the other assumed but its not called cycle city for nothing!..

[Sattob]

On YouTube this case was covered by the black belt barrister, and it was suggested there might be an appeal, on the grounds the sentence is not-appropriate, and there could be other options

Yes, I saw this a few days ago (maybe an earlier video, as no mention of appeal), where he explains that the woman touched the cyclist, causing her to wobble into the road. Early reporting just said waved and shouted, which she did initially, but didn't mention the touching. Still seems a bit harsh though 3 years. A 3 year suspended seems fairer to me, but, I'm no lawyer.

[GingerNuts]

Yes, I saw this a few days ago (maybe an earlier video, as no mention of appeal), where he explains that the woman touched the cyclist, causing her to wobble into the road. Early reporting just said waved and shouted, which she did initially, but didn't mention the touching. Still seems a bit harsh though 3 years. A 3 year suspended seems fairer to me, but, I'm no lawyer.

A three year sentence can't be suspended.

When can a sentence be suspended?

- Where a Judge in the Crown Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment (for defendants aged 21+) of between 14 days and 2 years, or imposes a sentence of Detention in a Young Offender Institution (for defendants aged 18-20) of between 21 days and 2 years, the Judge may suspend that sentence (s.264 and s.277 Criminal Justice Act 2020). Defendants aged under 18 cannot receive suspended sentences.

- This power also exists in the magistrates’ court for custodial sentences of 14 days to 12 months.

- The period of suspension must be for between 6 months and 2 years. This is called the ‘operational period’.

[timsussex]

Yes, I saw this a few days ago (maybe an earlier video, as no mention of appeal), where he explains that the woman touched the cyclist, causing her to wobble into the road. Early reporting just said waved and shouted, which she did initially, but didn't mention the touching. Still seems a bit harsh though 3 years. A 3 year suspended seems fairer to me, but, I'm no lawyer.

The judge quoted one witness
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”.

so there appears to be some doubt as to whether contact was made but as the witness was described by the judge as a motorist and a cyclist I would assume he was driving past

[Doc Holliday]

The appeal against the sentence (not the verdict) has been lodged, so perhaps time to accept and move on for now?

My main message is that we should all be aware that whilst few of us ever intend to cause physical harm to others, if your actions deviate beyond what it considered reasonable behaviour and someone dies as a result, a manslaughter charge/conviction may follow.

In this case it means being courteous to everyone you encounter on pavements, but it could be almost any situation where we interact with others.

[Jonestown]

For some reason or other the video of the police interviewing Ms Grey in custody has been released, it’s in the DM today, a little strange I’d have thought, but it’s not clear who released it, the police or Grey’s legal team.

[Doc Holliday]

For some reason or other the video of the police interviewing Ms Grey in custody has been released, it’s in the DM today, a little strange I’d have thought, but it’s not clear who released it, the police or Grey’s legal team.

CPS apparently.

[DastardlyDick]

But with the action from the police, you have to ask, why dont the police deal with cars that are parked on pavements

Because they no longer have the power to do so - all handed over to Local Councils by the Traffic Management Act 2004.

[Doc Holliday]

Apologies for dragging up an old thread, but having read the Ice Hockey death one, it reminded me a little of this one and the discussion around it. I wondered if Auriol Grey's appeal was successful. It wasn't.

External Link/Members Only

[tintin100]

I think she deserved that sentence, should have been more for manslaughter. She deliberately made the cyclist swerve on to a road and got her killed. It is irrelevant whether it is a shared path. Her actions caused a death, hence manslaughter.

[timsussex]

Finally

Common sense in the judicary“ In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient event to be left to the jury. In all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is unsafe.”

External Link/Members Only

[petermisc]

So she was initially refused leave to appeal the sentence, as the judges decided that the sentence was justified.  However, at that point she was only appealing the sentence, not the guilty verdict.  This appeal however has determined that she wasn't guilty in the first place.  It does look like the trial judge didn't correctly direct the jury.  It all appears to hinge on what Doc posted: 

This particular case involves Unlawful Act manslaughter explained in Law here External Link/Members Only
In essence somebody must die, the accused must carry out a dangerous act that contributes to that death, and that act must subsequently be deemed unlawful

By standing her ground, and gesticulating at the cyclist to keep clear of her, the pedestrian was doing nothing unlawful.  The cyclist had no right to expect the pedestrian to get out of her way, any more than any pedestrian has a right to expect another pedestrian to get out of their way.  If as a pedestrian I find my way blocked by someone standing in the middle of the pavement waving their arms about, it is my responsibility to safely get around.  I have no right to just barge past.  Likewise it was the responsibility of the cyclist to safely make her way around the gesticulating pedestrian, which she failed to do.  Instead she carried on cycling toward the pedestrian.  I would argue that the cyclist's death was caused by her callously attempting to barge past a pedestrian who was clearly uncomfortable with her doing so.

Whether or not the cyclist was acting illegally is immaterial.  The callous actions of the pedestrian after the accident are also immaterial.  That the pedestrian's actions contributed to the cyclist's death is also immaterial.  The important point is that the pedestrian did nothing unlawful.  Finally sense and justice has prevailed.

[PilotMan]

The law is a complex matter, it is often interpreted by a "learned" person one way, and another "learned" person in a completely different way, both of whom have the power to decide your fate.

You would hope common sense prevails, but common sense often has bias, including the judiciary.

[petermisc]

You would hope common sense prevails, but common sense often has bias, including the judiciary.

Agreed.  I am drawn to the same conclusion as Tim S that it does look like the trial judge was biased against the pedestrian.  One of the judge's main roles is to interpret the law for the jury, and it looks like he singularly failed in this case.

I think the judge had it on for her throughout and may well have been the difference between the first and second  trials - pulling a shared pathway from thin and finally refusing bail pending an appeal.
He also contradicted himself in his sentencing notes saying
The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side.
and 2 paragraphs later
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

So did she stop before or not ?

[jackdaw]

So she was initially refused leave to appeal the sentence, as the judges decided that the sentence was justified.  However, at that point she was only appealing the sentence, not the guilty verdict.  This appeal however has determined that she wasn't guilty in the first place.  It does look like the trial judge didn't correctly direct the jury.  It all appears to hinge on what Doc posted: 
By standing her ground, and gesticulating at the cyclist to keep clear of her, the pedestrian was doing nothing unlawful.  The cyclist had no right to expect the pedestrian to get out of her way, any more than any pedestrian has a right to expect another pedestrian to get out of their way.  If as a pedestrian I find my way blocked by someone standing in the middle of the pavement waving their arms about, it is my responsibility to safely get around.  I have no right to just barge past.  Likewise it was the responsibility of the cyclist to safely make her way around the gesticulating pedestrian, which she failed to do.  Instead she carried on cycling toward the pedestrian.  I would argue that the cyclist's death was caused by her callously attempting to barge past a pedestrian who was clearly uncomfortable with her doing so.

Whether or not the cyclist was acting illegally is immaterial.  The callous actions of the pedestrian after the accident are also immaterial.  That the pedestrian's actions contributed to the cyclist's death is also immaterial.  The important point is that the pedestrian did nothing unlawful.  Finally sense and justice has prevailed.

There’s also the common sense view (I think, sure some cyclists will disagree) that if a cyclist is using the pavement then they need to exercise great care when getting anywhere near a pedestrian, there’s an onus on the cyclist to be very sure there’s a safe way past.

If in doubt, there’s a case for cyclist dismounting if space looks especially tight. Though seeing that done is as rare as sighting a full solar eclipse.

[pbrown355]

Cyclist, motorist and pedestrian here. The cyclist was in the wrong. The poor pedestrian did nothing wrong imho.
Every time a cyclist does something selfish, dangerous to others or plain illegal it antagonises others and makes cycling more dangerous for the rest of us cyclists.
Finally the correct end to a sad tale for all involved.

[cunningman]

Likewise it was the responsibility of the cyclist to safely make her way around the gesticulating pedestrian, which she failed to do.  Instead she carried on cycling toward the pedestrian.  I would argue that the cyclist's death was caused by her callously attempting to barge past a pedestrian who was clearly uncomfortable with her doing so.

Whether or not the cyclist was acting illegally is immaterial.  The callous actions of the pedestrian after the accident are also immaterial.  That the pedestrian's actions contributed to the cyclist's death is also immaterial.  The important point is that the pedestrian did nothing unlawful.  Finally sense and justice has prevailed.

Is it really not the case that the cyclist's actions are irrelevant?
I was brought up to believe that cyclists have no right to cycle on pavements in the first place.  Has that changed?
Marked cycle lanes, or the road.

[radioman33]

No unlawful act was committed.

[cunningman]

No unlawful act was committed.

By whom?

Admittedly I did not search exhaustively but: External Link/Members Only suggests that the cyclist was acting unlawfully.

[radioman33]

The woman banged up in prison,did nothing wrong

[Jonestown]

Is it really not the case that the cyclist's actions are irrelevant?
I was brought up to believe that cyclists have no right to cycle on pavements in the first place.  Has that changed?
Marked cycle lanes, or the road.

There was some uncertainty whether it was a pavement or a shared pedestrian / cycle track, there was discussion on here about the signage , however the judge seemed to make an arbitrary decision that it was the latter. In the event it did not matter, as others have said, no offence was committed by the pedestrian.

[timsussex]

I suppose it is an example of where the law and the public take different views
I remember the public outcry when Tony Martin shot 2 men breaking into his house, his murder conviction was eventually reduced to manslaughter and he served 3 years. Most law-abiding citizens thought he should have got a medal.

[Doc Holliday]

I suppose it is an example of where the law and the public take different views

The public (and those contributing to this thread) was split over this, and heavily influenced in part because of their views of cyclists generally and in particular them being on a pavement.

In the end and with regard to the law, it all hinged on defining the illegal act and the CPS made a 'technical' hash of this and which the judge did not pick up on and should have done.

The CPS wished to take this to retrial to rectify their mistake but this was denied. Rightly so.

External Link/Members Only