Auriol Gray Appeal Rejected

Many of you will remember the case where Auriol Gray was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 3 yrs in custody for pushing an elderly cyclist off the pavement (the original thread is locked).  She lodged an appeal.  It failed today at the first hurdle.  Essentially in order for an appeal to proceed you first have to convince some judges that there is even a discussion worth having.  In this case whether the 3 yr jail sentence (not suspended) was excessive.

today three judges at the appeal court decided that the sentence was not arguably excessive and so the appeal will not proceed.  Why do I think this is significant enough to reopen an old topic? Because many people were surprised the sentence was as tough as it was – we seem to have become conditioned into accepting cyclists lives are not valued by the courts.  Today this wasn’t one judge taking a stand, it was three of the most senior judges in the country saying that his position wasn’t even close to being wrong.

👍👍👍

That case was a tragedy all round, but this penalty for killing a cyclist needs to be trumpeted so all the dickhead drivers can see it.

That case was a tragedy all round, but this penalty for killing a cyclist needs to be trumpeted so all the dickhead drivers can see it.

Indeed.

Very sad case, and I can’t help feel that the anti-cyclist rhetoric propagated by sections of the right-wing media probably contributed to it.

No winners here, but the correct decision has been reached. As mentioned above, the sentence needs to be more publicised.

It looks like her conviction has been overturned on appeal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335

“In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury.”

Oh FFS!

So because gesticulating isn’t illegal then forcing someone off a footpath into the path of a car isn’t illegal either???

Bonkers.

Personally, I think it is the right decision – she didn’t force the poor old lady into the road (as in she didn’t physically push her), she just stood there waving her arms and the lady appeared to have swerved off the pavement.

Unfortunatelly, there have been no winners here 🙁

she didn’t force the poor old lady into the road (as in she didn’t physically push her)

it’s not as simple as that though is it? You don’t have to physically touch someone to commit the crime of “common assault” in the UK – leading them to think that you’re going to do so, is enough. Standing in the way of a cyclist, swearing and waving your arms about, certainly I can see why the victim may have thought they were going to get pushed off, and reacted by swerving out of the way. Ergo they were forced.

*it’s not as simple as that though is it? *
Clearly not, given what happened today.

@johndoh I agree.

 (as in she didn’t physically push her)

But the footage didn’t show if she shoved her or not, that was out of shot. So they could only go on her denial. However, we know she was a liar as in the police interview she denied shouting at her, until they showed her the CCTV with audio, which showed her shouting and swearing.

I understand why the appeal has been successful but it doesn’t seem fair on the victim. She would still be alive if it was not for the actions of the defendant.

Personally, I think it is the right decision – she didn’t force the poor old lady into the road (as in she didn’t physically push her), she just stood there waving her arms and the lady appeared to have swerved off the pavement.

Unfortunatelly, there have been no winners here 🙁

The kind of measured, sensible response that is often a rarity on STW.

franksinatra +1 The video on the BBC doesn’t show that she doesn’t touch the cyclist. To me it actually looks a bt like she might have, or at least moved in a way that looked like she was going to.

Sad all round, and I get that vunerable people need protecting but her actions caused an avoidable death. IMO she shouldn’t get off scot free.

johndoh

Free Member
Personally, I think it is the right decision – she didn’t force the poor old lady into the road (as in she didn’t physically push her), she just stood there waving her arms and the lady appeared to have swerved off the pavement.

Unfortunatelly, there have been no winners here 🙁

I disagree with that. Auriol at the very least gestured at (and to me it look like she stepped towards) the cyclist, resulting in her either being startled or taking avoiding action and as a result falling into the road and ultimately dying.

Take away that it’s a car and a bike from the situation, let’s say it’s some tree surgeons working with machinery. One of the lads does a pretend push to another, resulting in them falling onto a chainsaw, getting injured and dying, is that okay? I don’t think so.

And i really take umbrage to the football fan analogy the KC made, as if a football fan making a **** sign to somebody sitting 100m away is remotely similar to this case.

Take away that it’s a car and a bike from the situation, let’s say it’s some tree surgeons working with machinery. One of the lads does a pretend push to another, resulting in them falling onto a chainsaw, getting injured and dying, is that okay? I don’t think so.

It’s not ok, but I’m not sure it would meet the threshold for being a crime either?

The other often forgotten fact in this case was that they were not on a pavement, it was a shared use path and the cyclist had every right to be there. Green left the scene before without waiting for police or ambulance.

I’m no crash investigator but I don’t buy the idea that the victim swerved. She was alongside Green at the point of turning sharply into traffic. It looks to me much more like she was pushed as a swerve would have happened sooner.

**Take away that it’s a car and a bike from the situation, let’s say it’s some tree surgeons working with machinery. One of the lads does a pretend push to another, resulting in them falling onto a chainsaw, getting injured and dying, is that okay? I don’t think so.**

But I would say that, if you are working with chainsaws and messing around, you should be very well aware of the risks (and should have undertaken health and safety training) so there should be a degree of culpability. But in this instance, there was a lady (with learning disabilities) walking on a pavement getting cross with a cyclist that they didn’t believe should have been there (we now know it was a shared cycleway, but apparently it isn’t very well marked). As I have said, the outcome for all concerned has been awful and I am not trying to come across as anti-cyclist or anything, but the original three-year prison sentence felt way over the top from how I have interpreted what I have seen in the footage.

 It looks to me much more like she was pushed

That’s not “beyond reasonable doubt” though is it?

It’s not ok, but I’m not sure it would meet the threshold for being a crime either?

if the action taken is dangerous (hard to argue that larking about at work in front of a chainsaw isn’t!) and results in a death then it is indeed a crime (involuntary manslaughter).

As I have said, the outcome for all concerned has been awful and I am not trying to come across as anti-cyclist or anything, but the original three-year prison sentence felt way over the top from how I have interpreted what I have seen in the footage.

Neither am I. I commute every day and have suffered more than a few dickhead drivers. However there are a significant proportion on here who seem to think that the solution to cyclist safety is to throw more people in prison, and I’m not sure that they’re correct.

A large part of the problem is that fewer and fewer people cycle, and so lack empathy of what it feels like to be a cyclist. The reason that fewer people cycle is because of a lack of effective infrastructure, which is actually easily and cheaply sorted, although would take some time. Get more people cycling and you’ll get drivers treating them better.

if the action taken is dangerous (hard to argue that larking about at work in front of a chainsaw isn’t!) and results in a death then it is indeed a crime (involuntary manslaughter).

I’m not sure it’s that black and white.

I’m pretty sure (beyond all reasonable doubt) contact was made.

If you watch the front wheel of the lady who died, its turned hard right as she’s falling to the right – turning the bars right would make you fall to the left. Some force must have been applied to her to make her fall in that direction faster than could be counteracted by her steering, and the two options would be steering hard left (moving her centre of gravity to the right of the wheels) just before falling over, or some force being applied to the cyclist/bike higher up.

Her wheel was straight directly before steering hard right, so an outside force is a simple demonstration of physics
A really really strong gust of wind is possible (but seems unlikely given it wasn’t super windy), otherwise its the shouty woman, surely?

You can’t just fall sideways off a bike when the wheels are straight, there needs to be a force in play.

I think its the evasion, lack of remorse and lying that makes her an unsympathetic character, and makes it perhaps easier to want to see her get punished. Even those folks are entitled to a fair trail, and if she didn’t get one, then its unsafe.

The appeal court are only interested in “the law” and the proper execution of the court process not “what seems right”.  Even if you believe that she intentionally meant some harm or alarm to the victim, and so believe there was the basis for an assault charge, the Crown have a duty to properly define their charges and lead evidence in support of all the key parts of the charge.   You may not agree with the appeal judges assessment that thousands of people gesticulate every weekend so that in itself is not enough to establish a crime or that had it not resulted in a fatality it would never have resulted in a prosecution but I think we can hopefully all agree that if the state wants to prosecute people it should have its ducks in a row and when they fail to do that, it is inevitable that people should walk free.

I’m not sure it’s that black and white.

of course it isn’t, that’s why we have courts with a prosecution & defence, and appeals etc. The only way to know for certain is to have it tried in court. Give it a go and get back to us? 😂

It sounds from reading that article that the reason for the successful appeal is largely a technicality. Unlawful Act Manslaughter (also known as “constructive” manslaughter) requires a base offence (i.e. a crime) that is an intentional act that reasonable people would realise puts the victim at the risk of harm.

The court at least seems agreed on the fact that the defendant was “gesticulating” and no more.

But, it looks like a moot point anyway because the appeal was successful on the basis that no “Base Offence” was ever identified and put to the jury in the first place. With no Base Offence, there can be no Unlawful Act Manslaughter. So, even if the Base Offence was Battery (unwanted touching) or Assault (putting someone in fear of battery/ABH or an unlawful force) it was never identified at the trial- seemingly an oversight.

Hard to tell from the brief article but seems like that’s the reason. From a fundamental justice point of view this seems a shame all round as if the above assumption is correct than neither the Defendant or the Victim (or the public) have really had the question of if someone is blameworthy actually settled as it should have been.

Personally, I think it is the right decision – she didn’t force the poor old lady into the road (as in she didn’t physically push her), she just stood there waving her arms and the lady appeared to have swerved off the pavement.

Unfortunately, there have been no winners here 🙁

If she didn’t force her into traffic what happened exactly?
A sudden and overwhelming suicidal urge? FFS…

She bloody shoved her, we all know she did, she knows she did, but it was just out of frame so the obvious lie sticks, sadly the only person who could clarify the truth died.

IIRC didn’t She also piss off to go do some shopping immediately after pushing an old lady into traffic rather than stay to give her account.

I think the “winners” here are all the callous pricks that like to devalue your life just for daring to use bicycle in public. Yet again an unthinking, aggressive act that directly led to a death has essentially been treated as unimportant at least in part because the victim was on a bike (IMO anyway)…

She bloody shoved her, we all know she did, she knows she did, but it was just out of frame so the obvious lie sticks, sadly the only person who could clarify the truth died.

IIRC didn’t She also piss off to go do some shopping immediately after pushing an old lady into traffic rather than stay to give her account.

Do we? I think it’s quite likely she did a bad emergency stop and lost her balance off the pavement when a sweary arm wavy shouty person blocked her path. I’m not sure it makes any difference however – I’m not sure a shove makes the act any worse.

Yes, apparently she did leave the scene. In no way does it it make the death any less tragic but Auriol Gray is very far from a well woman. We are talking very significant levels of learning difficulty. This was not a ‘callous prick’. An ‘unthinking’ act might be exactly what is was, but not in the way you are intimating – more ‘lack of ability to think about consequences because of a medical condition’ than ‘malicious thought of someone capable of knowing better’.

I’m going out on a limb here – this poor lady’s death was an unintended consequence of care in the community. As a society at large it is ‘probably’ the best thing for a huge swathe of people like Auriol Gray but every now and again an individual in society pays quite the price for someone who in another life would have been incarcerated having the freedom to make bad decisions they don’t have the capacity to know better than make.

Do we? I think it’s quite likely she did a bad emergency stop and lost her balance off the pavement when a sweary arm wavy shouty person blocked her path. I’m not sure it makes any difference however – I’m not sure a shove makes the act any worse.

Contact for sure. If you were going to stop it would be in front of the obstruction, not as you were halfway past.

Bonkers appeal decision IMO.

There’s absolutely no reason for the cyclist to violently lean towards the road and steer towards the road, while alongside Gray, as shown in the video on BBC article. Nothing was ahead of the cyclist on the shared pathway to cause such a violent change of direction.

It’s a shame the poor driver that hit the cyclist doesn’t appear to have seen Gray shoving the cyclist onto the road. It’s an awful shame the video camera was not centred slightly further to the right, to clearly show definite contact of Gray with the cyclist.

A large part of the problem is that fewer and fewer people cycle,

That doesn’t seem to actually be the case: https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics

Get more people cycling and you’ll get drivers treating them better.

But this case wasn’t a “driver” it was a pedestrian, on shared infrastructure.  Get more people cycling and, rare as these serious issues are, you will get more conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists (whether those are caused by irrational pedestrians or unreasonable cyclists).

That doesn’t seem to actually be the case: https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics

Numbers seem pretty flat to me, and certainly within the likely and not quoted margins of error.

But anyway I was talking in comparison to 30-40 years ago when all my friends were out on bikes as a form of transport, which I don’t think happens much for children anymore?

Do we? I think it’s quite likely she did a bad emergency stop and lost her balance off the pavement when a sweary arm wavy shouty person blocked her path. I’m not sure it makes any difference however – I’m not sure a shove makes the act any worse.

Her appeal was based on semantics, flowery description of her actions as “hostile gesticulation” basically gave them grounds to challenge there being base offence of assault.

People keep stating “she didn’t push her” as if it’s a proven fact, the reality is that her appeal relied on a lack of conclusive proof that she pushed her, Absence of proof is not the same as proving something didn’t take place.

I accept that the appeal is granted on the basis of what cannot be proved with the available evidence, rather than the balance of (rather obvious) probability, but it’s still not a good outcome

Numbers seem pretty flat to me, and certainly within the likely and not quoted margins of error.

The mile cycled (p8 of the report – which is official gov data) show a 150-200% increase since 1993 (30 years ago) depending on where it settles out again after the covid spike.  Cycling in London trippled in the last 20 years (p10).  If you go back much further then there was a decline.

But anyway I was talking in comparison to 30-40 years ago when all my friends were out on bikes as a form of transport, which I don’t think happens much for children anymore?

I’m not sure that perception is right either… but your claim was fewer people cycling (not just flat but fewer) and therefore fewer drivers with empathy which doesn’t make sense if the people doing the riding 30 years ago were kids.