Same here, but being a bit of a menace isn't a crime. The conviction was overturned on a technicality - the Judges agreed that the actions carried out did not satisfy the base criteria for the crime. It isn't a Judgement on Auriol Grey or on the victim. It's a legal Judgement. They also refused leave to appeal, presumably because they cannot see any prospect of her being convicted on any other charge.
Woman convicted of manslaughter after swearing and gesturing at 77 year old cyclist.
- Thread starter Cycleops
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Time Waster
Veteran
Not semantics. In the ASD cases I personally know you could find out if they knew right or wrong. You could find that out really easily when not in meltdown situation. However that doesn't stop meltdowns or the issues of such an event. They are both good people, who do not mean harm and do know right vs wrong.
in this case I very much doubt she's not had issues or meltdowns before. Does not necessarily mean she's a bad person but she could be. I think it's wrong to conflate issues of thing like ASD with being a bad person. Is there any evidence to prove she's a bad person? I simply do not know enough about her or this case to say for certain.
Facts needed not emotive condemnation.
in this case I very much doubt she's not had issues or meltdowns before. Does not necessarily mean she's a bad person but she could be. I think it's wrong to conflate issues of thing like ASD with being a bad person. Is there any evidence to prove she's a bad person? I simply do not know enough about her or this case to say for certain.
Facts needed not emotive condemnation.
OP
OP
Cycleops
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
Do good people push others into a busy road which results in their death?
The Cycling Lawyer
Regular
When I first read about the case (when she was initially convicted) I did have mixed feeling about whether conviction for manslaughter was the right decision.
I finally came to the conclusion that, although slightly unfortunate and unforeseeable for the Defendant, the court must have found that Ms Gray's act of shouting and waving her arms must have amount to some level of assault.
(Bare in mind assault doesn't necessarily have to occasion any physical touch, just that a person is put in immediate fear of danger - the CCTV does not actually show whether there was physical contact or not - and if not, would waving your arms and pointing amount to such a wholly "dangerous"/unlawful act worthy of a conviction for manslaughter? )
Then I heard about the conviction being quashed yesterday, and it seems that the principle error here was in the gross assumption that the Defendant did assault her without properly examining the evidence.
You must understand that to be convicted of dangerous/unlawful act manslaughter, there should be a proper examination into whether the
principle offence has been committed (in this case, the underpinning offence would be to prove there was an assault first).
It was observed that had the cyclist not have been hit by the car and lived, then the cyclist herself would probably not have reported the incident as an assault.
I actually think, given this fundamental lack of examination of this particular element of the case, that quashing the conviction was the right outcome.
I finally came to the conclusion that, although slightly unfortunate and unforeseeable for the Defendant, the court must have found that Ms Gray's act of shouting and waving her arms must have amount to some level of assault.
(Bare in mind assault doesn't necessarily have to occasion any physical touch, just that a person is put in immediate fear of danger - the CCTV does not actually show whether there was physical contact or not - and if not, would waving your arms and pointing amount to such a wholly "dangerous"/unlawful act worthy of a conviction for manslaughter? )
Then I heard about the conviction being quashed yesterday, and it seems that the principle error here was in the gross assumption that the Defendant did assault her without properly examining the evidence.
You must understand that to be convicted of dangerous/unlawful act manslaughter, there should be a proper examination into whether the
principle offence has been committed (in this case, the underpinning offence would be to prove there was an assault first).
It was observed that had the cyclist not have been hit by the car and lived, then the cyclist herself would probably not have reported the incident as an assault.
I actually think, given this fundamental lack of examination of this particular element of the case, that quashing the conviction was the right outcome.
Last edited:
The Cycling Lawyer
Regular
No. But you are assuming she was pushed when the evidence doesn't actually show that.
Trust me - if it happened to you, and we all took your approach, you would be crying and begging the court to accept your innocence whilst everyone around you just made "assumptions" about what you did.
The one issue which her defence and family have both flogged to death is her vulnerability and care needs. The perverse in all this is that when in prison she was surrounded by both prison officers and health care staff. Who's job it is to keep people safe so for the 1st ever time in her life. She was getting the care and help she clearly needs. Which if reports are right she has herself in the past refused to engage with.
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
How do you view the supported living facility she lived in, and the considerable sums (all her money until it ran out) her mother is reported to have spent on helping her daughter?
A witness in open court said he believed she made contact with Mrs Ward. Not all the CCTV has been released to the public the police said that at the time.
Putting to one side the legal technically which is what it is. It's worth remembering that not only do we have the loss of Mrs Ward. The loss to the victims family. We have a driver who we know from reports of court hearing. Is now a broken women mentally. Her marriage has now broken because of all this. Not forgetting her young daughter who was in car at the time is having to deal with all this. Together with her parents not being the same people as before. Which in some way illegal or not is down to the action of Gray.
Reports inc Video of her police interview show Gray's all the way though this has not been one of showing any feelings about all this. It can be said was not very cooperative with the investigation. I stand by my other posts she is clearly not a nice women and i doubt she learned anything from all this.
Last edited:
presta
Guru
Do you know why they opted for this rather than negligence manslaughter?
T4tomo
Legendary Member
Yes, because NL is for things where you have a duty of care to some one else and fail in that duty - such in health and safety duties which cause someones death. For example, locking a pub fire exit which causes someone die in a fire.
My understanding is it's a basic warden on call traditional sheltered housing type. Not like a supported living set up with help for day to day living short of care needs. Ran by a trust it was reported at the time that she was at risk being kicked out when she got sent down.
She clearly has capacity and can support herself in day to day living. Remember on the day having seen all this happen she carried on walking to Sainsbury's.
So as long as her care needs are met and she's not requiring more intense social care. She's not likely to be in breach of her tenancy.
If she won't engage with social services then she on her own without any other help. She clearly is vulnerable and has needs but having capacity she has a right to say no to help. I have a feeling they will one way or another find a way to move her out given the publicity around all this.
It looks like her mother kept an eye on her and made sure she was ok. I understand she has died and that when she moved into housing Maybe now her other family which quickly came out the wood work will take on the role of her mother. As for the money if she's lost the lot then it maybe said that her legal team. Was not all that great in the first place as she clearly had on open goal of a defence. Some one some where has been directing them and been happy to pay the bills. Who that is who know's.
numbnuts
Legendary Member
- Location
- Gone over the hill and far away
In the video waving at said cyclist, but just before the video ends look at her feet and movement of body, she turns and pushes.....
Well she had to live with that for the rest of her life, unlike the cyclist
Well she had to live with that for the rest of her life, unlike the cyclist
Time Waster
Veteran
Possibly depends on potentially many things I guess. It is one reason diminished responsibility is a thing in a court of law. Of course decision on that is often court based not strictly medical or psychiatry based decisions. Doesn't always get that right.
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
The Prosecution accepted that there was insufficient evidence for the Jury to be sure contact was made.
Time Waster
Veteran
I like the way someone dismissed something as being a legal technicality. Isn't that what all matters of law is, a legal technicality? as in often depending on the finer details of the law?
There is something wrong imho about the dismissive comment like "just a legal technicality!". I am certain if you ever get to become a defendant in a court of law you will be glad of the legal technicalities, but it is ok to dismiss them now that you are not in that position. It is all just legal process and I for one am glad we have it!
There is something wrong imho about the dismissive comment like "just a legal technicality!". I am certain if you ever get to become a defendant in a court of law you will be glad of the legal technicalities, but it is ok to dismiss them now that you are not in that position. It is all just legal process and I for one am glad we have it!
