After the verdict, Det Sgt Dollard said: "This is a difficult and tragic case.
"Everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements and cycleways but what is clear is Auriol Grey's response to the presence of Celia on a pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be unlawful, resulting in Celia's untimely and needless death.
"I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all road users to take care and be considerate to each other.
"I want to take the time to acknowledge Celia's family and thank them for their patience and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial."
Gosh! A woman is convicted of manslaughter because a cyclist fell in front of a car. Was she pushed?
Prosecutor Simon Spence KC said Grey shouted at Mrs Ward and "gestured in a hostile and aggressive way towards" her, causing her to fall off the bike and into the road where she was hit by an oncoming car.
Oh....well, maybe she's a nutter who goes around targeting innocent cyclists in the hope that this will happen?
In police interview, Grey, who has cerebral palsy, told officers she was partially sighted and described the pedal cycle as travelling "fast" in the centre of the pavement. She stated she was "anxious that I was going to get hit by it", adding she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself.
Oh...well, maybe it was her that was in the wrong and the cyclist was on a cycle path?
The court was told police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.
Sometimes, British justice leaves me shaking my head in amazement. This is one such time.
8 comments:
77 year old cyclist? Blimey, bet she was wobbly. Surprised that Covid and Brexit weren't aggravating factors in her premature death, given how stupid judges are these days, or that the car driver wasn't at fault in some way.
It looks like the cyclist was pushed under the wheels of a car after the pedestrian moved across the path to block the way. Whether the cyclist was permitted to use the path or not isn't clear, but that doesn't mean that some nasty bastard can kill them.
So a cyclist was (illegally) riding on a narrow pavement (let's be honest, if it was even vaguely possible to claim it was a cycle-path they would have done so), so 'out of control' she can neither slow or stop safely and falls into the path of a car, and ... the legal pedestrian is a murderer because she didn't automatically jump out of the way, bow and allow her betters to pass. Right?
My first thought was ... who was the cyclist related to? There's always (now) some 'personal' aspect that is left unrevealed when the (now usual) injustice is practised in front of us.
[Checking indicates that they were, at the least, well-connected and well-to-do, unlike the 'murderer', and that's all that counts, well other than being diverse of course. Probably in the same 'lodge' and golf-club as the prosecutor, judge and chief constable. It makes you proud of 'impartial' British 'justice' doesn't it?].
"The court was told police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway."
Why not? Everywhere that I have cycled they are pretty clearly marked. How is it possible for them not to know this?
addendum
At first I wondered why her solicitor didn't raise these issues, the narrow width of the footpath (allowing her only the other option of herself jumping in front of a car to escape being run over), the obvious speed and lack of control of the cyclist, the fact it patently isn't a cycle-path, etc.
Then I realised that just like the prosecutor, judge and police, he/she was probably a 'member of the club' too.
'This' is why they are so enamoured of trial without juries.
Deep and abiding love for the British cyclist … in lycra. 😁
""The court was told police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway."
Why not? Everywhere that I have cycled they are pretty clearly marked. How is it possible for them not to know this?"
I think this falls under the 'If they won't say one way or another then it definitely wasn't' rule. Rather like Men of No Appearance.
We know that if it had been a legit cycle path then that fact would have been broadcast load and clear. The police are doing one of their 'We don't want to admit something that would aid the defence, so we'll just pretend we don't know' acts. More to the point why didn't the defence do a bit of research of their own on the status of the path at the location in question?
"77 year old cyclist? Blimey, bet she was wobbly. "
If a gesture caused her to swerve, yes!
"It looks like the cyclist was pushed under the wheels of a car..."
It doesn't. If that had happened, it would have been a factor in the case. The crown has been very careful not to allege this.
"My first thought was ... who was the cyclist related to? "
Well, indeed!
"Why not?"
Why not indeed? Even the council couldn't state one way or the other!
"I think this falls under the 'If they won't say one way or another then it definitely wasn't' rule. Rather like Men of No Appearance."
Oh yes, indeed!
Post a Comment