Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

Not in that video, no. She's waving her arm seemingly pointing at the road several times before the cyclist gets near. She's not waving it so as to threaten the rider.

She's saying "get off the fucking pavement" and pointing at the road.

The video doesn't show that moment particularly clearly... I can't tell you the exact arguments either party brought up, nor do I have time to review the case law. At the moment securing a unanimous jury verdict is... at least a reasonable indication that the evidence was there. We may get more info on appeal, but until that point, it is what it is.
 
The video doesn't show that moment particularly clearly... I can't tell you the exact arguments either party brought up, nor do I have time to review the case law. At the moment securing a unanimous jury verdict is... at least a reasonable indication that the evidence was there. We may get more info on appeal, but until that point, it is what it is.

'It is what it is', indeed. A mistake that should be rectified on appeal.

This was an accident with awful consequences. To jail a significantly disabled woman who had no intention of hurting the rider, and cause her to lose her home and all her possessions (an almost certain consequence of her imprisonment, according to her lawyer) is compounding the tragedy.
 
'It is what it is', indeed. A mistake that should be rectified on appeal.

This was an accident with awful consequences. To jail a significantly disabled woman who had no intention of hurting the rider, and cause her to lose her home and all her possessions (an almost certain consequence of her imprisonment, according to her lawyer) is compounding the tragedy.
It is what it is...you don't get to appeal a verdict you don't like in the UK. You can't appeal findings of fact. Grounds for appeal are where new evidence comes to light or errors of law, for example if the judge mis-directed a jury. You are not in America.
 
'It is what it is', indeed. A mistake that should be rectified on appeal.

This was an accident with awful consequences. To jail a disabled woman who had no intention of hurting the rider, and cause her to lose her home and all her possessions (an almost certain consequence of her imprisonment, according to her lawyer) is compounding the tragedy.

I mean we can completely agree on the consequences of the carceral state, I'm just saying that the elements of the offence are probably there (to the extent that a jury was 'satisfied so that they are sure').
 
It is what it is...you don't get to appeal a verdict you don't like in the UK. You can't appeal findings of fact. Grounds for appeal are where new evidence comes to light or errors of law, for example if the judge mis-directed a jury. You are not in America.

Yeah true, an appeal would have to be on sentencing factors, or if the conviction were unsafe (which is unlikely here; it's stuff like jury misdirects, wrongfully adduced evidence etc).

<yes, i have noticed I literally repeated pseud's post, oops :D>
 
Last edited:
I mean we can completely agree on the consequences of the carceral state, I'm just that the elements of the offence are probably there (to the extent that a jury was 'satisfied so that they are sure').

I'm loathe to say that the jury has made a mistake without seeing the full evidence, but if the extent of the evidence is what we've been presented here and in the media, I think it's the wrong decision.
 
It is what it is...you don't get to appeal a verdict you don't like in the UK. You can't appeal findings of fact. Grounds for appeal are where new evidence comes to light or errors of law, for example if the judge mis-directed a jury. You are not in America.

The appeal has already been submitted, so Gray's lawyers clearly believe there are grounds.
 
Last edited:
They have now officially lodged an appeal against the jail sentence.
I did think it was excessive and believe it will be overturned.

Shared Path: I was amazed to read that both council officials and police could not establish that this was
a shared cycle - way or not!
So it was not clearly signed as such - one would assume?

It didn't help that Ms Grey left the scene before emergency services arrived to go shopping.
This seemed heartless unless one takes in to account of her mental and physical issues.

Anyway - much sympathy to the family of Celia Ward.
 
'It is what it is', indeed. A mistake that should be rectified on appeal.

This was an accident with awful consequences. To jail a significantly disabled woman who had no intention of hurting the rider, and cause her to lose her home and all her possessions (an almost certain consequence of her imprisonment, according to her lawyer) is compounding the tragedy.
This is very often the consequence of jailing people. Very generally, far too many people are sent to prison for a variety of crimes and misdemeanours where doing so serves nobody's interests - not theirs, not society's. This seems very clearly to be one of those cases. What exactly is jailing her supposed to achieve?
 
Retribution is the only box it ticks, and given the vehemance with which retributive justice is usually repudiated on these boards, it's strange that this is getting any support here at all ..... other than the fact that the victim rode a bike.
It does seem surprising it wasn't a suspended sentence, and surely that would have been the default. The judge's sentencing remarks seem to indicate he was satisfied she know exactly what she was doing and the possible outcome, and that her disability was no mitigation...ie, presumably she would have done the same to a 5 year old.
 
As a driver, if I saw a cyclist (or indeed a pedestrian) wobbling on the edge of the pavement and I was coming up to them I'd slow down. Kinda wonder why the driver didn't notice the situation unfolding and wasn't able to take appropriate action. Drivers need to be aware of things that could happen.
 
It'll get fucked off on appeal. The pedestrian is a nasty piece of work but it's (eta: prima facie) still a ridiculous verdict.
 
I think jail time is appropriate in this case, but not three years. Three months would be more like it.
What for? What is achieved by sending people to prison for short periods like that, other than fucking their lives up - losing them their homes, jobs, etc?

Any short prison sentence can be substituted with community service, and they all should be.
 
What for? What is achieved by sending people to prison for short periods like that, other than fucking their lives up - losing them their homes, jobs, etc?

Any short prison sentence can be substituted with community service, and they all should be.
Community service is appropriate for certain crimes, but surely causing a death should warrant a prison term.
 
Retribution is the only box it ticks, and given the vehemance with which retributive justice is usually repudiated on these boards, it's strange that this is getting any support here at all ..... other than the fact that the victim rode a bike.

I think prison is entirely the wrong place for her, though I think that for many offences. Nor should this situation have occurred in the first place; whether via proper care or proper cycle paths. We can go off down a rabbit hole on that one. A number of rabbit holes. But, within the axioms of the criminal justice system (which I'm pretty sure you're broadly supportive of), this... makes sense I guess? It just also reveals some of the horribly contradictory and unfair ways in which law has developed, how crimes are prosecuted and the inadequacy of government in addressing that. That said the judge's certainty on e.g the MH factors etc may be open to question, we'll see.
 
It often doesn't for people who cause death by careless or inconsiderate driving.
And I don't think it should for them either, for much the the same reasons. Wrt driving, the lengths of driving bans are the main thing I take issue with. A driving licence is a privilege not a right, and repeat offences should lead to lifetime bans imo.
 
As a driver, if I saw a cyclist (or indeed a pedestrian) wobbling on the edge of the pavement and I was coming up to them I'd slow down. Kinda wonder why the driver didn't notice the situation unfolding and wasn't able to take appropriate action. Drivers need to be aware of things that could happen.


Murder by car is legal on the UK.
 
Is the full verdict not available somewhere? The original article suggested the length of the sentence was primarily caused by her behaviour after the incident.
 
What for? What is achieved by sending people to prison for short periods like that, other than fucking their lives up - losing them their homes, jobs, etc?

Any short prison sentence can be substituted with community service, and they all should be.

If it's right that she hasn't shown remorse then I would say that jail is right because she is still a danger to other people, she hasn't shown that she understands her actions were wrong and there's no reason to think that she wouldn't repeat them if able to.
For me, that's the purpose of jail, to keep people who are a danger to others away from others.

On a wider note I'm not unhappy to see this sentence because it might make other people think twice about abusing cyclists they think are riding illegally. I don't really hold much to the idea of prison sentences are deterrents but the sentence has made this national news / discussion which is more likely to have an effect.
 
They have now officially lodged an appeal against the jail sentence.
I did think it was excessive and believe it will be overturned.

Shared Path: I was amazed to read that both council officials and police could not establish that this was
a shared cycle - way or not!
So it was not clearly signed as such - one would assume?


It didn't help that Ms Grey left the scene before emergency services arrived to go shopping.
This seemed heartless unless one takes in to account of her mental and physical issues.

Anyway - much sympathy to the family of Celia Ward.

I think I remember reading that there is some signage for a shared path from the direction the cyclist was coming, there's no end of cycle path sign, and there's no signage from the direction the pedestrian was coming.
So there is a shared pavement but as far as the council are concerned it ends before the point the incident happened, except there's no signage to tell anyone it has ended - which is not unusual ime - and explains why there's no TRO making this section shared.
The judge/court decided it remains a shared pavement in the absence of signage ending the shared pavement.

I'm not 100% on that though but that's what I remember reading about this specific question.
 
Is the full verdict not available somewhere? The original article suggested the length of the sentence was primarily caused by her behaviour after the incident.

I posted upthread, Joshua Rozenberg requested them and they're on his substack.

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.

I have been referred to the guidelines on unlawful act manslaughter issued by the Sentencing Council and have heard submissions from both parties.

In terms of the guidance, looking at these matters in the round, culpability C is made out, but towards the lower end of the scale.

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.

I reject the submission that this is best framed in terms of category D for reasons I have indicated.

Aggravating factors​

The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.

The effect on Mrs Carla Money (in so far as her first statement extends). 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.
 
Should be noted that 3 years is the lowest sentence for category C unlawful act manslaughter... Honestly this opens up a range of discussions on how crimes are categorised, prosecuted, sentenced. And the nature of the criminal justice system. And its funding, both for defence and prosecution. Oh, and inadequacy of government in fixing this stuff via legislation. Huge amount to unpack there, and personally don't have the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom