To think this woman should not be put in prison?

[Nooyoiknooyoik]

Bizarre and very unfair Link

I am personally of the belief that the COVID stress may well have played a part. Not as an excuse for her behaviour at all, but as a reason she reacted like that.

Saw some mad conflicts out and about where people got too close for 1 person's comfort

She has admitted in court she made "light" contact with the cyclist, which is what cause the poor woman (aged 77) to veer onto the road and be run over by the poor woman driver, who now has PTSD.

I don't think the angry woman jailed for a few years, who carried on and did her grocery shopping afterwards, and did not wait for emergency services afterwards, and expressed no remorse, is the victim here.

It seems it was not only the barrister who described the defendant as childlike. I don’t have a transcript of the trial, but this seems to say Judge Enright described her as childlike.

Police inquiries failed to establish whether the pavement was a shared cycle-way or not. Today Judge Sean Enright, passing sentence, said he acknowledged the partial blindness, cognitive and mobility issues and cerebral palsy that the "childlike" Ms Grey suffered from.

Thanks for your 'concern' but I'm a perfectly normal person with Autism. I'm completely 'mentally well'. Thanks for your concern.🙄

The only direct quote I saw for childlike was from her case worker. That above is not a direct quote

Didn't the barrister say that 'witnesses said' she was childlike, rather than the barrister saying she was childlike? Ie the barrister didn't make that determination, she was relaying a comment from a witness statement. Judges do the same. That comment isn't necessarily the judge saying 'yes the defendant is childlike', so much as 'I acknowledge the evidence put forward about her disabilities and behaviour in making my judgement'.

This is to make the verdict less appealable though, isn’t it? He’s acknowledging what the defence has presented because it’s important that he has to be seen to consider any potentially mitigating factors. but he then goes on to say, essentially, they’re not enough to diminish capacity.

I don't think the angry woman jailed for a few years, who carried on and did her grocery shopping afterwards, and did not wait for emergency services afterwards, and expressed no remorse, is the victim here.

No she is not the victim compared to the other tragedies of the dead woman and her family, and the car driver. There is no doubt either that she is guilty of causing so much unhappiness and loss, or that she walked away after the accident and has shown no remorse. That does not mean though, imo, that this sentence seems right for this particular woman.

18 months inside isn't bad.

I'm sure many people would see that as a reasonable deal if they got to kill a pesky cyclist

But you’re pretty much saying that you understand Grey’s reactions, or did I misinterpret that?

Cos she won't do 3 years unless she's a complete terror

That comment isn't necessarily the judge saying 'yes the defendant is childlike', so much as 'I acknowledge the evidence put forward about her disabilities and behaviour in making my judgement'

Youve articulated better than me.

The judge considered her “childlike” demeanour, as noticed by others, but it wasn’t sufficient to exonerate her

@BrigitteBond I appreciate your input into this thread even if we're not in complete agreement. I do think the stress of the time is probably more relevant than most NT people might realise and it wasn't something I'd thought of until I read your post earlier.

Umm yes. I'm ND and somebody breaking rules when it impacts me is a huge trigger for me. It's not 'right' but it's the way I am. So you have a problem with my disability?

Obviously I control myself as much as I can, but that will never be 100%. I've talked to twat cyclists worse than this woman did. I've been threatened and even had a knife pulled in me for daring to speak up.

I'm not excusing her actions at all, no more than I'd excuse mine at their extreme, but I certainly understand them, as far as I can, not having the same condition.

And 2020 was an absolute bastard stressful time for me. It

If an individual cannot navigate the world without being a danger to other people, their liberty should be restricted.

Theres a gap between being annoyed with someone you perceive as breaking the rules and actually aggressively acting on it though.

Someone cycling on a pavement is aggravating and might be triggering, but if you aren’t mentally unwell to the extent that capacity is reduced, you’re still responsible for your reactions after that point.

And if anyone is so triggered by day-to-day annoyances that they think they could also potentially force someone into busy traffic - by shouting, swearing, gesturing, touching - then, yes, I don’t think that person would present as mentally well.

And what’s the alternative- do we just accept that if someone is triggered then anything that happens afterwards isn’t their responsibility?

No, it's not an excuse, it's an explanation.

And if anyone is so triggered by day-to-day annoyances that they think they could also potentially force someone into busy traffic - by shouting, swearing, gesturing, touching - then, yes, I don’t think that person would present as mentally well.

Well you need to learn the difference between autism and mental illness then.

It doesn't matter if some one present as on the autistic spectrum or whether they are mentally ill. If they are a danger to others their liberty should be restricted.

It's probably fortunate that you're never likely to be in charge of the country then.

So if a person on the autism spectrum, who isn’t mentally unwell, is triggered, then they shouldn’t be held criminally responsible for whatever happens next?

I don't think I've said that, or even suggested that the pedestrian in this case shouldn't have been found guilty?

Well, I’m not quite clear what you’re defending over these two threads.

For a while it seemed you thought AG’s responses were understandable under the circumstances because you are ND, struggled with COvID and are triggered by perceived rule breaking.

Do you agree with the verdict and the sentencing?