To think this woman should not be put in prison?

[Nooyoiknooyoik]

Bizarre and very unfair Link

No for sentencing impact statements would

have you looked at what determines common assault because that is the offence that she was guilty of that led to a death. Guilt of common assault therefore leads to manslaughter due to the unfortunate and unintended consequences of the common assault.

the US has it more as a felony death - that if a death occurs during another offence you are guilty of that. It doesn’t matter what you intended, wanted or thought would happen. The indisputable fact is it did.

Common assault has a I think fairly low threshold of proof - behaviour that the victim perceives as threatening presumably because normally the sentencing and consequences of it are mild and don’t cause injury (which would then be graded on actual bodily and grevious bodily harm). what happened here is a rare event

I wasn't making a comment on the case, but the fact she touched Mrs Ward hasn't been widely publicised so I was responding to the OP.

The first trial the jury could not decide so it went to a retrial.

From what I've read in the paper today she had one friend and wasn't in contact with her family. Her mother didn't bother with her and her sister died a couple of years ago. She appears to have lived in assisted living accommodation and her neighbours have supposedly said that she was very unfriendly and they used to hear lots of shouting even though she lived alone. She didn't work and relied totally on benefits.

She apparently had carers who came in although I don't know what for.

It seems that if she goes to prison she will lose her home and all her possessions.

The whole thing is tragic. Particularly for the victim's family and the poor driver. However it does sound as if Grey has had a pretty miserable life which is only going to get a lot worse from here on in. She will certainly be punished for her crime if her appeal does not succeed.

The whole thing is very tragic.

Thanks, I'd given up looking as could only find the retrial

If Greys needs are at that level, then she will be known to ss, and will likely then have a social worker involvement on release from prison will she not who will liaise with housing and re care package reinstatement?

The video strongly suggests that she pushed the cyclist, but we cannot conclusively see that she did so.

At the very least, she behaved in an aggressive manner while the cyclist approached then, once the cyclist was almost past her, she turned to her side to face the cyclist, extended her arm, and made some degree of contact.

For those of us who weren’t present in court, it is difficult to know the extent of AC’s cognitive difficulties, but she certainly was able to lie to police.

She either belongs in prison or a care home and, without sight of the medical evidence, it’s not really possible for random people on an Internet forum to make that judgment.

I certainly have zero sympathy in respect of the conviction itself.

Come on let's be blunt.She was a cunt. Someone cycled towards her, it could have been a jogger, a child a dog..because she didn't like it she pushed out..and contact doesn't matter because the person tried to avoid....and the person died.
I don't like crying children, moaners, people walking when looking at their phone but I don't force them in th the path of oncoming traffic

She may well have. I don't know enough about her needs or how adult social care works to say yes or no. I certainly think that if she behaves as she did then either prison or psychiatric care is merited. She obviously has issues which in this case ended in tragedy for an innocent woman. Whether these are mental health or anger management issues neither I nor anyone else on this thread is qualified to say.

I would hope that these issues could be properly addressed so she doesn't do something like this again.

I know. They're like a bloody online lynch mob - utterly pathetic.

I’m like a lynch mob?
Who am I trying to lynch?
I don’t think I’m the lynch mob here tbh

Here you go @BrigitteBond. The signs (all four of them) that you accused me of lying about. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology.

But your assertion was that it has always been a shared route and your implication therefore that the required signs have always been there. They haven't. They weren't there last year and weren't there at the time of the incident.

You literally accused me of lying. You made reference to “the signs only Blossomtoes can see”. Basically you said there were no signs. You now have categoric proof there are. I’ve never said they were always were there. I have said it was always a shared path, signs or no signs. And I live here so perhaps you might have the decency to admit your mistakes. You won’t though.

Anybody can read what was actually said. Just as anybody can see your claims that's it's always been shared use - something that even the council couldn't say.

What about accusing me of lying about the signs?

You were being deliberately misleading and you know you were. And I accepted that signs could have been put up in the last 5 months, which is irrelevant.

So for all your using the road frequently and your assertion that it was signposted as shared use, it clearly wasn't at the relevant time so has no bearing on your claim that it's 'always' been shared use.

Feel free to not reply, this is my last post on the subject of your misleading claims.

And I accepted that signs could have been put up in the last 5 months

You didn’t. You said - and I quote - “the signs only Blossomtoes can see”. You asserted that there weren’t any signs. Anyone with an ounce of decency would apologise for calling me a liar. Clearly that isn’t you.

May own take would be that just because people have always used it as shared use doesn't necessarily mean that was the official position for that specific pathway. The fact neither the council or police could catogorically say so and signs only appeared 5 months ago would suggest it wasn't formally recognised until they were forced to clarify it. I wonder where the appeal is going to lead to? If it does get downgraded to a suspended sentence I certainly don't think she should be allowed out unsupervised if she can't control her behaviour in public.

Presumably it was a shared pathway if the decision was taken to sign it as such.

Precisely.

My thoughts on it are that in the absence of signage but with it being available on a map that someone interested in using cycle lanes probably knew about it but someone not interested in using cycle lanes reasonably wouldn't know.

I don't think it excuses AG and her behaviour though, the status of the path is a distraction

I think the question is: Why was this woman with disabilities taken to court? Since the sentence was passed there's more about AG written in the Press.

• At the time Mrs Ward fell off her bike a man told AG to move on as the motorist was standing there screaming
• AG has been in her home for 17 years
•Her mother, with whom she's had little contact, insists she was damaged at birth and lists her disabilities
•When AG was being interviewed before being subsequently charged who was representing her? Was it a local solicitor?
•The fact that she was sentenced following a retrial indicates that a previous jury couldn't reach a verdict
•The claim of manslaughter by common assault is simply that the action of AG walking across the across the pavement screaming abuse meant that Mrs Ward was possibly watching her and moving towards the kerb. Did the bike topple as it came off the kerb throwing Mrs Ward into the motorists path? That was the result of AG's behaviour so she's guilty in that respect
•5 Paper Buildings is a leading London Chambers, and Counsel may not have been instructed for an opinion until AG had been charged.

While I think AG is guilty of the charge due to her behaviour I'm sceptical that she should have been charged in the first place

It happened in 2020, and signs have only been put up 5 months ago. And I don't see those signs on the exact part they were on. And it depends where you walk if you see the signs.