To think this woman should not be put in prison?

[Nooyoiknooyoik]

Bizarre and very unfair Link

You can’t miss them. They’re right in front of you whichever direction you’re walking in along that road.

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

Why? Her actions resulted in someone else’s death. She was obviously judged competent to stand trial.

@bellabasset I think the question is: Why was this woman with disabilities taken to court? so do you think that AG shouldn't have been held to account for her actions? Do you think her solicitor who is a KC and has specialist subject knowledge of manslaughter cases and having vulnerable clients would not have drawn significant attention to this?

I think she committed the offence, but I'd just like to be assured that she has the capacity she was credited with when she was charged. Were the reports on her file positive about the levels she could achieve rather than listing her limitations. Counsel would have been instructed after she was charged I imagine.

My assumption is that AG would have had a solicitor present at interview, would this have been a duty solicitor? Then when she was charged counsel would have been instructed to prepare the defence. I've been to Paper Buildings before court so have a slight knowledge of the civil rather than criminal proceedings.

@MichelleScarn

I think she committed the offence, but I'd just like to be assured that she has the capacity she was credited with when she was charged.
And you don't think that would have been explored during the court case?
That the judge will have said, 'oh well she's been charged with it, so let's just sentence her for it'?

No legal expertise but is that not the whole point of a court case?!

I think she committed the offence, but I'd just like to be assured that she has the capacity she was credited with when she was charged.

Don't you think the CPS will have had to have been 'assured' that correct procedure was followed and criteria met in order for the charge to be made and the trial to subsequently go ahead?

Do you know how long and detailed the many processes from an interview through to sentencing (including charge, trial and verdict) are?

Anyone would think that throughout history every trial, judge and jury has come up with a faultless verdict.

There have been a lot of ‘Don’t you think….’ threads along those lines.

It will be interesting to see if an appeal is allowed.

Cambridge Council’s Highways and Transport have a lot to answer for too imo

If I was cycling and someone was being aggressive there's no way I'd stop.
The cyclist didn't know what that woman was capable of.
Plus what kind of person walks away and doesn't even call an ambulance.

No one thinks juries are perfect. But any reasonable person can accept that the jury had access to all the evidence and testimony and made a decision accordingly. It's not reasonable to question based on snippets we've heard from the press.

Not unless a decision was made after this incident to make it a formal shared cycleway. Like I said, just because people always used it as such doesn't necessarily mean it was officially meant to be a shared cycleway.

I don't think that courts or the police are faultless at all, and in the instances we know of miscarriages of justice there's normally some supporting evidence to suggest that there was a miscarriage rather than just an opinion on the matter.

What we have here is a video of a woman forcing someone else off the pavement and an argument essentially about whether she should have been allowed to do that.

In my mind there's no question that what she did was wrong, the status of the path had nothing to do with anything and the video is damning. I don't see where there's been the opportunity for miscarriage. The police didn't fit her up and she had a trial with an apparently good defender.

I do have some sympathy for anyone that ends up in prison and would prefer, obviously, if everyone was alive and no one was in jail, but that's not the situation we have.

She shouted near the start of the path the cyclist lady could have given way to a irate person by waiting near the fence to give her a wide berth. But she rode past near the road got scared and lost her balance.

It’s clearly shown as a cycle way on the council’s map. And there are signs now - at the time of the accident the signs appear to have been confined to the pavement on the other side of the road. It would be odd for the pavements on opposite sides of the same road to be different.

www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/asset-library/imported-assets/Huntingdonshire_towns_and_villages_maps.pdf

The Judges sentencing remarks have just been published which make it clearer why she was given the sentence she was and it's clear how relevant the first police interviews were in this case

open.substack.com/pub/rozenberg/p/why-grey-got-three-years?utm_source=direct&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

@Nooyoiknooyoik
@MichelleScarn

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

So she almost got longer and in fact had it mitigated down a bit. And some of the factors some people assumed had aggravated it were set aside.

The map shows the cycle route on the other side of the road.

Thanks for the link to the full sentencing remarks.

I think this is worth repeating. Emphasis mine.

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.

And the signs are on both sides. Thought you’d flounced?

I still see no mention even in the above judge’s comments that there was a definitive hitting of the cyclist. They are relying on witness testimony that she “may” have struck the cyclist.

Is AG someone I’d like to be best friends with? Unlikely. Her behaviour was very unpleasant. But people who have had very difficult lives are often unable to relate to others in a pleasant way. I think this was very sad and tragic for everyone.

Well there we go. In addition to the CCTV it appears there was an independent witness who confirmed that the two appeared to be almost stationary next to each other, when AG struck Mrs Ward.

Not self defence, not a fearful reaction, just an aggressive assault.

Thanks for sharing the remarks.

I still see no mention even in the above judge’s comments that there was a definitive hitting of the cyclist. They are relying on witness testimony that she “may” have struck the cyclist.

Grey herself admitted contact.

Witness testimony is perfectly valid evidence and the witness was honest in that he could not be sure whether Mrs Ward fell because she was struck or because she recoiled. Either way, she fell into the road because of what Grey did to her.

I don't flounce, I just couldn't be bothered arguing with you while I was enjoying a day out.

But you're at it again now, misrepresenting the truth. Your map clearly shows the path on the other side of the road and, again, you're using the existence of signs which have been put up recently (presumably as a safety measure and to limit the council's future liability) to demonstrate the status of the path at the time of the incident.

Why are you so set on convincing people of something you know not to be true?

It doesn't matter. The point, as made by the judge, was that Grey knew cyclists used this path. She would not have been surprised by it and she was not fearful for her safety. They were both stationary at the time.

Grey herself admitted contact.

I think she said there may have been light contact - as in she wasn't sure.

If she'd admitted contact then the judge would have said that and wouldn't need to rely on the witness.

It doesn't matter. The point, as made by the judge, was that Grey knew cyclists used this path. She would not have been surprised by it and she was not fearful for her safety. They were both stationary at the time.

Exactly this. Ultimately it was Auriol Gray who chose to be aggressive, and her aggression caused someone to die. That's not something that can be excused.

And she was a much more reliable witness than Mr Walker, I'm sure. Sounds like he wasn't the only one, either.

It still doesn't matter. She wasn't acting in fear or self defence. She knew cyclists used the path. She and Mrs Ward were both stationary at the time. She swatted at Mrs Ward and that caused her to fall into the road.