To think today’s article about Auriol Grey paint a very different picture

[HibiscusBlues]

I was sad to see articles today about the woman jailed for the death of a cyclist. At the time of the offence she was living in a home for the disabled. If this is the case my experience is places like that aren’t easily available.
Shes partially blind, has balance problems and cognitive difficulties after a birth injury to the brain. She’s had related brain surgery.
If this is the case, as her family’s appeal stated, then there does seem a disconnect with the judge saying no difficulties that impacted her actions. Accessing supported living yet being deemed able-bodied and cognitively normal by a court.
Obviously the incident was horrendous for the Ward family, and the cyclist need not deserve to die. It’s a sad case. However the handling of the case is starting to sound uncomfortable. What have others thought of the articles today?

Because Ward was a cyclist and it's a rule of the internet that people will argue for anything when the alternative is side with a cyclist

OP
many of us raised this at the time
none of this information is new

I genuinely don't understand how the judge convicted her of anything.

I have imagined if that was my relative and I would be undoubtedly devastated. But my devastation would unlikely be helped knowing that a vulnerable person, whose own disabilities had potentially not been properly understood and accounted for, was imprisoned. I hope the Appeal process allows another opportunity for AG's circumstances to be properly understood and accounted for.

The jury convicted her, the judge sentenced (in line with sentencing guidelines).

The conviction makes perfect sense, her guilt is quite obvious (and isn’t being appealed). Whether or not the sentence (and particularly, whether or not prison is the right place for her) is less harder to opine on, particularly as we do not have the benefit of the medical evidence that was before the judge. It could, of course, be that the judge’s decision was a poor one but I’d be reluctant to assume that based solely upon snippets in the press.

This.

@OneTC
’Because Ward was a cyclist and it's a rule of the internet that people will argue for anything when the alternative is side with a cyclist’

this ^
They forget the cyclist is a human being and could have been their family member.

When you take away cycling / cycle route/ pavement ( which is irrelevant anyway) from the equation, what it boils down to is one human being assaulting another human being and directly causing their death.

Shulk Oh I remember now
some posters said there was a "push". I haven't seen or heard anything about that, I don't know if the notes are publicly available or if any such thing has been confirmed?

Some useful info and links to sentencing remarks within

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years

there is no consistency in what the judge said about her mental capacity

from looking online, I think she is appealing the conviction? What happened to "reasonable doubt"? It seems there's no proof of her having pushed the cyclist?

You can term it a ‘push’ if you like. I believe the wording used in court was

“A lateral sweeping movement with [her] left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward”, which either made contact with Mrs Ward or caused her to recoil.

A plain and obvious assault (which, as it led to Mrs Ward’s death, is a plain and obvious case of manslaughter).

While it does look like a ‘push’ on the video it is not 100% clear, so it’s probably better to use the more neutral language as it’s hard to know for sure whether ‘struck’ or ‘attempted to strike’ is a better description. Doesn’t really matter, either way.

Traumatic brain injuries are a known risk factor for violent offending. Traumatic brain injury survivors often experience more anger, and severe difficulties in controlling it.

I wonder if you hold the same view if we were to replace AG with a violent male prisoner who has sustained a traumatic brain injury in childhood, coupled with a history of severe childhood trauma and abuse.

Do you still hold the view that that male offender “cannot be punished for that anger in the same way as someone who does have the ability to control their anger”.

If not, why not?

I fully agree that “not everyone is equally responsible for their anger” but loss of liberty is really the only consequence we can enforce on people who are aggressive, violent and a danger to others.

Without radical prison reform and a shift towards actually helping the offender rehabilitate, what do you suggest the punishment should be for such people?

Or does your comment only apply to AG?

If we let all the people out of prison who were in there owing to their unfortunate circumstances that'd be most of them

Shulk to be clear, I see no evidence of a push and looking at the link to judge's comments, looks like it's all "maybe". How can that result in a manslaughter conviction?

Viv "Without radical prison reform and a shift towards actually helping the offender rehabilitate, what do you suggest the punishment should be for such people?"

in this case, if she pushed the cyclist, wouldn't a secure psychiatric unit make more sense?

if she didn't, it was an accident and that means no punishment.

You don't need to touch someone for that to amount to assault.

So her actions amounted to assault, and someone died, and you're going to prison for that

She also does say she touched her if you watch the police interviews btw

Is that not the assessment OP is questioning though?

I'm on the fence. She didn't act well but she didn't seem the full shilling either tbh.

I can’t imagine AG meets the criteria to be held in a secure psychiatric unit. As far as I know, she doesn’t have severe mental health problems.

If she had actually pushed the cyclist into the road and the oncoming traffic, she would likely have been charged with murder.

She was charged with manslaughter.

The lack of push doesn’t make the cyclist’s death an accident. AG’s actions still forced the cyclist into the road and the oncoming traffic.

If AG had just continued walking, ignoring the cyclist, nothing would have happened. The cyclist would be alive and AG would have her liberty.

Viv anyone could panic and wave their arms if they thought a cyclist was about to run them over. This is what throws me about this case - how can it be that panicking results in a conviction for manslaughter?

I would still say that you can't treat someone who can't control themselves the same way as you treat someone who can.
That can't be a contraversial opinion, surely? Everyone understands that you are different levels of responsibility for actions? We don't treat children who offend the same way we treat adults who offend. We don't treat mentally ill people or brain damaged people the same way as those who are fully compos mentis and competent.

As for punishment, it's on an individual basis. If someone commits a crime without the ability to understand that crime or the consequences of it, punishment isn't appropriate. They may need to be secured to keep others safe, but that isn't intended as punishment.

There's no easy answers.

It's not hard to have sympathy for both, in fact. You can feel for the family, the woman who died, and still not be vicious to the person who caused it.

She's not a killer who decided to murder someone and then go shopping. The fact that she carried on like just adds more weight to the idea that she is unable to process the situation in a normal manner.

I'm quite astounded at the inability to grasp this. You ask what if the victim was a member of your family...but what if AG was a member of your family? Partially blind, brain damaged, cognitive issues, behavioural issues....would you want them treated as if none of those existed or affected her? Of course you would not.

Try to have enough humanity to go around.

But that isn’t what happened, so its not really relevant.

AG turned to face CR, as CR passed along side her, then either pushed or hit CR in an act of aggression. The only thing we’ll never know for sure is whether it was the force of the contact that caused CR to fall into the road, or whether CR lost control after being unexpectedly struck.

The cyclist lost control because she was inherently unstable and startled that she had almost hit a pedestrian. It was the cyclist's fault, she was inconsiderate and reckless. The court has lost the plot.

None of those other people were involved in her crime or her trial.

I'm worried about this person so I'm just gonna kill em.

😑

AG used the path regularly. As did cyclists. Seeing cyclists on the path would not have been surprising to her.

The cyclist, a 77 year old elderly woman, was not cycling in a manner which would give pedestrains the impression she was going to “run them over”. She wasn’t cycling erratically or at speed.

From the video, it is clear that AG sees the cyclist in plenty of time, well before the cyclist comes into view of the camera. AG had time to step over to the right side of the path if she genuinely thought that she was at risk of being run over. Regardless, there was room enough for them both to pass without AG or the cyclist changing their position on the path.

However, AG walks towards the cyclist, gesticulating (at least) that she move onto the road, shouting “get off the fucking pavement” and preventing the cyclist from passing safely. The cyclist is at the very edge of the path with nowhere to move to except for the road. AG’s actions alone force the cyclist off the pavement and into oncoming traffic. Hence, manslaughter.

There is clearly someone panicking in that video, but it’s not AG.

If AG used panic as a defence, I can see why it wasn’t accepted.