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?

The judge stated it was. However both police and local council say they can’t clearly say. Signage is mixed and there’s no legal records. It sounds just that- unclear

The woman who died was 78 years old. For Christ’s sake. I am totally fed up with the Daily Mail/Ukip anti cycling hysteria in this country. Cyclists use the pavement because they are terrified of cars. Reduce the speed limit in urban areas to 20 mph and enforce it.
Muriel Grey, IMO was rightly prosecuted and lightly punished. She caused a death.

If you don't want bikes on pavements (where often they are legally allowed)

The problem in this case is no one knows if the cyclist was legally allowed on the pavement or not.

It’s resurfacing exactly the same way as any other legal appeal does- because there is a belief there’s a ground for appeal. Bias, inconsistent juries, misconduct, poor representation… there’s some every day in the UK. If you actually get to the court of appeal it’s about two thirds.
Its not a special magical case

None of it makes sense. She is ‘child like, a recluse’ yet able to go out alone. Why isn’t she classed as too vulnerable to go out on her own. If that’s the case.

She admits she swore and touched the cyclist.

There was an interview with her brother in law in the Times today. After reading that I am actually quite disturbed by the judge's remarks about her condition having no impact on the case. I will try to link it but am not sure if it will work because the Times is usually behind a paywall.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/known-as-the-pavement-killer-our-auriol-should-not-be-in-jail-for-cyclist-death-tgwgvzjxv

She killed some one

Her name is Auriol. Not Muriel.

have a read of this article which might help rebalance some views here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4d1eb570-cb22-11ed-9386-0ff7738b71b1?shareToken=c6946bb6871a171f8d16444bf2acbbe4

Surely there is so much nuance on both sides that the only answer is that this was an accident which stemmed from circumstances and fault, on both sides.

and also see the mention of the poor motorist who ran over the cyclist. Awful tragic outcomes all round and what is the point of this woman going to jail exactly?

The article also states that the pavement doesn’t meet the specified width for a shared pedestrian/ cycle path.

The UK isn’t rolling in support and funding exactly for disabled people. Looking at my local high street on any day quite a few people really need support that they don’t have. Who’s going to stop her?

I didn’t mean the appeal. Is that why you’ve started the thread?

I know there’s a process, but I’m not following it at all so wasn’t aware re appeal happening.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by imprisoning her. She will have nowhere to go when released, so creating more issues. The judge could have sentenced her to a tag and restrictions.

Don't see why it matters. She still killed someone

There’s numerous articles in the press today regarding an appeal. As stated.

Compare and contrast:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321.amp

A tag and not allowed to leave the premises unsupervised perhaps.

The appeal will sort it out. If her health had more of an impact than previously considered then it will come out in the appeal.

The tragic death of the poor cyclist doesn’t mean that anyone is legally culpable in itself.

If a cyclist is too scared to use the road, which judging by the speed of cars going along there, I'm sure the victim was, it's possible to use pavements. And judging by the news reports showing other bikes on that section of the pavement, the victim wasn't the only person to cycle along there.

And it's irrelevant anyway. Surely no one deserves to be killed just for trying to get to where you need to go?

Great 👍

She has to be jailed as a deterrent. I hate that E scooters on the pavement. They shouldnt be there, so does that mean pedestrians can push them into the road? no, every road/pavement user has a duty of care to every other road/pavement user. She will only serve 18 months anyway.

She did not admit she touched the cyclist, nor was this verified. She may or may not have had light brushing contact with the victim.

It's a deeply deeply sad case.

The article at the weekend with her brother-in-law (her sister passed away sadly in 2020) really highlighted her vulnerability. Her family were unaware of the case until it became reported in the media, as she had struggled with contact.

Lots of people I’ve seen who ride bikes on pavements (one on a one way street in the opposite direction to traffic, and whilst the pavement was being mended so by a plastic road/pavement sign/ramp) was doing it with his son who looked about 10. I’ve seen the same man in a car so it can’t be argued that he’s scared of driving a car!

Some cyclists I’ve seen/know ride in an aggressive way simply because they can.

I don’t see the point in second guessing it. The threads on this just go back and forth

Unless you’re in the court room it doesn’t count for much. The jury decided first time and the appeal will go through same process.

She has to be jailed as a deterrent.

That's not how sentencing works.

And it's irrelevant anyway. Surely no one deserves to be killed just for trying to get to where you need to go?

Did I say they did? However if it's not a shared path then surely it's down to the cyclist to get off and walk or go very slowly past pedestrians? BTW I'm not talking specifically about this case here but in general