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?

But there wasn't strong evidence. The cyclist lost control but it is not clear why. AG did very little other than stand on the pavement. It is possible to imagine that the cyclist was pushed but it is possible to imagine lots of things.

People may have cycled on it but that does not make it a shared path. It cannot gain shared path usage through unlawful cycling. It is too narrow and uneven.I wouldn't cycle on it and I probably wouldn't walk on it either. It is just too dangerous.

Agree with this. It's usually the same poster(s), repeating the same lies amd twisting the narrative over and over again, and at one time they were doing it on multiple threads. I wouldn't be surprised if they're on this thread under a different name.

Luckily the judge and jury don't agree with them, and most of the posters here don't either.

It’s a shared path. Look at the pictures of the signs.

The ‘it doesn’t fucking matter’ klaxon just went off again.

But she was convicted for gesturing at a cyclist. The prosecution did not prove or even attempt to prove that there was any contact. Read the trial notes and the judges sentencing notes.

You mean the signs that were put up after the accident happened?

Yes, those signs. Like the ones on the parallel pavement the other side of the road that have always been there.

If it doesn't matter then why do people keep saying that it was a shared path and so it was OK to cycle? I was only responding to that. The case against AG should not require false information so why include false information? In any case maybe it did matter to the jury.

Signs that weren't present on the day of the accident mean that the pavement wasn't a shared path on the day of the accident. Unlike the other side.

That’s not the case. It was an unsigned shared pathway which has now been rectified. It’s been a shared pathway since the road was built 50 years ago.

It was not a matter for the jury to determine - the judge’s directions to the jury are available online and contain nothing relevant to the status of the path.

I don’t think anyone who is insisting it was or was not a shared path is correct to do so. If it could have been conclusively determined, it would have been. Instead, the judge says:

”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.”

Just what does imprisoning this woman achieve?
It does not bring back the deceased.
It is unlikely to have a positive affect on the behaviour of other pedestrians (I don’t believe this is a common crime).
Auriol is cognitively impaired and there are more effective ways of changing her behaviour if it is feared she would be likely to put others at risk again.
If punishment is deemed appropriate then community based work is available as is probation or a curfew.
I feel that if she were wealthy etc the court would have treated her more leniently. A lot of public money is being spent on what amounts to a futile gesture.

Just what does imprisoning this woman achieve?

Justice for her victim and her family.

Not justice. Revenge.

If Auriol Grey lacks sufficient mental capacity to understand her actions, or to restrain herself from assaulting people, then she needs to be somewhere, but not among the general public unless she can be rehabilitated.

If she has sufficient capacity then it’s hard to understand why prison would not be appropriate. She killed someone (albeit likely unintentionally) through an act of violence.

She killed someone. By her actions and gestures and anger she caused CW death. She absolutely should be in prison.

I have as much sympathy for Auriol Grey as she appeared to have for the woman whose death she caused - none whatsoever.

My sympathies lie with the victim, her grieving family, and the woman whose car the victim was pushed under who is going to be traumatised for the rest of her life.

Auriol Grey belongs in prison and I’m glad she’s there.

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.

That does not excuse her behaviour. She acted with malice and, as a result, someone died. She really does deserve everything she gets.

Bikes don't belong on pavements.

This.

Well the judge is making a judgement there rather than presenting a fact. The judgement is open to challenge IMO. It is quite possible that pedestrians do fear for their safety.

AG wasn't in fear for her safety.

Just what does imprisoning this woman achieve?It does not bring back the deceased.

I'm very surprised at how many people think prison was ever intended to revive the dead.

She should have been.

It's definitely manslaughter, but I don't think prison is appropriate in this case. I'm not sure how it will rehabilitate her. The UK has a huge prison population compared to other European countries, most prisoners have some form of learning disabilities, a very high proportion of brain injuries. The conviction is correct, the sentence isn't appropriate.