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?

She was vulnerable because she was a pedestrian and also because she has partial sight and cerebral palsy. I don't know the extent of either but I wonder if the combination of those coupled with cognitive difficulty made her fearful. Her legal adviser might be of the opinion that she stands a better chance of getting the sentence reduced to a suspended sentence rather than the sentence quashed.

Where can I find this in the court notes please?

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

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.

@Neededanewuserhandle

EmmaEmerald
"Where can I find this in the court notes please?"

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

It's not in there! It only say she motioned towards the cyclist?

Needed you've provided the link I gave! It does not say anything about a confirmed push.

Sorry, you are right, the word "push" is not used, although I haven't seen the evidence AG gave to the Police. AG didn't give evidence at the court case.

What happened is pretty clear though, from the accounts and the video footage. If AG had left the cyclist alone, this wouldn't have happened.

She didn't kill someone. She gestured at someone who appeared to be cycling towards her at speed, in a space where she had absolute priority (shared or not). It's very sad the cyclist died (I am a cyclist myself) but this woman should not be in prison.

She didn't kill someone.

She did.

Don't you think the judge might have mentioned this if it were true. 🤔. 'Pushing' someone to their death is quite a relevant detail in a case like this.

Well, that's a chicken and egg situation, isn't it?
You could equally say that if the cyclist hadn't been on the pavement, AG wouldn't have been startled.

At speed?

Celia wasn't exactly Bradley Wiggins.

‘Gestured at someone’

She adjusted her body so that she was facing Celia when Celia was passing her. She swung her arm at Celia, and Auriol’s hand makes contact with Celia’s shoulder or upper arm. At the precise moment Auriol makes contact, Celia loses control.

I agree that is cannot be categorically said that what Auriol did amounted to a push, but it’s plainly more than a ‘gesture’.

Appeared to come to a halt? What does he mean? I wonder how well he saw this incident. That implies either that CW was going considerably faster before reaching AG so that she appears to have halted or that WW needs to go to Specsavers.

AG told the police that there may have been vague or gentle contact between the two. That's all. The police interview is online.

One thing’s for sure, he saw more than you did.

And yet tens or hundreds of thousands will have used that path, over the decades, without incident…so what was the difference here?

The assault.

And that’s why the concept legal causation exists, and why defendants don’t make the argument ‘well, if the victim had never been born, then the assault would never have happened’.

Let’s pretend for a moment that there wasn’t contact, even though we know there was at least some degree.

Someone starts angrily gesturing and shouting and swearing at you as you approach each other. At the moment you are passing them, they swing their arm at your upper body.

Would you think there’s a risk that you are about to be struck?

If so, then you’re very likely a victim on an assault, even if no (or minimal) contact was made.

@Shulk
"Let’s pretend for a moment that there wasn’t contact, even though we know there was at least some degree"

If the judge thought there was definitely contact he would have said so. He didn't because WE DO NOT KNOW.

Well, we do have Auriol Grey’s admission that she made contact, which she describes as light, and CCTV footage that shows Auriol touching Celia’s arm (as highlighted by the police in the interview, and as is apparent when you go through the video frame-by-frame).

But, per the balance of my post that you declined to quote, whether or not there was contact is irrelevant to the offence…so what’s your point?

You’d flinch involuntarily, wouldn’t you? I would.

And yet tens or hundreds of thousands will have used that path, over the decades, without incident…so what was the difference here?

Auriol Grey was sufficiently startled by Celia speeding towards her on a pavement, where Auriol did not consider a cyclist should be, due to her mental health conditions and neurodiversity.

If cyclists weren't allowed on pavements this would not have happened.

If Auriol Grey hadn’t lost her temper it wouldn’t have happened either.

Imp...
She did not react the prescribed way and she is vulnerable. This has made her actions stand out eg continuing shopping and not waiting to give a statement.
She strikes me as an irate, angry person but that doesn't detract from the fact she is disabled.
Her solicitor said she has one friend, would lose her flat and no one would look after her possessions. Her nephew? Is now asking them do re look at her case. She has family but has alienated them/ has no relationship.
I still think she is in right place and should serve her sentence.

And I think that is an incredibly callous and disablist position.