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?

Additionally overall reporting in the media more often than not is casting cycling in a negative light. Cycling is clickbait gold. If Grey had just scared another pedestrian into the road no one would be saying anything

"I said: "As many times as the defendant wants to or is allowed to under the current justice system."

That sounds like endless appeals to me.

Did you mean "and is allowed to" rather than "or"?

I think that a lot of people don't like examining whether the cyclist may be in any way at fault because of what happened to her. I can understand that. However, objectively she did do some things wrong and ultimately lost control in a situation that she had created.

No it could not.

I am not sure of the exact procedure, but my guess is it would move up through the court system and at the highest court in the land and then that decision would be final.

To get to that stage I think it would also have to pass scrutiny at every stage to be allowed to continue. Continuation also depends on funding, so there are plenty of barriers to trivial/vexatious progression.

But these are fundamental rights everyone in the country has for good reason.

They are not something that is changed on a whim/an individual case, as in doing so you put at risk to everyones individual rights to recourse under the legal system. There are far wider implications and consequences than this individual case when changing these rights.

Exactly. Glad it’s not just me.

But who's saying she should be denied due process? If they'd grounds for it they'd be appealing the conviction as well, and there'd be nothing wrong with that.

But the process is happening?

Two trials and apparently an Appeal

What is missing in your view

According to the BBC Separately, the Attorney General's Office confirmed it had received a request for Grey's three-year imprisonment to be reconsidered under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

It doesn’t matter. No one is examining whether the cyclist may be in any way at fault, because it is not relevant. A court deemed AG’s actions to be unreasonable in the circumstances and thus, unlawful.

Even if the cyclist was at fault, AG’s actions are still unlawful.

What is it you are having such difficulty understanding?

I don’t know how many times this has been said, but: you cannot engage in a course of action that results in a person’s death because they are doing something you consider is “wrong” and expect to evade the consequences of those actions.

On these threads, the conversation just goes round and round in circles.

A court found that AG caused the death of the cyclist. We have all seen the CCTV footage.

You may disagree that AG deserves a custodial sentence, but the verdict is sound.

But who's saying she should be denied due process?

Well I'm certainly not. In fact quite the opposite. She needs to be treated in exactly the same way as every other individual as regards to her right to appeal, which is my main point.

It's not always about grounds. Sometimes it's about practicality.

Maybe the funding is only available for one appeal and the one chosen is judged to be less costly. Or it might be that one process is judged to have more chance of succeeding.

The whole process is constrained by cost, as well as the system, so the idea that it can be in anyway limitless is nonsense. If it were trivial to do and without consequence then everyone would appeal all the time. Which they clearly don't.

My point is that whether or not AG's actions were unreasonable is second to the question of whether AG's actions actually caused the death of the cyclist. The cyclist chose to make a dangerous close pass by the pedestrian and was unable to control her bicycle.

The cyclist chose to make a dangerous close pass by the pedestrian and was unable to control her bicycle.

Because the pedestrian was walking right in the middle of the pavement and flapped her arms making her lose control.

Wtf is the matter with you? It’s been explained to you in words of one syllable about 100 times now.

Ignore....

Lets hope the sentence is increased by the appeal court. 3 years is on the lowside for manslaughter.

A court found that AG caused the death of the cyclist.

AG’s legal team are not challenging the conviction.

It is safe to say that AG did in fact cause the death of the cyclist.

Having re-watched the cctv, you can see as the cyclist passes her, the pedestrian turns towards the cyclist with her hand up and seems to touch her shoulder, (maybe even a push) immediately prior to the cyclist toppling into the road. It is at pretty much the end of the clip, when I first watched it I didn't think they got that close together.

I don’t know how many times this has been said, but: you cannot engage in a course of action that results in a person’s death because they are doing something you consider is “wrong” and expect to evade the consequences of those actions

EXCEPT when you are not responsible for the consequences because you have disbilities/damage/detriments that mean you have diminished responsibility for your own actions. Do you understand that?

There seems to be a strong attitude that a court decided something therefore it must always and automatically be true. As if judges and juries are infallible and mistakes and miscarriages of justice happen all the time.

I don't know if this person should be deemed responsible for her actions and their consequences. I do know its possible the wrong decision on that was made in court.

*don't happen all the time!

We have the appeal process for that. If new legal team think that’s happened it is open to them.

Diminished responsibility reduces murder to manslaughter

The pedestrian can walk wherever she wants to walk. She's not obliged to move out of the way - quite the opposite.

Of course I understand that.

”Diminished responsibility” is not something that a court would ignore, nor something that a legal team wouldn’t push.

I can only assume that the evidence submitted didn’t meet the threshold for diminished responsibility.

You seem certain that AG is not responsible for her own actions. Based on what?

Walking in the middle of the pavement cannot ever be a crime.