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?

This thread has been slowly turning more and more odd, I'm glad that I'm not the only one who seems to have noticed.

The legal team, experienced as they were, can only consider the evidence that has been made available to them. And in respect of AG's disabilities and the impact these might have on her day to day functioning, there might not have been much documented, historically speaking.

From what I gather, AG had lived in supported living type accommodation for many years, had a number of health issues and disabilities, was cognitively impaired and lived a relatively isolated existence.

There are many vulnerable people living amongst us who will have chronic health issues and disabilities to contend with. Our social care system would ideally support these individuals, in a person-centred way, by assessing their needs and reviewing them regularly, identifying what support is required to help lessen the negative impact of their needs and, in so doing, also assisting the person to live as independent and positive a life as possible. Had this happened in AG's case, this would also have provided the legal team with more 'evidence' of AG's vulnerabilities, such as they were.

I don't know the facts, but I'm guessing adult social care had little or no involvement with AG. But - and this is the key point - this does not mean AG didn't need and deserve their involvement!

Our social care system is on its knees, underfunded and overstretched, and many individuals like AG, who don't have anyone to assist or advocate for them, will be going about their lives without their needs ever being properly evaluated, understood and where necessary, supported.

Everything I've read and seen about this case, suggests AG is a very good example of someone who slipped through the cracks. And nobody, apart from her one friend, would've been any the wiser, had it not been for the fateful day on which AG's needs became only too evident.

By way of example, had she had a PA with her that day, the provision of which might have been given to her as part of a care package, say to help AG with her weekly shopping, also preventing social isolation and providing companionship, the PA would've likely assisted AG to navigate the situation with the cyclist in a way that would've avoided the tragic outcome.

This was a terrible tragedy, and my deepest sympathies lie with the cyclist's family and the car driver. But as contentious as it seems to some, I think AG is also a victim and the blame for that lies with our failing social care system, not with AG.

It's been going that way for about two days. Clear bad faith posters, not actually breaking the rules but with a clear purpose that has nothing to do with an interest in justice for anyone.

I do understand that sometimes when your life is shit, you vent your frustration by winding people up online. That's as old as the internet itself. Some people are a bit useless in real life and that's how they deal with it. C'est la vie.

But, I don't know, there's just something really off and just not very smart about exploiting such a horrible situation, including a violent death, to do it. If you've got any kind of sense of humour, you do it in a topic that doesn't actually matter, like one of the handbag ones. That can even be funny if you're good at it and have any wit.

Does seem that way.

I think this overlooks that expert medical evidence, on the extent and effect of Auriol Grey’s cognitive impairment, was obtained. From the sentencing remarks:

“Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.”

“Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.”

“As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.”

Everything suggests that the judge had ample evidence and weighed it with due consideration.

However, internet commenters, without access to any relevant medical evidence, seem determined to label AG as lacking in medical capacity (which does seem extremely ableist, if apparently well-intentioned).

Signing off from this thread now. It seems that a different viewpoint is considered bad faith. We now have the crime of not walking in a very straight line! When you have multiple disabilities! We can't even see how straight a line the cyclist is going in!

Bye 👋

@Shulk My overarching point is that whilst you may think the evidence the judge was able to take into consideration was enough, I'm not so sure, and many others have doubts too. And for me these doubts are compounded given what I know about how adult social care works, or rather, doesn't work. I believe that AG likely had unmet needs requiring support.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'medical capacity'. If you mean mental capacity, this can be a fluctuating thing. I certainly haven't suggested AG didn't have mental capacity. What I did say was that I believed it was likely that the impact of her disabilities were not properly understood and the judges closing remarks, which you helpfully copied into your post, and I hadn't seen before, actually do nothing to change my view on that.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4771872-to-think-that-a-three-year-jail-sentence-is-unreasonable-for-the-disabled-pedestrian-who-was-found-guilty-of-causing-the-death-of-a-cyclist?page=26

if you think this thread is going off the rails have a look at this one. So much ignorance of mental health and cognitive issues I don’t know where to start.

I did indeed mean mental capacity.

So my question is why you think it is likely that the judge did not properly understand the impact of AG’s disabilities?

We don’t know precisely what evidence was before the court, but that there were two medical experts who prepared medical reports and gave testimony in court.

It is absolutely possible that the wrong conclusion was made but, in the absence of any real evidence to the contrary, why do you think it’s likely that either/all of the medical experts and/or judge were wrong?

@roaringmouse what evidence do we have that social care wasn’t involved? You’re speaking generically about underfunding and under resourcing of social care and this is correct. However, how do we know she wanted and was denied care and support? It’s highly confidential information so won’t be in the public domain. The answer is that we don’t know and it’s all supposition…..

Yes, sadly our social care system is underfunded leaving vulnerable people like Auriol without the care and support they need. If her needs had been assessed by social services there would have been more evidence to put to the court re her disabilities.
Auriol is the second victim in this case. There are no winners here.

I was making the broader point about social care, and about the possibility that AG's needs were not fully understood. This seems likely from what I've read about AG's life prior to the incident and from what I've seen in the way AG conducted herself in the police interviews. And this, in turn, will have had implications for the trial and everything that followed. Yes, it's conjecture, but there's enough red flags to give me serious doubt.

One of the partners in the private care sector I worked in had been a teacher for children with a learning disability. She had concerns about some people managing to cope living independently with support. In her early 20's my goddaughter started to shut herself in her room full time. In the end a Dr came to visit and she ran away, was sectioned. She was put into residential care and then a flat. She occasionally visited her mother after her father died. After her mother's death her sister couldn't get contact with her and her Dr reported her to the police as being vulnerable. The police said her bank account was being used. I managed to get a social worker assigned but her sister has had to accept the lack of contact.

I read the article in the Times. After AG had been sentenced a journalist asked her BIL what he thought about the sentence. He knew nothing about the trial or the accident which had happened about a month after his wife -AG's sister had died - and AG had been with the family for 3 days attending the funeral. He'd known AG since she was 12, she'd been very nervous about noise, was uncomfortable when walking as she wears a brace and her vision is limited. None of her legal team knew she had any relatives as she hadn't mentioned them. Her BIL knows about the surgery she had and her family's concern that living independently in a flat wasn't suitable about her. As an example the police were aware of her aggressive behaviour but was this followed up by a key worker. The Judge can only go on the reports he has. It maybe that they need to be more detailed. But it's right that if this happened due to her vulnerability and illness that a more appropriate sentence is decided on, even tagging her in her flat

It is really heartbreaking that such a vulnerable woman now has to face losing her possessions and the rigors of prison life where she will be mincemeat. Wearing a leg brace and partially sighted, she should never have been in a position where a bike was coming at her on the pavement. What the eff is a shared path but a recipe for disaster for two elderly/vulnerable ladies. I'm sure she'd have had a different outcome if she could have afforded private legal representation. The council and the law have let both women down.

@Markasread
She was represented by a barrister from 5pb in the Inner Temple, Miranda Moore, who is working pro bono on her appeal. As this was a retrial we don't know if she represented her at the first trial, what reports had been done when she was instructed.

5 mins of the police interview the Judge relied on is online and to me she sounds very confused and doesn't seem to understand.

I just read the article. No, I think the sentence is about right. There are some mitigating factors, and some aggravating factors. 3 years is light for manslaughter and she probably won't serve it all. If I was on the jury I'd be satisfied with that.

another article appeared on The Times today questioning how the judge arrived at the sentence in 3 days. Comments from readers show overwhelming support for AG.

@jobadoo Thanks for that, I've just read the article and it highlights the concerns we should have as to the amount of support that disabled adults get living independently in the community. There's been so many cutbacks. At least the MP has raised this with the Minister, Damien Hinds.

The Sunday Times has a real agenda on this for some reason. Nice to see Djanogly actually get off his arse and do something for once. We might as well not have an MP at all most of the time.

I think its interesting (in a sad way) to realise that many of the people happy to lock up and throw away the key on AG are the same people supportive and kind to parents of children with special needs on other threads.

It's like people forget those children grow up into adults, and then elderly people, and their challenges and difficulties don't magically disappear. They often get worse, and they are alone, often with very little support, especially these days with so many cuts to services.

Somehting to think about.

Who is suggesting anyone throws away the key?

It's a three year sentence, so she'll probably be out in eighteen months.

I'm sure the families of both Celia Ward and the driver would welcome their lives being affected for just eighteen months, instead of the lifetime of affects that they are facing.

I just want her to serve her perfectly reasonable, possibly erring on the side of lenient, sentence. No key throwing away at all. I find it sad that anyone thinks that someone who caused a death and ruined several lives should walk away with no consequences.

There have been posts about how its not nearly long enough and how she should have gone down for murder.

I find it sad that anyone thinks that someone who caused a death and ruined several lives should walk away with no consequences
I find it incredibly sad that you can't understand that people are not equally responsible for the consequences of their actions. I'm sure you understand the concept applied to children....but not when those children turn into adults?

Who is suggesting anyone throws away the key?

coldmarchmorn is the only one who's mentioned it...