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?

Sorry you can't understand how language works either, or phrasing.
It really is painful trying to talk to many of you, the obtuseness is too much.

It seems to be you that is misunderstanding the phrase 'throw away the key'. It literally means that the person in jail should never be released. I've not seen anyone come close to 'being happy' about that.

I'm not being obtuse. But I'm also not prone to over exaggeration.

We know how language works, thank you. “Throw away the key” means prolonged or lifelong imprisonment. This woman who caused someone else’s death has been sentenced to three years, which will probably be reduced to 18 months. She’ll be out in the autumn of next year.

I think you're the one who doesn't know what the phrase "and throw away the key" means, either literally or figuratively. That would explain why you've used it to accuse people of things they neither said nor implied...and yet somehow still think it's everyone else's fault.

My main issue with this thread is that some people actually believe AG was justified in her actions because the cyclist “should not have been on the pavement”.

Or the complete failure to understand that just because AG did not intend for the cyclist to come to harm and ultimately die, does not make what happened an accident.

The conviction of manslaughter here is not a matter of opinion. This is what manslaughter looks like and the conviction is correct.

Whether you agree with the sentence or not is a seperate isssue and this is what I believe her appeal to be based on, not the conviction.

I think its interesting (in a sad way) to realise that many of the people happy to lock up and throw away the key

No one has said anything remotely close to this and, if they had, it would be as equally concerning as those who apparently can’t see an issue with AG’s actions.

I think the interesting take away from this thread is the contempt so many people appear to hold for cyclists, and that many people feel entitled to act aggressively towards someone who they perceive to “be in the wrong”.

By all means debate the rights and wrongs of a custodial sentence, but the justification of such a territorial and aggressive response is quite frankly, worrying.

At the risk of being shot down in flames I can confirm that as a law abiding citizen that pays their taxes that there are quite reasonable people who really don't understand what

you mean by AG's actions or being territorial and aggressive. It is simply not her fault that a cyclist attempted to squeeze past her where a safe passing space did not exist.

I disagree that it's manslaughter. If someone shouted at you while you're walking on the pavement and you tripped over and died, would that be manslaughter? Manslaughter has to be intentional harm.

It's a tragic accident. No one has forgotten that a person has died.

There is no way that any reasonable person doesn't see AG's actions as aggressive.

You are entitled to your view.

However AGs solicitor would be entirely remiss if they didn't appeal a conviction that wasn't sound. They are appealing the sentence, not the conviction. As has been mentioned many times already.

An adult who lacks capacity to make decisions or has mental health needs to the point they are not in control of their actions will be assessed and treated accordingly.
Many people with disabilities such as; brain injuries are able to fully engage in the legal process.
This woman is reasonably independent, she won’t have 24:7 support and can’t be stopped from going out if she chooses unless she lacks capacity to consent to care and residence. So, she has support to go shopping but decides she wants to go out another time (fair enough) and someone else dies.
I wonder how different the responses would be if this was a sexual assault case. I see this a lot in my line of work - men with learning disabilities who sexually assault and rape others. It’s really difficult but we can’t shrug and say “oh he has a learning disability”, we explore capacity for the alleged perpetrator and recognise the alleged victim deserves due legal process.

Manslaughter has to be intentional harm.

That would be murder.

Manslaughter falls into two broad categories: involuntary and voluntary. Involuntary manslaughter is unlawful killing without the intent to kill or cause really serious harmand is a common law offence. There are two classes of involuntary manslaughter: unlawful act manslaughter and manslaughter by gross negligence.

I disagree that it's manslaughter.

Well it is.

I don't agree that an adult who lacks capacity to make decisions or has mental health needs will be assessed and treated. Some will some won't.

I've said this on another thread but I have an elderly relative with dementia. Had the most awful trouble getting help for her. She was constantly phoning the police and asking them to come and get the little men out of her loft as they were keeping her awake, she was running into the busy A road she lived on shouting that my late uncle had risen from the dead, she was being sexually inappropriate with men and she was also being conned out of money left right and centre.

She was admitted into hospital several times but physically she was fine and they'd discharge her, on one occasion it was winter and they sent her home in a taxi to a cold empty house, her carers had already been so she had no food. I explained to the hospital and they discharged her anyway. I live 200 miles away and am my DHs carer so I couldn't do anything. If I ordered food for her she wouldn't accept it.

The only way we got her safely into a home with a DOLs was by paying a private social worker as the local authority one wouldn't do anything. The specialist geriatric psychiatrist was worse than useless.

So do I believe that anyone without capacity will get treated? Do I hell.

Your post is a perfect example of what I was describing.

I disagree that it's manslaughter.

You don’t get to disagree, because it’s not a matter of opinion.

If someone shouted at you while you're walking on the pavement and you tripped over and died, would that be manslaughter?

It would depend on the circumstances.

Manslaughter has to be intentional harm.

False.

It's a tragic accident.

As I said, just because AG did not intend for the cyclist to come to harm and ultimately die, does not make what happened an accident.

I don’t think it’s that people don’t understand that not all people are equally responsible for their actions, more that medical evidence was obtained, medical experts testified, and a judgment made on that basis.

And, from the sentencing remarks (which admittedly do not give the full picture), it doesn’t sound as though there was any real doubt that Auriol Grey’s actions were not in any way explainable by her disabilities:

So what makes you better placed to determine the extent of Auriol Grey’s disabilities, and the role they played (if any) than the qualified medical experts who’ve actually met her?

I referenced my elderly relative with dementia, my experience with her gives me no confidence in medical opinions on people without capacity.

She was being seen by the geriatric psychiatrist, so you'd think he'd know something about it. I usually took her to appointments or other relatives did, one appointment no one could make so I arranged hospital transport for her. I got a phone call from a young doctor who told me the psychiatrist had asked him to phone me as he was concerned about travel arrangements. I asked how and he said she had travelled to the hospital that morning on two buses and the psychiatrist thought that was a bit much for her, bloody impossible in reality. He very smugly told me how he had arranged hospital transport to take her home and was a bit stuck when I told him it had been arranged weeks before as had the journey to the hospital and if he'd like to check he'd find out she hadn't travelled by bus.

The idea that this senior psychiatrist and the young doctor could even begin to believe her fantasy was beyond belief. She had got to the stage where she couldn't find her way to the shop across the road let alone navigate two buses so it is hard to understand how she managed to convince them. I had similar with her social worker who believed everything she said, oh yes she cooked a fancy meal and had eaten (she looked like she was starving to death) whereas when she told the private social worker the same he asked her if he could have a look in her kitchen and he checked the fridge, the kitchen bin and the outside bin and saw that there was no evidence of food and no evidence of potato peelings or wrapping from the food she said she'd prepared.

She told the doctor and social worker what they wanted to hear and they accepted it completely. I'd be far more influenced by what family/friends/neighbours said about AG and her abilities than by an "expert" doctor.

@ancientgran
Auriol Grey was registered as disabled and lived in supported living. In September 2020 she spent days with her family attending her sister's funeral. 5 weeks later Celia Ward sadly died. There were two trials and sentencing before her BIL was approached by a journalist asking for his verdict on the sentence. It was the first her family knew about it, her barrister or her legal team didn't know she had any family. Her MP has now written to the Prisons Minister. Her BIL has known her since she was 12 so while she was at school and having surgery, she was moved into residential care and then into supported living. Back in the time she was at school during her teenage years it's unlikely she would have been diagnosed as autistic or as having OCD, which is more likely to happen nowadays. I know from my own family experience, from seeing care support information that the system isn't perfect and it's under funded. Did she have a social worker even?

I am bemused that anyone automatically trusts the assessments provided to the court. Do you also trust all the assessments done by the people who refuse disability benefits? Like the dying people and the seriously disabled who were denied payments? Like the people who actually starved to death because of it?

As if suddenly this one aspect of social care and disability services is fully funded and perfectly running and capable? As if!

The accounts from people who actually knew her paint a very different story than the court heard.

The judges directions of law to the jury in the Auriol Grey case stated that AG had to realise that her actions would expose CW to some harm to find her guilty.

Yes, he stated she "had to know". He thought she did. That doesn't mean he was actually right though, or that she really did know.

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. I don't know, you don't know, the judge doesn't know.

Which is one (of many) reasons why the conviction is hard to understand (i.e. wrong).

Are you getting confused between legal directions and the summing up at the verdict?

Looking through the legal direction I didn't see any mention of the path

Assessment of benefits is completely separate to assessment for social care.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. For starters, there is a significant body of legislation for social care, statutory guidance and case law.

I meant assessed and treated within the criminal justice system, if appropriate. There are forensics mental health wards, for example.