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?

I think the sentence sends a strong message to others who are tempted to take action at people who think they’re behaving unlawfully. I see cyclists on pavements countless times even in my way, e scooters etc but I don’t push them out of the way even if they’re on the same pavement as me. Yes, Auriol Grey has disabilities but no it’s not correct to push someone into the path of moving vehicles. Especially a woman twice her age.

It is a really horrible and horrific case. I was swayed though, when I saw the video, as it does appear that she moved over slightly towards the cyclist, leaving her nowhere to go. According to the judge, she also showed no remorse until much later on in the process, and the family of the cyclist stated this significantly affected them. I feel it is also really important to note the impact on the driver who ran the cyclist over. I do not know whether this adds up to being able to consider a ruling appropriate or not- who but those involved in the case can decide that. But it does seem that these factors weighed against her. It is an absolutely appalling tragedy for everyone involved.

On what evidence are you basing this?

This is what I mean by challenging bias and holding the cyclist to the same standard as the cyclist. She moved over slightly? How much? 1cm? She has multiple disabilities. The cyclist should not be trying to pass unless there is good clearance. If there is nowhere to go then you stop. That is what it means to have control of your bicycle. Also the cyclist is out of picture until the last second so who knows what side she was on. Also the cyclist should be on the left so is on the wrong side. Please look at the gross errors of the cyclist rather than the micro errors of the pedestrian.

Sorry I bad a bad post. But it is true that the AG did not try to appeal the conviction so has not been refused that. She tried to appeal the sentence and was refused as you say.

The $64000 question is though would you let someone who was behaving unlawfully actually collide with you and maybe injure you? At what point would you put out your arms to defend yourself? At what point would you shout a warning? Would you really be totally passive up to the point of contact?

Which bit specifically? The legal bit is in the judges directions to the jury. Have you seen those?

Auriol Grey Directions of Law | PDF | Burden Of Proof (Law) | Judiciaries (scribd.com)

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

Read the directions:

A person who is under threat may react on the spur of the moment and cannot be expected to work out exactly how much force she needs to use and everyone has a degree of latitude in that situation. If the reality is that she used no more force than she instinctively thought necessary, that would be good evidence that the force used was reasonable and therefore lawful.

However, if she used force out of all proportion to the situation she faced, then the force used would not be reasonable and her actions would be unlawful.

I give AG the benefit of the doubt.

She very clearly wasn't under threat from an elderly cyclist going slowly on a 2.4m wide pavement, and moved towards the cyclist rather than away such as a person who felt under threat would do, so its clear why the jury rejected the self defence possibility.

Not a legal expert but that was what did it for me, she deliberately moved towards the cyclist. It wasn't a panicked response.

I disagree. Also you are making the judgement at leisure after the fact rather than in the moment. Also remember that the threat includes the risk from the busy road. I did not think that she moved much but if she moved to her left then that was the correct side to pass on.

The cyclist was out of shot of the CCTV. so who knows what side she was on. AG moved correctly to the left (if at all). The cyclist did not give way as she had a duty to do. AG apparently made a lateral sweeping movement with her arm which constituted unlawful violence in the eyes of the jury. I thought that it was defensive and the only question is how much force was actually used.

So she moved towards the cyclist and the busy road - both of which were on her left - because she felt under threat from them both? Surely the instinctive reaction would be to flatten yourself against the railings on your right if you felt under threat?

Why are you so invested in this? What else is there to say? It's been to trial, the jury and judge found as they did, with the benefit of the full evidence. There is no appeal. You can keep arguing the point, but really, to what end?

Are you alright?

On a wide pavement, such as the one AG and the cyclist were on, I would move to the other side of the pavement to the cyclist. I would not move into the cyclist's path, or near to it. I would flatten myself against the wall/railings.

AG did none of these.

She killed a woman, and caused another one (the innocent driver of the car) serious trauma. Should we give her a medal for her actions??

I've been wondering this myself, whoever they are, they only seem to have posted on this thread.

Unless they are bouncing between name changes.

I would say that she moved away from the lamppost a little because that caused the pavement to become more narrow. I don't know where the cyclist was but this could have been towards the cyclist I suppose.

Just trying to raise awareness of this issue amongst the public in the hope that if I ever suffered a miscarriage of justice that someone would do the same for me.

You have avoided answering my question.

The cyclist slowed down to pass her on the outside, there was plenty of room, and the woman pushed her into the road.. She admitted she made contact with her, and even in the video, while you can't see the arm push her as it's not in the shot, you can see her weight quite clearly shift to her other foot at the moment the cyclist suddenly 'veered' into the path of an oncoming car.

I don't agree that her being partially sighted and having a disability that affects her mobility should be mitigating factors. She definitely sees the cyclist coming towards her (as she starts shouting and swearing at her) and, despite that, chooses to stay in the middle of the path and wave her arm in front of them to make the space available to pass even narrower. That's a choice. She could have used that same energy to step out of the way, instead she chose to block the cyclist's route, presumably with the intent of forcing them 'off the fucking pavement'. That is reckless behaviour that could reasonably be foreseen to cause serious injury, especially next to such a busy road.

There is no "miscarriage of justice", FFS.

I see things as you do @Freddie1964, and am saddened and disturbed that this very vulnerable person was imprisoned. I take comfort in thinking that maybe AG will actually have more support and sense of community in prison than she ever did outside of it, so hopefully she's okay.