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?

The cyclist was a frail 78-year-old.

@jobadoo 🙄 well the Judge didn't think she was innocent. Save your sympathy for the real victim and the driver.

But cyclists are judged as less vulnerable than pedestrians.

She was a 78-year-old retired midwife, not Laura Kenney

@AlwaysGinPlease
the video ends as the cyclist falls into the road. AG is some distance from her the entire time…

Yes I thought she admitted it too

The apologists here ( just because she's disabled) seem to think she should be given a free pass

Appeals are often successful- judges are human, I don't think questioning judgements is inherently bad.

Caught her out....daft mate!

She admitted to contact. She pushed her to her death

She agreed there might have been minor contact / brushing off the victim. She didn't admit (afaik) nor does the video show, that she pushed the victim.

Her behaviour was wrong. But her degree of culpability was greatly different to someone without disabilities.

*mare!!

No she wasn't, she was right next to the cyclist.

Yet it was the cyclist who was killed. Wobble your own head, will you?

The intent isn’t being looked at either…what was the intention?

From the evidence we’ve seen, there was no intention to injure the cyclist. The intention was to get the cyclist off the pavement/out of the way so AG could pass.

It’s a tragic accident with a horrific outcome. This finger pointing/blame culture is dangerous.

So an appeal would be a waste of funds also

the video shows AG walking a fair distance before swearing and gesturing.

Given her size she was occupying almost the entire pavement and showing no sign of stopping as she was approaching the cyclist. If you were the cyclist seeing a pedestrian who due to her size has to take up space of most of pavement, and she was not stopping to give way, then you should have stopped to give way.

That's why she's in prison for manslaughter not murder.

The lady herself said in court she did make
Contact!

She went shopping after waiting initially, before being moved by a 3rd party.

Her cognitive impairment means she does not respond emotionally as others might. (See her reaction to her sister's early death).

Especially if it was a shared pavement then sadly I think she was in the wrong.
That's the problem though - it was unable to be proved it was a shared pavement; it was insufficient width for usual shared pavements and there were no markings indicating it was.

There's definitely some confusion about this.

There's a Youtube channel called BlackBeltBarrister who discusses this case and why she was prosecuted. From what he's found out, there does appear to be signage in the area that suggests it's a shared pavement for pedestrians and cyclists.

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of consensus as to whether or not it is a shared path, though. Hopefully it's something that gets reviewed in future and made clear.

Cambridgeshire generally is used to and welcomes bikes. Someone cycling on a pavement is neither here nor there really.

I’m normally very liberal, but her actions led directly to a death.

At the end of the day AG's defenders need to make up their minds.

If they believe that she is so vulnerable then she needs to be placed in a residential home upon her release.

If she doesn't need a residential home because she's not vulnerable then why doesn't she deserve to be in prison?

@GrasstrackGirl
manslaughter is still too harsh IMO.

Manslaughter is more typically seen when a person hits someone and the victims dies. They’d intended to hurt them, not kill them.

AG didn’t want to harm the cyclist, she just wanted her out of the way.

Oh, she wanted to harm her. She wanted to intimidate and scare her and I don’t think in the moment she cared whether she was harmed or not as a result.

Angry people do behave like this sometimes: they walk around lashing out verbally and sometimes physically. It’s really sad, but you know, they can’t.

The apologists here ( just because she's disabled) seem to think she should be given a free pass

No, the people who have recognition that someone with disabilities may have less culpability than someone without consider she shouldn't jailed but given an alternative sentence, that's not custodial - that's not a 'free pass'

Imagine being so lacking in empathy.