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?

She is directly responsible for another woman's death. How would you like her to be treated?

Should she be given a chocolate bar and sent home with a pat on the back?

@Fluffodils
i feel awful for them and I hope the case being over brings them an opportunity to move forward, if at all possible

Hmmm @EarringsandLipstick sometimes

Not always. And I should know!

ADHD/autism etc ... it's everywhere

Yes.

She should have stepped aside.... like you would for a 5 year old!

Well I know the investigating officer said that the full video was too distressing to share with the public. Given that we have seen up to the point where the victim falls from her bike, it's not hard to imagine what he means - that the next shots were horrifically of the victim being hit by the car.

But the part involving AG has been seen.

It’s very sad for the family of the lady who died. I had no idea the judge had said Auriol Grey had no difficulties that impacted her actions, that’s clearly absurd. I don’t think a custodial sentence is appropriate for somebody so vulnerable and considering some of the sentences you hear about of people who really should have got longer I can’t understand the reasoning behind it.

Right or wrong my first impression if I see a cyclist on a pavement is they shouldn’t be there and should get out of my way. I had no idea about shared pavements, I can’t think of any where I live and it obviously wasn’t the plainly marked.

The pavement was reported as being 2.4 metres wide. That's more than enough space

For a shared pathway, the minimum width is 3 m. (Department of Transport guidelines). It does not meet this.

Yes, it's truly awful for her 😔

I'm honestly really torn on this. On the one hand, it does seem harsh to put the woman in prison for three years... because she does suffer some disabilities. And most people that know her know she would really struggle in prison. And it's certainly a fact that some people who commit worse crimes get let off lighter, so it does seem like the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

On the other hand, she was extremely aggressive. She swore at the lady on the bicycle, she was clearly seen specifically walking towards the cyclist/edging nearer to her, and she definitely clearly raised her hand and pushed her. I've seen the video a number of times and you can see, (although it's only like a second,) you can see her hand go up and push the cyclist.

So yes, she was aggressive, she was angry, she was shouting and swearing and she was responsible for the woman's death. But.... Should she have gone to prison? (For that long especially?) And especially with the disabilities and mental health issues that she has, and the fact that she's not got very good eyesight?

I don't know, I'm really struggling with this .. I am glad I was not on the jury.

I do reckon she will be out before the end of the year.

Many car drivers are but the majority don't go to jail.

Oh and YES! The poor driver who killed the lady cyclist. She said this has ruined her life when she was interviewed not long ago.

Should she be given a chocolate bar and sent home with a pat on the back?

Why the sarcasm? No-one has said this.

They've said, she doesn't belong in prison.

She should have stepped aside.... like you would for a 5 year old!

Easier said than done for a lady with partial sight and balance problems.

"She then told officers she asked Ms Ward to 'slow down'.

They also showed Grey stills of the footage, pointing out to Grey that her hand was 'on [Ms Ward's] jacket'.

When pushed to explain this, Grey again said: 'I can't remember.'

Well, that's what I said 🤷🏻‍♀️ that it's sometimes.

And it depends on the disability and the extent to which it affects the person's culpability.

In this case AG had both physical and mental impairments.

Partial sight and balance problems were not a factor.

How do you know? 🤦🏻‍♀️

Who saw the cyclist approach from a distance and purposely walked toward her....

Because there was more than enough room for both of them. The pavement at that point was measured as 2.4 metres wide, no one needed to give way to anyone. Had the pedestrian stayed where she was on the pavement the cyclist would have passed her with room to spare. She chose not to, she chose to obstruct the cyclist and act so aggressively that the cyclist was forced into the road and died. She CHOSE her actions.

This, this and this.

If a child had died I doubt people would be sympathetic towards Grey.

I do agree with this. ^

There are lots of vulnerable people living in our society without adequate care and support to meet their needs. The fact that the judge decided Muriel's disabilities didn't deem her less 'responsible' for her actions, could be indicative of a much deeper problem with our social care and support systems, such that her disabilities and the impact they had on her and others, were not properly understood and/or documented. This will have led to the judge not having proper evidence to draw upon when making his decision as to how 'responsible' she was or wasn't. I wonder if and when the last time Muriel had her Care Plan reviewed for example, and whether her eligible needs for care and support were actually being met.

Personally I think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice. Prison is no place for such a vulnerable person such as Muriel.

Manslaughter is when someone dies due to an unpremeditated act. There does not need to be any intent to hurt someone.

You could say ‘who saw a pedestrian approach and purposely cycled towards her’. Neither chose to go towards the fence, rather than the kerb.
Why was the onus on one to give way, but not the other?