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?

Given how many people that are neurodiverse it seems a dangerous precedent to set that they will not receive a jail sentence based on that alone. Surely that will have been taken into account. Also capacity can vary from thing to thing. People can be considered to make capacity about their health but not to manage their finances for example. Clearly the judge felt she should have been able to anticipate the consequences of her action.

YANBU. I thought at the time of her conviction she was obviously disabled and potentially autistic. Insane that she was sent to prison- the cyclist should’ve been in the road! As a visually impaired woman she was probably sick of being bumped in to. I hope she wins her appeal.

Yes me too. It must have been so traumatic. And I do think that was taken into account in the sentencing.

So? Yeah it must be annoying for her but as the sentencing remarks said she didn't appear scared or anything like that. Just annoyed. You don't get to endanger someone's life just because you are annoyed.

Shes not a victim here.

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

Why do people keep saying this?

A child didn't die.

Sadly, a 78-year old lady did.

It's not helpful to create 'what ifs', rather than dealing with the facts.

What is prison for? Protecting the public from dangerous people. She was convicted of causing someone's death. What is more dangerous than that? Lock her up and protect the public.

For me it’s not about sympathy. It’s about a fear of the system if trials aren’t fair. One day any of us could wind up disabled, and be at the mercy of being dismissed. The system isn’t working properly if trials aren’t fair.
So much is said about a country or court system when you look at how vulnerable people are treated.
This is the same system that has effectively legalised rape with a conviction rate so low you are almost guaranteed not to face any consequences.
Something is inherently broken if judges dismiss the needs of those on trial out of hand, or stage findings that aren’t proven.
Its not just about Auriol herself

As did the cyclist. They could have slowed down or stopped, and it isn't wide enough as shown above.

What happened was terrible, I just don't think 3 year is proportionate.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/sentences-killer-drivers-might-surprise-15531777?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

Some of these have similar custodial, and there offence wasn't one moment of madness.

And? Is a 78 year old somehow ok to kill?!
That was someone's family. Snuffed out. Just because she got angry.

It was not an accident.

When you go up to someone, shouting and pushing, whatever happens as a result might not be intentional but it isn't an accident.

2.4 metres is not a narrow pavement. Had AG stayed where she was the cyclist would have gone past her with room to spare and nothing would have happened. AG chose to aggressively move Into the cyclists path to force her onto the road and that choice led to a death.

That's a very good post.

AG did not disclose to police that she had any living relatives. The distancing of herself from her family had been an increased issue that had been happening for some time. It's a further indication of her vulnerability.

I'll have to remind my partially sighted adult child that if walking along a pavement being unable to clearly see what is happening is no defence. The fact that they can't see items about 40cm away is clearly not going to cut it.

I think a lot of people honestly don't know what an accident is. An act of aggression with worse consequences than you intended isn't an accident.

An accident would be Mrs Ward hitting a stone on the pavement. Or Grey attempting to move over to make room, misjudging the distance and colliding with the cyclist.

Going right up to someone, shouting at them and pushing them in the direction of traffic may cause an outcome you didn't intend, but it's not an accident.

And? Is a 78 year old somehow ok to kill?!
That was someone's family. Snuffed out. Just because she got angry.

🙄

That was exactly my point - there's no need to talk about an imaginary child that didn't die; there was a victim who was a 78-year old woman and we should deal in facts.

You misread my post completely.

Your language is incredibly biased too.

Honestly, I just keep thinking about myself being in that position and it scares me that one mistake could ruin my life and the circumstances around it not taken seriously into account

shouting and pushing

She didn't push her.

She was not imprisoned for being partially sighted.

I understand some people feel a custodial sentence is not appropriate but that’s really disingenuous. It’s making out she couldn’t see and she just put her arm out in confusion. That isn’t what happened at all. She saw the cyclist and swore at her.

Intent is irrelevant where manslaughter is concerned. Intent is really only significant where the charge of murder is applied.

Just because AG didn't intend to kill or harm the cyclist with her aggression doesn't free her of all blame or responsibility for causing the cyclist to die. Her aggressive actions directly led to a woman's death.

Her lack of intent is only relevant in deciding if it's a murder or manslaughter charge. It's not relevant in deciding if she's guilty or not guilty. Video footage proves her actions are at least a contributing (most likely significant) factor to another woman's death.

If lack of intent is sufficient to get people off with their crimes, then no one would ever be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, would they? All they'd have to say is, "Yes, I was driving 100mph whilst seven times over the legal limit and killed a pedestrian whilst doing it, but see, I didn't intend to kill anyone when I hopped in the car." Judge: "Solid reasoning. Free to go! Next!"

The video indicates that she did.

In any case, she forced her into the road.

It wasn't an accident.

The video indicates that she did.

No, it doesn't.

And in court this was not alleged. It was alleged some contact took place - but not that it was pushing.

That's what life is.

We all make decisions. Some of them are bad ones. Some have catastrophic consequences for our lives and the lives of others. Have a bit of empathy for the bereaved family instead of bemoaning a woman whose actions caused them to become bereaved.

I thought the general rule is to stay left in a shared use space? With the direction they were going, wasn’t the fence on Auriol’s left and the road on Mrs Ward’s left?

Therefore, Mrs. Ward would have been completely in the wrong to move towards the fence - she would have been moving directly into where she could reasonably expect Auriol to be.

There was no onus on either to give way. There was an onus on both not to deliberately move to the right into the path of the other.

Mrs. Ward didn’t - she stayed left. Auriol deliberately moved to the right into her path.

That's what I thought Hola.

I definitely haven't seen a video where AG touches the cyclist.

If everybody is positive that this exists can someone please link to it?

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.'

Yes. She did. The police had the full video. The one we've seen wasn't full.