Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that a three year jail sentence is unreasonable for the disabled pedestrian who was found guilty of causing the death of a cyclist

646 replies

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 20:30

The Sunday Times and The Guardian carried this story earlier this month and again today, as did GB News. Link is below. I just find it unbelievable that so much relevant information about this lady’s disability was either ignored or dismissed by the judge, and that she didn’t have adequate representation at sentencing.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjj6omaqvr9AhWJbcAKHVv9DMkQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fcyclist-manslaughter-auriol-grey-cambridgeshire-b2294507.html&usg=AOvVaw1yOHhh6F4zfEel6m4EMYpL

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjj6omaqvr9AhWJbcAKHVv9DMkQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fcyclist-manslaughter-auriol-grey-cambridgeshire-b2294507.html&usg=AOvVaw1yOHhh6F4zfEel6m4EMYpL

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
FingerPuppet · 26/03/2023 23:10

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:07

But the whole premise for the sentence she received was that the intent was there.

Show quote history

She was charged with and convicted of manslaughter.

If there was any indication of intent, she would have been charged with murder.

Ktime · 26/03/2023 23:12

QuintanaRoo · 26/03/2023 23:09

Where ? Department of Transport guidelines state that shared pathways should be 3m wide - the one in question was 2.4m and neither the police or the council could support the assertion by the judge that it was shared

well it’s signed clearly as a shared use path now and is still only 2.4m wide. The path further along was always signed as a shared use path and was the same width.

the police and council could not find any evidence that it was not a shared path.

And the judge said:

The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety.

SkyandSurf · 26/03/2023 23:13

@DotAndCarryOne2

It's not really important from a legal perspective whether she can understand remorse. The legal test is whether she understood her own wrongful actions and did them intentionally. This is 'men reas' - one of two basic elements of a crime.

The lying is a good indicator that she knew it was wrong.

Remorse would be relevant in terms of sentencing and prospects of rehabilitation but as I said earlier - if we decided a brain injury is a 'get out of jail free card' - then we'd have some very roomy prisons.

Her aggressive and reckless (at least it was reckless) behaviour caused someone to die. They couldn't let her skip out of court after that. There had to be a jail term.

TheyThemJugs · 26/03/2023 23:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Miajk · 26/03/2023 23:13

ZiriForEver · 26/03/2023 22:56

If you can't stop when something is happening, you are riding too fast for shared environment.

Afaik Ms Grey was shouting first, so there was a moment to recognise some irregularity was happening.
Seems Ms Grey is being judged because she had the bad luck that the cyclist was less stable and not able to react.

Show quote history

Bad luck?

Pedestrian road rage isn't bad luck, it's intentional behaviour.

If your child ran out in front of my car while I have right of way and I but them, its not bad luck is it?

If someone annoyed you and you tailgated them beeping your horn non stop and they crashed because of this it wouldn't be bad luck would it?

Jeez some people on here

Blossomtoes · 26/03/2023 23:14

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

It’s a shared pathway. For the umpteenth time.

Ktime · 26/03/2023 23:14

RosesAndHellebores · 26/03/2023 23:10

It's tragic all round. Cyclists make me incandescent for their scant regard for the highway code and apparent belief that traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, etc., do not apply to them. Their breaches need to be enforceable. As indeed do the breaches of the public when they veer into aggression and cause accidents. Whether the pavement was shared or not physical force was not the answer.

I find a Paddington stare and "pavements are for pedestrians" suffices or results in being given either one or two fingers by the average cyclist.

None of that has anything to do with Celia Ward. She is the tragic victim here, not Angry, Aggressive Auriol.

Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:14

burgledinParis · 26/03/2023 23:02

Unfortunately, this is in French.

The guy is basically being a total arsehole - sexist, racist etc. The camera pans out to see he is a wheelchair.

The end quote is - this man is in a wheelchair - but foremost, he is an arsehole - handicapped people are people like everyone else.

I think this is relevant here.

But nobody is saying that she should not be punished simply because she is disabled - and by the way, the term ‘handicapped’ is obsolete these days. The issue is whether the effects of that disability have been properly considered in the light of what happened, and that safeguarding guidelines for vulnerable adults have been followed so that Grey can be seen to have been afforded the same standards of due process as would someone without a disability.

OP posts:
Miajk · 26/03/2023 23:14

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Someone died and this is what you say? If someone close to you died would you be happy saying such stupid things?

XenoBitch · 26/03/2023 23:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Fucking hell, someone was killed.

QuintanaRoo · 26/03/2023 23:15

RosesAndHellebores · 26/03/2023 23:10

It's tragic all round. Cyclists make me incandescent for their scant regard for the highway code and apparent belief that traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, etc., do not apply to them. Their breaches need to be enforceable. As indeed do the breaches of the public when they veer into aggression and cause accidents. Whether the pavement was shared or not physical force was not the answer.

I find a Paddington stare and "pavements are for pedestrians" suffices or results in being given either one or two fingers by the average cyclist.

<sigh> it was a 75yo lady on a cycle path.

your post is irrelevant here.

FingerPuppet · 26/03/2023 23:16

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:07

But the whole premise for the sentence she received was that the intent was there.

Show quote history

And she’s actually incredibly fortunate that there is no clear footage of her making contact with and/or pushing the cyclist into the road, because her sentence would have been much longer than 3 years.

MarshaBradyo · 26/03/2023 23:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

That is horrendous. What if it had been a member of your family

Still a medal?

SkyandSurf · 26/03/2023 23:16

@FingerPuppet

That's not right. She only needed to understand and intend her own actions, she didn't need to intend someone due for it to be manslaughter.

Eg. If I have a seizure while driving and my car kills someone- that's not manslaughter as I didn't intend my actions. If I swerve off the road while in control of the car and kill someone, that could be manslaughter. Neither situation requires me to intend that someone die.

minou123 · 26/03/2023 23:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Congratulations, you have just won my contest of 'The most Low life. Sub-human, evil posts on mumsnet'

SkyandSurf · 26/03/2023 23:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Write to your local government if you would like the road rules changed.

This is disgusting.

QuintanaRoo · 26/03/2023 23:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Maybe the lady’s family will read this…..give your head a wobble.

ReneBumsWombats · 26/03/2023 23:17

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:07

But the whole premise for the sentence she received was that the intent was there.

Show quote history

No, that's not how manslaughter works. If she had intended to kill Mrs Ward it would have been murder.

As it was, she committed an unlawful act that was likely to do harm. She did not intend to kill Mrs Ward but she did, through an unlawful act. And she is judged to have understood that that act - intimidating Mrs Ward and forcing her into the road - was unlawful and potentially harmful.

An accident would have been her attempting to move over and make room, misjudging and colliding with her. Or accidentally dropping her bag and Mrs Ward hitting it.

Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:18

SkyandSurf · 26/03/2023 23:13

@DotAndCarryOne2

It's not really important from a legal perspective whether she can understand remorse. The legal test is whether she understood her own wrongful actions and did them intentionally. This is 'men reas' - one of two basic elements of a crime.

The lying is a good indicator that she knew it was wrong.

Remorse would be relevant in terms of sentencing and prospects of rehabilitation but as I said earlier - if we decided a brain injury is a 'get out of jail free card' - then we'd have some very roomy prisons.

Her aggressive and reckless (at least it was reckless) behaviour caused someone to die. They couldn't let her skip out of court after that. There had to be a jail term.

The police judged her not to be showing remorse, despite not being fully aware of the effects of her condition and despite interviewing her without a responsible adult present. The judge took a similar view, despite it flying in the face of the medical evidence presented, and that lack of remorse was reflected in the sentence. How is that fair ?

OP posts:
EatingWormsMichael · 26/03/2023 23:18

I think she deserves the sentence. It's like the one-punch kills you hear about, the lesson is don't push/hit people when you feel angry.

Also her defence made a big sob story about her losing her home cos she has no friends or family. Now her (previously non existent) family and friends are speaking out against the appeal.

Seems to me they've painted her as something she isnt, and the judge has seen through it.

I'll save my sympathy for the poor lady who died and her family.

Blossomtoes · 26/03/2023 23:19

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:18

The police judged her not to be showing remorse, despite not being fully aware of the effects of her condition and despite interviewing her without a responsible adult present. The judge took a similar view, despite it flying in the face of the medical evidence presented, and that lack of remorse was reflected in the sentence. How is that fair ?

Show quote history

So the police, the CPS, the jury and the judge were all wrong? OK.

Lizzt2007 · 26/03/2023 23:19

Viviennemary · 26/03/2023 22:35

I don't think she should be in prison at all. Why was the cyclist even on the pavement.

That is completely irrelevant. It was suspected that it was a shared cycle path at the time and that has since been confirmed. So the cyclist wasn't on a pavement, she was on a cycle path. However even if it had been a pavement the pedestrian had NO right to aggressively attempt to force the cyclist off the path. She isn't the police it's not her job to control the behaviour of a complete stranger. Had she minded her own business it wouldn't have happened. She killed someone by being aggressive, she chose to take action that caused a death.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 26/03/2023 23:20

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:05

She didn’t leave the scene voluntarily, she was led away by a bystander - police evidence supports this. People keep saying she ‘lied’ to the police when in actual fact when she was asked what happened she replied that she thought she had shouted at her to slow down, and had waved her arms. When she was shown the video evidence she agreed she was wrong. The Sun, The Mirror and the Daily Fail all reported it as lying to the police - completely overlooking the fact that she was interviewed by police, and later faced sentencing without the support which should have been in place for a vulnerable adult. And that’s my issue. I have no problem with people being punished for their actions - disability, as someone upthread commented, is not a get out of jail card. But inconsistencies in her treatment by the police and within the legal system have come to light which suggest that safeguarding policies for vulnerable adults may not have been followed, and if that’s the case then it needs to be addressed.

Show quote history

Oh come on!

Thats like saying “The drug dealer didn’t lie to police - he said ‘they weren’t my drugs I was keeping them for a friend’ then when the police showed the video of him buying the drugs he agreed they were right’

Ktime · 26/03/2023 23:21

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 23:18

The police judged her not to be showing remorse, despite not being fully aware of the effects of her condition and despite interviewing her without a responsible adult present. The judge took a similar view, despite it flying in the face of the medical evidence presented, and that lack of remorse was reflected in the sentence. How is that fair ?

Show quote history

So you’re ignoring Blossomtoes posts showing it’s a shared pavement and lambasting the judge again? There’s a surprise.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 26/03/2023 23:21

inconsistencies in her treatment by the police and within the legal system have come to light which suggest that safeguarding policies for vulnerable adults may not have been followed, and if that’s the case then it needs to be addressed.

How did the police treat her badly and inconsistently?