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

[DotAndCarryOne2]

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

YES IT DOES show her pushing the cyclist. I hope you are never on a jury either. If it was down to people like you, this murderer would have got away with killing this cyclist.

Ok, so I guess we wait and see? But you realise that lodging an appeal isn't proof of anything?

Where is this reported?

You keep banging on about how due process hasn’t been followed and how shes been treated unfairly - but you can’t tell us how?

It's difficult I watched the interview and the sentencing remarks. The interview she clearly seems to not grasp she did anything wrong not waiting for the police and ambulance. To me she shows cognitive impairment but that's a snippet of the interview. Her mother also claims she had severe brain damage at birth. The judge admits she does have some cognitive impairments but claims she attended a mainstream primary school. It's shaky ground the defence team could get her sentence quashed if they didn't follow the correct procedures entirely.

I think prison is the wrong place. Hospital order is more suitable and the staff are able to work to rehabilitate people with her difficulties better.

It’s laughable, isn’t it? And she’s also refused to acknowledge the pavement has been confirmed as a shared path. The equivalent of sticking her fingers in her ears.

When she was interviewed, and before she knew the CCTV had sounds, she was asked what she said to Celia Ward and she claims she said “Slow down” rather than “get off the fucking pavement”.

So she knew that the words she used were aggressive and lied to the police about what she said. Sounds like someone who very much knows right from wrong.

Some people with cognitive impairment frequently lie it doesn't mean they don't have it. The judge even says in his sentencing remarks she has it.
It's quite clearly manslaughter, she accidentally killed someone I don't think she intended to kill them. She lacks remorse so is still a risk to the public. Prison is not an appropriate place as someone with cognitive impairment they need extensive therapy and supervision which can't be done in a mainstream prison.

If the sentence holds I think she will be moved.

But the defence are reported to be preparing an appeal based on the fact that there are issues with this.

Like talking to brick wall here.
I am starting to be bit suspicious here

Are you relative hoping to sway public and put pressure on judicial system? Will this be followed by etition link or something?
It won't work btw

What ???? How would it be her fault she’s mentally impaired ? And no one is saying she’s mentally ill. That’s completely different. She has a brain injury as a result of being starved of oxygen at birth and subsequent surgeries. This has resulted in cognitive impairment, cerebral palsy and mobility problems. None of these conditions require sectioning under the mental health act , or, as you so charmingly put it, ‘rehabilitation, and FYI, neither does mental illness unless it escalates to the point where the person is a danger to themselves or others. Sectioning is a form of safeguarding, not punishment, as you seem to be suggesting.

For fucks sake!

But the defence are reported to be preparing an appeal based on the fact that there are issues with this

You haven't even seen the appeal? ??????
You've been posting like you know the ins and outs of the appea!l

Have you or have you not read the appeal?
Do you know for a fact - not "reported", not "allegedly", not "The Sunday Times thinks" - what the grounds of appeal are?

Or have you made this all up?

Well actually it shows a failure by the NHS, Social care and the police to risk assess and safeguard. If this lady had the appropriate support put in the first place it's highly likely this would never have happened. It's called multiagency working , it's quite clear she's a vulnerable person so why the police didn't flag this to SS when she was first harassing people.

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Think I’m done with this now.

@Fifi1010 my point is that cognitive impairment or not, she had capacity to know right from wrong. If she didn't, why would she have bothered lying in her interviews? If she genuinely believed she'd done nothing wrong, why wouldn't she have told the truth? It's pretty obvious that she knew damn well she was responsible for the woman's death and tried to lie her way out of it until she was shown the cctv footage

The basic rule for all roads, pavements and shared pathways is that whoever is going fastest needs to take more care and needs to be the one who moves safely around the slower road/path user, whether they are coming towards you or travelling in the same direction. Sometimes that's really annoying and sometimes you even need to stop for the slower person whether you're a driver, cyclist or pedestrian.

Celia Ward's death was tragic but I still believe it was an accident and not Auriol Grey's fault. It doesn't matter whether it was a shared pedestrian/cycleway or a footpath - Mrs Ward must have expected to encounter pedestrians on that path and must have known that as a cyclist she was travelling faster than them.

It doesn't matter that AG may have been behaving erratically because of her disabilities, or even if she did it willfully. She didn't start moving faster or change her course. CW should already have stopped some way short of her. There could just as likely have been a toddler or a puppy dicking about on that pathway, or a mobility scooter or a very elderly person going very slowly with a stick or a frame. On shared pathways, pedestrians have right of way and it's the responsibility of cyclists to slow down or stop when necessary.

This was a terrible accident and my heart goes out to Celia Ward's family but it wasn't AG's fault, CW just didn't stop in time. Auriol Grey should not be in prison.

If anyone should be prosecuted then it's the local council. This is a very busy road and even the police could not determine whether it was a pedestrian only or shared path. How is that safe?

Alleluia.

What’s your point?
How has Grey been treated u fairly?
You are gonna have to spell it out to us.

You also don't seem to have idea what YOU are talking about tbh

What?! Nobody could have predicted this happening! Unless you go back to the horrors of ‘long stay hospitals’ and lock up everyone with cognitive impairment then we will live in a society whereby those people live freely and sometimes, like with people who don’t have brain injuries, commit crimes

Given the fact that her actions have led to the death of another woman, I'd say she is clearly a risk to others.
Has she shown any contrition at all?

'sectioning under the mental health act can be done if the subject is a danger to themselves or others' well she's clearly shown that she's a danger to others so maybe sectioning once she's served her punishment would be appropriate.

Are you going to tell us how you know all the details of the appeal and where the police and judges have not carried out due process and fairness? Because your crap about not having a legal representative is total bollocks.

This. She’s admitted “making contact” with somebody, aggressively (we can hear her shouting and swearing on camera), and that person ends up under a car’s wheels.

She either knew that was wrong, and did it anyway, meaning jail time. Or she is so mentally disabled she is unable to understand that it was wrong, in which case she could do it again to a child, and so she needs indefinite detention where she can’t hurt anybody again. The judge felt it was the former, posters on here who feel it is the latter clearly haven’t thought through the ramifications of what they are arguing.

There is no scenario in which you shove a random passer-by under a car and carry on your life as if nothing has happened because you’re disabled.