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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
Blossomtoes · 27/03/2023 10:19

The Sunday Times is also demonstrably inaccurate.

freyamay74 · 27/03/2023 10:20

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy
Great line of arguing, to accuse everyone who disagrees with you as reading the tabloids, while you, of course, are the only one to apparently have access to reputable, 100% reliable sources 

OneTC · 27/03/2023 10:20

The Sunday times and all the other tabloids know this is click bait gold. They live to fan the flames of division

freyamay74 · 27/03/2023 10:21

Oh and btw, AG admitted that she made contact with the cyclist, so it's rubbish that there wasn't conclusive evidence.

ReneBumsWombats · 27/03/2023 10:23

Stugs · 27/03/2023 08:56

Well, she absolutely did, even if it's reduced to manslaughter. She killed someone.

I agree with PP that if this had been a young black teen people would have been baying for his blood.

Yes, she killed someone. But it wasn't murder.

freyamay74 · 27/03/2023 10:30

And because she couldn’t quote word for word what she had shouted at Ward, that was interpreted and reported s lying to the police,

Rubbish. There was no 'interpretation' about it. She told the police she had said 'slow down' when she had in fact shouted aggressively 'Get off the fucking pavement.' She lied.

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 10:32

QueenLagertha · 27/03/2023 10:04

I wonder would OP have been so understanding if it was her own Mother who was pushed in to the road 🤔

Totally irrelevant. Obvious to anyone who’s not out to nitpick that the OP was drawing attention to the fairness or otherwise of the processes involved in arriving at the verdict, not the verdict itself. Dragging personal emotion into what should be objective scrutiny of the treatment of a vulnerable person while in the care of the judicial system serves no more purpose than the ridiculous comparisons with race and gender. You could just as easily turn it around and ask how people would feel if they had a relative with significant brain injury related cognitive and behavioural problems banged up in jail without due deference of the extent to which her disability contributed to her crime. It’s irrelevant. What matters is not the verdict itself, but whether relevant processes were followed to make sure it was fair.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 10:32

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 00:51

But isn’t that what those agencies are there for ? To risk assess and try to prevent events such as these ? Otherwise what’s the point of them ? And if they let people down why should they escape blame ? Seems to me that this lady had clearly diagnosed conditions - cerebral palsy for one - that resulted in her being housed in a residential home for the disabled and then moved to an adapted flat. As such she would have been on the radar of the various agencies assigned to this field and yet despite her abusive behaviour and harassment of members of the public making her known to the police, they failed to ensure that she received the necessary support and safeguarding. And despite all this evidence to the contrary, most contributors here seem determined in their denial that there was any disability at all - even to the point of arguing with contributors who are clearly professionals in related fields.

Who has denied this woman has a disability? Can you name the posters?

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 10:38

freyamay74 · 27/03/2023 10:20

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy
Great line of arguing, to accuse everyone who disagrees with you as reading the tabloids, while you, of course, are the only one to apparently have access to reputable, 100% reliable sources 

Not at all. The Times article is available online - the point I was making was that it was free of he sensationalist headlines and inflammatory language used by the tabloids and presented a more thoughtful and factual viewpoint from those actually involved. Can any newspaper article really be described as 100% accurate ?

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 10:39

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 01:10

  1. The police don’t need a crystal ball - it’s bleeding obvious that they failed her by not following protocol on safeguarding a clearly vulnerable person (living in disabled facility)
  2. Various newspaper articles all reported that family members had stated their concerns to Papworth Trust that it wasn’t safe for her to live alone. And I would have thought it was obvious that the ‘evidence’ that she wasn’t fit to live alone was the fact that she spent her time harassing strangers and ended up causing the death of a woman by her out of control actions, all of which could have been avoided if the red flags had been acted upon
  3. If they had referred to social services, it would have been mentioned at trial and there would have been a report to that effect. She would already have been on their radar so any police involvement should have been notified.
  4. I think the OP was referring to risk assessment before the incident, not after, as if the proper procedures had been followed she may possibly have been moved back into residential supervised care.

And I don’t blame the OP for turning off notifications, this is a dreadful, hostile thread and contains some outrageous attitudes towards mental health. If MN moderators are watching, I think it should be taken down.

The police don’t need a crystal ball - it’s bleeding obvious that they failed her by not following protocol on safeguarding a clearly vulnerable person (living in disabled facility)

In what way didn’t they safeguard her? And how do you know? Do you work for the police safeguarding them?

What would you expect them to do if not lock her away?

Various newspaper articles all reported that family members had stated their concerns to Papworth Trust that it wasn’t safe for her to live alone. And I would have thought it was obvious that the ‘evidence’ that she wasn’t fit to live alone was the fact that she spent her time harassing strangers and ended up causing the death of a woman by her out of control actions, all of which could have been avoided if the red flags had been acted upon

Do you realise how high the bar is for having someone have their liberties taken away and only have supervised outdoor time? Someone who has a disability and is sometimes gobby is way off the mark - again, what do you expect to happen? That she’s never allowed out?

If they had referred to social services, it would have been mentioned at trial and there would have been a report to that effect. She would already have been on their radar so any police involvement should have been notified.

It really wouldn’t. It’s not related to the case and it’s irrelevant in terms of the crime.

I think the OP was referring to risk assessment before the incident, not after, as if the proper procedures had been followed she may possibly have been moved back into residential supervised care.

OP , like yourself, has no idea that a risk assessment didn’t happen.

And I don’t blame the OP for turning off notifications, this is a dreadful, hostile thread and contains some outrageous attitudes towards mental health. If MN moderators are watching, I think it should be taken down.

MN should take down an OP being annoyed that no one is indulging in her spouting drivel? Yeah that’s not how MN rolls.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 10:40

BlackBarbies · 27/03/2023 01:11

I really don’t think she should have been given a jail sentence. She waved her hand in front of the cyclists way to basically tell her to get off the payment. Cyclist swerved and got knocked over. Are they going to change the person who was driving the car then? It doesn’t make much sense to me tbh

She pushed her and screaming and swearing at her. What was the cyclist supposed to do, evaporate?

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 10:41

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 01:20

Why is it laughable ? She was living in a supervised residential care setting before Papworth Trust made the decision to move her out into one of their adapted independent flats. There had to be a reason for that and had her behaviour been brought to the attention of social services they would possibly have recommended that she be moved back to the supervised environment. That would have been a start.

Yes because there’s just loads of residential spaces for women who are disabled and a bit rude to teenagers

Maybe trust the experts on this one rather than your own distinct lack of knowledge

QuintanaRoo · 27/03/2023 10:42

VictorianBathroomTiles · 27/03/2023 08:02

How to let someone know you’ve never worked in the field of adult learning disability without actually saying you’ve never worked in the field of adult learning disability. Sad

She had a high level barrister who didn’t claim she had a learning disability which caused her to act like this. I assume if she did her legal team might have mentioned it. No?

freyamay74 · 27/03/2023 10:44

Whether the appeal is upheld or not, AG is widely known now as an aggressive dishonest individual who has caused the unlawful death of another person.
And she deserves that to be known.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 10:45

BlackBarbies · 27/03/2023 01:24

And that’s fair enough. However I wonder what would have happened if the outcome had been different.

Say the woman threw her arm in the air towards the cyclist but the cyclist applied the brake’s, would she be charged with something? If the cyclist had fallen into the road but the road was empty, would the pedestrian have been charged with attempted murder?

I think what the woman did was unnecessary as she could have just carried on walking past the cyclist. But a prison sentence? You’d think it was the same situation of the woman walking on the road and the cyclist pushed her into the path of a bus (bus swerved and woman survived.) That was done intentionally to harm the woman, I don’t believe the pedestrian wanted to intentionally harm her at all.

Saying that, someone’s lost their life so there has to be some sort of consequence. I just think the whole situation is insane

That’s not the way the law works. Look up the egg shell skull rule. The fact she didn’t mean to or wouldn’t have killed her in other circumstances does is entirely irrelevant

midgemadgemodge · 27/03/2023 10:47

Y the agitation in the press and on here suggests someone is motivated to get her off yet I have seen no evidence that the judge was incompetent

I'd love to know why someone was so keen on whipping up public support for a remorse free killer

ArcticSkewer · 27/03/2023 10:50

QuintanaRoo · 27/03/2023 10:42

She had a high level barrister who didn’t claim she had a learning disability which caused her to act like this. I assume if she did her legal team might have mentioned it. No?

She didn't have family to advocate for her. Her sister had died three weeks earlier. The rest of the family only found out after she was convicted and the press turned up.

Barristers only work with the information they are given and, unsurprisingly, a person with a learning disability might not have great insight into their condition.

It would be very common for someone her age to not have a formal diagnosis but still be looked after as it was obvious she needed to be (in the care home and later in sheltered housing) and an appropriate adult present for the police interview.

I imagine if family had known about the court case they would have arranged a formal assessment and diagnosis/report. I certainly would have done, anyway. The barrister, who specialises in cases involving learning disabilities, is now working pro bono.

freyamay74 · 27/03/2023 10:58

Lots of assumptions being made here about what the family might or might not have done. Let's just stick to facts.

rwalker · 27/03/2023 11:03

ReneBumsWombats · 27/03/2023 10:23

Yes, she killed someone. But it wasn't murder.

A deliberate act to push someone into oncoming traffic is murder

If someone pushed a person off a train platform into an incoming that would be murder this is no different

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 11:03

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 10:32

Who has denied this woman has a disability? Can you name the posters?

Quite a few agree with the judge in that there was no contributing mental health issue and there’s liberal use of wording such as ‘just a gobby cow’ and ‘aggressive dickhead’ I’m not going to go scrolling for names to quote to satisfy another of your daft, goady posts, which seem to pop up on various threads with depressing regularity. Well done on the username by the way. Very apt.

Appleass · 27/03/2023 11:05

Excuses, excuses, her disability was not a factor, she was a nasty piece of work and got what she deserves, which was a lot less than her victim and family !!!

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 11:05

rwalker · 27/03/2023 11:03

A deliberate act to push someone into oncoming traffic is murder

If someone pushed a person off a train platform into an incoming that would be murder this is no different

Manslaughter. No matter how much you want it to be murder, the verdict was manslaughter. There was no intent to kill.

Fifi1010 · 27/03/2023 11:07

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 10:41

Yes because there’s just loads of residential spaces for women who are disabled and a bit rude to teenagers

Maybe trust the experts on this one rather than your own distinct lack of knowledge

You sound like someone who has no idea how cognitive impairment effects people. It's fucking brain damage !!!! It's not being a bit gobby!!! It can impact on behaviour , impulsivity and empathy. That's the science of it and yes there is residential support placements. No one is saying she should have been locked up forever before the incident just they could have put therapeutic interventions into place like, positive behaviour support planning , more staff support. Her barrister has took on the appeal pro-bono.

The police interview shows she has cognitive impairment her answers are clumsy she's not a bloody criminal mastermind. Walking away from the scene of the accident sounds strange to a lay person but again she has cognitive impairment and probably was only focusing on getting to the shops. Again cognitive impairment effects reasoning and decision making.

FingerPuppet · 27/03/2023 11:08

rwalker · 27/03/2023 11:03

A deliberate act to push someone into oncoming traffic is murder

If someone pushed a person off a train platform into an incoming that would be murder this is no different

I do believe she pushed the cyclist, but the CCTV wasn’t clear enough to establish a push, and there was no witness evidence either.

I do believe that if the CCTV footage showed a clear push, AG would have faced a murder trial.