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

She did not intend to kill Mrs Ward.

It's manslaughter.

Because she has a fucking brain injury!!! It affects reasoning hence the no remorse.

But they are the facts. The barrister could only defend Grey on the information he was given. And there was no-one to advocate for her, and no one to support her at the sentencing hearing. Do you not think it odd that the police were aware of her difficulties enough to appoint an appropriate adult at the police interview stage, but that that didn’t seem to be followed through at other stages of the process ? Or that they didn’t think to inform the family so that they could make sure she was properly supported and represented ? The fact that ‘due process’ may not have been fairly applied to a vulnerable adult and that an unsafe conviction as a result of failings in that process has implications for us all, seems to have been lost in the scramble to label Grey as nothing more than a gobby cow who deserved what she got. I’m really troubled by this thread. Genuinely. Trial by social media at the hands of people who have little idea of how due process is supposed to work, no concept of how this woman has been failed, and even less knowledge of, or tolerance of mental health and cognitive issues. I’m out.

If she gets a medical review and someone finds that there is a genuine reason why she could not have helped her actions then I’d agree she shouldn’t be in prison.

but of course that reason would then mean she must never be allowed out on her own again because she could do it again.

I would also hate for her cerebral palsy to me used as a get out of jail free card. Not that I’m saying that would be the case but I’d guess it’s quite subjective as to whether or not her brain injury is serious enough to excuse her. There’s a lot of people with brain injuries, cerebral palsy, etc who aren’t walking about pushing people under cars.

She did not have a Trial by social media. She had a trial in a court of justice. If they have done something incorrect then yes of course that should be challenged. Hence why we have the appeal process.

And. Do. What?
Lock her up?

The fact she has a disability is known. It is absolutely perfectly possible for someone with a disability involving cognitive impairment to commit a crime. She was convicted. 3 years was judged proportionate; it'll be about 18 months tops actually in prison.

Having said that, I think however many years it is (or if it had been a suspended sentence) I think her life from this point is going to be dominated by the fact she's widely known for her crime. I have far more sympathy for the victims of her crime than for her though.

This question has been asked and answered. Several times. Grey was in a supervised residential facility. The problems only started when she was moved out of that environment to live alone. Papworth Trust took that decision despite the family’s concerns that it was unsafe to do so, and those concerns were clearly borne out - it was the wrong decision, and she’s obviously more suited to the structured and supervised environment she was in before. And in case you’ve missed it, she’s locked up now !! You seem to be accusing the OP and various other contributors of wanting to lock up disabled people simply because they are disabled. Nowhere on this thread do I see evidence of that. Your use of full stops is annoying, and it’s clearly deliberate with the intent to goad other contributors. This is a serious subject, with horrible consequences for all involved. If you can’t treat it as such why don’t you go and play somewhere else.

So the family who are now so concerned for her and telling everyone of her vulnerability, and are now saying theyve always said she needed intensive support but clearly had no contact with her until they were told by a journo she'd be arrested...
Why in those 3 weeks had they had no contact? Am assuming given their level of concern of her need they would have been in contact with police/ss with regards to concern for her due to no contact for such a period of time?

Absolutely. And, according to the ST it was over two years with no contact.

. Grey was in a supervised residential facility. The problems only started when she was moved out of that environment to live

So you are verifying that in her previous residence, AG was allowed out alone but had no problems at all? Or are you saying AG was never allowed out alone while in this facility?

Many families cut off contact with relatives with disabilities especially affecting the brain. Her DM is in her 80s and attitudes were very different then.

No AG would have been allowed out but staff will keep an eye on her presentation and report back any concerns.

So she was never allowed out without supervision to restrain her if she'd tried to do what she did to the cyclist? You're stating that as a known fact?

Because unless you're stating that as fact, it's entirely possible that AG could have committed this crime while in her previous accommodation.

FFs I never said that, the Papworth trust moved her from residential to her own adaptive flat alone. If she remained in supportive care ,she would be allowed out without supervision but staff would report and escalate concerns to other professionals. If she was being verbally aggressive in the setting etc or had heard she had been verbally aggressive in a public place. Interventions does not mean locking people up for the last time !!!

Sorry not RTFT, but based on personal experience, there is a lot more supervision of disabled people who are in a residential facility similar to a care home - solo outings aren’t the norm, no. At least IME.

@Fifi1010 exactly, I know it doesn't mean locking people up or supervising them 24/7 which is why it's entirely possible AG could have acted in the same way in her supervised accommodation. And there is no evidence that she only started shouting at people and generally being unpleasant after moving and that in her previous setting there were no problems whatsoever. Which is why it's bizarre that one or two posters persist in trying to shift responsibility for AG's behaviour onto others.

This is what I was trying to say. There is a lot more structure and a lot more opportunity for monitoring and intervention if there’s a problem. Had she been in trouble with police while at the facility, I would imagine there would have been more support put in place to ensure it didn’t happen again. Amazing the number of people who still think this means disabled people should be locked up when there are other, better ways of protecting people without depriving people of their liberty. I do think Papworth Trust need to take a look at how they arrived at the decision to allow her to live alone, as it was obviously the wrong one.

It's not obvious that it was the wrong decision at all! Or are you now going to provide us with records from the charitable trust of their assessments and decision making process for AG?

Honestly, the way a few people are trying to deflect responsibility from AG and assuming anyone who disagrees has no knowledge or experience of disability or safeguarding is pretty staggering.

But carry on blaming everyone else rather than the woman who unlawfully killed another woman if it makes you feel better.

The KC is now acting pro bono - I doubt she would be doing this unless she thought the outcome unfair.

this is true, but can I please clarify one thing for those who seem to think disabled = can’t be a cunt. When we are talking about fairness here we are talking about due process in a legal sense. Was the right evidence taken into account and given adequate consideration.

lawyers don’t just do pro bono for ‘nice’ people or where they wished the outcome had been different. They also do it for cunts like Auriol. Even arseholes deserve legal representation. Murderers and rapists deserve representation even when every shred of evidence is stacked against them. That’s the hallmark of a law abiding society. Lawyers owe their duties to the court (ie the justice system) not their client. They want the best outcome for the rule of law, not the miscreant they represent.

im happy the case might go to appeal as a lawyer. On a personal level I’m glad Auriol was convicted. Foul woman

I came back to the thread in defence of @Fifi1010, who has been one of the voices of reason throughout. Been dipping in and out since starting the thread but haven’t commented until she was ripped to pieces for posting from obvious experience and reasoned argument. Had I realised that there were other threads on the subject I wouldn’t have started this one, and it’s now degenerated into a slanging match between a few aggressive posters and is serving no useful purpose for debate - which is the point of MN isn’t it ? But neither myself or others who have questioned the way due process has been applied to Grey are ‘blaming’ anyone else. That’s your interpretation. If - if, there has been a miscarriage of justice here, by way of any kind of failing of Ms Grey, then it’s in everyone’s interests to correct it. If we allow a different, inferior standard of justice to be applied to vulnerable people, no matter how small the failing it results from, then it has implications for us all. I have no clue as to why so many people on here seem to object to the desire of some to make sure that this conviction is safe and that justice has been served to the same standard as if applied to someone without the disability. That is in no way trying to excuse disabled people from being held accountable. But if you are going to put a vulnerable physically and mentally disabled person in prison, then you better damn well make sure that the process you used stands up to scrutiny.

How do you know the police didn't inform Auriol's family? Plus Auriol still spoke to her mum and had a friend, she lived alone, she was able to call her family if she wanted to. Are you saying Auriol was held in custody for an extended period prior to her sentencing?

@DotAndCarryOne2

it’s now degenerated into a slanging match between a few aggressive posters and is serving no useful purpose for debate

Was it ever going to be a debate when you're shown pictures of signage showing it was shared path and refuse to acknowledge it, OP?

You engage selectively, when enough time has passed between posts you find uncomfortable and unable to answer.

So despite agreeing that the appeal will examine fairness and due process in the legal sense by scrutinising consideration of the evidence - in other words ensure that the conviction was safe - and given that that process has not yet started, you, as a lawyer, are glad she was convicted ? Ok then.