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

@DotAndCarryOne2 you need to get your facts straight. No one is appealing against the conviction! She's rightly been convicted of unlawfully killing someone. It's the sentence she's appealing.

Her sister had just died of cancer before the incident itself, which she had been recently diagnosed with, leaving behind two young children. I expect her brother in law was busy bringing them up. Her mother is in her mid-eighties.

Many people in her situation are quite antisocial and difficult to stay in regular touch with. The Times article says she herself found it stressful as a change in her daily routine.

The family, now they know, are rallying round.

This was actually her second trial, the first couldn't reach a verdict.

I personally see it as another sign of her cognitive difficulties that she didn't reach out to family for help at any point.

Yes I am! Because I don’t want someone who thinks it’s ok to push someone into the path of moving traffic and then just pop off shopping after witnessing her being mowed down in society. I want them institutionalised with the care their apologists say they need and deserve (ahem) OR I want them locked up away from well meaning people. You can’t have it both ways OP - she’s a frightening menace and should be in care or in prison: either way following a guilty verdict. If you genuinely think the court didn’t take her disability into account then I’m glad there’s a process that can be followed but fuck no I don’t want Auriol wandering free. Lock her up!

She's not interested in facts, she's pumped full of her own importance talking about 'due process' and 'unsafe convictions', because she's watched a few episodes of CSI and thinks she's an expert.

According to the newspaper reports and from interviews with her family, they said police didn’t inform her family that she was in custody, even though they knew she had difficulties. And if you haven’t read it on the thread, then I haven’t said it. I don’t say things in order for people to interpret them as something else, and there are no hidden agendas.

Right, so we've got there.

So, you understand that the appeal judges will examine fairness and due process in the legal sense by scrutinising consideration of the evidence and that the process has not yet started.

Bearing that in mind, how do you know, for a fact, that due process wasn't followed or the judge didn't take her disabilities into consideration?

Just because someone has appealed doesn't automatically mean the conviction or sentencing wasn't safe.

All it means us the defendant, and her lawyer, believe that due process wasn't followed.

I've posted this before on this thread, but I'll try again.
Wayne Couzens, the police officer who killed Sarah Everard, put in an appeal.

He was given a whole life sentence and he appealed stating that due process wasn't followed.

He is entitled to do that.
But, Just because he said (and his lawyer said) due process wasn't followed doesn't make it a fact.

The appeal judge reviewed all the evidence and decided the original judge made the correct decision.

The same process will happen with this case. The Appeal judge will review all the evidence and will decide if the original judge made the correct decision to sentence Grey to 3 years prison.
It will be the appeal judges who will decide, for a fact, if due process was or wasnt followed or if the judge did or didn't take her disabilities into account - not you, not the lawyers and not the press.

@DotAndCarryOne2 do you have a link to the newspaper report? Auriol clearly has someone with her in the interview room, I don't know who it is but I highly doubt the police would have refused to inform her family.

Also, my post was addressed to lovelysausage so not sure what you mean by "and if you haven’t read it on the thread, then I haven’t said it"?

Well you’re both wrong aren’t you ? The barrister is working pro bono on an appeal. That’s called FACT. Not CSI or any other fantasy, but fact. And you don’t know the first thing about me or what my profession is, so you’re in no position to comment are you ? Absolutely astounding that sp many people are wilfully misreading, misunderstanding or looking for things that just aren’t there, or are so wrapped up in their own versions of the events that they’re unwilling to look at the facts you so easily accuse me of not being interested in when it was the whole point of my post.

If anyone hasn't watched clips of the police interview I'd recommend it. The level of manipulation is interesting... AG claims she 'can't remember' what she did, until the officer points out an enlarged freeze frame from the cctv showing AG's hand on the cyclist's jacket. Then she can't deny that she made physical contact. When the officer goes on to tell AG that her mouth is moving, indicating she was saying something, AG claims she said 'slow down.' Total lie. When the officer goes on to say the cctv actually has audio too, and plays it, where AG is clearly heard shouting 'get off the fucking pavement', she then says she doesn't know what she meant.

These are all aggravating issues which suggest a custodial sentence is entirely appropriate. AG could have chosen to be honest, which would likely have reduced her sentence going by sentencing guidelines. Instead she lied.

I have no sympathy for AG, and frankly whether the appeal is upheld or not, I think her life outside prison isn't going to be a bed of roses after what she's done. But however hellish it is, it's no doubt less hellish than what she's inflicted on the cyclist, her family, the car driver, her family, and anyone else who had the misfortune to witness such a horrible, frightening, totally avoidable death.

I coudn’t provide a link to the newspaper article, as I pointed out at the start - its behind a paywall, but someone else has posted it upthread somewhere. And apologies - I replied to your post in error, and irritation to be honest.There are so many people starting their posts with ‘are you saying’ and ‘so what you’re saying is’ when people, including myself, are saying what they mean, not putting the intent of their wording up for debate. Sausage and any other poster showing support for Grey seem to have been driven off the thread now and it seems to me that the thread has degenerated to the point where anyone expressing a different POV is set upon. I seem to be universally regarded as the world’s worst for starting it, so it clearly hasn’t instigated the healthy debate I intended.

I don't think there's really much healthy debate left in the topic.

I also wonder what people think the average prisoner is like in terms of intellectual and mental capacity, but that's a whole other thread. Whether you agree or disagree with people with low level MH issues ending up in mainstream prison is a separate issue. There's loads of people in prison with similar or less capacity than AG. rightly or wrongly this is how we currently deal with it as a society but I don't see widespread sympathy for prisoners in general.

It will be the appeal judges who will decide, for a fact, if due process was or wasnt followed or if the judge did or didn't take her disabilities into account - not you, not the lawyers and not the press.

And not the wannabe judge, jury and executioners on MN either.

You are wrong because you keep saying that she is appealing to 'ensure that the conviction was safe' but this is not what's happening. The Criminal Appeal Court has confirmed that Grey has lodged her application for leave to appeal against her sentence.

This is different to appealing the jury’s verdict, which is that she was GUILTY and which is not not being challenged.

Healthy debate is one thing but unfortunately a few people have expressed the view that AG's disability automatically means the process must be flawed. Or that having a disability and being a nasty aggressive person can't co-exist. And that anyone who disagrees can't possibly have any knowledge or experience of the subject.

The fact there is an appeal (against the sentence, not the conviction) means nothing really... it's a fairly common procedure and I would have expected it in this case.

I agree with you OP.
This won't be the first incident of this type. Something needs to be done about the ongoing conflict between pavement cyclists and pedestrians. Local authorities do nothing to police these cyclists... theyshould be identified and fined/barred from operating a vehicle!

I put a link to the Times Article but I can post another, plus just watched the initial police interview which I can link to if anyone wants to watch it.

I don't think she has a solicitor with her at that interview. I was surprised. So possibly just an appropriate adult, which can be a volunteer rather than someone who knows the person.

I noticed for example in the police interview when she is asked why she left the scene, she doesn't say that she was told to leave by a bystander, yet apparently that's what happened. A family member as appropriate adult might have been able to intervene and would certainly have got her a solicitor, if they had any sense.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4d1eb570-cb22-11ed-9386-0ff7738b71b1?shareToken=d1821a573e5f0a76932301f144788069

If you scroll upthread to the link to The Times article you’ll find the same info I did. The appeal that’s being prepared is on a number of issues including whether procedures were followed and due consideration given to the evidence presented - which speaks to the safety of the conviction. The barrister us working pro bono so they clearly believe that something was amiss with her defence.

@ArcticSkewer she lied in the interview about her actions and what she had said. That's the thing that screamed out at me. Why would she lie in a police interview if she believed she'd done nothing wrong.

And yes, it was reported that a bystander told her to leave the scene because it was so horrific to witness and of course bystanders wouldn't for a moment believe anyone could be so callous as to have caused the incident. The lies about her actions and words are the aggravating issues though.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/huntingdon-pedestrian-jailed-manslaughter-told-26495032.amp

This was where I watched the police interview.

It's certainly true that many people in prison have learning disabilities or acquired brain injuries. Headway is a charity that campaigns to raise awareness of issues around this. Link for those interested

https://www.headway.org.uk/supporting-you/brain-injury-identity-card/brain-injury-and-the-criminal-justice-system/

No, it doesn't Dot. The Times article also says "Last week, her legal team filed an appeal against her sentence.' No one is talking about appealing the conviction expect you.

Where has anyone suggested that because there is a disability it ‘automatically’ means the process must be flawed ? Or that it’s not possible to be disabled and also be an awful person. I certainly haven’t. And I think you’ll find it’s the majority of posters who don’t support Grey who are intolerant and critical of those who do.

From th same article :

Moore is looking at a range of issues for the basis of the appeal. She said: “One witness who the judge said was ‘reliable and thoughtful’ said the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. However, the judge found as fact that it was a shared cycle path. The police also claimed it was shared but couldn’t show any evidence that it was. The judge said [Grey’s] visual impairment was not a factor in her offending. He said there was no mental health issue or learning difficulty. He basically treated her as if she was able-bodied. There were physical and cognitive difficulties which the judge effectively ignored. The onus was put on her to get out of the way of the cyclist.”

I think it's useless to to keep imprisoning people for terms that mean they're unlikely to die in jail, when our prisons don't seem to really reform the people they release back out.

Are we just writing them off, locking them up forever to keep the rest of us safe? No.

Are we giving them loads of resources to unravel where it all went wrong and try to help it go better for them (and therefore us) next time? No.

Are we locking them up for a couple years, with a load of other people with various undiagnosed/undertreated mental illnesses and traumas, so they can traumatise each other some more? Yes, yes we are!

It's letting us all down, including many of the prisoners themselves.

yes! this! Not so blind that she wasn't able to block the pathway and hit the cyclist.

She got off lightly with just 3 years...she'll be out in 18 months. The family of the tragically deceased lady will serve a lifetime sentence of what could have been.

It wasnt just reported that she left the scene, the police tried to use that as justification for their assertion of lack of empathy, They had to rethink it when it came to their attention that she didn’t leave of her own accord.