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

That Times article also says it wasn't possible to ascertain whether AG actually made physical contact with the cyclist. AG actually admitted that she did! And the police officer, footage showing AG touching the cyclist's jacket is discussed!

If people are basing their opinions on this, they're just as misguided as anyone reading the tabloids. The judge and jury had access to the actual evidence (as opposed to newspaper articles designed to get customers to pay to read them) and they have convicted AG of manslaughter.

The ST article has more holes than a colander.

Everyone who is arrested is asked if they want someone contacting. She is an adult who has been deemed to have capacity. Police can’t contact family against her wishes.

It wasn't possible to ascertain so that's why it wasn't part of the prosecution case

It's all very sad. Apart from her mother in her 80s, she only had her brother-in-law, as her sister had died a few weeks earlier. Then to have not even mentioned her first trial to anyone (couldn't reach a verdict), never mind the second trial, to me that shows how little insight she had.

The papers report: 'Her sister Genny, older by seven years, died two years ago but even before that the two rarely had any contact.'

Her sister didn't die weeks ago.

But yes, I agree, it's all extremely sad. Maybe prison will actually be good for her in some ways, she may become more socialised and make friends.

None of that mentions appealing her conviction, Dot. She was found guilty and she is not challenging that.

She hasn’t bothered to details how they weren’t followed though. No one has, because unless they worked on Greg’s case (in which case they shouldn’t be sharing details online) they have no idea what was and wasn’t followed.

Firstly what makes you think the Papworth trust ‘didn’t put much thought I to’ moving Grey? Do you expect them to be psychic? What had she done that meant she couldn’t live alone? A woman who is independent and does her own shopping.

Also what procedure didn’t the police follow? How do you even know she was involved with the police previously. IIRC she had no prior criminal history. Should they have been psychic too? And if so what should they have done with her?

Why would they inform the family? She was not a dependent adult. She has her right to privacy still at the point of arrest before a charge

Yes, she died 3 weeks before the cycling death happened.

I also do think that a women's prison might not be the worst place. A structured routine.

I wasnt in court - judge and jury were. I've watched the video - I'd expect someone with visual problems to be walking near the fence not in the middle of the path and then moving towards the road to scare and push a cyclist.

The path, whatever it's width and status, was wide enough for both to be on it safely if the pedestrian had made an effort to avoid the cyclist instead of moving into their path instead of away from it.

She can feel afraid of prison therefore her sentence will serve as a deterrent to doing this again when it may be a child on the bike.

Which authorities failed and how? I’m still not seeing it!

Short of being psychic or locking up disabled people I cannot see how any authorities did anything wrong

I think prison is likely to be preferable for her to when she gets out. It's not a horrendously long sentence anyway

She can feel afraid of prison therefore her sentence will serve as a deterrent to doing this again when it may be a child on the bike.

With all due respect, a child is no less deserving of being pushed under a car to their death than the lady who was killed by Grey.

Then why didn’t the prosecution include it in their case against her? It’s been widely reported that it wasn’t possible to say for definite whether she made physical contact with Ward.

It’s been explained several times before, and yet you keep asking.

Except it hasn’t. At all. You’ve made the assumption that no risk assessments were made about Grey. How do you know? Genuine question.

Yes, absolutely

The only person who thinks they are a "wannabe" Judge, jury and appeal judge is you.

That's the reason this thread has descended into madness because you think you know more and better than the Judge, Jury and Appeal Judges.
You've been making statements that are not true, not based on facts and you have no knowledge of.

Only the Appeal Judge will be able to determine if due process was followed or if the judge took all evidence of disabilities into account. Not you.

This some examples of what you have posted

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

And you’re OK with relevant evidence being overlooked and ignored because the judge either didn’t understand the implications of her disability or didn’t care ?

There is an appeal being prepared based on the fact that the judge ignored or overlooked evidence of severe cognitive disability and lives in a supported living facility.

This is an internet forum. You can’t tell people they can’t bring emotions into threads. Especially when spouting so much nonsense yourself

The Times article mentioned that a friend of Grey’s who walked with her frequently said that she kept to the middle to outer of the pavement because her vision was distorted on one side. It was suggested that this was one of the reasons she was startled as it would have appeared to her as though Ward was coming straight at her. The judge didn’t accept that that was the case. The legal team are of the opinion that the judge dismissed any suggestion of disability and treated her as able bodied, despite evidence to the contrary.

Don’t know why defendants use barristers when they can just come onto MN for advice 😂

Thanks. It’s from a Jane Austen novel.

What makes you think the judge, who had sight of medical reports, knows less than random MN posters?

But a friend saying that wouldn’t be sufficient. My friend would say anything if she thought it would get me off a manslaughter charge.

The defence would need to provide a doctor to say that her vision was worse on that side to the extent it could be easily believable that she would prefer walking on a certain side and could have issues with perception of direction of others.

It doesn’t sound like that was done……either because it’s not true or possibly because the defence team haven’t done their job properly (the latter seems unlikely seeing as nobody is appealing the judgement)

Quite. 😆