Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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
TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:14

Fifi1010 · 27/03/2023 11:07

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.

Show quote history

And yet not even her defence team argued diminished responsibility for her. So why are you??

Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:15

minou123 · 27/03/2023 15:57

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.

Show quote history

And every example you’ve quoted was gleaned from what I had read and from observations made by Grey’s legal team in interviews. The barrister himself made the observation that the judge had dismissed Grey’s disability and, in his own words, had ‘treated her as able bodied’. It’s a matter of record that she didn’t have representation at sentencing. That was commented on several times in various articles and also by the family when they were interviewed, and the appeal is being prepared on a number of issues, one of which was the Judges’ failure to adequately consider the impact of her disability. And I mentioned the supported living facility to make the point that if there was no significant disability she wouldn’t be housed in a facility for the disabled. And this thread has descended into ‘madness’ as you put it, by the majority of posters who are in support of the sentence having no tolerance for anyone with a different point of view or the slightest insight into the problems caused by cognitive disability - have a look at the amount of times the words ‘apologists’ and ‘gobby cow’ have appeared on the thread and then tell me there is no bias.

OP posts:
Shoppingforclothes · 27/03/2023 16:15

She's lucky she didn't get longer.

She is a bad tempered, ignorant woman who caused the death of another person by forcing an elderly cyclist in front of a moving car. She also ruined the life of the poor driver who no doubt will carry this for the rest of her life.

It doesn't even matter whether it was a cycle path or not. You can't make people topple in front of cars and die just because you feel they are in your way.

Perhaps have a think how you'd feel if it was your elderly mother who'd been pushed in the road. Or a child

LookItsMeAgain · 27/03/2023 16:16

Tiq · 26/03/2023 20:43

The unreasonable part is that she gets only 3 years in jail.

That's what I thought the OP's post was going to be along the lines of. Three years not being long enough in prison for being a key person in the taking of someone's life.

I mean how much is a human life worth now?

The cost of a life certainly has cheapened over the past 50 or so years.

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:18

Fifi1010 · 27/03/2023 11:12

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

Show quote history

Well that’s ok then I’m sure it gives the victims husband some comfort

OneTC · 27/03/2023 16:18

The title makes more sense of you put "fucking" in front of cyclist

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:18

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 11:25

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.

Show quote history

What makes you think her family werent informed?

MichelleScarn · 27/03/2023 16:22

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:06

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?

Show quote history

And extremely defensive and supportive of AG random mumsnetters at that remember @TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl..
Posters who have nothing to do with AG but seem to have indepth knowledge of her needs, mental and physical health, the setting she lived in, and her case history...

Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:23

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:14

And yet not even her defence team argued diminished responsibility for her. So why are you??

Show quote history

Forgive me, but I thought diminished responsibility only applied to murder charges. And then usually on appeal against a murder conviction. The charge was manslaughter so why would the defence team need to argue diminished responsibility ?

OP posts:
MoreSleepPleasee · 27/03/2023 16:26

I think she should have got longer. 3 years is a joke for causing someone's death. Basically saying the victim is not worth much.

Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:27

MichelleScarn · 27/03/2023 16:22

And extremely defensive and supportive of AG random mumsnetters at that remember @TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl..
Posters who have nothing to do with AG but seem to have indepth knowledge of her needs, mental and physical health, the setting she lived in, and her case history...

Show quote history

All of which is in the public domain and widely reported. And could equally apply to posters who are so vocally supportive of the conviction.

OP posts:
Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:29

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:18

What makes you think her family werent informed?

Show quote history

They said at interview that they knew nothing about it until reporters knocked on their door for comment. Grey had not told police that she had any living relatives.

OP posts:
OutFortheBirds · 27/03/2023 16:34

This is a weird thread to me. Very invested posters in here. Does talking like this have implications for the trial/ a mistrial?

MoreSleepPleasee · 27/03/2023 16:35

OutFortheBirds · 27/03/2023 16:34

This is a weird thread to me. Very invested posters in here. Does talking like this have implications for the trial/ a mistrial?

I thought it was very strange also.

Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:43

QuintanaRoo · 27/03/2023 14:27

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.

Show quote history

She was deemed to have the capacity to answer for her crimes by the judge at trial - something which her legal team are now questioning. At the time the police first interviewed her, that judgement hadn’t been made. Once the police were aware that there was a mental health condition, they should have involved the various agencies tasked with safeguarding a vulnerable person in these circumstances - she would already have been known to SS having lived in a Papworth Trust facility. She didn’t volunteer much in the way of information to them even when asked. That suggests that she didn’t have a good grasp of what was happening and should have been supported during questioning. Just because she didn’t mention her family doesn’t mean contacting them was against her wishes. What strikes me most is that despite the police not having the best of records when dealing with people with mental health issues, it’s taken as read that they treated this woman fairly at every stage of their dealings with her.

OP posts:
Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:45

OutFortheBirds · 27/03/2023 16:34

This is a weird thread to me. Very invested posters in here. Does talking like this have implications for the trial/ a mistrial?

Why would it ? And it seems to me that there are more posters invested against Grey than for her.

OP posts:
ReneBumsWombats · 27/03/2023 16:50

OutFortheBirds · 27/03/2023 16:34

This is a weird thread to me. Very invested posters in here. Does talking like this have implications for the trial/ a mistrial?

No. The trial's over.

Potential for libel, though.

Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:54

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 15:16

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?

Show quote history

I don’t think anyone was suggesting that she had a criminal history, but it was documented that she had been spoken to several times by police for harassment and abuse in public after she was moved from the residential facility to an independent flat. I’d say that was conclusive evidence that she wasn’t suitable for independent living, and had benefited from the more structured and supervised conditions at the residential facility.

OP posts:
Original poster
DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:55

ReneBumsWombats · 27/03/2023 16:50

No. The trial's over.

Potential for libel, though.

Show quote history

On what basis ? It’s all speculation and repetition of what’s already in the public domain.

OP posts:
TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:55

Lovelysausagedogscrumpy · 27/03/2023 11:45

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.

Show quote history

The problems only started when she was moved out of that environment to live alone

What problems? The only problem (other than some alleged and uncorroborated rumours that there was some low level anti social behaviour) was that she killed someone.

it was the wrong decision

How do you know? Are you her case worker?

You seem to be accusing the OP and various other contributors of wanting to lock up disabled people simply because they are disabled

Because they insist the only one to blame is the authorities who apparently could have prevented it. Short of locking g her up I don’t see how and nobody has given any suggestions. So yes I assume some people think she should have been locked up

Your use of full stops is annoying

🤣🤣 Sorry. Not. Sorry

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

Ooh sorry miss do I get detention? Pathetic

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:58

Fifi1010 · 27/03/2023 11:55

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

Show quote history

So she STILL could have gone out and killed a woman?
Yeah must be the fault of the Papworth trust 🙄

Vivi0 · 27/03/2023 16:59

DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:27

All of which is in the public domain and widely reported. And could equally apply to posters who are so vocally supportive of the conviction.

Show quote history

It’s not so much being supportive of a conviction - this is a clear cut case of manslaughter. The conviction is correct. There could be no other outcome.

No conviction would mean setting a dangerous legal precedent.

What is it about the conviction you don’t agree with?

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 16:59

Fifi1010 · 27/03/2023 12:02

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 !!!

Show quote history

So with that in mind how could the Papworth trust have prevented the killing as you claim?

TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl · 27/03/2023 17:01

DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 12:09

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.

Show quote history

Am I missing something - why was it ‘obviously’ the wrong one?

anyolddinosaur · 27/03/2023 17:48

DotAndCarryOne2 · 27/03/2023 16:00

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.

Show quote history

Distorted on which side, if the outer side you'd have even more reason to keep near the fence. No white stick so vision perhaps not as bad as you wish to claim. Doesnt explain why she would, faced with an oncoming cyclist, move towards them rather than away from them. Add in shouting, swearing and arm waving and it's the action of someone who wanted to drive the cyclist off the path.

But I was not in court, the judge and jury were and there was a defence counsel who presumably put anything relevant to them before they decided, with far better knowledge of the facts, that this was manslaughter.