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

Fair point! I meant those who set out to cause harm. I don't think she did

@bakebeans well that's where the jury disagreed ... AG didn't set out to kill, but she clearly wanted to cause harm to the cyclist by her threatening behaviour. 'Harm' doesn't even have to mean physical assault in law (though of course she admitted the physical contact too.) It's fairly clear just from the cctv footage that someone walking towards someone else, swearing and shouting and gesticulating aggressively at them is intent on causing them fear/distress.

Yes I think that's what the point of the thread is about as her disability and other things were not taken into account or evidence. 50% of people with cerebral palsy have learning difficulties either brought on gradually or from birth. Seizures and medication can have an affect.
Another poster has said she was a nasty lady and had been in trouble with they police and yes I have seen the footage but she certainly didn't shove her into the road. Looked like she had made slight contact due to waving her arms about but that's about it. Accidentally if anything!

Yes I think that's what the point of the thread is about as her disability and other things were not taken into account or evidence*

Read the sentencing remarks of the judge. Her disabilities were taken into account.

I have and I don't think they were. I don't think she had very good representation either. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it

From the very brief 12 second video available, it looks to me as though she was being agressive and waving her arms unnecessarily. It also looks as though she has seen the cyclist before she started waving her arms and so wasn't "startled" as claimed. Do I think she meant to push the woman into the path of the car? No. But she did, and her unreasonable actions had the consequence of someone losing their life. So yes, she deserved the conviction of manslaughter and I think the 3 years is very fair. Being disabled isn't a get out of jail free card - quite an apt turn of phrase in this situation! She might not have intended the lady to be hurt but her being a bad tempered woman led to that.

Of course we're all entitled to opinions, but it's a fact that the judge's sentencing remarks showed that he had considered AG's disabilities.

Who would have been better than Miranda Moore KC?

I am current about you understanding, knowledge and practice experience of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards? I am qualified and experienced in this area. It is unlawful and in breach of human rights to effectively imprison people in residential facilities. We are moving forwards, not backwards. There is no “conclusive evidence”. I would rip it apart if I found out capacious people who had the ability to be independent were kept in residential homes. In fact, even if I found someone to lack capacity to make a decision about their residence, I am duty bound to explore lesser and least restrictive options. There has to been a law under which we restrict individuals’ movements.

A few people commented about children vs adults. Adults with cognitive disabilities are not children. We do not treat them as children. It is immoral and unlawful. We treat these adults as we should - adults with disabilities. We have legislation to protect these adults from overly restrictive living environments.

Having worked in neighbouring local authorities to where the crime occurred, I find it impossible to believe there were not professionals meetings. You are not going to be privy to this confidential information.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4771792-to-think-todays-article-about-auriol-grey-paint-a-very-different-picture?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share
it appears that the judge didn't consider brain injury or disability. Please see the latest thread.

@bakebeans sigh. her disability was taken considered.

The judge did consider her brain injury and disability.

The judges sentencing remarks and notes dont change, regardless of which thread on MN it is posted on.

You can read his sentencing remarks and notes for yourself, they are in black and white.

He considered the following:
▪︎ AG Defence counsel submissions
▪︎ 2 Experts
▪︎ Character References
▪︎ Medical Reports
▪︎ Pre-Sentenimg Report

All of which detailed her brain injury and all her disabilities.

What, in your legal opinion, did he miss?

To state he didn't consider her disabilities is absolutely incorrect and to be honest, a lie.
He considered it all. His job is to decide if they are mitigating factors
He clearly states, AG disabilities do not prevent her from knowing right from wrong and that is why he sentenced her to 3 years.

Luckily, in this country, we have an appeal system. Ths allows defendants to have a chance to have new judges re consider the sentencing. AG has an absolute right to this.

@bakebeans it's absolutely clear, on record, that the judge did consider AG's disabilities. Linking to various MN threads doesn't change that!

Leave to appeal has been denied.

Celia's killer will at least have to serve the already lenient sentence imposed.

At least a tiny piece of justice for Celia.

Good.

You can’t have that much experience if you are unaware that many many many people struggle to be happy living alone and would absolutely love to live under a more structured and sheltered umbrella.

The one problem was that abusers worked in these environments. But instead of properly regulating the industry it was abandoned altogether. Care in the Community does not work for so so many people, as they would freely tell you themselves if you would actually talk to them instead of sitting in an office behind a screen.

As for all the posters saying we can’t comment because we’re not privy to confidential information - what a cop-out. Everyone should be allowed to comment if there is a perceived miscarriage of justice.

No she should not be in jail. Quite frankly I am sick to death of the entitlement of cyclists. They are allowed on the road, the pavement, the special designated cycle paths, they are allowed EVERYWHERE! They basically want their cake and to eat it too with sprinkles on. Poor pedestrians can't get a free run. I have lost count of the times I have walked along a normal pavement only to have a cyclist ring a bell up my bum for me to move. How bloody selfish?, and nothing is done about it. I too have done the waving thing, because it is a normal reaction. The poor woman just probably ment for them to get back on the road where the cyclist belonged. There is no way she ment to cause a death. Anyone with a bit of common sense would know that. Real dangerous criminals are left roaming our streets and let go with no custodial sentence almost weekly. It is utter barbaric madness she is in jail.

Good. Although as can be seen already, the wide-eyed 'AG is the real victim here, for the terrifying experience of seeing a cyclist' shite has started already!

Quite frankly I am sick to death of the entitlement of cyclists. They are allowed on the road, the pavement, the special designated cycle paths, they are allowed EVERYWHERE!

Yes. They are entitled to use various spaces, including the shared pathway in question in this case.

There is no way she ment to cause a death. Anyone with a bit of common sense would know that.

Indeed. That's why the charge was manslaughter.

It's very frustrating how many people don't understand the fundamental elements of the case. There were people who didn't understand that prison isn't intended to revive the dead either.

No point discussing it with this level of incomprehension.

You are completely entitled to your opinions on cyclists and clearly its something that makes you very angry.

What you can't do, is through your anger and your actions, cause the death of someone.

The woman who has been convicted did cause the death of someone. Her actions caused a death. The court agrees with you that she did not mean to cause that death. That is why she has been convicted of manslaughter and not murder.

@Betterbear the particular cyclist who was killed in This case wasn't acting entitled in any way though. Also pretty entitled of AG to think she could make "light contact" with this cyclist. Do I think she should be locked up and the key thrown away? of course not. But entitlement works both ways.