Dear Dominic Raab MP, Jonathan Djanagly MP, Steve Reed MP, Alistair Carmichael MP, Stuart McDonald MP, 

It is a common, if not daily occurrence for disabled, visually impaired and blind people, like Auriol Grey, to suddenly find a cyclist coming towards you on a pedestrian pathway. It can be a frightening experience at the best of times, especially if the pathway is uneven and narrow. Many of us have had the experience of being run into, shouted at and abused; it is a constant source of anxiety. But whilst it normally only ends in a frustrating, or painful, encounter, for Auriol Grey it ended with a jail sentence. 

It is alleged that Auriol Grey was walking on pathway that she knew to be dual use [i.e., for use for both pedestrians and cyclists], and that when she saw Celia Ward approaching her, she "aggressively" and "selfishly" waved her arms and swore at Mrs Ward - and that she swore and waved her arms is not in question. What is disputable is her motive; Mrs Ward, who continued to cycle towards Miss Grey, swerved off the pavement, and was hit by a car and died. Auriol Grey is then alleged to have fled the scene. 

But whilst the judge, in summation, insisted that the path was dual use, was marked as dual use and that Auriol Grey knew that the path was dual use - nothing could be further from the truth. The County Council have confirmed that they can find no legal basis whatsoever for that claim to be made; the path itself does not meet regulations, being too narrow (2.4m, with a lamppost) and too uneven (there are raised draincovers); it is not marked as anything other than a pedestrian path, and Auriol understood it to be a pedestrian path. Despite the severity of Auriol's cognitive disabilities being acknowledged, by all concerned, no guardian ad litem was appointed to her, as was required. It is therefore impossible to state that she received a fair trial. At every stage, Auriol's disabilities have been used against her: she is described as "fleeing" the scene of the crime, even though her destination was the nearby Sainsbury's, and no consideration is made that she might be in as much shock as anyone else. It was not hard to demonise her: she is described as having "no remorse or feeling", and her cognitive disabilities and lack of proper support in court meant she was unable to defend herself adequately; her behviour is painted as the worst possible, with every one of her differences weaponised against her. All of this because she got frightened by a cyclist on a pathway she rightly understood to be a pedestrian pathway.

At no stage was the court given the opportunity to consider Auriol's reaction to Mrs Ward as one of a disabled person defending themselves, seeing an oncoming cyclist on a narrow uneven path and being frightened of a collision. The denial of Auriol Grey's right's as a disabled person - from the pretense of the pathway being dual use, to the denial of a guardian ad litem - has resulted in a travesty of justice. We implore you to release Auriol Grey, who will lose her sheltered housing, immediately, and that you order an urgent review of this case. At every point, Miss Grey’s rights as a disabled person were simply ignored. Whilst we understand that there will have been a desire to spare a mother any unpleasantness, or not to upset a grieving family by suggesting that Mrs Ward should not have been cycling on that pathway in the first place, nor was it necessary criminalise a severely disabled woman, and turn her into a national figure of hate because she became frightened of a collision with a bicycle.
  
Your urgent attention will be appreciated.

 
Ali Wilkin & Jaki Whyte 
Co-founders EActNowUK