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

Reported you vile person.

I think a suspended sentence would have been more just.

Yes, she intended to force the cyclist off the path. That intent led to the cyclists death.

Why? She killed someone.

Sorry, I don’t understand.

I responded to someone who said that she was sentenced based on intent being there. I said that she wasn’t sentenced based on intent to kill anyone as she was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

If I have a seizure while driving and my car kills someone- that's not manslaughter as I didn't intend my actions.

It could well be manslaughter depending on the history of your seizures and/or failure to notify the DVLA of them.

@DotAndCarryOne2

It is as fair as the circumstances that more than half of all prisoners are dealing with. Shall we let them all out?

There are many sex offenders who can't show remorse due to brain injury, or personality disorders or mental illness. What should we do with them?

There are 3 legal definitions of manslaughter according to the CPS:

1. Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
2. Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
3. Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

Nothing to do with intent. The charge and sentence was absolutely appropriate

She should have been given a medal for pushing a cyclist off a shared path and under the wheels of a car?

WTAF.

the two crimes and therefore mitigating factors are absolutely not comparable. Cycling on pavement vs murder 🙄

YABVU to start another thread about this!

It isn’t just on the sentence, it’s centred around the treatment of the evidence and safeguarding processes that weren’t followed - by both the police and the judiciary.

12 pages in and obviously without reading the thread !! I’ve already stated several times, way upthread that I wasn’t aware there were any other threads. If I had been, I would have contributed there instead of starting another one.

For the millionth time.

She was not on trial for not showing remorse.

She was on trial for Manslaughter.

Although remorse DOES factor in in a judge’s sentencing - ie they will give a longer sentence of no remorse is shown - and given she got a pitiful 3 years surely this shows leniency in his part

Missing the point entirely - and it was manslaughter, not murder.

She killed someone.

How do you know this?

So you think some of the evidence should have been inadmissible?

Many weeks on after this woman being convicted and you weren't aware that there's other threads about it??? come off it!

The video does not show her pushing her. My God, I hope I never meet any of you on a jury!

No appeal has been lodged yet OP knows the ins and outs of the appeal.

And also is clearly confused as she thinks the ability to lodge an appeal is an indication of innocence rather than a very common act on the defence’s side. As someone pointed out - Wayne Couzens lodged an appeal

She said herself she made contact. That contact results in the woman falling into the road.

If it looks like a push and sounds like a push…

Slow it down frame by frame, and that really is exactly what it looks like.

Whether it’s her fault she’s mentally impaired or not is irrelevant. If she had a mental illness rather than a partly physical condition then she would have been sectioned indefinitely as a danger to the public until rehabilitated.

It’s not people’s fault they have mental illness either. So I think she’s been treated very lightly IMO.

Missing the point entirely. Don’t have a problem with the sentence if the evidence has been properly weighed and due process has been applied to the same standard as if it were a non disabled person. But the defence are reported to be preparing an appeal based on the fact that there are issues with this.

Why was she dishonest in her police interviews? That shows an understanding that she had done wrong and the capacity to manipulate to try to cover up what she'd done... until the cctv evidence disproved her lies

Seems her cognitive impairment is rather selective...