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’s not true. The co7ncil and police said they can’t find any evidence it’s not a shared path. So depends which way you look at it I guess. Nobody knows for sure.

but on a previous thread locals said it’s commonly used as a shared path and just slightly further up the path there are signs saying it’s a shared path. Then there is a side street crossing and what isn’t clear is does the cycle path end or continue….no signs either way but the council said in the absence of a “cycle path ends” sign (which is needed btw at the end of a cycle path)it’s reasonable for people to think it is still a shared path.

Several articles I’ve read about her have received comments from people saying that she was well known in their local area for antisocial and aggressive behaviour towards cyclists and other pedestrians, including children, if she wanted them to get out of her way; and had been warned over the behaviour by the police before. If that’s true, and there seems a lot of likelihood it is, she certainly isn’t the poor frightened disabled woman acting in self defence that some would like her to be.

Vile woman, the only thing that's unreasonable is that she's only got 3 years. She moved towards the cyclist, swore and shouted aggressively at her and then made physical contact. She was also dishonest in her police interviews and presumably only admitted that she'd made contact with the cyclist when she realised it was caught on cctv and couldn't lie any more.

She'll only be banged up for about 18 months anyway, though hopefully that'll be long enough to scare the shit out of her.

And lied about it afterwards too.

Deserves what she got I think.

Is it just because she is disabled you think she shouldn't be punished for killing someone, or do you have any other reason?

This. It is all quite sinister.

Where's the op gone??

He did, and there is now an appeal underway based on the fact that he ignored medical evidence which was in front of him. Ms Grey was deprived of oxygen at birth resulting in serious brain injury following multiple surgeries, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, learning difficulties and cognition issues. She also has mobility problems, walks with a calliper, and is partially blind. There is also no evidence to support the accusation that the cyclist was pushed. Ms Grey shouted at her to get off the pavement and gesticulated, but video evidence apparently showed that she did not touch the cyclist, whose judgement was called into question by the defence for not dismounting and walking the bike, instead of trying to cycle around her.

Were you in the courtroom? Have you seen and heard all the evidence?

Let’s not forget the victim in all this. And the driver of the car.

I wonder if you’d feel like that if it was your close relative who died Op….

Shared paths are 3m wide. Evidence presented at court stated that the stretch of pavement where this occurred was only 2.4m wide.

She killed an elderly lady. She deserves the 3 years. Should have been more.

She had a top legal team so why did they not speak out like the court of mumsnet is 'trying' to???

I think she should have got longer tbh

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?

And what qualifies you to decide that was the case?

I’m wondering too.

So being 77 is enough to exonerate the cyclist for riding on the pavement, but substantial brain injury resulting in partial blindness, mobility issues and cognitive difficulties are no defence for the defendant.

She had a top legal team though....the disability excuse was scrutinised

I could not give a hoot is shared paths are 3m wide or not. I think its utterly irrelevant whether the bike was allowed there or not.

I'll reserve my judgement on the medical evidence as it's not in the public domain.

Her body and sight seemed to be just fine in the video.

Guessing you were on the previous threads op?.

So do I. Can she be given a longer sentence on appeal?

Me too

Absolutely not saying I’m qualified for anything of the sort. Going on what was reported in the Sunday Times today. And the story they are carrying bears no resemblance to what’s being quoted here. 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.

Are you related to the pedestrian in question, OP? I'm only asking because you seem to be awfully invested in this case and are showing a surprising lack of concern and sympathy for the real victims in this whole horrendous saga.

Did you watch the video OP?
Not sure how you think the cyclist had time to dismount and walk plus she didn't 'cycle round her' she was pushed (as seen in the video and admitted to by the woman)