Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
nomoremerlot · 28/03/2023 04:44

I think she deserved a custodial sentence.

ItsMeAgainYesHowDidYouGuess2 · 28/03/2023 04:59

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Whichnumbers · 28/03/2023 05:00

I think she deserved a custodial sentence.

yet do you think people that kill with mitoses vehicles deserve to walk free when they break the rules & kill?

nomoremerlot · 28/03/2023 05:06

Whichnumbers · 28/03/2023 05:00

I think she deserved a custodial sentence.

yet do you think people that kill with mitoses vehicles deserve to walk free when they break the rules & kill?

I was t commenting on the wider discussion, I was commenting on this particular set of circumstances. I'd assess each situation on its merits.

She dissevered a custodial sentence, her actions directly caused a death.

QuintanaRoo · 28/03/2023 06:24

cyclists who kill pedestrians get lighter sentences

as do drivers who kill cyclists. Locally a driver who killed a cyclist recently with a poor overtake got 4 month’s suspended sentence. Not enough and certainly doesn’t act as a deterrent.

Sandinmyknickers · 28/03/2023 07:03

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 20:44

Entitled to be cycling on the pavement ? Neither the police or the local council can find anything to support the judges’ assertion that it was a shared pavement.

So she deserved to be pushed into the road and die because of that?! Honestly it is unbelievable that you can be defending this! Whether she had a right to be on the path or not it besides the point, you don't push people into traffic for it and she did not deserve to die

LlynTegid · 28/03/2023 07:04

Too light a sentence in my opinion, but agree all factors should be taken into consideration and everyone should have proper representation.

ArcticSkewer · 28/03/2023 07:25

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

  1. The judge and police say it is a shared path. There's no evidence it actually was a shared path. The council can't confirm it is, there are no signs, no application to make a shared path, and it's not wide enough.
  1. You may think she pushed her. In her interview she says she made light contact. It wasn't however the prosecution case that she pushed her into the road or pushed her at all
freyamay74 · 28/03/2023 07:44

She doesn't need to have pushed her to have caused her death. An assault can be threatening words and or gestures, both of which were the case here, though as it happens, AG admitted that she'd made physical contact too.

ArcticSkewer · 28/03/2023 08:17

freyamay74 · 28/03/2023 07:44

She doesn't need to have pushed her to have caused her death. An assault can be threatening words and or gestures, both of which were the case here, though as it happens, AG admitted that she'd made physical contact too.

that's true but it's not relevant to the'get your facts right' comment from the poster above

ItsMeAgainYesHowDidYouGuess2 · 28/03/2023 08:43

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

freyamay74 · 28/03/2023 09:12

@ItsMeAgainYesHowDidYouGuess2 seems there's confusion about the status of the path (probably because it was badly signed at the time) though it does seem clear that it was commonly used as a shared one and the width of it is wider than the recommended minimum for shared paths.

I haven't seen it reported anywhere that AG admitted 'shoving her' though she definitely admitted making contact and her actions were clearly very aggressive. We haven't seen the full video (which must be horrific) The cyclist does fall into the road with quite a force, there's enough footage to see that; however it's important to stick to known facts.

Tbh the key thing is that there was clearly sufficient evidence for a conviction, that much isn't in doubt and the conviction isn't being appealed, just the sentence.

My own opinion is the sentence is about right, considering the aggravating features (AG's lies in particular)

Frankly, whether the sentence is reduced, upheld or even increased, I think the custodial part is perhaps easier than what's going to follow. AG is not an old woman (she may be released at age 50) - she has years ahead of her. Clearly she's not safe to be allowed out independently, unless there's clear evidence that her aggressive behaviour has changed. She should only be out in public with two people supervising, she's a large heavy looking woman and I suspect would need two people to restrain her if she acted in a similar way again. So she's probably looking at a drastically curtailed life, with the wide public knowledge that she's caused the unlawful death of another woman.

A very sad case all around, but my sympathy is firmly with the victims of AG; at the end of the day, she had a choice about her actions whereas they were victims of her actions.

bakebeans · 28/03/2023 09:46

mrsm43s · 26/03/2023 20:57

I think she got off very lightly tbh, bearing in mind that her deliberate actions caused someone's death. I would assume that the lightness of her sentence took her difficulties into account.

Given convicted paedophiles and those who deliberately kill people get lesser sentences (ie those who have struck and killed with a punch). I don't think she got off lightly at all. Those with cerebral palsy have a high chance of having a functioning learning disability too. I don't think she has had the representation at all that she should have done.
The victim was a midwife, her husband a retired RAF pilot. Makes me wonder if the victim was someone on the breadline, would the sentencing be the same?

freyamay74 · 28/03/2023 09:54

I don't agree that the fact that some criminals get away with sentencing that is too light is a justification for reducing AG's sentence. Campaign for longer sentences for others; don't use that fact as a reason for reducing AG's.

There were clear aggravating features in AG's case... her aggression is clearly evident and her lies. She might well have had a suspended sentence for all we know if it hadn't been for her lies about her actions and words, which show a degree of manipulation, regardless of her disability. She knew right from wrong, otherwise why lie?

LadyWindermeresOnlyFans · 28/03/2023 09:58

Not commenting on this particular tragic case because PP have said it all, but I have some general questions for those who are saying, in effect, "well, a cyclist shouldn't have been there anyway/was committing an illegal act, so >shrug<," (regardless of how true or false it is about the shared pathway): if that was the case, do you believe there should be a death penalty? For non-lethal crimes? Do you believe in vigilantism? On what basis do you decide who is worthy of remaining alive or not? Where is the line drawn and who is allowed to decide?

I can understand why people are saying AG should have received a lighter OR a longer sentence depending on their perspectives, but I cannot understand the mentality that someone's life is forfeit if they do they something you don't like. It is chilling really.

ItsMeAgainYesHowDidYouGuess2 · 28/03/2023 10:06

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

SofiaSoFar · 28/03/2023 10:21

...those who deliberately kill people get lesser sentences (ie those who have struck and killed with a punch)...

That is not true.

MaryPoppinsHat · 28/03/2023 10:33

DotAndCarryOne2 · 26/03/2023 22:45

So why is the appeal partly based on the fact that his opinion contradicted medical experts and he ignored evidence presented ? The defence are also questioning why he decided that it was a shared pathway when neither the police or the county council could provide evidence to support that, and the council went as far as confirming that there was no historical or legal evidence to support that it ever was ?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of the contrary, is a basic tenant of evidence law. You can make inferences or suppositions suggesting what you might deduce from lack of evidence but it's not enough to show something to the required standard of proof and it's why jury trials are so flawed (imho) as these technicalities aren't fully understood by some jurors.The crown will have expert witnesses who attest to one thing, the defence another. So just because one expert witness concludes that their interpretation is right, does not make it so. Just one interpretation of that.

In this case the woman, again imho, should be in jail. She showed a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users, and her disability does not give her a pass for that. She is a danger to the public in her bad tempered reaction.

bakebeans · 28/03/2023 16:05

SofiaSoFar · 28/03/2023 10:21

...those who deliberately kill people get lesser sentences (ie those who have struck and killed with a punch)...

That is not true.

I beg to differ.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-61719402
this guy had his sentence reviewed and eventually was told he would have to serve an extra 20 months. However there are others out there whom have been given 3 year sentences

Jake McFarlane

Huntingdon one-punch killer's sentence 'appears lenient'

Jake McFarlane was jailed for two years for the manslaughter of a stranger.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-61719402

freyamay74 · 28/03/2023 16:13

@bakebeans that guy didn't deliberately kill someone though; he was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

I'm not suggesting I agree or disagree with the sentence btw, just pointing out that what you say is factually incorrect.

It also says in that report that he admitted the killing so I assume he pleaded guilty which would mean a shorter sentence.

SofiaSoFar · 28/03/2023 16:26

bakebeans · 28/03/2023 16:05

I beg to differ.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-61719402
this guy had his sentence reviewed and eventually was told he would have to serve an extra 20 months. However there are others out there whom have been given 3 year sentences

You said "those who deliberately kill..."

SofiaSoFar · 28/03/2023 16:27

freyamay74 · 28/03/2023 16:13

@bakebeans that guy didn't deliberately kill someone though; he was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

I'm not suggesting I agree or disagree with the sentence btw, just pointing out that what you say is factually incorrect.

It also says in that report that he admitted the killing so I assume he pleaded guilty which would mean a shorter sentence.

Yes, quite.

(I missed your reply before I posted mine.)

Whichnumbers · 28/03/2023 17:05

@ArcticSkewer. There were cycle path signs further up and nothing to indicate to anyone cycling that the cycle path had finished - sometimes there are sins stating end of shared path. In this incident there were not and unless the cyclist had studied maps etc then wouldn’t have that knowledge

Whichnumbers · 28/03/2023 17:09

She dissevered a custodial sentence, her actions directly caused a death.

I think if you kill then a custodial sentence should be applied. Just because you kill with a machine or a push shouldn’t detract from the actual fact a death has been. A used by actions that could have been avoided

Mumsanetta · 28/03/2023 17:14

From th same article :

Moore is looking at a range of issues for the basis of the appeal. She said: “One witness who the judge said was ‘reliable and thoughtful’ said the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. However, the judge found as fact that it was a shared cycle path.
The police also claimed it was shared but couldn’t show any evidence that it was.
@DotAndCarryOne2 did you actually follow the case? There was a lot of evidence put forward about whether the path was a shared path or not. After considering the evidence, the judge’s conclusion was that the evidence supported a finding that it was a shared path. That’s what “found as fact” means.

The judge said [Grey’s] visual impairment was not a factor in her offending. He said there was no mental health issue or learning difficulty. It is open to a judge to also reach this conclusion based on the evidence. It’s not a case of “disregarding” the evidence, it’s one of considering it all and deciding what is relevant. That is literally what a judge does.

I would also caution against believing the words printed in a newspaper about the basis of the appeal over the actual appeal filed at the Court of Appeal. One source is infinitely more reliable than the other.