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

Arguably, if she isn't capable of remorse, prison is necessary to communicate the enormity of what she did.

Anyone who can cause the death of another human and crack on with their day like nothing happened shouldn’t be out on the streets, disability or not.

Yes! Our local Nextdoor is full of people talking about how cyclists are scum, and has got to the point where people now openly boast about how they drive in a way to deliberately intimidate them, and make threats along the lines of “I’ll make sure there are fewer of them around if they get in my way again”. This kind of view being shared and “liked” then emboldens others to find it acceptable and it becomes a vicious cycle.

Imagine if the victim had been a jogger. Would you be equally sympathetic because the perpetrator had disabilities?

The preferred minimum width is 3m but that’s not a legal requirement

details can be found here

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/migrated/article/shared-use-routes-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists.pdf

so while I agree it was a poorly designed shared use path you can’t say it wasn’t a shared use path because of being narrower. The council and police said the6 couldn’t be sure either way. If they can’t be sure after many months of consideration and checking records how can a cyclist be expected to know?

So @DotAndCarryOne2 if Gray can't help causing the death of someone because of her health conditions.. where should she be if not prison.
If she is unable to say 'that'll never happen again', because it was out of her control... can she be unsupervised in public?

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

The killer herself admitted she made contact. The judge knows better than you.

What if the family of the victim saw this thread?

The question is whether sending this woman to prison serves the purpose for which it was intended. If, indeed, she genuinely doesn’t understand the consequences of her actions, then she won’t understand the punishment or learn from it. It was reported on GB news earlier that she has repeatedly asked the prison staff where she is and when she will be going home.

Yes, prison is supposed to be a punishment and also a deterrent to others.

I think it’s awful. The cyclist probably shouldn’t have been on the pavement in the first place and, if she was, should have stopped her bike and walked it past Auriol (she must have been out of control, veering into the road like that).

If she isnt capable of remorse, then she isnt.
Putting her in prison would make no difference.

she must have been out of control, veering into the road like that

I just can't with this. If someone punches you, were you out of control because you collided with their fist?

She didn’t even need to have stepped to her right, she was initially on the right. She could have chosen not to walk towards the centre of the path, she purposefully walked towards the cyclist which is not the action of a scared person.

I would hope the judge took everything into account.
I suspect he didnt.

Shared used path, not a pavement.Someone died due to her actions, she deserves what she got.

It may communicate to her how serious this is no matter how she feels about it. And to other people who might consider doing the same thing.

Thats not quite right.

Her appeal is that the judge didn't fully consider her disabilities.
But the judge did consider all her medical history.
The Appeal Judge will review everything and decide if the conviction remains the same or is overturned or her sentence reduced.

Just because she (or her lawyer) think the original judge was wrong, isn't proof that she was sent to prison incorrectly.

The woman made contact with her causing her to veer into the road. That's the cause, the cyclist is not to blame for this.

Auriol punched her? I don’t think it’s clear Auriol even touched her, let alone used force?

Riding a bike on the pavement is not just being ‘naughty’, bikes aren’t allowed on the pavement for a reason. The reason is it’s dangerous.
If you do something dangerous then you have to accept there are consequences.

It’s a perfectly proportionate sentence.

Reading one article and going off onto a rant isn’t a good look OP.

Do some proper research if you feel the need to investigate the case.

No, Grey didn't punch her. I'm making the point that when someone uses force on you, it's not your fault for being out of control of yourself.

That's why it's called force.

People don't get to make contact with you just because you're on a pavement. There's no justification for that.

So you've not actually read anything about the actual case and are going by the hysteria of Auriol Grey's supporters?

What a heartless, ghoulish post. Being forced onto the road should NEVER be a consequence on the pavement. Many pavements are shared.

The pavement is now unequivocally signed as a shared pathway. I don't think that would have been done if the cyclist had been considered at fault for being there.