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

I don’t think Peter Sutcliffe is capable of remorse. Thankfully someone’s capacity for remorse doesn’t come into sentencing.

I also doubt she’s totally “childlike” and unable to understand she’s in prison. She managed to live by herself 🤷‍♀️

Fair enough. And this is why she’s entitled to an appeal.

The Sunday Times allegedly sent someone to look at the pavement to see if there were any sign showing it to be a shared pavement. They said they couldn’t find any. Somehow they managed to miss all these, which are all within a minute’s walk of the scene of the accident scene.

There's been a few threads about this case. I know a few people who are partially blind. There site has got worse as they have got older some are almost completely blind. They don't have the other issues she has so is partly down to lack of support. They have never behaved like this towards anyone though. They do often get injured.

Her family weren’t even aware she was in police custody until a reporter knocked on their door for comment.

She wasn't in contact with any of her family. It was discussed in the trial.

I do think though that the judge will have been privy to medical information, etc. I don’t think her lawyers tried to get her off on grounds of diminished responsibility did they?

Isn't the cyclist on shared path responsible to ride safely enough to be able to react and stop if necessary?

Seems to me like tragical accident where two older women, each with their own fragility met on a too narrow path to safely pass each other given their conditions.
Maybe the city is to blame, that it didn't correctly mark the end of the cycling path and causing the situation.

It is awful, that the character and likeability is judged more than the situation.
From outside it seems that with her kind of disability (unable to express remorse, being walked away), she didn't stand a chance at a jury no matter what had happened.

Perhaps you should read up on the literature on TBI’s (traumatic brain injuries).

It has been determined that history of TBI is more frequent in individuals with antisocial personality. TBI has been linked to violent behaviors, poor inhibitory control, engaging in illegal acts and higher rates of substance abuse

TBI’s are higher in the prison population than they are in the general population. Should we just release prisoners who have experienced TBI’s because “no amount of punishment” is going to make them capable of remorse.

I don’t think many cyclists would expect a pedestrian to lunge at them? Bikes do have a stopping distance, same as cars. She wouldn’t have been able to stop instantly.

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 ?

I use an electric wheelchair, it’s huge, honestly the biggest one I’ve seen short of a scooter. It’s a quickie something, I’ll have DH check the model if anyone needs it…. Anyway, our doors had to be widened throughout downstairs when I got it. All the doors are now just over 1m wide, this is considered sufficient for the wheelchair. To me, this means 2.4m is not only sufficient but generous for a bike and wheelchair to pass each other.

On your other points I can’t comment but 2.4m would, to me, seem plenty as a wheelchair user.

How do you react and stop safely when someone suddenly flings their arm out at you?

I felt bad for her at first, then I read that she didn't stop to help and she went on with her day like nothing happened. She also lied to the police.

She's a fucking danger to the public she's right where she belongs.

All this bullshit about shared paths, no one has the right to cause someone's death because they are riding on the path, and reading this repeatedly is disgusting.

Remorseful or not, disabled or not, no one should be excused from actions like this, particularly if they don't think they're wrong and would do it again.

Evidence to support shared pathway above.

Yes exactly.

And it was an accident. Partially sighted woman waves arms at approaching cyclist on the pavement. ACCIDENT.

Bikes do have a stopping distance, same as cars. She wouldn’t have been able to stop instantly.

Which is why cars don’t drive on the pavement, and why cyclists shouldn’t either.

Which is why cars don’t drive on the pavement, and why cyclists shouldn’t either.

It’s a shared pathway.

The cyclist shouldn't have been there.

So?

It has no bearing on the case or the conviction.

It is completely immaterial.

Where ? Department of Transport guidelines state that shared pathways should be 3m wide - the one in question was 2.4m and neither the police or the council could support the assertion by the judge that it was shared.

I posted pictures of the signs. Scroll back and look at them.

A woman pushes another woman onto the road and it’s the council’s fault 🙄

Can you provide a link? I can’t find a thing on Google about anything other than lodging a request for an appeal (a very common tactic in high profile guilty trials and no indication that the defence have evidence that will change the outcome of the verdict)

Spurious defence launched by unrepentant killer, shocker 🙄

No. That's not right either.

the appeal partly based on the defence's opinion that his decision contradicted medical experts and he ignored evidence presented.......

It's not a fact at all. That's the whole purpose of the appeal.
The convicted women and her lawyer believe the judge ignored the medical evidence.
Just because you believe something is true, doesnt make it a fact.

The Appeal Judge will review all the evidence, trial transcripts, judges decision.
It will be the Appeal Judge who determines the facts