To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

Do you live locally? Even the council and police seem to be unable to decide if it was shared use.

Anyway it is irrelevant.

She obviously did not mean to actually cause this accident but her actions caused this poor lady to fall into the road and die . Her behaviour was reckless.

She doesn't have any cognitive issues.

To be fair I've shouted that at cyclists as they nearly run me over on the pavement. I haven't pushed one though but I have been scare me and jumped and gesticulated towards them.

The judge (wrongly I believe) said that it was a shared path, not that it was segregated. You only have to glance at the video to see that it isn't.

So her lawyer's a liar?

The bbc report linked in one of the other threads had a cyclist go past while recording. The street view image on the other threads also show two people walking side by side with amble space.

It's not a narrow path and there was plenty of space for both to pass safely.

So... as long as I believe that someone else doesn't belong on the pavement I can wave my arms at them and scare them into oncoming traffic.

I guess that's good to know.

Does it matter? If the defendant had a reasonable belief that the cyclist should not be on the footpath, would causing death by assault be a reasonable and proportionate response?

Apparently so. Evidently you can cause someone's death and that's alright. I'm guessing many of these posters would feel differently if it was their relative who was killed.

She didn’t push her.

I wonder if people would be so forgiving if someone they in their family died as a result of this incident, with the woman responsible only showing any kind of remorse about what she did when she got a prison sentence.

I doubt it.

The fact that some people are saying it's too harsh and some are saying it's too lenient suggests to me that the sentence is probably about right.

She didn’t push her.

She made contact. That's enough. She had absolutely no right to make contact or act in a threatening manner towards the cyclist.

She has mental capacity, she caused the death of someone. She's not safe to be out in public. And prison is an appropriate place for her.

You can't kill someone because you think they're cycling in the wrong place though innit, so it's totally irrelevant. Or should we all go round attacking wrong doers?

An appeal seems likely.

What if you have a reasonable belief the cyclist is about to ride into you and you react out of fright - is that ok or should you just accept your fate and be cycled over?!

I didn't say it was. I was addressing the comment about the path being segregated.

If the crime she was convicted of is worthy of a 3 year sentence then there's no need for anybody to support it with claims of segregated pavements and pushing to make the crime seem worse than even the court have decided.

Reading between the lines it seems that Grey’s visual impairment, cerebral palsy and cognitive issues (I think a “difficulty expressing emotions of any sort overtly” might point towards some sort of intellectual disability) may all be linked, possibly as a result of a brain injury. It seems that this has not been disclosed, possibly out of fairness to her, however it seems to have backfired considering how many people so firmly believe that she had no cognitive issues and is simply evil.

Both women in this sad story were vulnerable in their own way.

Appeal is for the sentence isn't it? That's all I've seen mentioned, which means the conviction is sound or they'd be appealing that

The cyclist was in the correct place. She didn’t push her. She made offensive gestures and is reported to have cognitive issues.

It wasn't determined if the path was shared. The council could not say one way or another.

She doesn't have cognitive issues.

You can't push someone into moving traffic.

It wasn't an accident.

She purposefully shouted at the woman and purposefully waved her hands around in front of her (possibly connecting or nearly connecting) and she purposefully walked off, leaving a dying woman in the road, to go do her shopping.

Nothing she did was accidental.

She did not intend for the cyclist to die. That's not the same thing as it being an accident. Her actions directly caused a woman's death even though killing her was (presumably) not the intention.

That's manslaughter.

It wasn't quite like that. She had time to shout and swear. She had time to step out of the way. Instead she chose the unthinkable. Why people are defending her behaviour beggars belief.