To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

I think a lot of the shock at the sentence and minimising of Grey's actions does probably come from a place of there but for the grace of God..

I know when I first heard about the case, I myself recalled a few moments of annoyance when having to swerve a cyclist on a tow path, or just when I've seen red at another driver whilst in the car and waved in anger.

But having seen the clips, and listened to the statements from the police, the judge and the driver, it's clear that AG actions were way beyond the norm, and her subsequent actions even more so.

She has shown she is currently a criminal and danger to society. Hopefully prison rehabilitates her. But if not, and there is any chance of her doing the same to anyone else in the future, then she should be put somewhere where it can’t happen permanently.

I know when I first heard about the case, I myself recalled a few moments of annoyance when having to swerve a cyclist on a tow path, or just when I've seen red at another driver whilst in the car and waved in anger.

But there's a very obvious difference between waving in anger from inside a car or from several feet away, and doing it while almost on top of someone next to a busy road.

As I said to someone yesterday who was defending this because she likes to shout and wave her arms about: if you don't understand why one is so much more dangerous than the other, stop doing it at all because you can't be trusted not to kill someone.

Well yes I know. Hence the rest of my post.

Her actions went way beyond that.

@lollipoprainbow

Yeah let's just lock her up and throw away the key.

Your words. So don't try to pretend it's what anyone else has written.

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't realise that. I was just expanding on what you said.

The pavement around the ring road as always shared by cyclists and pedestrians. Anyone who believes the pensioner should have been killed by the pedestrian needs to check their moral compass.

Apologies back, I misread the tone! Was in a hurry to make it clear that I wasn't excusing Grey's actions

When I watch the video on a smart phone I see AG walking towards the the middle of the road shouting, screaming. Then Mrs Ward comes into view and I'm thinking that she would have been moving towards the ker to avoid hitting AG, did the bike start to topple as it bumped off the kerb throwing Mrs Ward into the path of the car. Clearly AG's action distracted Mrs Ward for that split second it took for her to fall.

AG went off shopping and was arrested the following day when she showed no remorse at her action. She pleaded not guilty and has been sentenced after a retrial. I said I thought they'd suspend the sentence but a poster explained that as it was manslaughter and a NG plea the minimum term was 3 years and sentences of over 2 years can't be suspended.

I think that's it. I can well imagine if someone was barreling towards me how you'd panic and wave your arms and/or yell. I suspect that's what a lot of people initially thought on hearing the case without looking into the details.

Ah yes those notorious 77 year olds barreling about on their 20" shopper bikes

This has been covered extensively. It was a shared pedestrian/cycle pavement

@bellabasset good try. AG's defence team could have done with your insight. Oh hang on... I'm sure they'd have tried that line if there was any chance it could work.

Fact is, AG admitted she made contact with the cyclist. This wasn't just a case of someone wobbling and losing their balance. It was an assault. Assault can be threatening words or actions even if there is no physical contact; though of course in this case it's not in doubt that AG physically contacted the woman.

I believe that strictly speaking, assault is the threat or implied threat of force and battery is the actual application. Happy to be corrected, IANAL.

I bet a lot of people on reading a headline or brief summary pictured a younger male lycra type cyclist and possibly remembered their own near misses on pavements or crossings.

Obviously that didn't happen in this case. Looking at the video AG was walking towards the cyclist gunning for a fight rather than responding in a panic.

There's no shame in taking something brief and making an initial assumption based on your own experiences. I mean we all do that. It's like some people even when learning things that contradict it don't want to accept that their initial impression was wrong.

Your vile 'end of' implying AGs behaviour is justified?!

Watching the video, she moves from the middle of the pavement towards the pavement edge, as she walks towards the cyclist, and gestures several times, and this causes the cyclist to swerve and fall into the road, where she was hit by a car.

That was not her only option, if she was worried by the cyclist - she could have moved over the other way and stood by the fence/wall whilst the cyclist passed her. Her poor decision led to one woman being killed, and her family being devastated, and to the driver being horribly traumatised. I think there had to be some consequences for this, and frankly in most other circumstances, three years for causing the death of another person would be considered lenient.

UKIP want to abolish all cycle paths, BTW.

I think the cycling on the path issue is a non issue outside London. I have never been stopped for cycling on the pavement in the town where I live, whereas I have been stopped and told off by the Police in London for cycling on a pavement at 11 pm on a Sunday.

I’ve seen the video footage quite a few times it does to me look as if there is a push .

Auriols elbow goes up and Celias body moves in a way that would be consistent with that,
and when you consider the considerable size difference between them both,

And the fact she just went off shopping 😡
it would have been obvious she was dead if she died on impact

”cyclists shouldn’t be on the pavement end of”

okay by that logic im sick of standing in dog shit that irresponsible owners just leave all over the place, am I okay to push them into the road? No didn’t think so.

If you can cause someone’s death then go about your day shopping as you were then you absolutely are a risk to society. That isn’t normal behaviour and that itself would show the courts she could reoffend, she didn’t show a scrap of remorse except for herself getting locked up. 3 years is lenient, she’ll only do 1.5 years.

This ⬆

Not necessarily a minimum term of 3 years but if the Judge thought 3 years was right, he then couldn’t suspend it. Her lawyers may well be trying to get it knocked down to 2 by the Court of Appeal, at which point they will probably argue for suspension.

Court of Appeal judgments are public if it goes that far. It will be interesting to see what the Judges have to say.

It may not. The procedure is for a Single Judge to decide if the appeal is arguable. If so, it gets passed through to a bench of (usually) 3 Judges. If not, the defendant can choose to renew to the court anyway. However, if the 3 Judges think she’s trying it on, they can disallow some of the time already served so a lot of defendants won’t risk it and the appeal stops at the Single Judge stage which isn’t published.

I think the court of appeal can also increase sentences, can't they, in some instances?

@Carlotta367 am sure they're just doing it to be purposely vile and goady now just to evoke reaction.