To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

The conviction really is very straightforward. I remember being presented with a similar fact pattern in the first year of a law degree. Person A and Person B are on the pavement, Person A threatens B with violence, B runs into the road to escape and is hit by and killed by a car - what’s the crime? Manslaughter.

The sentence isn’t obviously wrong either (it’s in line with sentencing guidelines), and I do not know how anyone, without access to AG’s medical records, feels qualified to denounce it as such.

At least the tabloids are making their money though.

Whether or not it was a shared path, it's clear that lots of cyclists DO use it. As they are able to, if they cycle responsibly, as the road there is clearly dangerous to cycle along

road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement

Cyclists can be a threat but as I’m sure you’re aware cyclists use pavements up and down the country on shared paths and also those that are not but the difference is that the majority of pedestrians and cyclists accommodate each other so that both parties can get on with their day. Regardless of the type of path pedestrians and cyclists can and do coexist. The perceived danger is worse than the reality and as more than 100 cyclists are killed annually on our roads so I don’t blame them for using pavements.
Ms Grey’s reaction to the cyclist was uncalled for and I wonder if her reaction would have been the same had it not been a 77 yr old woman but a 30 yr old man.

He was wrong. It happens.

If the perpetrator was a chavvy young man in a tracksuit instead of a middle-aged disabled woman, no-one would have a problem with him being sent to jail, in fact that same people would be complaining that the sentence wasn't long enough.

Pedestrians are also clearly a threat to cyclists. You think what Cecelia Ward did was much worse than what Auriol Grey did?

Even if the judge was wrong about it being a shared path, that would not mean that the cyclist was not entitled to use it (per TooBored1’s post above).

And even if she was not entitled to cycle on the path (which she was), that would not entitle AG to assault the cyclist (which is the very least she did; it does look like she shoved the cyclist into the road).

People saying AG’s actions may be purely as a consequence of her disability….sure…maybe, but people defending her actions themselves? Total scumbags or thick as mince.

We don't kill people over minor infractions

Who, the judge?

Are you going to explain how the jury was misled yet? That would be a serious miscarriage of justice so you'd better publicise it. And perhaps let Miranda Moore KC know too. It would be useful information.

Who had the right to use the path doesn't matter. That's not what the trial was about. Did the actions of one person lead to the death of the other? The answer is yes. Had AG not aggressively confronted Celia, Celia would not have ended up dead. Those are the facts. Being on the footpath did not cause her death. Being forced onto the road did.

The sentence is far too lenient.

I wonder how this case compares in terms of sentencing with the female American ex spy who killed a motorcyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road? Negligence rather than angry gesticulation but it still led to a death and she didn't do a day's time.

Well, obviously one sentence is longer than the other.

They were different crimes. One a pure accident, one a deliberate assault with accidental consequences. One defendant was remorseful, the other was not.

What point are you trying to make?

I all this Daily Mail-generated froth chat about the dangers of pavement cyclists, it's worth remembering that 90 times more people are killed by motor vehicles on pavements, than by cyclists on pavements. Source: www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/

@Freddie1964 , if you genuinely care about the safety of pedestrians, you're looking in the wrong place.

Is @Freddie1964 going to show us the evidence that proves the judge made a mistake? I’m not holding my breath.

2.4 metres is not wide enough for safety. How are the two parties supposed to know on which side to pass each other? Presumably two cyclists would pass on the left because that is what they do on the road. But pedestrians? AG might expect to pass on the left also.

Let me help you.

The judge is reported to have said that she 'should have known' it was a shared use path.

There's no way she could have known because there were no signs and the council's own map has the cycle path on the other side of the road.

Her very actions and words indicate strongly that she didn't know it was a shared use path - if it was at all.

It still doesn't excuse her words and actions but if it's influenced the sentence she's received then an appeal against the sentence may succeed.

If the judge also used those words in his summing-up then it may well be grounds to appeal the conviction.

Of course there may very well be unreported evidence. There could, for example, have been a huge "this is a temporary cycle path" 5 yards away - as there were in many places in 2020. But on the minimal facts that have been reported the judge seems to have made an error.

Your comment is insulting to the memory of Harry Dunn.

It may have also influenced the jury. The jury in the first trial could not reach a verdict which is no surprise to me. The jury in the second trial did find AG guilty but it may have been a close call and the fact that the cyclist was acting illegally may have made the difference.

It shouldn’t make any difference. Even if a cyclist is somewhere they ought not be, that doesn’t entitle a pedestrian to assault and kill them.

Its staggering how many times that needs
to be repeated.

Hung juries are very common. It doesn't mean the next jury that reaches a verdict won't be sound.

Every piece of evidence in a trial can influence the jury. What do you think evidence is for?

and the fact that the cyclist was acting illegally may have made the difference.

It makes ZERO difference.

It’s pretty fucking terrifying if you actually think that you can cause someone’s death and face zero consequences because the person who died was doing something “illegal”.

If the judge also used those words in his summing-up then it may well be grounds to appeal the conviction

This isn’t true. The assault is a stand alone crime, whether or not the cyclist was supposed to be on the pathway.

And the conviction isn’t being appealed, where did you get that from?

Every report I've seen says the judge described the pavement as a "shared path on the ring road".

I beg to differ, if it had happened (and as yet it's only in my imagination) I'm told it would be grounds for appeal.

And I've not said that the conviction is being appealed so far as we know. Where did you get that from?