To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

She left the scene and went shopping.

She deserves to be in prison.

I know this isn't really the issue. But if councils were made to provide safe spaces for cyclists and pedestrians there would be less accidents overall. Apparently everyone that knows the area knows how dangerous that bit is. Even a simple metal barrier between the pavement and the road would have meant 2 women going about their lives as normal right now instead of one dead, and one in prison.

The sentence is appropriate. Someone died prematurely as a direct result of her actions and the courts really really don't like it when someone dies because of that.

The point of prison is twofold. It's to punish the offender for what they have done and make them think about it (I don't think this lady actually showed any remorse, just went and did her shopping :) ) and it's to keep society safe from offenders like her. We need to be protected from people who cause little old ladies to fall into the road and die! we're just not safe otherwise if people like her are walking around.

The lawyer she had is a specialist in cases involving vulnerable people. She had the best representation available and she still copped 3 years jail for a charge that carries no mandatory jail time.

So yeah I think the severity of this is being downplayed by a lot of posters

Agree..I haven't seen CCTV footage, as it sounds horrendous, but bleating about a ''Disability'' does not absolve one of causing death by aggressive pushing and then swanning off.

I think it’s right. The poor cyclist died from her actions

The defendant was charged with manslaughter arising from common assault. I'd not heard of this but apparently if you physically or verbally assault a person that sets off a chain of events that lead to the death of someone you can be charged with manslaughter or murder.

It's irrelevant to the charge whether the cyclist should or should not have been on the path. The cyclist was thrown into the path of the motorist so the accident would have happened as the cyclist fell off her bike. Yet the defendant went off shopping. When she was arrested the next day she admitted she might have touched the cyclist. The Judge dismissed her disability in any way mitigates her liability. The sentencing followed a retrial.

Bearing in mind she has a disability I think it would be more appropriate to let the sentence stand but suspend it. Just a very sad case
• the cyclist lost her life
•the motorist suffered major trauma
•the defendant lost her temper and her liberty

Not all shared use paths are marked. It was said in court nobody could be sure if it was a shared use path or not and it was shared use just a bit further down so the victim most likely believed she was riding legally (and I believe the Judge said she was).

A admitted contact. This is assault unless she was acting in self defence and I cannot see how defending herself required her to strike / push or indeed have any physical contact with C (and the jury clearly agreed).

The direct result of the assault was C falling into the road and being hit by a car which killed her. That makes it manslaughter. If A had intended death or serious injury, that would be murder.

Even if C had been knowingly riding on a pavement rather than a shared path, retaliation is not permitted in UK law - A would not have the right to assault C as a result and the verdict would stand.

Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: "I'll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.

"In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void."

He added that there were "considerations in relation to Auriol Grey's vulnerability" in their investigation.

"A lot of medical records... professional expert evidence was sought and presented to a jury, it's important to note, and with all that, in fact, she was found guilty of an unlawful act and that is why she was convicted," he said.

He said "what [Grey] did was wrong but ultimately that will not bring Celia back", and he did not believe her family "take any pleasure in the fact that a sentence was passed".

"I certainly urge people to think twice about commenting in relation to this case when they're not in possession of all the facts," the detective said.

"I've seen a number of ill-informed comments on various messaging sites as well and it's not helpful to anyone."

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197

The verdict and sentence sounds right to me. Hope she enjoyed her spot of shopping after she'd sent someone to their death and not helped them 😡

You'd better tell the judge that because he only passed sentence based on her gesturing and swearing. The police must not have noticed the push without you there to pint at the screen.

Council website shows that road as shared use.
Council website says they are not going to identify that on the ground ( that’s thoughtful Cambs)
Theres a sign on the other side of the road far away.

Of course she knew she had been hit by a car. It happened immediately after she went into the road.

I think people would respond differently if it was a man who did this causing a lady to die.

He's exactly right; we don't know all the facts. I didn't see the cyclist get hit by a car in that video so are we questioning whether that happened? No. Yet the pedestrian stated that she made contact with the cyclist and people are still disputing it. 🤦 The fact is, she was convicted based on a lot more than just what we have seen of the video clip and it's foolish to think that we know better than the individuals who were able to consider the entirety of the case against her.

The maximum length of sentence that can be suspended is 2 years. Once the Judge decided the case crossed the custody threshold and required 3 years, it had to be immediate custody.

Ironically, it’s up to 1/3 off for an early G plea. If she’d pleaded G and not put the family and the poor car driver through a trial, she might have got a suspended sentence.

At the end of the Times article on this case, it says 5 pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019, & that while there's a maximum sentence of 2 years for a cyclist who kills a pedestrian there's no maximum sentence for a pedestrian who kills a cyclist.

Fuck me - another one! This will go the same way as the multiple others - people who understand the law V anti cycling idiots and just idiots

The police, CPS, Judge and jury - having sat through the trial, gathered all the evidence, looked at all the facts - found her guilty

I understand that people who read a newspaper story and looked at a 20 second video know better that them and actually understand the case. Except you don't.

There will be endless debate about cyclists on 'pavements' - was it a shared path or not (all ignoring the facts) 'she didn't push her' (she admitted making contact) etc etc.

Round and round it will go for 900 posts - and again 70% of people wont read the thread and will just post ill informed bollox

If this had been a teenager in a hoody walking along, causing a 77 year old woman to die under the wheels of a car I also know most of those posters would be calling for a murder charge

Do you want killing women to be legalised? If the answer is no then she should be in prison. If the answer is yes, does that mean my husband and I can murder women as we both have disabilities.

yabu
she KILLED a person.

Nothing excuses what this woman did, but there is a horrible element of disability hate language creeping into this thread ("playing the disabled card", "bleating about disability"), so I'm out.

So what if she's disabled? Disabled people should also be held accountable for their actions. If she is ND and is capable of such actions, she shouldn't be walking around as she's a danger to others and whilst a standard prison is not the right place, she should still be detained. If its a physical disability and she NT, then I don't see why she shouldn't go to a standard prison.

''Judge Sean Enright, sentencing Grey, said her "Actions are not explained by disability”.

He said that Grey, of Huntingdon, had no mental disorder or learning difficulties and he said the pavement was 2.4 metres wide at the relevant point, describing it as a "Shared path on the ring road".

A shared path is one which is designated for use by both cyclists and pedestrians.''

The Grey woman is rightfully in jail.

I agree completely with what the Det Sgt has said. We can all pass comment but we don't have the full facts.

I live in the same region and have found that the majority of shared pathways do not have a dividing line. That is actually one of the banes of my life when out walking as cyclist can come at you from all angles. Some are curious, but sadly they are in the minority. They are that bad that we no longer go out from dusk onwards as my DH is not able to move quick enough to get out of the way of cyclists and can’t hear them if they are coming up from behind. At least we would stand a chance if there was clear demarcation of the shared pathway (and assuming everyone stayed on the correct side). But as things are is is a free for all and darn right scary and dangerous if you have any slight impairment, be it mobility, sight, hearing etc.

Who ever thought a shared pathway was a good idea is beyond me!

twitter.com/Cinister09/status/1631291726538104833

This video is slightly longer than the one in the BBC article linked above.