Jailed for manslaughter

Oreo, if you watch the full video it does look like she makes contact with the other woman. I haven;t read the report as I don't know how to find it

It's not clear from the video if she pushed her or not, it would seem she could have, looking at it.
However, if the report says she didn't then we must believe that.

A tragic case, a needless death.

And a woman convicted of manslaughter who may not be aware of the impact of her actions.

You can read the report on it online, just look it up.
She was accused of shouting and swearing and gesturing in an aggressive manner.

I've found this re sentencing

How does sentencing take into account an offender’s disabilities?
By Jill Gramann, Magistrate member of the Sentencing Council

When judges and magistrates are faced with offenders who have targeted victims who have disabilities, the law and sentencing guidelines are clear: courts are obliged to treat this as an aggravating factor which will increase the sentence given.

It is sometimes asked, however, how sentencing is influenced when it is the offender who is physically disabled.

Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the offence while taking into account the personal circumstances of the offender. These may affect both the type of sentence imposed and the length of the sentence. In all cases, regardless of disability, there may be circumstances that increase the seriousness of the offending, such as previous convictions. On the other hand, courts may take into account other aspects that could reduce seriousness, such as previous exemplary character.

So should an offender’s disability be taken into account in sentencing? Should it affect the type of sentence that is given? In relation to mental disability or disorder, it may affect what type of sentence is passed – for example, in some cases it may be appropriate for offenders to be given a hospital order so they can be given psychiatric treatment in a secure location. The court would consider medical reports in reaching its decision.

Although there are no specific sentences for those with physical disabilities, the disability will nevertheless be considered in the sentencing process where it is relevant. The court would again consider medical reports and any personal mitigation. Although they do not make explicit mention of physical disability, sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council include a mitigating factor of “serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long term treatment”. These considerations may affect both the type and length of sentence, depending on the circumstances.

However, the weight given to the offender’s disability when deciding the sentence would depend on the nature of the offence.
For example, in one Court of Appeal judgment in a robbery case where a disabled offender appealed against his sentence of a substantial jail term, the original sentence was upheld. The judgment stated: “There is no absolute rule that a sentencing judge must reduce a sentence because the offender is disabled” but went on to say that a judge could do this depending on the situation. While the judge in this case took account of the offender’s disability, he concluded that the offender had taken part in a very serious robbery in which the victim was subjected to a brutal attack and that his disability had not stopped him from doing so.

In another Court of Appeal judgment, a sentence of three years’ imprisonment given to an offender for importing Class A drugs was reduced to 18 months because of his exceptional personal mitigation – he suffered from a combination of extremely serious medical conditions.

The judgment stated:
“A court passing sentence should not concern itself with the adequacy of medical arrangements in prisons, unless the mere fact of imprisonment would inevitably expose the prisoner to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to art.3, in other words, arrangements could not be made which would avoid that consequence. However, a sentencing court was fully entitled to take account of a medical condition by way of mitigation as a reason for reducing the length of the sentence, either on the grounds of the greater impact which imprisonment would have on the offender, or as a matter of mercy in the circumstances of the case.”……

“Those who were gravely ill, or severely disabled, might have to be imprisoned if they committed serious offences. Their condition could not be a passport to absence of punishment.”

In essence therefore, judges and magistrates can take physical disability into account in the sentencing process and will do so in appropriate circumstances, but it does not excuse offending behaviour.

If anyone on this forum lives in Cambridgeshire, it might be worthwhile asking local counsellors about pavement dual use. I think that Cambridgeshire County Council has shown negligence in assigning a narrow pavement as dual use.
In my area, we have workable dual use routes with firm signs to cyclists to dismount at various intersections. Also with sufficient space for both pedestrians and cyclists.
Some comments online suggest that the pavement in question was not dual use at the time of the accident. Again local knowledge would help.

Shared pavements work perfectly in other countries, say Germany. It is the attitude of cyclists and pedestrians that cause the problems, It seems to me that neither are tolerant of each other.
As to the lady jailed, it does seem disproportionate when you look at other offences but the judge would have looked at the police interviews, pre-sentence reports and listened to all the evidence before making that decision. No doubt the defence would have put up medical reports too. By all accounts, this lady does have anger issues so that and the lack of empathy may have swayed the judge.
Whilst the lack of liberty will be a salutary lesson, I can't help thinking that the loss of her home which has been specially adapted is going to be the most terrible sentence for the defendant. When I think of the terrible crimes committed where the defendants get the same sentence it does seem harsh. However, I don't suppose it is long enough for the victim's family or the lady driving the car.

Judge Enright forwarded his sentencing notes to the judicial press office and now available online at

www.Rosenberg.sub stack.com
Why Grey got 3 years by Joshua Rosenberg

I found it helpful.

did she have legal representation herself?

It sounds a very neurotypical response to someones actions when they do not understand complex disabilities.

Miranda Moore KC defended - a disabilities lawyer

icanhandthemback

Shared pavements work perfectly in other countries, say Germany. It is the attitude of cyclists and pedestrians that cause the problems, It seems to me that neither are tolerant of each other.
As to the lady jailed, it does seem disproportionate when you look at other offences but the judge would have looked at the police interviews, pre-sentence reports and listened to all the evidence before making that decision. No doubt the defence would have put up medical reports too. By all accounts, this lady does have anger issues so that and the lack of empathy may have swayed the judge.
Whilst the lack of liberty will be a salutary lesson, I can't help thinking that the loss of her home which has been specially adapted is going to be the most terrible sentence for the defendant. When I think of the terrible crimes committed where the defendants get the same sentence it does seem harsh. However, I don't suppose it is long enough for the victim's family or the lady driving the car.

It doesn't seem right that she should lose her home - what will she do when she's released?

I think it was too harsh a sentence and will probably do nothing in terms of rehabilitating her - in fact it might possibly make her even more unstable, and more of a 'social nuisance'. And I don't think she will be any the less of a risk after her custodial sentence is over. In truth, she would probably have been better placed in a care home - she did apparently live a very lonely and isolated life.

If you read what some of her neighbours have said about her, it's fairly obvious that she did have some mental health issues.

But, we have to assume that the judge and others involved in this case know what they are doing - and know more that we do which is only information we get via the media. And an innocent woman is dead because of her actions.

I'm really not sure about cycles and pedestrians sharing the same space - if all parties behaved with care, consideration and respect, it could work. But they don't do they? Perhaps they're better behaved in other countries...

She may have mental health issues, she may lose her home, she may be better in a care home….nevertheless because of her spiteful actions, including swearing, this poor innocent lady cyclist lost her life. The driver of the car has had her blameless life destroyed. My sympathies are not with the perpetrator. How would anybody feel if that was your mum, grandmother etc. not so magnanimous I would bet.

She purposely walked /strode along in the middle of the path and yes she did put her hands on her which made the cyclist lose balance and life it was manslaughter but whether she deserves prison or not I m not sure, she didn’t seem at all contrite about it

Forsythia

She may have mental health issues, she may lose her home, she may be better in a care home….nevertheless because of her spiteful actions, including swearing, this poor innocent lady cyclist lost her life. The driver of the car has had her blameless life destroyed. My sympathies are not with the perpetrator. How would anybody feel if that was your mum, grandmother etc. not so magnanimous I would bet.

I was attempting to be somewhat objective. I pointed out her MH problems because I think it's usually understood that some individuals with such disabilities sometimes lack a sense of awareness of their actions. No normal person would simply carry on walking having waved a cyclist into the path of an oncoming car. If they were fully aware and did so, then they'd be a psychopath.

So there was no need to make accusations of magnanimity towards the woman - I'm not defending her, just trying to understand her very abnormal behaviour. It's what people do when there's been a terrible event like this - look for reasons because it makes us feel insecure when such 'random' things happen.

I do think the sentence was overly harsh - because IMO it will serve no useful purpose and I doubt it will teach her a lesson because I think she's beyond that. She's so far shown no remorse or sense of shame for her actions and I can't imagine she's going to sit and ponder over what she's done, if what the neighbours have said is true, she'll probably continue to rant and rave and swear at just about anyone who goes near her. Three years or thirty years would make no difference. I think she is a danger - to the public at large - in the old days before 'community care' she'd more than likely have been in an institution. I'm not a fan of community care - I don't think it works, it's under-funded and understaffed, and there have been other cases of such people being cared for within the community who have committed crimes - killed people even, because no-one's around to watch them, or make sure they take their medication, etc.

she shouldn't really be 'put' anywhere
a full assessment of her capabilities and diagnosis's should have been carried but on reading what robinb posted it seems really unclear

Bbc news tonight District Judge Leo Pyle stated ‘Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type’ as he sentenced 14 yr old boy on electric scooter for running over and causing death of 71 yr old woman on pavement.

I agree with Judge Pyle on pavement use.

Dickens, you have really annoyed me with this othering in your post. The institutions were shut down but no other infrastructure has been properly put in place, parents in their 70s, 60s and 50s and downwards are coping alone with very little respite for their children or siblings with complex needs. I don’t know what advocacy this woman had in place but these people are human beings and if their needs are met properly by social and health care they can live happy live ms that they don’t find so challenging

This isn’t a personal attack btw so shouldn’t be deleted or taken personal as people I live annoy me aswell

I hate my autocorrect I meant live happily Supported in the community they live in
I don’t think she was supported properly and I think that’s because of my own experience

Also the institutions haven’t been shut down either YET but there is no place for them

Community care is not only for people with disabilities. Traditionally when an elderly person became unable to cope the choice was a residential home or family carers (except for the very wealthy who would opt for live-in care). The current model that enables so many to stay in their homes with community support (although fraught with funding / staffing problems atm) is the same model that is used for disabled people who need support.It works wonderfully for some & many adults released when institutions closed down are prefectly capable of choosing where they live their lives, so why should experts / significant others take that choice from them? There was also a creepy element of "out of sight, out of mind" behind the institutions.Also with regards to the lady found guilty of manslaughter, there is very little chance of special provision in prison I think as I just looked up the stats and about 30% of the current UK prison population have learning difficulties.I think the sentence is harsh, but then I often do in manslaughter cases.

The cyclist had every right to be on the shared path. Video footage shows she was acting responsibly and the woman who was jailed was completely in the wrong. She deliberately frightened the victim who lost control and swerved onto the road under the wheels of a passing car. The young woman driving the car had a child with her and has been left traumatised.

How do you know the cyclist had every right to be on the path? I read that even the council there didn’t know, or at least said they weren’t sure.It wasn’t a proper designated cycle path and was unmarked.
I think cyclists should only be allowed to use proper marked cyclepaths and leave anything else to pedestrians and wheelchair users and Mums with buggies.

JaneJudge

Also the institutions haven’t been shut down either YET but there is no place for them

I’m not sure that’s true JaneJudge, as some people will always need medical and nursing input which it would be impossible to provide in a community setting.

That didn’t apply for this lady though. The path was 2.7m wide, it should have been easy for the bike and her to share the space safely, and she did cause the accident, whatever the mitigating issues. She needs supervision in future, not in prison, but in an environment that controls her behaviour as far as it reduces the risk she causes to other people by lashing out in anger. As she is unpredictable, somebody accompanying her in public places would help.

Quokka there are a few issues with the shared path as

1. I don’t believe it was signed as a shared path in 2020 therefore it wasn’t shared.
2. It’s width is thought to be 2.4 metres which is insufficient for a shared path according to current regulations which suggest a minimum of 3 metres.
3. The partially sighted pedestrian did not wait until the last minute to express agitation at the possibility of a cyclist apparently on a collision course but started waving her hands and shouting as a protective mechanism.

What about the poor lady driving the car that unavoidably ploughed into the cyclist? She is traumatised by it. Another consequence of the pedestrian’s actions. 3 years does seem rather a long prison sentence but perhaps she will get help in prison and won’t have to serve the full time.

Who?
Impossible to have somebody with her whenever in the future she wants to go out.