“As far as I know, they have not previously been published in full,” Rozenberg wrote. “They deserve close attention,” he added – something we at road.cc would also encourage, since they provide the fullest possible picture of why the judge imposed the sentence he did. Here they are:

You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.

Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.

The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.

This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.

I have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.

You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities. Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.

The judge also set out the basis on which he had determined the length of the sentence handed down, based on the guidelines from the Sentencing Council relating to unlawful act manslaughter, and the representations made by both the defence and the prosecution. He told Grey:

A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to whether harm would be caused.

The judge also set out what he saw as the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, with the former potentially increasing the sentence to be imposed from its starting point, and the latter reducing it.

Aggravating factors

The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.

The effect on Mrs Carla Money … [the driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, and who made a statement to the court in which she spoke of the effect of the fatal crash on her] … Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable.

Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation

You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others.. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.

You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years old.. This stands to your credit.

Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.

Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.

As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.

Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your disabilities and do not hold it against you.

There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.

I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.

Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> “As far as I know, they have not previously been published in full,”
> Rozenberg wrote. “They deserve close attention,” he added – something we
> at road.cc would also encourage, since they provide the fullest possible
> picture of why the judge imposed the sentence he did. Here they are:
>
> You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no
> evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was
> whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or
> unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.
>
> Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were
> walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming
> cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left
> arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial
> about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful
> thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.
>
> The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found
> William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver.
> He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of
> each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm
> which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she
> recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was
> killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.
>
> This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that
> allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I
> am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by
> surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.
>
> I have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage
> and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.
>
> You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She
> because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities.
> Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We
> are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.
>
> The judge also set out the basis on which he had determined the
> length of the sentence handed down, based on the guidelines from the
> Sentencing Council relating to unlawful act manslaughter, and the
> representations made by both the defence and the prosecution. He told Grey:
>
> A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that
> the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to
> whether harm would be caused.
>
> The judge also set out what he saw as the aggravating and mitigating
> factors in the case, with the former potentially increasing the sentence
> to be imposed from its starting point, and the latter reducing it.
>
> Aggravating factors
>
> The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.
>
> The effect on Mrs Carla Money … [the driver of the car that struck
> Mrs Ward, and who made a statement to the court in which she spoke of the
> effect of the fatal crash on her] … Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable.
>
> Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation
>
> You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by
> others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and
> went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and
> told lies in interview.
>
> You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years
> old. This stands to your credit.
>
> Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed
> many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have
> demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the
> years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the
> town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event,
> your prior good character stands to your credit.
>
> Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.
>
> As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross
> examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact
> you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any
> impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to
> one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in
> “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do
> not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is
> appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police
> interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I
> have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have
> learned as much about you as I can.
>
> Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the
> pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to
> remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard
> I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your
> disabilities and do not hold it against you.
>
> There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a
> mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.
>
> I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by
> your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.
>
> Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment.
>

That simply confirms the Judge is an idiot unfamiliar with the HWC and poor
provision for SEN pupils when Miss Grey would have attended school.

Avatar
kil0ran replied to DJchadders | 2853 posts | 45 min ago
1 like

She's accepted the conviction, it's just the sentence she's appealing. Clearly her expert fully qualified brief feels an appeal against the conviction isn't worthwhile.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avatar
> kil0ran replied to DJchadders | 2853 posts | 45 min ago
> 1 like
>
> She's accepted the conviction, it's just the sentence she's appealing.
> Clearly her expert fully qualified brief feels an appeal against the
> conviction isn't worthwhile.

The Metro reports this, which is wrong:

“However, in sentencing, Judge Sean Enright noted that it was a ‘shared
path’ for cyclists and pedestrians.”

The judge’s words were to the effect that ‘he thought’ (in the absence of
any evidence) the path was shared. While interesting, that thought doesn’t
make it a fact.

In the last few months the Local Authority has been putting up ‘shared’
signs, hopefully on a legal basis.

--
Spike

I am pleased to see comments citing the need to share the road space and consider vulnerable road users. This is an argument I would like to see used from now on for proper punishment of crimnal motorists who know full well that they must share but choose to intimidate and harass vulnerable road user groups.

As this story won't go away, I would be interested to know if Huntingdon Council have clarified the signage on the route in question so that all users know that it's a shared use path?

I wonder also in light of this story whether other councils are reviewing their own paths to ensure correct signage is up?

I'm not holding my breath.

These poorly marked / implemented cycling facilities are everywhere. Here's a tragic case of a pedestrian killed (link is external) by a kid on an e-scooter.

In the summing up the judge states: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."

I had a quick look at the scene (link is external) and the pavement appears to be shared use but is littered with parked vehicles. I do wonder if pavement parking played a part in this by obstructing visibility and narrowing the path.

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/Screenshot%202023-03-09%20at%2016.43.07.png

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> As this story won't go away, I would be interested to know if Huntingdon
> Council have clarified the signage on the route in question so that all
> users know that it's a shared use path?
>

Irrelevant.

The pedestrian takes priority. The cyclist died due to not giving way to
the pedestrian she had put in fear of being injured.

The judge needs to read the HWC.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am pleased to see comments citing the need to share the road space and
> consider vulnerable road users. This is an argument I would like to see
> used from now on for proper punishment of crimnal motorists who know full
> well that they must share but choose to intimidate and harass vulnerable road user groups.

The problem you have with that is the attitude displayed by cyclists
towards pedestrians and anyone who doesn’t follow their made up rules, and
who punish ‘miscreants’ by smashing door mirrors and kicking in door
panels, shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping”, riding on
pedestrian-only footways, and the like.

People have taken notice of this, and are now following suit.

You sowed the wind, now enjoy the whirlwind.

--
Spike

QUOTE: They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type." ENDS

Can anyone see the problem here, children?

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/Screenshot%202023-03-09%20at%2016.43.07.png

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> QUOTE: They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type." ENDS
>
> Can anyone see the problem here, children?
>
> https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/Screenshot%202023-03-09%20at%2016.43.07.png

That’s dreadful; that space could be used as a shared path with which to
put more pedestrians at risk of death and injury from cyclists, instead of
their risk-free transit past stationary cars.

--
Spike

FWIW, there is a shared use path installed near me where the only indication that it is shared use is an arrow on the road directing cyclists onto the pavement, now redundant because they moved the entrance at my suggestion away to before a dangerous pinch point, and at the end there is some more paint on the road allowing for exit onto a mandatory cycle lane.

I complained to the council about various matters, pointing out their legal liability for their incompetence with the intent that if there was an incident they could not claim they were not aware of the dangers. They replied that the shared cycleway was fully compliant with legislation.

I took this to mean that there is no legal requirement to mark a shared cycleway, it is sufficient for the council to declare it as such.

1334 Warwick Rd
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3948326,-1.741788,0a,75y,351.25h,89.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spqj-ttQzCrqqv9zY3TDj-w!2e0?utm_source=mstt_0&lucs=47062702&g_ep=CAESCTExLjY5LjQwMRgAIIGBASoINDcwNjI3MDJCAkdC

Knock yourself out and find a single blue sign from here.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, there is a shared use path installed near me where the only
> indication that it is shared use is an arrow on the road directing
> cyclists onto the pavement, now redundant because they moved the entrance
> at my suggestion away to before a dangerous pinch point, and at the end
> there is some more paint on the road allowing for exit onto a mandatory cycle lane.
>
> I complained to the council about various matters, pointing out their
> legal liability for their incompetence with the intent that if there was
> an incident they could not claim they were not aware of the dangers. They
> replied that the shared cycleway was fully compliant with legislation.
>
> I took this to mean that there is no legal requirement to mark a shared
> cycleway, it is sufficient for the council to declare it as such.
>
> 1334 Warwick Rd
> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3948326,-1.741788,0a,75y,351.25h,89.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spqj-ttQzCrqqv9zY3TDj-w!2e0?utm_source=mstt_0&lucs=47062702&g_ep=CAESCTExLjY5LjQwMRgAIIGBASoINDcwNjI3MDJCAkdC
>
> Knock yourself out and find a single blue sign from here.

The problem arises because councils can’t seem to remember when they have
declared paths as shared, leading to incidents like the death of a cyclist
resulting in the council hurriedly putting up ‘shared’ signs where there
were none before, in an exercise commonly referred to as ‘Arse Covering’.

--
Spike

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:57:23 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> FWIW, there is a shared use path installed near me where the only indication that it is shared use is an arrow on the road directing cyclists onto the pavement, now redundant because they moved the entrance at my suggestion away to before a dangerous pinch point, and at the end there is some more paint on the road allowing for exit onto a mandatory cycle lane.
>
> I complained to the council about various matters, pointing out their legal liability for their incompetence with the intent that if there was an incident they could not claim they were not aware of the dangers. They replied that the shared cycleway was fully compliant with legislation.
>
> I took this to mean that there is no legal requirement to mark a shared cycleway, it is sufficient for the council to declare it as such.
>
> 1334 Warwick Rd
> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3948326,-1.741788,0a,75y,351.25h,89.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spqj-ttQzCrqqv9zY3TDj-w!2e0?utm_source=mstt_0&lucs=47062702&g_ep=CAESCTExLjY5LjQwMRgAIIGBASoINDcwNjI3MDJCAkdC
>
> Knock yourself out and find a single blue sign from here.

There is none - just like at the site of the recent homicide by Aeriel Bender.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:57:23 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> FWIW, there is a shared use path installed near me where the only
>> indication that it is shared use is an arrow on the road directing
>> cyclists onto the pavement, now redundant because they moved the
>> entrance at my suggestion away to before a dangerous pinch point, and at
>> the end there is some more paint on the road allowing for exit onto a
>> mandatory cycle lane.
>>
>> I complained to the council about various matters, pointing out their
>> legal liability for their incompetence with the intent that if there was
>> an incident they could not claim they were not aware of the dangers.
>> They replied that the shared cycleway was fully compliant with legislation.
>>
>> I took this to mean that there is no legal requirement to mark a shared
>> cycleway, it is sufficient for the council to declare it as such.
>>
>> 1334 Warwick Rd
>> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3948326,-1.741788,0a,75y,351.25h,89.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spqj-ttQzCrqqv9zY3TDj-w!2e0?utm_source=mstt_0&lucs=47062702&g_ep=CAESCTExLjY5LjQwMRgAIIGBASoINDcwNjI3MDJCAkdC
>>
>>
>> Knock yourself out and find a single blue sign from here.
>
> There is none - just like at the site of the recent homicide by Aeriel Bender.

I know of a recent case involving the death of a cyclist, where the Local
Authority still doesn’t know if the path was shared or not, although in an
exercise known as Arse Covering they have now put up signs.

--
Spike

QUOTE: Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. ENDS

Big mistake - that's why you got sent to JAIL.

YOU DIDN'T GIVE A TOSS ABOUT THE LADY YOU KILLED.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until
> the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to
> remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. ENDS
>
> Big mistake - that's why you got sent to JAIL.
>
> YOU DIDN'T GIVE A TOSS ABOUT THE LADY YOU KILLED.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t express remorse for things I haven’t
done. Mrs Ward clearly failed to exercise the due care she was supposed to
give to the most vulnerable road user, namely a pedestrian.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, there is a shared use path installed near me where the only
> indication that it is shared use is an arrow on the road directing
> cyclists onto the pavement, now redundant because they moved the entrance
> at my suggestion away to before a dangerous pinch point, and at the end
> there is some more paint on the road allowing for exit onto a mandatory cycle lane.
>
> I complained to the council about various matters, pointing out their
> legal liability for their incompetence with the intent that if there was
> an incident they could not claim they were not aware of the dangers. They
> replied that the shared cycleway was fully compliant with legislation.
>
> I took this to mean that there is no legal requirement to mark a shared
> cycleway, it is sufficient for the council to declare it as such.
>
> 1334 Warwick Rd
> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3948326,-1.741788,0a,75y,351.25h,89.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spqj-ttQzCrqqv9zY3TDj-w!2e0?utm_source=mstt_0&lucs=47062702&g_ep=CAESCTExLjY5LjQwMRgAIIGBASoINDcwNjI3MDJCAkdC
>
> Knock yourself out and find a single blue sign from here.

huntswheelers | 320 posts | 17 hours ago
0 likes
My town this....and this conflict regarding shared "cycleways" has been a
point of contention for many years. History is that the "cycle way" is on
the Inside of the Ring Road at that section not the side the conflict
happened. It is clearly marked on County Council mapping & Cycle streets as
well as Open Street Maps. How this wasn't challenged is a matter for the
defence council. Also at that time it was during covid 19 restrictions and
the lane the cyclist ended up in was listed as a Tranche 1 scheme set aside
as a 2 way cycle lane, BUT, it never happened. I was approved to be set
aside as such by the then Tory run County Council. In fact very few of the
approved schemes out of Cambridge City actually were implemented. Back to
the Ring Road and cycleways....the Cycleway begins at the Bridge Hotel and
is Cycle way 51 before it merges in part with Cycleway 12 and is on the
outside of the ring road....then when it reaches the George Hotel and
Brampton road it reverts to the Inside of the Ring Road, until it loops
back to the start point. So in effect the section in question is not a
cycleway. Now.....since this case there have been a sign and another
painted cycle and arrow installed to suggest the outside of the ring road
is a shared facility.....shutting the door and all that. Personally.... I
use the road...it's safer and faster..... The fault for all of this in my
opinion....lies with the County Council.....after years of neglecting the
county Market towns and not just for cycling infrastructure."

<https://road.cc/content/news/auriol-grey-seeks-leave-appeal-vs-manslaughter-sentence-299825>

--
Spike

The councils intention may have been to only continue the shared use around the corner, however, it is not entirely clear (which is par for the course when it comes to UK cycling infrastructure).

The judge made the point that Auriol Grey would likely have known cyclists use this path, whether clearly marked as shared use or not, she would not have been shocked or surprised by the appearance of a cyclist.

The physical width of the path where the incident took place was 2.4m, plenty of room for a pedestrian and cyclist to pass and no less than the more clearly marked path on the other side of the road.

The actual legal definition of the path became a moot point - no matter it's status, you can't behave in such a manner towards an elderly lady riding a bicycle.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The councils intention may have been to only continue the shared use
> around the corner, however, it is not entirely clear (which is par for
> the course when it comes to UK cycling infrastructure).
>
> The judge made the point that Auriol Grey would likely have known
> cyclists use this path, whether clearly marked as shared use or not, she
> would not have been shocked or surprised by the appearance of a cyclist.

I know people drink and drive, that doesn’t make it legal.

>
> The physical width of the path where the incident took place was 2.4m,
> plenty of room for a pedestrian and cyclist to pass and no less than the
> more clearly marked path on the other side of the road.
>

Yet the cyclist put the pedestrian in fear of injury or worse, failed to
comply with the HWC, and fell off due to her own incompetence. She caused
her own death and destroyed the lives of Miss Grey and the driver.

QUOTE: You were convicted unanimously by the jury. ENDS

Who heard and saw ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

On 10/03/2023 02:23 pm, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, there is a shared use path installed near me where the only
>> indication that it is shared use is an arrow on the road directing
>> cyclists onto the pavement, now redundant because they moved the entrance
>> at my suggestion away to before a dangerous pinch point, and at the end
>> there is some more paint on the road allowing for exit onto a mandatory cycle lane.
>>
>> I complained to the council about various matters, pointing out their
>> legal liability for their incompetence with the intent that if there was
>> an incident they could not claim they were not aware of the dangers. They
>> replied that the shared cycleway was fully compliant with legislation.
>>
>> I took this to mean that there is no legal requirement to mark a shared
>> cycleway, it is sufficient for the council to declare it as such.
>>
>> 1334 Warwick Rd
>> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3948326,-1.741788,0a,75y,351.25h,89.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spqj-ttQzCrqqv9zY3TDj-w!2e0?utm_source=mstt_0&lucs=47062702&g_ep=CAESCTExLjY5LjQwMRgAIIGBASoINDcwNjI3MDJCAkdC
>>
>> Knock yourself out and find a single blue sign from here.
>
> huntswheelers | 320 posts | 17 hours ago
> 0 likes
> My town this....and this conflict regarding shared "cycleways" has been a
> point of contention for many years. History is that the "cycle way" is on
> the Inside of the Ring Road at that section not the side the conflict
> happened. It is clearly marked on County Council mapping & Cycle streets as
> well as Open Street Maps. How this wasn't challenged is a matter for the
> defence council. Also at that time it was during covid 19 restrictions and
> the lane the cyclist ended up in was listed as a Tranche 1 scheme set aside
> as a 2 way cycle lane, BUT, it never happened. I was approved to be set
> aside as such by the then Tory run County Council. In fact very few of the
> approved schemes out of Cambridge City actually were implemented. Back to
> the Ring Road and cycleways....the Cycleway begins at the Bridge Hotel and
> is Cycle way 51 before it merges in part with Cycleway 12 and is on the
> outside of the ring road....then when it reaches the George Hotel and
> Brampton road it reverts to the Inside of the Ring Road, until it loops
> back to the start point. So in effect the section in question is not a
> cycleway. Now.....since this case there have been a sign and another
> painted cycle and arrow installed to suggest the outside of the ring road
> is a shared facility.....shutting the door and all that. Personally.... I
> use the road...it's safer and faster..... The fault for all of this in my
> opinion....lies with the County Council.....after years of neglecting the
> county Market towns and not just for cycling infrastructure."
>
> <https://road.cc/content/news/auriol-grey-seeks-leave-appeal-vs-manslaughter-sentence-299825>

"I was approved to be set
aside..."?

On 10/03/2023 05:26 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: You were convicted unanimously by the jury. ENDS
>
> Who heard and saw ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

The first jury didn't agree on a verdict.

Best out of three, perhaps?

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 5:26:03 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: You were convicted unanimously by the jury. ENDS
>
> Who heard and saw ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

Especially that violent and foul mouthed video.