If evidence was presented that the victim was an inexperienced cyclist and thus she and her boyfriend were the authors of her misfortune and that inexperience is not actually the case then justice has not been served.
Well, in part, yes.
However, inexperience itself ought not to get one killed if other road users are behaving considerately. I made this point upthread. It behoves all road users not to assume that others are not inexperienced or novice.
But... I disagree about the raising of the 'inexperience' issue being the point at which justice was not served. It seems perfectly reasonable for a defence counsel to raise the spectre of inexperience. It is for the prosecution to demonstrate that this is not so, if indeed it is not so.
A good defence barrister will raise any doubt they can think up in the lavatory. It is their job. It is the job of the prosecution to show that the doubt is inaccurate or wrong. It would appear that in this case they did not do so.
It is not the job of the grieving parents to make that point through the press some weeks after the case has been heard - and several months after the death.
Nonetheless, inexperience itself should not be a death sentence (or even a reason for road bullying).
Having heard all the evidence presented by defence and prosecution and having heard the cross-examination of all witnesses presented, a jury found the defendant not guilty - a verdict which did not elicit comment from the judge. That in itself suggests (but doesn't prove) that there is more to this case than has been reported.