The driver in the Wimbledon school accident won't be charged?

[RiverF]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4448xx4keo

It sounds like a unavoidable and unforeseeable medical incident led to the tragedy, but the families wanted justice.

I can't begin to imagine their pain, but this is the right decision?

That's not how the justice system works.
Whether the public is convinced of someone's guilt or innocence is irrelevent.

To have what trial? Cps can only charge if the law has been broken. In this case no law has been broken, therefore no charges.

The public do not get to decide what cases they want to proceed to trial. The wider public do not have a right to see the evidence to determine that. And rightly so.

How is it a "witch hunt" if there is very strong evidence that will clear her completely?

No, I meant the bit about it going to trial. The whole point of the CPS is to decide whether it is in the public interest to press charges are not. If people are just going to say ‘let the public see the evidence’ it completely takes away the role of the CPS. Do you think every single case in which the CPS decide not to press charges should go to trial anyway, just in case the public have a different opinion?

Yes, exactly the same as any other epilepsy sufferer. Why would she be treated differently?

And if you do think that that should happen, who do you think should be the prosecutor in those cases?

It says in the article that it was her first ever seizure

Epileptics can drive on conditions - normally seizures free for 2y.

Totally awful but can't imprison for something had no control over

exactly this.
those posters may as well have just written "I know nothing about the judicial system"
If the same outcome had been issued within a month everyone would be still be complaining, except in that case it would be "How could they have done a thorough investigation in so short a time?"
Not everything is a conspiracy.

Idiopathic epilepsy can occur at anytime and despite extensive tests the cause cannot be found. This is a highly emotive situation and the parents actions are understandable, but unless there is a cover up by many people to give a epileptic diagnosis when there is none, seeing the ladies medical records sadly does not change the situation - will it make the parents feel better if the medical records prove the diganosis, I doubt it.

A matter of weeks after this accident, there was one in Malvern where 1 person died and 5 were very seriously injured when a car hit a group of pedestrians after it mounted the pavement, the car involved a Fiat 500 so the 2 ends of the spectrum with car types.

There is such evidence.

Which is why it has been determined by those whose job it is to make such determinations that no crime has been committed.

Are you suggesting that someone should be taken to court when it hasalready been established that they have committed no crime just so the defence and prosecution canstand in front of a judge and say yes, as you can see, no crime has been committed, let's all go home now.

That is bonkers.

Why would it be a genuine trial in the public's best interest if there is very strong evidence that no laws were broken?

You just want to see the witch publicly shamed.

Living with what she has done even by accident will be hard enough.

@DampDust may be she will, may be she wont. I used to know someone who was driving tired and speeding. Killed a family of 4 or 5 and does not live with it. Just moved on. Didn't feel it was really his fault. Am sure if interviewed by journalists he would say he will live with the guilt the rest of his life.
May be this woman will. Likely she will get therapy and move on. But the parents of those little ones will definitely live the horror everyday. That doesn't mean she should be punished if she wasn't at fault but just saying we can mention the driver living with this and be silent on the parent who will never see their children grow up

Which public?
They only people that this is actually in the interest of is the families directly involved.
Which I’m fairly sure is nobody on this thread.

This is totally correct

I think if anything the school needs to be sued. Traffic management is something no private schools is great at. But in this case I’d like to see ‘drive in schools’ have strict procedures for cars - eg my DS’ school has banned largr SUVs from the school grounds and hired a local field 10mins away for parents to use.

I’m intrigued as to how @Berringtons thinks the trial would work. The Crown brings prosecutions in criminal cases. In this case the CPS (the Crown Prosecution Service) have determined, based on the evidence, that no crime has been committed. So how could they, at trial, act as the prosecution for a crime that they don’t believe has occurred?

I'm saying in this specific, very unusual, case it would be good for the public to see the evidence.

Court rooms are open to the public for this reason.

No, I'm not saying the CPS should proceed with every single case. You need need to read what people write.

The CPS work to 2 principles. (https://www.cps.gov.uk/principles-we-follow) The "public interest" test is the second one. This case would appear not to pass the evidence test. The justice system is already on its knees and with victims and defendants having to wait literally years to go to court. Adding cases that don't have any chance of success, or have no evidence at all to the court workload so that people can "have a day in court" is mad.

But you can’t have one rule for everyone and then a completely different one for this case, just because you think we should. And as I said above, how would your proposed trial work? Who would be prosecuting, when the prosecution service don’t believe a crime has been committed?

Vehicle excise duty is used to deter less environmentally friendly vehicles. I don't believe any government of a western, democratic country would start dictating what people could drive and what could be manufactured in the way you describe.

There's nothing unusual about this case. People have medical episodes behind the wheel all the time.

You are quite literally suggesting the dismantlement of the entire criminal justice system. You can't put someone on trial when there hasn't been a crime just because you fancy a look at the evidence. You have a criminal trial when you have, at the very least, strong reason to believe that there has been a crime, one perpetrated by the person on trial. You do not have a trial because people are nosy fuckers.

Jesus, this thread (on supposedly more-educated-than-average Mumsnet) is a real argument against trial by your peers.

I absolutely and completely agree, (see my post above yours) BUT given the families' lawyer, who should know better, is suggesting the same thing, I can understand why lay people are making the argument

"He said: “What does this message send to the public, that deaths can arise in a road traffic situation and there could be no sanction because there is no process to interrogate the evidence?" (from the guardian article)

I have literally no idea how he would propose to "interrogate" the evidence (stick her in a car in the same place and if she didn't have another fit on cue point triumphantly and say "see!"). If what they want is a change to laws and processes so in incidents like this data protection is overridden by the right of a family to see ALL relevant information, then they need to campaign for that, not to complain that our legal system is following the law and won't make an exception just for them just because this is the particular case that they are involved in.

Governments already have rules on what is and is not considered street legal, and many jurisdictions have rules stating that certain vehicles can only be driven by people with special licenses etc. It would just be a case of shifting the boundaries somewhat.

Paris has already started putting much heavier parking charges on SUVs.

It's a political / emotive statement not based on law. He knows full well the evidence has been interrogated.