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?

It just a real tragedy with no one to blame.

This was a terribly tragic incident but that doesn't mean that there is necessarily anyone that should be blamed. Sometimes accidents are unpredictable and unavoidable.

I know the driver who crashed that bin wagon in Glasgow had fainting episodes before. He never informed his employer killed 6 but never got jailed.

@Berringtons - the justice system is already on its knees - can you imagine how much worse it would be if cases like this, where the experts concerned (the police, the forensic investigators, the medics and the Crown Prosecution Service) have already determined that no crime has been committed, were still having to go to trial?

Because it wouldn't just be this one case - there are so many cases which don't get taken to trial by the CPS - and if you think that this case should be prosecuted so we, the public, can see the evidence, then surely all these other cases should receive the same treatment!

How would you feel if you were wrongly accused of a crime, and after a full investigation, the police and CPS decided that you had no case to answer, but the court of public interest demanded that you face trial anyway? Would you be happy to go through all of that just so Mavis from Number 20 and Bill from down the Legion could get a good nosy at all the evidence, and based on their Googling (and absolutely no knowledge of evidence, forensics or the law), decide whether or not they thought you were guilty?

The whole point of the investigation of a potential crime is that all the available evidence is presented to the CPS, who make a decision on prosecution - they are the experts.

There is ample evidence a crime might have been commited - two children were hit by a car and died. That's the evidence.

There is also evidence that she wasn't at fault - but it's up to the defence to present that evidence at trial! It's not the CPS' job to hold the trial themsleves behind closed doors and then report the verdict.

Honestly, in the long term it would be even be better for the accused to be cleared in a public court, rather than for the CPS to simply drop the case.

It is also likely that the evidence will be examined in court if the parents bring a civil case against her. It may be that they will do so purely to see the medical evidence.

A criminal case to hear the evidence is totally bonkers though, not least because everyone would get into court, the defence barrister would clear the jury and make a "no case to answer" submission which would be accepted and everyone would go home.

"Submission of no case to answer
A submission of no case should be allowed when there is no evidence upon which, if the evidence adduced were accepted, a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict. In such a case, a directed verdict must be taken from the jury and the trial terminates."

So you propose we dismantle and reconstruct our entire judicial system, for this one case?
ill ask again, who do you think should bring the prosecution? The Crown, who prosecute criminal cases, can’t do it, as they don’t believe a crime has been committed. So in this trial you envisage, who will be acting as the prosecution?

It would also be a massive waste of time and cost simply so the tricoteuses on the internet could misunderstand criminal law.

It's not the CPS' job to hold the trial themsleves behind closed doors and then report the verdict

All this sentence proves is that you have absolutely no idea how our criminal justice system works, so discussion is pointless.

I see your point here @Berringtons, yep it's interesting. How far should CPS intervene and say nope - isn't that for courts to weigh up on?

We just don't have enough facts though, it's hard to offer much of an opinion

@Berringtons it literally IS the CPS's job to assess all the evidence and decide whether or not a crime has been committed! Otherwise every single alleged crime would have to go to court, and the justice system would collapse.

They are a highly trained, expert triage system for the courts.

If you have a tyre blow out while driving and lose control of your car and hit someone, is that a crime? The police would examine your car, and if all your tyres were in good condition, with no evidence of damage, then they would report that to the CPS who would decide it was an unforeseeable accident and you were not criminally liable for the injuries/deaths you caused.

But if all your tires were bald and damaged, the CPS would look at the evidence and decide whether to charge you with some form of contributory negligence.

In the first case, you should not go to court, but in the second, you should. But you would like to see every case go to court, because the CPS should not be making these decisions. Madness.

No it’s not for the courts to weigh up on, it is literally the role of the CPS. They have to decide whether a) there is enough evidence that a conviction is reasonably likely in court and b) whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. They have to make these decisions in every single case referred to them. In this case, the evidence test hasn’t been fulfilled. That isn’t the CPS ‘holding the trial behind closed doors’, it’s just them doing their job.

I said 'just about'... but as you've seen fit to take a quote out of context...

There can potentially be no evidence of a seizure to see after the fact.

No evidence of a seizure does not mean there was no seizure.

It is entirely likely that the first responders, A&E team and police independent examiners found no evidence of a seizure, but also no evidence that it could not have been a seizure.

Getting an opinion or two from some neurological specialist to the effect that a seizure is possible, is not outwith the realms of possibility.

I completely agree that paying people off to hide evidence that something else (that she should have known about) happened is highly unlikely, but that isn't what I said.

I also said that if there were some other cause, there'd be evidence of that, so this case is not simply about 'did she have a seizure or not' but also 'was there any other cause...'.

And for all we know, she's gone on to have several more seizures, which may even have been documented by scan during the seizure itself, we will probably never know!

Agreed.
These ridiculously huge vehicles have no place in a City.

Had it been a lighter, smaller car, the girls may have had a better chance.

I hope the driver has a lifetime ban from driving now, in case it happens again.

She's clearly not safe to drive.

The girls' families said "justice has neither been done, nor has been seen to be done today".

This is awful - that poor woman, what do they want to happen?! She didn't do it on purpose or even recklessly. Yes it a terrible tragedy, but this woman will already serve life sentence from her guilt.

My daughter was involved in a serious head on with a taxi driver. He was diabetic but had not controlled his medication properly . He was not prosecuted .

This is a highly unusual case

The CPS decides if the prosection has an argument. It does not weight all the defence evidence behind closed doors and then decide if you are guilty or not. That's what the trial is for.

Yes, random members of the public, in the form of a jury, decide if you are innocent or guilty. Are you now against trial by jury?

Exactly. She is responsible for inappropriately driving an unnecessarily huge car in a city.

I think we need to look at the sizes and weights of cars these days to assess if they are more risky to pedestrians and smaller cars. Surely they must be.

It seems like an arms race with these huge cars.

It is not a highly unusual case. There are many incidences of people having medical episodes behind the wheel, and that resulting in death or serious injury of others.
The CPS has done its job. The same job it does in all cases referred to it. The Crown cannot prosecute a crime if, having assessed the evidence, it doesn’t believe that a crime has been committed.

She will be subject to the same rules on driving as all other epilepsy sufferers.

Yes, I agree.

Her solicitor states that she has been diagnosed with epilepsy. One seizure won’t get you an epilepsy diagnosis so I would assume she’s since gone on to have more. Many seizures won’t get you an epilepsy diagnosis necessarily. Tests, including an EEG would have been done to confirm epilepsy.

My daughter has non-epileptic seizures many times a day. She has had extensive testing and it was concluded that her seizures are due to other reasons.

Unfortunately, DD cannot be medicated so her seizures will never be controlled so unless there’s a miracle, she’ll never be able to drive

I'm suspicious that it was actually a seizure. I think this should have gone to court, and there should be some serious medical evidence to prove that she's not guilty. She should NEVER drive again, either way.

Having said that, if it was a genuine medical episode, it raises questions about how appropriate it is to have 3-tonne SUVs around a school (or in cities), as a smaller lighter vehicle would not have done the same amount of damage, and why the motor industry isn't forced to have safety systems to prevent sudden accidental acceleration in place in new vehicles. The technology to prevent something like this definitely exists.

Unfortunately, this will likely just be written off as an accident and nothing will change as a result. Children's lives are cheap on UK roads. Most people are quite happy to sacrifice a few so that we have our excessively big cars and drive them as fast as we like, wherever we like.

I'm suspicious that it was actually a seizure

What evidence are you basing that off? The people who have access to her medical records and expert testimony have stated that it was a seizure. What evidence you have that makes you believe differently?

I would guess they want a trial, to see all the evidence and to hear her testify that this event was not preceded by other symptoms. (Even if she was undiagnosed)

Also for her to family to confirm, in court, that this was totally out of the blue.

And I don't need the armchair lawyers to tell me that's not how it works... I'm just responding to the poster.

A trial for what crime though? What could she be charged with?