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?

Why is that conclusive?

This. ‘In the public interest’ and ‘the public is interested’ (i.e. a bunch of nosy parkers who are the spiritual descendants of people who used to go to public executions want the gory details to entertain themselves) are two very different things.

Is this based on your expert medical qualifications and your intimate knowledge of the person involved?
Or is it just mean spirited shit stirring.
I very much doubt she will ever drive again. I upstage has panic attacks just getting into one nowadays. But if she wanted to then the same rules that apply to all epileptics should apply to her.
1 year seizure free on stable medication.

@Ozanj the school need to be sued?!!
How would any school’s traffic management system, ban on SUVs or local field have prevented a woman driving on a public road past the school having an epileptic fit, and crashing through their fence?

I guess you could introduce legislation that all schools should have a 50m traffic exclusion zone all the way round, and a minimum fence strength proven to stop a car. Then if they didn’t comply with that, I guess you could sue? 🧐

The CPS has investigated. It didn't go to court, she wasn't charged. She might have sought legal advice but it wasn't her decision, it was entirely the CPS' based on police and witness reports and, most likely in this case, medical evidence such as if she's had more seizures, results of EEGs and MRIs. There are a lot of armchair detectives. It's really sad and an emotive case but this is just ridiculous. I feel for her.

I was both the victim and a witness in an assault case that was an absolutely clear, slam dunk case. I was assaulted and I saw 2 other people get assaulted.

Turned out the accused worked for a high flying law firm in the city and hired a barrister who specialises in getting celebrities off charges. They managed to rule out the CCTV and it came down to my word against his and he simply lied about his whereabouts at the time and CCTV couldn't prove where he was and the barrister painted me as some 'loose' single mother and it went to a hung jury. A man who assaulted me and I saw assault 2 other women.

Since that day I have absolutely no faith in the justice system whatsoever. Beforehand people told me that justice always finds the truth. What I now realise is that if you have money, you can sway the system to work in your favour.

When I left court, I told the barrister I hope he didn't have daughters and he wouldn't look me in the eye.

Whilst I'm not saying that there is anything odd necessarily with this one, what I have learned is it is certainly possible to get the right people to say the right things to back your case up, especially when you have money and influence. And if the process has not been clear with the victim's families, I absolutely think it should be made to be clear to allay their fears.

This is the issue in a nutshell.
Very well put.

you cant charge someone with having a medical episode they ddint know was going to happen

im sorry for the parents but charging the driver wont help

There are literally hundreds of cases where the CPS is making a charging decision every day, and the vast majority are accepted as being correct. The mere fact that a case is in the news does not mean that there must have been errors.

In fact it makes it less likely.
This is a very high profile incident. It will have been very carefully scrutinised.

Sorry, I’ve quoted the wrong person there!

Was in reply to this

She would've been made to undergo medical assessments by the police's own independent examiners. So unless you're saying she paid off everyone involved, from the SIO down, this is nonsense.

This is a tragedy for all involved including the driver.

There is no 'justice' to be had as it is clear this was an accident.

Whatever people get charged with when they've driven into a school? Dangerous driving?

Exactly this. Look people with epilepsy know they're not allowed to drive. If you have clear evidence the woman in question was hiding previous evidence of unstable seizures I suggest you contact the CPS.

My friend’s brother was killed as a teen in a freak sporting accident. His parents wrote to the 14yo whose “fault” it was that same week, to tell him it was a tragic accident and he was in no way to blame. They didn’t know the child - it was a game against another school. I’ve always been struck by their generosity and grace, though I’d never blame anyone too wrapped in grief to do the same.

Reading comments from earlier reports, I think a lot of the families’ anger is driven by slow progress on the case due to understaffing. Even if you believe the driver isn’t to blame, I absolutely see that you would want to get through this part, not have it hanging over you. Especially because whilst waiting, I suppose they would know things like the woman had not had a seizure before. Imagine having all that anger and not knowing if it was a poor woman who did nothing wrong, or some idiot who’d been told not to drive but did anyway, or who’d blacked out a couple of times but not told their GP just in case their licence was revoked? The amount of time that people are left in limbo because of police / CPS under staffing is terrible.

It's not a matter of "using a defence". The prosecution has to show that she broke the law in some way. If she had a totally unforeseeable seizure and that caused the crash, they don't get past first base.

Which is why she has surrendered her license as all people with epilepsy who have had a seizure are required to do.

she doesn't need to be banned for life FFS. 🙄

The expert medical evidence has established that she suffered a medical episode that she couldn’t have foreseen, meaning there is no crime of ‘dangerous driving’ committed.

I used to drive a 3.5 tonne light goods vehicle for work on a standard B drivers licence. If you want to change the weight people are allowed to drive, then it'll have a lot of impact. A lot of electric/ hybrid cars are heavy. A polestar will weigh in at about 2 and a half tonnes or is it the shape of a range rover you object to?

No-one is relying on her statement, they are relying on the evidence of neurological experts.

I really don't understand why you find this odd given the information about epilepsy on this thread. Quite simply, some types of seizures provably do leave people with big gaps in their memories around the time of the seizure. If you are going to say that is impossible, you need to produce some evidence.

Not mean spirited, just frustrated. So many children have lost their lives due to traffic violence. Too many killer drivers get off for all sorts of reasons. I'm suspicious because she'd never had a seizure before and one article said she hasn't since. I think this should be proved in court. Our justice system, and the majority of the police, are very sympathetic to drivers mistakes, no matter how many lives those mistakes cost.

Which of your medical qualifications are you basing this supposition on?

You do know that every person with epilepsy has a seizure when they haven't had one before right? That's kind of how it works.

This case is about the deaths of two children. Who do you think she paid off to lie on her behalf to have the CPS decide not to proceed on the grounds of medical evidence? Are you saying the independent medical experts brought onto the case by the Crown to examine her have perjured themselves on her behalf to lie that she had epilepsy?

Can someone explain the inquest process please?

I fully understand the families would like tonsee the evidence, although clearly there's no possibility of a criminal trial, but won't the evidence have to be presented to the inquest anyway? Do they also have to decide whether it was an accident or not?

Also, for that reason, why doesn't the inquest come before any decision to prosecute? What happens if the corner decides there is a case to answer/it wasn't a blameless accident? Is that possible?