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?

The parents feelings are understandable. Less so some of the dafter comments on this thread.

As with others, this thread is terrifying, like the other threads on this matter

The populace is a thick as mince, thats all I can say.

But once you have had a seizure then driving should be banned. IMHO driving after having had a collision which killed people should also be a condition of losing the licence - the only exception would self defence and/or stopping a killer (I’m thinking of the man who mowed down a person who had stabbed someone - it was in the news a few months ago. )The fact of knowing you had killed people with your car (judgement was medical reasons) would be enough to stop most people from getting behind the wheel again.

@ButterCrackers you DO lose your license after a seizure.
The Wimbledon woman will have done. My son did, lots of others in this thread have told you this happens too.
Honestly - cloud cuckoo land!

She might well never drive again out of her own choice, who knows

I have a friend with epilepsy, they are able to drive now, had some periods of time when the medication wasnt quite right and they couldnt drive but now can. People who have had accidents after being ill at the wheel can drive again with medical clearance

Thats good to see drivers banned for medically dangerous reasons. The post I quoted was arguing differently as I understood it. It’s great that you clarified the situation.

Indeed @soupfiend, and it's a long process to get it back. Forms, signing off by a neurologist. Forms getting lost. Too-ing and fro-ing.

After the event yes, but not before when you've never had a dangerous condition

Are you using your car tonight? Tomorrow?

How do you know you're not going to get ill and wheel and kill someone?

You do lose your licence after a seizure, whether you were driving at the time or not - you can get it back though if you have been free of seizures for 12 months (in most cases, might be longer though depends on what sort of seizures and medication etc).

If we banned people permanently from driving after 1 incident of something that may never happen again... half the country would not drive. It just isn't practical.

Theres lots of ways in which you could end up killing someone with your car and its not your fault - a friend of mine hit someone one night as she ran out into the road straight from the pub where she'd been drinking all day. He was doing under the speed limit, the whole thing caught on CCTV and his dash cam. Should he be banned? It would have lost him his job too, and he'd have had to move house as his home is very rural.

It just isn't practical - if someone commits murder, does their time and gets out, do we prevent them driving? Or is this just for those who cause death with their cars? Or only those whose fault it actually was (in which case why bring it up, as it has been determined these childrens tragic deaths was NOT the drivers fault)...

Again people seem to want not just punishment.. but revenge. Thats not how our justice system works nor is it how any justice system should work!

I saw this. I also read on twitter that she had bitten through her tongue so seems like this was known as a likely reason for the crash but needed properly investigating.

Driving is banned until a person has been seizure free for a set amount of time.

This woman may well never drive again, many (most?) people wouldn't be able to face it, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed if she is medically safe to do so.

She could have had that seizure in her kitchen that morning, in which case she would have been banned from driving until she was seizure free for a year and then free to drive again. There are thousands of drivers on the road in exactly this position. The risk of her being on the road in the future isn't affected by the fact that she was unlucky enough to have the seizure behind the wheel rather than washing the dishes. When she's medically safe to drive again, she will be allowed to. She isn't at fault here.

You could have a seizure, heart attack or stroke behind the wheel tomorrow. None of us know what the future holds.

At least people with epilepsy and other medical conditions have checks on their safety to drive. There are thousands of drivers on our roads who shouldn’t be driving. Here’s one example to compare with epilepsy:

”Every year 3000 people are injured or killed by a driver with poor vision”:

https://www.aop.org.uk/-/media/files/campaigns/dont-swerve-a-sight-test/vision-and-driving-briefing.pdf?rev=858cd75ca2644ae1a6c551ceadddd64c&hash=21947C4E3FC3195CBA5ACF5D0202A538

Does anyone remember the accident in Westerham, Kent on Christmas Eve 2015 when an 88yro driver drove into the Costa Coffee killing a woman in her 70's and seriously injuring 4 others?
I don't remember the outcome of the police investigation and cannot find it.
But that accident demonstrates the randomness involved in such incidents.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39372458#:~:text=Valerie%20Deakin%2C%2074%2C%20died%20after,from%20driving%20for%20five%20years.

It's not the same though. He lost control of the car and got a suspended jail sentence.

@Bookmark1111

If that's what the parents want, they need to take out a private prosecution against her. But I doubt they will, because the outcome would be the same. There is no criminal case to answer

Why would they do that?
You are missing my point. Why would the woman NOT want to provide information to the parents if it would help them put this to bed? What sort of person wouldn't do everything in their power to help ease their grief?

What information are they not providing?

What bigger picture. No one is suggesting the parents get a copy of the woman's medical reports. Who suggested this?

I said I can but imagine in what universe anyone wouldn't do everything possible to help the parents achieve closure. And if providing the parents medical experts the evidence then I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't to this. Medical experts would be covered by the same confidentiality clauses. This is not about posting everything online on the Daily Mail. I

We ALL know that legal cases are not always honest and secure. Post Office anyone? The parents team have not been given access to anything to satisfy them that proper investigations and processes have been followed.

Anyone killing two innocent children EVEN when done as a complete accident would surely feel so bad that they would WANT to do anything they could

The information HAS been provided though. She'll have submitted to independent medical tests for the police and CPS to determine whether charges should be brought. She'll have given statements too. The families will have been kept informed by their Family Liaison Officer. What else should she provide? Her bank details? Her entire life history? Every text she's ever sent? She's cooperated with the police investigation. Besides, do you honestly think anything she could say or do will ease their grief?

Because it's her private and traumatic medical information? Because it wouldn't actually help? Because she's already vulnerable enough after this and doesn't want to be exposed to even more analysis by people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about but are adamant they do? Because her legal advice is not to?

@Scruffily

This is pure speculation. Do you think they really believe that, in a high profile case like this, the police might conceivably have forgotten to check any of those things?
Because legal cases are always so legitimately run. Huh? Post Office anyone?

I can't wait to see how that turns out for you.

Neither can I, @MrsDanversGlidesAgain .

The Post Office prosecutions were conducted by the Post Office, not the CPS. Nor were the police involved.

And if providing the parents medical experts the evidence then I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't to this. Medical experts would be covered by the same confidentiality clauses.

@Bookmark1111 why? Since when do medical experts employed by parents take on investigative duties that would lead to criminal charges? Since when were they appointed this role in the Justice system? Who are they? Who are they accountable to? You? Me? The public at large? Or just the parents who are paying them?

The case has been investigated by the correct investigating authorities, the ones who are mandated that task by the Law of the Land - the Police, who then pass their evidence to the CPS to further assess. The resulting, lengthy and thorough investigation has concluded that there is no basis for any further action against the driver. Both the Police and the CPS are paid for by the public and accountable to the public.

The parents have been given the all the information they are entitled to receive they are not entitled to have experts employed and paid for by them to trawl through the driver's medical records and history and nor should they be. The medical records and history have been investigated and assessed by independent experts and the correct investigative and prosecution authorities.

Those cases were brought by the Post Office themself, rather than by the CPS. That was one of the major issues.

No one is suggesting the parents get a copy of the woman's medical reports

And you don't think the medical and legal experts employed by and paid by the parents will not share the information in those records in detail with the parents?