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?

Well no
She won't get her license back until she's been free of seizures for a year
She has children herself and is probably trying to protect them from all this
Plus the media and social media witch hunt
All this while trying to cope with a newly diagnosed medical condition that people think you're lying about
Let alone the guilt of what happened

Would you want someone to prosecute you if you randomly fainted or had a heart attack out the blue while driving and killed someone? You can't be responsible for an accident, especially if you're unconscious

Sending her to prison isn't going to do anything, there's no crime she needs punishment for

Have people never seen videos of this happening before on the motorway etc? It's not that unusual

Great.... Tomorrow, God forbid, you have a medical incident and kill a bus full of innocent children or vulnerable elderly. You're happy to be charged too, yes? Because you chose to have a medical emergency, right?

Jfc

The ludicrous vehicle she was in charge of weighed 3.5 tons.
It smashed through a metal fence.

Had she been driving something more suited to a city, the car would likely have hit the fence and stopped.

Very irresponsible to be driving vehicles like these in cities.

Diagram -her Chelsea tractor smashed down a ''Pavement barrier'' as well as the metal fence.

.... Your point? She had a seizure.

Diagram - seizure
(tongue firmly in cheek, if that is not obvious)

What would you prosecute her for? It's not dangerous driving it careless driving or drunk driving.

I'm pretty sure 'causing death by having an unexpected epileptic seizure' isn't a chargeable offence

@Bookmark1111

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?
All I know is what I heard in the news which is that they are disappointed that the evidence wasn't available for their legal and medical teams to review. It's not unusual for the evidence to be reviewed by both sides legal teams

@SadOrWickedFairy

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?
Not if they are following guidelines and don't want to be struck off. No.

If there's a trial, yes

@Oyrster

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?
I would have thought she is more vulnerable when there are people questioning the validity of the decision. There are crazy people out there who on hearing any sort of question over the decision might choose to target her and her family

I’m surprised they have named the driver. I don’t understand why, given she will not be charged. What is the public interest? And I wished they hadn’t, because I have come to realise she is someone I vaguely know, and now I feel deeply sorry for her and her children, how they are being thrust in the limelight and gossip. I have no doubt she is carrying a life sentence. it’s a senseless tragedy.

I also have unending sorrow for the victims and their families. It’s not an either/or.

All those suggesting she got away because she is wealthy: she and the victims’ families belong to the same demographics. Also, being a white, well to do woman is not a crime. If it is true that a less wealthy/minority driver would have been charged, that simply means that a wrong would have been done to them. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The way to fight racial or class judicial bias is not to charge or convict non guilty white/rich people.

Oh well if you don't agree. What's your professional angle here? Are you a prosector or a neurologist? How long have you spent analysing the evidence?

This thread illustrates that's already happening. She's in a lose lose situation regardless

Deleted - sorry, I misunderstood the original post.

accused
/əˈkjuːzd/
noun
1.a person or group of people who are charged with or on trial for a crime:"the accused was ordered to stand trial on a number of charges"

She is not "the accused".
See also- the PP who thought that if the medical evidence was strong a trial would be a good thing for her, despite the CPS not thinking there was a case, so that she could "be completely cleared"...of...nothing.....

Would this tragedy have happened had she been driving a 'normal car'. My heart goes out to the families involved and the driver, it was an accident. However, I really wish this trend for huge 4 x 4 cars would end. We've inherited yet another US custom and we don't have the roads and space like they do over there. These huge cars are a hazard, especially around schools. The increase in pot holes and poor surfaces is also down to the increase in heavy duty vehicles using the roads.

And it was - by both the prosecution (CPS and police) and the defence.

Victims are taken into account but they are never parties to proceedings and I have literally never heard of them being provided with evidence in this way.

The lack of understanding of criminal procedure on this thread is shocking.

Thing is, it's not just the lack of understanding... You don't know what you don't know.... But the absolute refusal to listen/acknowledge/accept being enlightened as to the workings of it that's the most jarring, I think

Absolutely shouldn’t have been charged. This could have been any one of us. You don’t jump into your car thinking you might have a seizure, or heart attack or black out episode. It was a very tragic accident. Feel really sorry for her that her picture was published.

The Post office prosecutions weren't high profile at the time they happened, and the police weren't involved.

I've just seen that. I don't think it's fair they've published her photo at all

Looking at the photos I also cannot help thinking less damage would be likely if she had not been driving a tank. These cars are like the XL Bulky of the car world.

They have no evidence that a crime was committed. Why on earth would they prosecute, irrespective of the driver's colour?

She hasn't had her licence back. She never will if she keeps getting seizures, and there's a pretty strong chance that, even if she's seizure-free, she will never apply to get it back.

Charged with what? Having her first ever epileptic seizure without a medical history of it?