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?

They never can.

Literally no one is lacking in empathy for the bereaved.

But the court process isn't there to make bereaved families or injured victims feel better, it's there to determine if a crime has been committed and decide on a punishment for the perpetrator if they are found guilty.

In this case there is zero evidence of a crime, so there is nothing to bring to court.

Accidents happen. It's unspeakably awful, but there isn't always blame to apportion. Sometimes terrible things just happen and there's nothing any of us can do about that.

I agree. Plus is it really empathic to encourage the families to drag this out for years, likely at vast expense to reach the conclusion the CPS already have?

The word I would use is dramatic (also virtue signalling and not caring about how much pain the families are caused because ‘it’s the principle innit’). But as long as @ButterCrackers gets to pat herself on the back about being a nice person, that’s OK with her, I guess.

Will there be an inquest?

Why do so many posters have complete faith in the CPS?

Literally no one is saying that the CPS never gets things wrong. Nothing is infallible. That is an entirely seperate issue to this one, in which posters are saying that it should ‘go to court’ regardless, which would mean completely overriding our entire judicial process (which exists for a reason).

Yes

They don’t, I think you have misunderstood. They have faith that a number of expert neurologists all agree on the medical evidence as being indisputable, that it is then overwhelmingly likely she had an eplipleptic fit which also rendered her unconcious. It isn’t about the cps, it’s about the medical evidence.

So let’s say you walk to the shop this afternoon. You trip as you walk down the pavement and accidentally knock a frail elderly person who horrifically staggers and falls into the road and is hit by a car. What should you be charged with? Murder? Manslaughter? Is 15 years in prison proportionate because after all, you ‘killed’ someone?

Some of us have direct experience of the CPS fucking things up, yet still understand that ButterCrackers and Bikesandbees are all the way in the wrong...

I’ve not seen the medical evidence, but I was talking generally.

Strange point to make on this particular thread then.

Your post is in a very law textbook/case judgment tone - the extended scenarios and rhetorical questions! Anyway, fyi, simplistically speaking that's exactly what tort was invented for. Criminal law wise in common law it would never ever be murder due to lack of mens rea. Manslaughter is a bit more complex.

@SocoBateVira I do myself have that experience and I don’t know what the answer is in this scenario. I do think the parents are entitled to express their dissatisfaction with the lack of process and question it though.

Strange point to make on this particular thread then.

Why is it strange?

Of course it couldn’t be murder. I’m asking what charge those who think this should ‘go through the courts’ would deem appropriate.

So let’s say you walk to the shop this afternoon. You trip as you walk down the pavement and accidentally knock a frail elderly person who horrifically staggers and falls into the road and is hit by a car. What should you be charged with? Murder? Manslaughter? Is 15 years in prison proportionate because after all, you ‘killed’ someone?

You wouldn’t get charged with murder for this.

Yes I know 🤦🏼‍♀️

Obviously. Because no crime has been committed. Just as in this case.

Something the ‘it should go to court because reasons’ brigade seem unable to grasp.

Yes, of course they're entitled to give their views. It's a free country, and they deserve a huge amount of sympathy and grace too. It's totally understandable that people in that situation would want someone to blame, would struggle with the concept of it just being an accident.

However, there are people on this thread who've made completely ridiculous proposals, failed to back them up and then appointed themselves the moral guardians. That's what's being slagged off.

Your point about the CPS was an odd one to make on this thread, because you said you were talking generally and that is not a claim that people have been making.

Of course it couldn’t be murder. I’m asking what charge those who think this should ‘go through the courts’ would deem appropriate

Presumbly if it went through the courts whether it was an accident or not would be examined eg CCTV, dashcams, eye witnesses. Auriol Grey was charged with manslaughter despite her disabilities but it was overturned.

Your point about the CPS was an odd one to make on this thread, because you said you were talking generally and that is not a claim that people have been making.

I don’t think it was odd but you can disagree.

You could see Auriol Grey mouthing off and waving her arms around as the cyclist approached, how would you ascertain ‘whether it was an accident or not’ through grainy footage of a car veering off the road and hitting the school?

By all means tell us why it was relevant, and I might even change my mind.

@CandidHedgehog
Obviously. Because no crime has been committed. Just as in this case.

Well no, there would be an investigation to find out if a crime was committed eg unlawful act manslaughter.