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?

I thought there would be but I'm in Dublin so I wasn't entirely sure. The poor families will get their answers then. I also feel very sorry for the lady who has to live with this for the rest of her life. Its a situation she could not have prevented. I don't think she should have been named and pictured either. She wasn't drug or drink driving.

This has all been done by the CPS already and they have found sufficient evidence it was an accident that they won’t prosecute.

As many, many people have asked? Who do you think should prosecute the case? The CPS can’t - they say no crime has been committed.

The court system has significant delays already. If multiple (because if you do it for one case, how can you not do it for all similar cases) ‘let’s have a look’ cases get put in court, the system will collapse.

There has been an investigation. It took a year and the decision was that no crime has been committed.

@SocoBateVira I felt it was relevant as we are discussing the CPS and their decisions. As I said you can disagree, what else would you like me to say?

That's what the cps do and have done and decided there is no crime?!?!?!?

@CandidHedgehog where have I said there hasn’t been an investigation in this case? I was referring to your accidental pushed and killed someone example and replied with the example of Auriol Grey. Why do you think she was charged?

The difficulty you have here is that nobody in this thread said the CPS were infallible. It's up to you what you say in response of course, no rule against poor explanations.

As many, many people have asked? Who do you think should prosecute the case? The CPS can’t - they say no crime has been committed.

Where have I said someone else should prosecute the case?!

The total and complete ignorance of some people on Mumsnet never fails to surprise me.

And this thread is living proof of the stupidity and ignorance of some.

The difficulty you have here is that nobody in this thread said the CPS were infallible. It's up to you what you say in response of course, no rule against poor explanations.

Perhaps I misunderstood then, do you feel better now?

Because in that case, after seeing all the evidence, the CPS determined that there was sufficient evidence for her to be tried in a court of law.
In the case being discussed here, after seeing the expert medical evidence that the driver suffered a seizure meaning that no crime had been committed, and therefore she could not be tried in a court of law.
It is absolutely normal and understandable that the families of the victims have expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision. What is not normal/understandable is that posters on here, who have no idea how our legal system works, think it should be ignored/overridden in this one particular case because they think it should.

So what do you want? You aren’t happy with the CPS decision not to take the case to court so what do you want instead?

Judge: Counsel for the prosecution, will you please now open the case.
Prosecution Counsel: It is the Crown's position that the defendant had a seizure at the wheel and was involved in a terrible accident.
Judge: So what offence do the Crown assert was committed?
Prosecution Counsel: None, your honour. It was an accident.
Judge: I'm directing the jury to return a not guilty verdict. This concludes proceedings. Counsel, I'll have a word with you in chambers please.

I feel hungry. But the thread is better for you acknowledging this, so it's all to the good,

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?

@MaryMaryVeryContrary I was comparing the case of Auriol Gray to your example of making someone fall into a road & die by tripping over. Neither of those two examples are the same scenario as this case.

Not my example actually.

Looking at the Grey case, after a police investigation and CPS consideration, there was sufficient evidence to take the case to court in that matter. In this case, after a similar investigation and CPS condiderstion there was not. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that?

Be a great comfort to the bereaved families as well, I'm sure. It has closure written all over it!

I feel hungry. But the thread is better for you acknowledging this, so it's all to the good,

The irony of calling others out for moral superiority 😆 But hey if this is how you can bring some small joy to your life then crack on. I love charity!

The question stands.

Not my example actually.

Assumed I was talking to the same poster & couldn’t be bothered to scroll back.

Looking at the Grey case, after a police investigation and CPS consideration, there was sufficient evidence to take the case to court in that matter. In this case, after a similar investigation and CPS condiderstion there was not. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that?

My understanding was the conviction was overturned because criminal charges shouldn’t have been charged in the first place.

What makes you think or what have I said that that infers I don’t understand that the CPS doesn’t believe a crime has been committed in this example?

Dear me, you do seem to have taken this quite hard. People don't usually resort to tired comments about feelings until they've dug themselves a much bigger hole.

So you are just arguing for the sake of it? Noted.

You say "of course" but it actually was a point of debate in common law up until relatively recently!

For murder or manslaughter there has to be some element of intention.
Where do you see that?

No court is ever going to look at the issue of "urban tanks" unless and until it becomes an offence to drive one. If that is your concern, you need to talk to your MP once they are elected.

The fact that no-one is taken to court when a child dies in no way means that the child's death is not being taken seriously. It just means that the child's death hasn't resulted from a criminal offence. Inquests are there for that purpose, and they absolutely have the power to make recommendations which have to be taken seriously if they think that there is something that can be done to reduce the risk of similar deaths in future. Given that you're not bothered about punishing this driver, why isn't that enough for you?

If, for instance, a child runs straight out into busy traffic and gets killed in circumstances where there is nothing any driver could have done to avert that, are you still going to insist that the driver is taken to court? And if more than one driver is involved in any resultant crash, are you going to insist on putting all of them in the dock, even though no-one believes they are at fault? What do you say they should be charged with?