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?

Just to add to the "it needs to he investigated" lot...it HAS been investigated, thoroughly (one of the reason it's taken almost a year)...medical evidence (lots of it), CCTV showing the awful incident, car forensics (showing no braking/swerving, indicating loss of consciousness) and more.
All of this will be covered at the inquest. The idea that the process hasn't been thorough is just wrong.

Of course - as widely report in the news https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/26/wimbledon-school-crash-driver-will-not-face-prosecution-says-cps Read it through.

You're still not making your point clearly. You can't be "found guilty but have a defence". If you have a valid defence, you aren't guilty of the offence charged.

How would issues of "causation, policy, binding precedent, weight of future precedent on dissimilar but adjacent cases" impact on a decision whether to prosecute when neurological experts on both sides say that there was no previous evidence of epilepsy and the driver had no control over what happened? It surely must be assumed that the CPS took all of that into account?

That doesn't eally take us any further, though, does it? They are quoted as saying they were previously unhappy about the pace of the investigation, but “It is now clear to us that the depth of the process is questionable too. In the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, we can only surmise that the investigation has been equally poor”. They don't identify anything which they say was done wrong, and before the inquest anyway it's would be premature to do so.

However, it appears that the sole basis for what they say is that it hasn't resulted in charges being brought and they admit they are only acting on surmise. I don't blame them in the least, they must be in the depths of grief and pain, and in their shoes I'd be desperate for some sort of more comprehensible conclusion than that this was just a horrible, horrible accident - but it does sadly look as if they are just hitting out in frustration

"If you have a valid defence, you aren't guilty of the offence charged." -> No, many defences (incl those which would apply here) only work to reduce liability to various extents, not to absolve culpability in cases where the necessary elements are first met.

Re your second point/question: again, CPS is not a court of law. The factors I listed and you quoted apply to legal judgments. I detailed above how they CPS make decisions in my earlier post (public interest as opposed to legal considerations), so just scroll up.

Everything I've written is very simplistically summarised btw. I'm absolutely not saying it would be worth dragging her to court, only that the lot declaring negligence, recklessness, etc don't apply here are very confident in what they don't know that they don't know! Dunning-Kruger effect.. I must have wasted decades of my career poring and arguing over lengthy treatises when MN could just tell me what's what in 1 short sentence

You asked this question “Can you or anyone else give any information on what they or their legal advisors have specifically said about being dissatisfied. ” The Guardian article provides these answers. The families are dissatisfied. Perhaps read it again.

Thank you for posting that @ButterCrackers which confirms that the family have issues with the police investigation not with the CPS

Firstly, they are unhappy with 'the process' by which it seems they mean the long delays [due to lack of staff]

And secondly, the lack of 'concrete evidence' of the driver having experienced an epileptic seizure

It's not clear what they mean by the latter - possibilities include normal EEG, normal MRI, lack of blood markers eg raised prolactin etc etc

This to me seems to show a lack of understanding of how medical diagnoses are formulated particularly in the case of epilepsy where the only 'concrete evidence' of a seizure would be simultaneous video and EEG recording - something which can only happen in the controlled circumstances of an EEG lab or being randomly filmed by a witness when someone experiences a seizure during ambulant EEG monitoring

Clearly that degree of evidence isn't going to be available in a healthy woman just going about her business

@hellofellow - the evidence has been held up to legal scrutiny - that is what the CPS does - they examine all the evidence to see if a crime has been committed, and if so, is there sufficient evidence to support a prosecution.

This case fell at the first hurdle - the medical evidence proved that the driver had a completely unpredicted first seizure which caused her to lose control of the car. She was not negligent in any way, so there can be no crime to prosecute.

I wish @Bikesandbees could understand this too. There is no point in baying for something to ‘go to court’ when no crime has been committed. Can @Bikesandbees name an actual, statutory crime which is committed when someone has an unforeseeable medical incident and causes an accident? I’m not holding my breath.

@Scruffily

However, it appears that the sole basis for what they say is that it hasn't resulted in charges being brought and they admit they are only acting on surmise. I don't blame them in the least, they must be in the depths of grief and pain, and in their shoes I'd be desperate for some sort of more comprehensible conclusion than that this was just a horrible, horrible accident - but it does sadly look as if they are just hitting out in frustration

It does indeed.

For years it was fashionable in some industries to pretty much by default blame any accident on operator error, with all that that might entail. One problem with that approach is it does pretty much zero to improve safety and can lead to other parties involved in the accident, such as management or manufactures of the machine being used getting off the hook.

I don’t know the vehicle involved in this case but it would be interesting to see if and how well the safety functions some say it may have been fitted with, such as the rumoured automatic braking, worked as advertised and if not why not.

I’m sure there will be other items of interest such as the nature of the roadside kerb and the school fencing.

Campaigning for any suggested improvements that might come out as a result of the inquest might be something the grieving parents might consider, since that is likely to be something that might have more long lasting value than just hitting out at the driver in this single accident.

You understand its a tragic accident, but you think it should be heard in court?

There are literally no words to describe the stupidity of that statement.

Where else should it be heard? The families aren’t satisfied so more should be done. I see that you and the other pretend lawyers think that the families should just move along. It was the same types of posts for the Nottingham families.

You do realise that the court is not where the situation is investigated don't you? You know that the investigation takes place to determine whether there will or won't be a prosecution?

I really get the impression that a lot of people on this thread think that 'going to court ' is for people to turn up to a court room and just jibber jabber about how awful the situation is

I feel so sorry for her and the children’s families. All lives ruined. My friend had epilepsy and I saw the fits frequently. They are bloody scary and ultimately cost my friend her life.

Do you think every case where the family are not satisfied with the outcome of the police investigation should have its own separate legal process?

Sorry to be brief/terse, but no, every one of your points are incorrect

Won't bother retyping after replying yours as I've typed literally all of this out before and no one bothers reading before deciding to be confidently wrong..

1. CPS looking at evidence doesn't amount to legal scrutiny – again, their judgment re the evidence is how realistically probable conviction is. This is different to the test the court applies at trial (and don't confuse it with balance of probabilities legal requirement etc either)

2. CPS' other test is public interest – re this Wimbledon case, their statement specifically referenced the public interest as well

3. Involuntary manslaughter

Before you decide to issue your own judgment on recklessness, negligence etc based on Dr Google, pls read my earlier post.. Eg automatism may not fully apply as a defense here if for example we looked closer at her extent & duration of minor symptoms on the spot and on a wider timeline even if that had been her first epilpetic incident per se.. She might have had a very hard time at trial!

Obvious other simple one would be Road Traffic Act, likely what they were looking at first but would be harder to apply here

Yes it's true she would prob have walked free from court (esp on policy considerations), but it's not as simple as simply declaring "no negligence" or "no recklessness". Firstly, the definitions of these 2 concepts have been subject to great debate; secondly, she might be found to have fulfilled those requirements but with a defense. Finally, legally there are also things like the concept of causation, strict liability, etc (cc @Scruffily since you asked) which means the law is about more than moral blame

Lastly, tort tho civil not crim – we might see those families successfully pursuing that route, though these are well-off families so not much point in that

(Not a pretend lawyer, by the way. An actual lawyer, albeit corporate law. I did study criminal law though).

Where else should it be heard? The families aren’t satisfied so more should be done. I see that you and the other pretend lawyers think that the families should just move along. It was the same types of posts for the Nottingham families.

What exactly should be heard?

What more should be done? Invent a crime just for the driver to be prosecuted for? March the driver through the streets so people can pelt her with rotten food and shout Shame?

There will be an inquest, although I am sure that won't satisfy you either.

The fact is, that sometimes people are just too ignorant to actually engage in meaningful discussion with. Sadly this is one of those occasions. Multiple people have tried valiantly to explain how our country’s legal system works, but it’s falling on deaf ears. Apparently anyone who is unhappy with the outcome should just be able to book a court slot and have their own trial.

The families of the kids who were killed are dissatisfied with the process. I stand with them. Hopefully they will be heard in a way that they agree is helpful.

That still doesn't work. You may have missed the fact that I specifically and intentionally said you would not be guilty of "the offence charged". I didn't say you wouldn't be guilty of any offence. However, if the necessary elements are first met then you will be guilty of the offence, because basically the defences operate to take away or reduce those elements.

I know the CPS is not a court. That is why I specifically put the question in terms of the decision to prosecute, not any decision to convict, sentence or whatever.

It's reasonable to conclude that the possibility of a conviction for manslaughter due to recklessness or gross negligence is out of the window; there must have been a lot of pressure on the CPS to find a reason to prosecute, so if they thought that one would fly they would have pursued it.

They're never going to be though are they? They're probably still at the anger stage and wanting someone to blame/pay for what happened
But if it's been investigated there's nothing else to do, she was unconscious/having a seizure and so not responsible, didn't mean to cause harm and had no idea it was going to happen
If you start charging people who are unconscious of a crime they didn't know they committed and didn't mean to commit then it starts getting horrifying

Should someone who has a heart attack and passed out on the motorway and causes a crash be charged? Of course not

In the media. That’s where most people complain these days.

What happened to those 2 girls was a terrible tragedy but court does not exist for people angry that a crime has not been committed as it would make them feel better.

So many questions - I didn’t know you could develop epilepsy so late in life , or indeed how it can be proved that it is down to this and that the woman does definitely have epilepsy and will ( presumably?) never be allowed to drive again. If it was down to a tragic set of really rare occurrences then my heart breaks for her as well as the families as she must be haunted by it. However I also hope it’s not down to clever lawyering up and ££ being thrown at the case - like others I’m confused why it’s taken so long to decide “ no case to answer” rather than it awaiting a court decision.

No, your first paragraph is very, very confused! That's not how the law works at all.

"if the necessary elements are first met then you will be guilty of the offence, because basically the defences operate to take away or reduce those elements." -> No, this is just word salad on your end. It doesn't work like that. Many defenses don't invalidate the necessary elements, but concern a separate aspect of law. That's why defenses are viewed as distinct from the necessary elements in the first place.

Anyway, about "the offence" vs "any offence"... I don't know what you're trying to say really but yes, of course defences (whether partial or complete) are specific to the charge being brought. They're not just raised in the abstract for fun.

Re CPS not at all – assessment of probability of conviction is not at all a legal test (in case law many of the most influential precedents were the most unexpected). Also public interest factors in very strongly. In general they're known not to be too concerned about the finer points of law.

I didn't ask the question, actually. The point is that that article doesn't enlighten us on what the families are said to be dissatisfied about.