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 hope to god you're never on a jury. It's a shame you're (probably) able to vote.

My friend had his first seizure in his mid 30s behind the wheel of his car.
Nothing before at all.

Luckily dh was in the passenger seat and another friend behind. Dh stopped the car with his hands in the foot brake and our friend steers from the back seat to ensure they didn't crash into houses or a wall.
Although he was conscious and talking after they came to a stop it was clear to those who,knew him things weren't right. He has no memory of this time now, or of before it,

The hospital discharged our friend that day, after tests. They didn't tell him not to drive or anything and infact he turned up at our house for car keys. Fortunately his partner prevented him from driving and made him go to his go the next day. It was there that's more tests went ahead, and he had to surrender his license.

He had 2 more seizures before being put on medication, one more whilst driving. Again fortunately no one was hurt.

It's now been well over a decade and he has had nothing since. He got his licence back 12 months after the last seizure and has driven safely since.

15 minutes later, in that first incident, he'd have been alone in the car in a motorway.
An hour later he'd have been on the motorway with his young child in the back of the car.
The day after, at the same time, the road where it happened would have been busy, lots of school children around, buses and cars doing morning school/work commutes, etc.

It was just luck no one was hurt (as well as dh/friend's actions) and it was bad luck he had a seizure out of nowhere.

People have varying knowledge of legal systems. People have emotional responses to this case. A certain degree of tolerance is needed. It's only a Mumsnet thread, people.

Try reading the thread and you will get some of the answer to your questions. Epilepsy can be developed at any stage of your life - someone upthread mentioned a person who had their first seizure in their 70s. It's not, unfortunately, a very rare occurrence; a lot of people have had seizures when driving with different consequences. It could happen to you, completely out of the blue: it's not really something anyone can realistically guard against.

No, it's not down to clever lawyering. It's down to the opinions of expert neurologists instructed by the prosecution.

It's taken so long to decide because there's a lot to investigate - medical records, full investigation of he car's mechanics etc, any records on the car, local cameras and dash cams, for instance. In particular, medical investigations of the driver will have taken time, given the pressure on use of MRI and CAT scanners etc, plus the fact that it looks as if she has had further seizures which would have had to be investigated, given that epilepsy diagnosis has been confirmed. To say nothing of the fact that both the police and CPS have ridiculous workloads and are massively understaffed and underfunded. Would you really want this sort of investigation to be rushed?

So many questions - I didn’t know you could develop epilepsy so late in life

Well now you do.

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.

Well now you do know that it can be proved. The woman will be able to drive again after a year if no further seizures.

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.

It is, so your heart can indeed break for her.

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.

It is not down to clever lawyering, it is down to an extensive investigation looking at all possibilities and evidence which is why it has taken so long. Who are you accusing of throwing money at the case? Are you making an accusation of the driver buying a medical diagnosis?

There can't be a court decision, there is nothing to take to a court.

I don’t expect everyone to have in depth knowledge of the legal system. I do expect that when people with that knowledge patiently try to explain why what they’re demanding isn’t possible, they pay some attention. I expect people to be willing to learn.

I'm not epileptic but mine was after a head injury

I trapped my finger in a door, then fainted some time later, fell backwards, cracked my head open as I fell through a glass wall and had a seizure
Went to hospital, had a scan and various tests

Shortly after that I went from perfect vision to quite badly short sighted
I had another seizure a few weeks later, then had EEG, flashing light tests, MRI, and a load of other stuff. Diagnosed as seizures post head injury. Eventually they stopped

But I imagine if I had a seizure and crashed and ended up in the news someone would say I shouldn't have been driving as I had a "history of seizures"

ok so to those responding “ yes you can get epilepsy late in life” , I now ( thanks to this thread) know that. But to those mentioning cat scans , mris etc. ( and only asking medically qualified people now!) if this was a rare , unique and ( hopefully) one- off episode how can it actually be proved that the driver has epilepsy? Genuinely want to know if it can be evidenced - “ beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Sorry if this has already been asked but I have a quick question for people who know about the police/CPS: Is it normal that the police would pass the evidence onto the CPS in a case like this, even if they were absolutely sure no crime had been committed? I just would have thought (perhaps wrongly) that if the doctors all agreed that she had recently suffered a seizure and if there was no evidence of any earlier seizures in her medical history, then the police would release her without charge, without even approaching the CPS.

Is it just normal procedure for the police to check things over with the CPS anyway? Or normal in cases as serious as this, where two people have been killed? Or does it mean that the evidence in this case is slightly less clear cut than has been reported and the police think there's potentially a chance (even a very small chance) that she could be charged with a crime?

It doesnt need to be epilepsy.

She had a seizure. Not everyone who has a seizure, or seizures has epilepsy

sadly it isn’t completely unheard of for people with extensive means to obtain diagnoses of (for example) dementia or other ailments/ disabilities to enable them to receive preferential treatment from CPS or juries - and there are historical cases on public record where subsequently it’s transpired those diagnoses were not pertinent

Can you post some links to these? because the only one I can think of is Ernest Saunders, the only man ever to recover from Alzheimers.

And as far as I'm aware, CPS don't give 'favourable treatment,' do you have any evidence for that? DB works in the MoJ, he'd be interested to hear that.

This

but nobody that I can see in previous threads has fully explained how it can be completely proven this was epilepsy ( esp as originally there was mention of breathalyser?)

Apart from 39 pages of this thread explaining what would have happened in a year long investigation to determine cause and how it was decided it was epilepsy, you mean? 🙄

Police would breathalyse at the scene and probably drug test as well. They'd also examine the car for defects.

I'd give it up, @Scruffily. It's the biggest load of pseudo-legal waffle I've seen in a while.

My favourite bit is '2 ways for her to be let off: one would be lacking the necessary elements in the first place, and the other would be being found guilty but having a defense.'

If someone is found guilty, this means that the jury decided they didn't have a defence. What do people think being found guilty actually is?

Is there an intelligence test before sitting on a jury? because if not, on the evidence of this thread there ought to be.

The police take advice from the CPS, sometimes just regarding the appropriate charges, but in a very serious case like this, the police will be talking to the CPS throughout the process. Even for standard cases, there's a duty prosecutor available to advise the police. They used to be called the gatekeeper - I'm not sure if they still are, as I haven't practised for a few years - and I'd fairly often have clients who'd been in custody overnight miss the cut-off for being produced at court that day because the officer was waiting for the gatekeeper to get back to them with charging advice.

The CPS will have been monitoring things closely and advising at every stage.

Of course it’s the right thing not to charge the driver - it wasn’t deliberate , she wasn’t negligent in any way or under the influence of anything. She had a medical episode and had not had a seizure before so it’s not even a case of poorly controlled epilepsy etc she literally hadn’t had a seizure before .

What happened was a heartbreaking accident

All cases get passed to the CPS to make a decision re charges. The police don’t have the authority or expertise to make that decision. They will work closely with the CPS throughout the investigation.

My DC has epilepsy. They were diagnosed after having a seizure out of the blue and then had an EEG where abnormal brain patterns/electrical activity were seen in a certain area of the brain. They were then diagnosed with epilepsy by a consultant neurologist and put on medication.

Another relative was diagnosed in a similar way but also had an MRI to check for a brain tumour (none found).

These posts really would be funny if they werent written by presumably people who have kids, have responsible jobs, might be on a jury, have the right to vote.

The lady had an epileptic fit - the first one she'd ever had. Regarding whether you can drive if you've been diagnosed with epilepsy, an interest search revealed this

If your seizures never affect your consciousness, the driving agency may allow you to drive without being seizure free. This is as long as you: Stay fully conscious and aware of what's happening around you during your seizures.

Indeed.

I'm afraid people are confusing their horror and upset with what happened and wanting somebody to be blamed and punished for the outcome.

They are ignoring the fact that the person actually responsible was not conscious due to a medical episode and thus lost complete control of the car.

Then they are not understanding why all the investigations into what happened have taken so long. Then finally they are not understanding the role of the CPS and how our judicial system works.

Finally, they are hearing of the deep grief of the parents and victims and believing that they are being denied a court hearing.

However, an inquest will hear everything involved.

She had an unknown medical incidence, no doubt she has taken medical advice and treatment.
Hardly to blame, nothing more can be done.No happy endings

If she hadn’t been driving a bloody land rover then those children might have stood a better chance of surviving the accident.

To answer that question my husband had an MRI post seizure which showed a lesion in his brain (it's a transient lesion that disappeared when he had another one 2 weeks later) this showed that basically his brain wasn't happy post seizure and caused some excess fluid.
He also had bloods taken that showed he had raised creatinine kinase levels that also kept rising.

His first seizure was witnessed by our 3 year old. But these markers, the fact he had severely bitten his tongue, he was post ictal when I found him and he had dislocated both his shoulders was concluded it was a possible seizure.

I was present for his 2nd seizure and I'm a nurse so knew what it was.

These presented totally out of the blue at the age of 33.