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?

The one thing that the families could do (I don’t know if they already have) is to ask the CPS to review their decision. If they do this, it is reviewed by a different CPS lawyer to the one who did the initial review and made the decision.

But as far as I am aware, the defence team do not get to present the defence case to the CPS before they make the decision to prosecute - the ‘clever lawyering’ that @busymomtoone mentions doesn’t swing into action until after a decision to prosecute has been made.

The CPS only examines and considers the prosecution side’s evidence - anything that would prove that the person DID do the crime. If they consider that evidence does prove that the person committed a crime, they then consider whether prosecution is in the public interest - but they only go on to that step if they say a crime has been committed.

So they look at all the most damning evidence in the case, and none of the defence’s evidence - you could say it is a very one-sided process because it only considers the evidence that should prove that the accused did the crime and the defence doesn’t get a say.

The lawyers at the CPS have looked at the evidence and found it shows that no crime has been committed - the woman had no clue that she was going to have a fit at the wheel of her car, she hadn’t been negligent about her health, she didn’t deliberately drive when she knew she was impaired.

originally there was mention of breathalyser?
It is routine to breathalyse drivers involved in a collision where the police are called. I was involved a serious RTC some years ago and I was breathalysed even though the circumstances made it pretty clear that I was not at fault. But the police didn't just assume that, there was a full investigation and neither of us was treated as the guilty party or innocent victim until all the procedures were complete.
Incidentally, for those who think victims/families should be able to decide what happens after an incident, I think I would have been just about the worst person on the planet to have any say in the fate of the other driver. Ok, I obviously wasn't killed so it's not directly analagous but I did sustain life changing injuries. And I was bitter and angry, really angry, at all kinds of people including the other driver, the police and the CPS for a long time. Not without good reason, and not surprisingly, but my judgment was definitely clouded by my emotions. I would not have made reasonable, rational or just decisions at the time.
The emotions that injured parties and their families feel are entirely understandable but they don't give anyone the right to rewrite the law. The law must, as far as possible, be objective, consistent and based on factual evidence rather than emotion. Our legal processes are not infallible of course but they are a lot more likely to deliver justice than understandably distraught families or the whims of public opinion. Any one of us could find ourselves relying on those very procedures to clear us of something we weren't responsible for one day. I expect we'd all be glad we were relying on professionals and due process rather than judgement by social media if it was us being accused.

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

Thank you for your explanation. It explains the process clearly.

Correct, I said this earlier in this thread or on another thread, cant remember, the police look for evidence of a crime, their bias or angle or agenda is to prove there is a crime to take that to CPS to consider prosecution as you say its not in the suspects favour

They're not sitting there taking her to hospital helping her show that she had a medical incident, this is simply what they have since found out

Noone has any idea if that is the case or not. The type of vehicle being driven has not formed any part of the process, because of course there is no crime in driving a Land rover.

V poor taste for her to be showing off her home in the midst of this dreadful tragedy. There is a time and a place.

Where is she 'showing off her home'? you mean media taking pictures of it?

From what I have read about the case, the affected parents asked the police for updates as time went by, and were eventually told something along the lines of the Force being short-staffed in forensics personnel, hence the delay. Not long after that information, the parents were told that the driver would not be charged as she'd had an epileptic seizure at the wheel. After receiving this news, the parents' solicitor allegedly stated that not only should justice be done, but justice should BE SEEN to be done. I think the parents would like to see/understand fully, the processes the police used in order to arrive at their verdict. I imagine that much more information will be forthcoming at the autopsies of the children.

After receiving this news, the parents' solicitor allegedly stated that not only should justice be done, but justice should BE SEEN to be done. I think the parents would like to see/understand fully, the processes the police used in order to arrive at their verdict

That's what an inquest is for. Justice being seen to be done and the process being fully explained so they know how the CPS (not the police) arrived at their decision. Police don't arrive at verdicts.

So much wrong with this

Verdict?
Justice?
Autopsies?

If they aren't getting it after 40 pages they never will. Some of it is wilfully and deliberately ignorant, I'm sure.

And they aren't going to be doing autopsies nearly a year later. If any were done they'd have been done at the time.

The blog that I posted earlier - these three rooms blog on this woman’s home from a few months ago. In poor taste for sure.

Didn't see it. I bet you had a good gawp, though, before decrying it as poor taste.

You didn’t post a link to blog - just said it was posted a few months ago. Do you have an actual link?

This is the problem isn't it, people making comments when they don't know thr full facts. The court was told she's never had a seizure before.

I think it was unavoidable, as the driver had no idea they were going to have a fit. However, had tge school done a thorough risk assessment and identified the risk to the children in the front of the property from a vehicle coming through the fence? Should they, or the council, have installed barriers, a thick hedge, a safety barrier to stop a car leaving the road? Our small business was always having to do risk assessments to try to predict what dangers there were to our customers. If we organise anything involving the public, even something as simple as a bingo night, we have to complete a risk assessment. It's not the driver who is at fault, but the school may be.

She didn't have history of epilepsy, so obviously no medical advice not to drive.

@Lincslady53 Just read your post and it’s an interesting take on the situation. Of course, no one expects a car to enter the school grounds during a picnic, but then no-one expects to have their first epileptic fit.

Also not a police decision - it’s down to the CPS.

I assume @Littlejollyjumper means inquests not autopsies? I hope she doesn’t think those poor little girls have been left in the morgue for a year.

I hope they haven’t. Please tell me the parents have at least been able to bury their children.

The two primary schools nearest to us have concrete bollards as well as a fence, they are original to the schools - both built in the 80s, naice area. I've never given it any thought, no idea if this is usual for schools.

https://thesethreerooms.com/bathrooms/calm-bathroom-design-with-mosaic-tiles-and-bronze-fittings/ @WolfFoxHare

I think the issue is you think you're making points / that this is some sort of intellectual sparring debate but it's not. You simply don't understand how the law works on a basic level.

Yes, you're right – it is confusing to a layman. The defense point you struggle to understand is something a lot of law school students (yes in the UK) initially struggle with in their first month as well. It's counter-intuitive to what we see on TV shows like BBC dramas and Suits, but it is an important distinction within the law.

Re CPS, again you're conflating non-judicial pragmatic assessments with legal tests refined and established by case law... That's absolute anathema within actual law. Again even a first year law student could tell you that.

Anyway, thanks for teaching me how it all works I guess. Like I said why did I bother spending decades in education and the profession if all I had to do was learn from Mumsnet?

Thanks for the link. Are we sure it’s the same person, not just someone with the same name? When was it written or planned, I wonder?

Yes, no idea what you're on about

And no, there's no way, given that you're confused by what's literally taught in the first few weeks of every basic crim law module across the country...

The arguments (eg taking neurological evidence at face value but not actually considering how that factors into the legal position at a more complex level than "guilty" or "innocent") you present are also distinctly un-legal!