The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
https:/
// A woman who killed two eight-year-old girls when her car crashed into a school in south-west London will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution (CPS) has said.
Nuria Sajjad and Selena Lau died after a Land Rover crashed into an end-of-term tea party at The Study Preparatory School in Wimbledon on 6 July 2023.
The families have been informed by the CPS the woman who was driving will not be charged as she had suffered an epileptic seizure. //
........right decision?
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Keeping an open mind is one thing.
Choosing to dismiss the evidence of due prociess is entirely another.
That's not being oepn minded, that is being cynical.
If that's your position, then fine, but don't try and justify it because it sounds better if you call it something else.
You can call an ass a horse, but it doesn't shorten its ears.
In the Mail there is a video of an interview with the parents of Selena Lau and it would appear that they have suffered an inordinate delay in hearing from the police on the efforts made in the investigation of this accident. Furthermore, the parents are wondering how exhaustive the investigations have been.
Nearly 1 year after losing their daughter they continue to relive that day every day and the decision to not prosecute is probably more than they can bear. The driver may well be remorseful over that dreadful day but my heart goes out to the parents of both girls.
The correct decision.
This happened to one of my brothers too(but he just mangled a lampost), crashed his car and was found wondering around. Police prosecuted him becasue they thought he must have been driving too fast but a month later he was in a car with my other brother and had a fit. Later tests etc showed this wqs most likely what had happened to cause the crash.
In this case the lady, although not resposible, undoubtedly will feel terrible about it for the rest of her life.
This is simply one of the few times it was a true accident.
And it being a Landrover had nothing to do with the final outcome. Any car would have gone through that fence and a force of 1/2 mv2 from at least a tonne of metal would kill a child.
Keeping an open mind is one thing. Choosing to dismiss the evidence of due prociess is entirely another.
and not knowing the law isa third
This seems to be a classic case of 'automatism' - the do-er has been held not-guity for long long time in classic cases of automatism
The only thing is that it has to be a first -off - see YMF's post. You cant do this, if you climb in to a car knowing your are epileptic
Generally, automatism is a defence to a criminal charge where the defendant's consciousness was so impaired that he or she was acting in a state of physical involuntariness.
I leave the reader to work out which bits of this post are mine
A friend's brother had a job that entailed driving to different locations around the country. On a number of occasions he found himself at a place far removed from his intended destination with no recollection of how he got there. I think he was diagnosed with some neurological condition & had to give up driving.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.