Odd decision over bin lorry crash...

[calibrax]

Glasgow bin lorry crash that killed six - the fatal accident enquiry seems to have established that the driver lied about his medical condition :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

What I don't understand is the fact that it was announced BEFORE the enquiry that there would be no criminal prosecution brought. Why? Shouldn't they wait for the results of the inquiry before making that decision?

If I was a relative of one of those killed, I'd be pretty angry right now...

[55palfers]

Any lawyers out there want to have a crack at explaining the decision not to prosecute please?

[aw51 121565]

As the old saying goes, "the truth will out"; and so it is doing.

Perhaps the Crown Office will change its mind as this sad episode is dissected, or afterwards?

Oh, and BBC, it's "vasovagal" not "vosovagal"...

14th sentence of linked item said:

The inquiry was also shown a HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) sick pay declaration from Mr Clarke where it says he had last worked on 7 April 2010 and the reason for his sickness was "Vosovagal", which Ms Bain explained meant "faint".

...which sums up their reporting & proof-reading standards nowadays .

Anyway, can the presiding Sheriff order the police to investigate further and lay charges (or however it works in Scotland)?

[speedking31]

How open would witnesses be if there was a chance of prosecution compared to guaranteed immunity? Is prosecution in this one case now more in the public interest than taking preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence?

[calibrax]

speedking31 said:

How open would witnesses be if there was a chance of prosecution compared to guaranteed immunity? Is prosecution in this one case now more in the public interest than taking preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence?

Yep, I guess that makes sense and answers my query. Still hard on the families, though.

[Drawweight]

speedking31 said:

How open would witnesses be if there was a chance of prosecution compared to guaranteed immunity? Is prosecution in this one case now more in the public interest than taking preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence?

1. I'd be very surprised if the police didn't know about his medical record before the enquiry started.

2. Is letting someone off with lying about their medical history (with fatal consequences) more in the public interest that prosecuting and sending out a clear message that lying will possibly land you jail time?

[s2sol]

aw51 121565 said:

Oh, and BBC, it's "vasovagal" not "vosovagal"...

14th sentence of linked item said:

The inquiry was also shown a HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) sick pay declaration from Mr Clarke where it says he had last worked on 7 April 2010 and the reason for his sickness was "Vosovagal", which Ms Bain explained meant "faint".

...which sums up their reporting & proof-reading standards nowadays

I interpreted the BBC's use of quotation marks to mean that they'd quoted the driver's statement to HMRC.

Edited by s2sol on Wednesday 29th July 18:33

[LoonR1]

s2sol said:

aw51 121565 said:

Oh, and BBC, it's "vasovagal" not "vosovagal"...

14th sentence of linked item said:

The inquiry was also shown a HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) sick pay declaration from Mr Clarke where it says he had last worked on 7 April 2010 and the reason for his sickness was "Vosovagal", which Ms Bain explained meant "faint".

...which sums up their reporting & proof-reading standards nowadays

I interpreted the BBC's use of quotation marks to mean that they'd quoted the driver's statement to HMRC.

Edited by s2sol on Wednesday 29th July 18:33

Then they should've used [sic] to make that clear

[Aretnap]

calibrax said:

Glasgow bin lorry crash that killed six - the fatal accident enquiry seems to have established that the driver lied about his medical condition :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

What I don't understand is the fact that it was announced BEFORE the enquiry that there would be no criminal prosecution brought. Why? Shouldn't they wait for the results of the inquiry before making that decision?.

An inquest/fatal accident inquiry is wider-ranging than a criminal prosecution. It's not focussed on the narrow question of one individual's guilt or innocence, but can consider all the circumstances surrounding the accident. It can hear evidence that would be irrelevant to, and possibly prejudicial to a criminal trial. Therefore as far as possible an inquest/FAI will generally be delayed until after the criminal process is complete. That means waiting until any criminal trials are complete, or until the police/fiscal/CPS have decided not to prosecute.

That said a decision not to prosecute is never final. It can always be reviewed if further evidence emerges (and various other boxes are ticked, like it still being possible for the accused to get a fair trial). No idea whether that's likely to happen in this case.

Edited by Aretnap on Wednesday 29th July 18:48

[julianc]

LoonR1 said:

s2sol said:

aw51 121565 said:

Oh, and BBC, it's "vasovagal" not "vosovagal"...

14th sentence of linked item said:

The inquiry was also shown a HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) sick pay declaration from Mr Clarke where it says he had last worked on 7 April 2010 and the reason for his sickness was "Vosovagal", which Ms Bain explained meant "faint".

...which sums up their reporting & proof-reading standards nowadays

I interpreted the BBC's use of quotation marks to mean that they'd quoted the driver's statement to HMRC.

Edited by s2sol on Wednesday 29th July 18:33

Then they should've used [sic] to make that clear

Unfortunately, they used 'sick' instead...