Ms Freemantle was arrested at the scene and investigated by police. But prosecutors decided not to bring any criminal charges in June 2024 after Ms Freemantle said she had suffered an epileptic seizure.
In October, the Mail revealed Met Police had decided to reopen the probe after a serious case review uncovered significant flaws in the way officers conducted the initial inquiry, including consideration of medical evidence which led to the case being dropped.
But it wasn't the police who opted to drop the case, was it? Surely that decision rests with the notoriously hesitant CPS? Is nothing ever just an unfortunate accident anymore?
The case was subsequently reopened and handed to a top detective superintendent from Specialist Crime Command. Police then made a successful appeal for people who witnessed the crash to come forward to help officers understand whether the driver's behaviour was consistent with her diagnosis.
So they are going to try to challenge medical evidence with layman's observations of the scene? Well, God loves a trier, they say!
4 comments:
Well, they have nothing else to spend their time on in the crime free utopia we live in.
What is completely missing from this story is how plod really only reopened this tragic case after the families of the two little girls who were killed didn't like the conclusion the authorities came to (tragic accident), and went screaming to the media demanding "justice".
We now live in a world where people seem to have been raised to think that terrible-but-random shit can simply never happen, so when it does then it must have been deliberate, malicious or malpractice. Hence, someone, somewhere needs to pay. And the only person who can be in the crosshairs in this case is the poor woman driver, who suffered an undiagnosed condition, and now must live with the knowledge that two children died under her wheels.
If Pepco were involved in the accident, Plod needs to make sure they won't have "vigorous" protests afterwards.
It is a basic principle of English law that if a defendant raises a particular defence they have to produce the evidence to support it. This is “the burden of production”. It seems that the police and CPS are too fond of looking for reasons to avoid work and dropping cases on erroneous assertions.
Post a Comment