CPS (Essex) (Hansard, 27 July 2000)

The Solicitor-General

[pursuant to his reply, 19 July 2000, c. 174]The fatal road traffic accident which happened in Colchester on 6 May 1999 was a tragedy. Understandably, the family of the deceased feels let down by the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to continue with the prosecution of the defendant for the offence of careless driving.

On 10 July 2000, Official Report, column 174W, I informed the hon. Member in a written answer that I would be speaking to the Chief Crown Prosecutor to discuss the circumstances of the case.

I have now met with the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Essex and the Branch Crown Prosecutor responsible for the prosecution team. I am satisfied with the explanation that I have been given as to why the criminal prosecution in this case was discontinued.

The history of the proceedings is this: the police were instructed to issue summons against the defendant for careless driving on 21 September 1999.

The case was listed at Colchester magistrates court for 9 November 1999 but was adjourned by agreement to 7 December to enable the defence to look at the prosecution statements. After the defendant entered a not guilty plea a pre-trial review was fixed for 21 December 1999. At the review the defence requested an adjournment to look into possible defects in the motor vehicle which the defendant was driving when the incident occurred. On 11 January 2000 the defence confirmed that the issue of defects to the motor vehicle would not be pursued. On the same day a medical report was faxed to the court which suggested that the defendant had a medical condition that would have affected her driving.

As the prosecution had not seen this medical evidence before it asked for the case to be adjourned for the Crown to look at the report and consider obtaining its own medical report. The case was therefore adjourned until 22 February 2000. However, on 26 January the defence made a request to the court that as the date and venue fixed was not convenient for the defence the matter be adjourned until 2 May 2000.

737W

Meanwhile, a first medical report obtained on behalf of the prosecution was received at the CPS Branch Office on 14 February 2000. Unfortunately, the report was sent in an envelope marked "personal" so therefore was not opened until the lawyer dealing with the case returned from annual leave two weeks later. Hearing dates which had been fixed by the court (i.e. 4 and 18 April and 16 and 30 May) had to be adjourned at the request of the prosecution, so that points raised in the medical report which had been obtained could be clarified. Further medical reports were obtained by the prosecution on 25 April and 24 May 2000.

During the week of 1 May there was a case conference with the prosecution team at which it was concluded that it would not be possible to prove the case against the defendant. This was in the light of the evidence that the defendant was suffering an epileptic fit at the relevant time and therefore was not "driving". Consideration was given to proceeding with the case on an alternative basis but alternative charges were statute barred.

As I said, I have spoken at length with both the Chief Crown Prosecutor and the Branch Crown Prosecutor. Both took this case extremely seriously. Indeed the Branch Crown Prosecutor who had immediate carriage of the case pursued it in what I would describe as an exemplary manner. But the plain fact is that the Crown Prosecution Service could not prosecute—indeed it would have been unlawful to do so—in the face of the medical evidence.

The Chief Crown Prosecutor for Essex and I, either separately or together, will be happy to meet the hon. Member if he so wishes, to discuss the case.