Crown explains "insufficient evidence" decision on bin lorry prosecution
Detailed reasons why there it was decided there was insufficient evidence in law to prosecute the driver of the Glasgow bin lorry that crashed killing six people, were released in a statement today by the Crown Office.
The statement, which follows the conclusion of evidence and submissions at the fatal accident inquiry into the tragedy in George Square last December, reiterates that the decision was taken after full and careful consideration of all the relevant evidence.
Some legal commentators have criticised the decision, originally announced last February, as premature given the evidence led at the inquiry as to the medical history of the driver, Harry Clarke, and the fact that he lied to his employers and to the DVLA about his history of blackouts. Families of some of the victims have also stated their intention to seek to bring a private prosecution against Mr Clarke.
However the Crown remains of the view that there was insufficient evidence in law, and consideration of whether prosecution was in the public interest did not therefore arise. "Sometimes our decisions are unpopular but it is our duty to apply the law to the evidence and that was the basis of the decision not to prosecute", the statment says.
In relation to causing death by dangerous driving, as the driver was unconscious at the time he was not in control of the vehicle and did not have the necessary criminal intention, unless it could be proved that it was foreseeable that he would lose consciousness whilst driving that day. In concluding that there was insufficient evidence of such foreseeability, Crown counsel had regard to nine factors including:
- the driver had no blackouts for over four and a half years prior to the tragedy, and had driven extensively in varioous vehicles without incident;
- colleagues confirmed that there was no indication that he was unwell when commencing driving on the day of the tragedy;
- following his previous incident in 2010 and until that day, no doctor advised the driver that he was unfit to drive: on the contrary, after a short time off work, he was told that he was fit to return to work, nor did the occupational health doctor for his employer at the time advise him that he was not fit to drive;
- the DVLA would have returned his licence after at most 12 months if they had been advised of the April 2010 incident and revoked the licence, if there had been no further cause for concern, and had also returned his licences following the George Square tragedy;
- there was insufficient evidence to establish that the driver intended to cover up a condition which made him unsafe to drive, for the purpose of deceiving his employers and the DVLA, as he had advised his occupational health doctor of the April 2010 incident at the time and this information was available in his medical and employment records;
- there was no evidence that the driver knew or could be expected to be aware that he had an ongoing condition and was unfit to drive going forward, including the day of the tragedy.
Other offences were considered but for similar reasions it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence in relation to these also.