It's a fairly uniform public consensus that the Crown Office in Scotland was wrong and premature in announcing that no-one would face criminal charges under Scot's law. The Fatal Accident Enquiry (FAI) can't overturn that but it's good if DVLA prosecute under UK law.

Sanctions against his current employer, previous employer and medical practitioners will probably depend on civil actions rather than criminal.

I am utterly astounded that there will be no prosecution of a man who killed 6 people .

Any other words fail me.

As another contributor says, this case will set a precedent.

I heard on the news that the family of one of the victims, which was a fatality, has informed the inquest that they intend to initiate a private prosecution against Harry Clark, the refuse lorry driver involved in the incident.

This is a shrewd move as it puts the driver into a very difficult position. If he testifies he has little option under oath but to admit he omitted vital information, effectively lying. If he remains silent then the inquest can draw whatever conclusions they may from his stance, given the evidence they have, that can only be to his detriment. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Rightly so IMHO. What he did, and the resultant consequences, make his actions unforgivable to any family. Also it should make him culpable in the eyes af the law. I hope he does the right thing, although from his previous behaviour I don't think he has the strength of character to do so. If he tells the whole truth it serves to lift the whole proceedings from a 'witch hunt' into a factual account which serves justice and allows families to move on. He should be punished either way, either via private prosecution or public. Pity the relevant authorities did not have the courage to fight for the families rights and uphold the cause of justice. It is shame all round that we now expect little else from officialdom.

Concrete

The FAI will have to be suspended if a private prosecution goes ahead - only at the conclusion of any criminal proceedings can the FAI continue - the driver could not then be forced to give further evidence.

Why is there no consistency in the way the law is applied in the UK?

This bloke has committed a criminal offence by concealing his history of blackouts and fainting fits while driving buses and trucks and his employers were negligent in not following up his references and medical history.

Historically,there was no problem prosecuting the driver of the 4x4 and trailer who fell asleep, ran off the motorway and down an embankment onto a rail track and caused the Selby rail track disaster in 2002. There were no crash barriers installed at the spot to stop the vehicle, only a flimsy wooden fence - but the driver got 5 years inside.

That driver didn't do anything wrong except driving tired - no drink-no drugs.

In that case whoever decided not to install barriers should have got the five years not the driver.

The authorities see it as a tragic accident, which seems about right to me. People who have a bad heart and thus heart attacks at the wheel for example and cause serious accidents do not end up being prosecuted to my knowledge. By the way I agree that the guy who spilled onto the rail track was particularly hard done by.

But he should be brought to task for failure to disclose---- whatever the penalty is for that--- I doubt it is variable dependant on the consequences?

My question is where did he make the false declaration - Scotland when he filled in and signed the form or England when the form was received at DVLA?

DVD

Driver Licence law isn't devolved to Wales or Scotland, so it's UK law that would be applied, not English law.

Driver Licencing law in Northern Ireland is devolved though.