Arrow left dark
Newsletter icon SUBSCRIBE

Bin lorry FAI concludes tragedy avoidable if driver had not lied

Clock icon Reading time: 4 minutes
Bin lorry FAI concludes tragedy avoidable if driver had not lied

The fatal accident inquiry (FAI) into last December’s bin lorry crash in Glasgow that left six people dead has concluded the tragedy could have been avoided if the driver had not lied about his medical history.

Harry Clarke, 58, fell unconscious at the wheel of his bin lorry on 22 December 2014, causing it veer out of control on Queen Street.

The report states he “repeatedly lied in order to gain and retain jobs and licences”.

It found eight precautions that could have prevented the incident, all of which concern Mr Clarke’s medical history.

The FAI was held before Sheriff John Beckett at Glasgow Sheriff Court who has now issued his determination.

Sheriff Becket concluded: “The most effective measure to prevent such an occurrence would be to seek to avoid drivers becoming incapacitated at the wheel.

“Responsibility in that regard lies with drivers themselves and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

“It may well be that the single most useful outcome of this inquiry would be to raise awareness of the dangers involved in driving if subject to a medical condition which could cause the driver to lose control of a vehicle.”

The incident caused the deaths of Erin McQuade, 18, her grandparents, Jack Sweeney, 68, his 69-year-old wife Lorraine, from Dumbarton, Jacqueline Morton, 51 and Stephenie Tait, 29, both from Glasgow, as well as Gillian Ewing, 52, from Edinburgh.

Sheriff Beckett said Mr Clarke could have “refrained from continuing to drive buses” and provided “true and accurate information about his medical history” when applying for jobs.

The FAI heard that the council did not know Mr Clarke was subject to disciplinary procedures when he worked for First Bus relating to sick leave.

Sheriff Beckett also made 19 recommendations covering possible legal changes, the DVLA, local authorities and the disclosure of medical information.

His report states the DVLA should give clearer guidance on how people who can fall unconscious should be dealt with in relation to fitness to drive.

In addition, he said the DVLA should “change its policy” so that information on fitness to drive can be investigated by third parties such as the police and that it should “redouble its efforts to raise awareness of the implications of medical conditions for fitness to drive”.

A DVLA spokesman said: “We are carefully considering the recommendations in the report.”

In a statement the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said it welcomed Sheriff Beckett’s determination and that the Solicitor General had written to the Secretary of State for Transport in October calling for the DVLA system of self-reporting by drivers to be reviewed.

The Solicitor General has written again today following the Sheriff’s determination to underline the need to overcome the recognised weakness of self-reporting.

COPFS noted the Sheriff has recommended, in light of these weaknesses, that the Crown, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and DVLA should review whether there are policies in place which prevent or discourage prosecution for breaches of section 94 and 174 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It said it would take forward with the DVLA consideration of the detection and reporting of these offences.

The Crown added there are no findings in the determination that undermine its decision not to prosecute the driver:

  • There was no finding that the driver knew or ought to have known that he was unfit to drive on 22 December 2014.

  • The Sheriff stated at para 371 that there was no evidence that any doctor told him prior to 22 December 2014 that he had a susceptibility to episodes of neurocardiogenic syndrome, let alone a vasovagal syncope, and that this meant he should not drive.

  • Further, even if his licence had been revoked following the episode at the wheel of the bus in 2010 it would have been returned to him by the DVLA prior to 22 December 2014 (para 376).

  • We note the Sheriff’s findings on the driver’s motivation to retain or gain employment. It is important to note the sheriff was considering evidence at an FAI where a lesser standard of proof is required and where more relaxed rules of evidence apply. A criminal prosecution requires sufficient evidence to the much higher standard beyond reasonable doubt.

    • Share icon
    Share this article: