The parents of two children who were killed in last year’s Wimbledon school crash have said they hope a fresh investigation will bring answers and stop them “reliving that pain”.
The Metropolitan police have announced the reopening of their investigation into the crash to pursue further lines of inquiry.
Nuria Sajjad and Selena Lau, both eight, died and another 12 people were injured when a Land Rover veered off the road and ploughed into the Study prep school in Wimbledon last July.
The initial investigation concluded when the Crown Prosecution Service found that the driver, Claire Freemantle, would not be charged as she had suffered an epileptic seizure. Her car smashed through the school’s fence during an end-of-year picnic.
The girls’ parents – along with the school community – have been open in their frustration at the police’s work on the case.
Selena’s father, Franky Lau, told the BBC: “We were confused at how they made their decision because some of the things they told us just didn’t tally up to what we understood to have happened and what other witnesses saw.”
Lau said the families of those affected were concerned that key witnesses had not been spoken to in the original investigation and that his family would be “quite happy” to accept the original conclusion “if we were told the investigation was conducted thoroughly”. But, he said, “that is obviously not the case”.
After the CPS announced its decision not to charge Freemantle, she expressed her “deepest sorrow” over the incident and said she had “no recollection of what took place”.
Selena’s mother, Jessie Deng, said reopening the investigation was like going back to the day of the crash. She told the BBC: “After 15 months we’ve been waiting for the answer, but we didn’t get anywhere, and now we have to start from scratch again. We are reliving that pain again,” she said.
In a joint statement earlier this year Nuria’s parents, Sajjad Butt and Smera Chohan, along with Selena’s parents said they were unconvinced that the Met had carried out a thorough investigation.
A review of the force’s handling of the case is understood to have revealed significant shortfalls in the way officers conducted the initial investigation, including missed opportunities to interview witnesses about the driver’s behaviour in the immediate aftermath of the crash. The medical evidence will also be re-examined.
A police spokesperson said of the decision to reopen the investigation: “The review has identified a number of lines of inquiry that require further examination and, as such, the investigation will now be reopened.
“The families have been updated with this development and we will continue to meet with them to provide updates on the investigation as it progresses. We know this has been and remains a really difficult time for them. We believe this further investigative work will address all questions raised by the families affected.
“This further investigation will be undertaken by an accredited senior investigating officer and team with experience in homicide investigations.”
Nuria’s father told the Mail: “No parent should ever have to go through the pain my wife, Smera, and I have experienced over the past 15 months.
“The initial investigation seemed flawed and left so many unanswered questions. Now, as we put our lives on hold again, we can only welcome the news that a new investigation has been launched with a new, specialist and more experienced team.
“While we know nothing will bring Nuria back, we hope this new investigation will finally uncover what really happened on 6 July 2023, and at last allow us, and the hundreds of others affected by what happened, to begin some sort of healing process.”
A decision had not been expected until 30 October, when the families have a scheduled meeting with the police to discuss the review. This is when the Met is expected to give more details on its reasons for reopening the investigation.
Trevor Sterling, the lawyer representing the families affected, said: “I welcome this decision, because ultimately it’s not just about justice being done but being seen to be done. So the processes have to be carried out properly and here it’s quite clear that the process wasn’t. We just want it to be done properly and for the appropriate decision to be taken.”
