Sharlotte’s Law and the Road Safety Strategy: what could change after a fatal crash?

Sharlotte’s Law is a proposed reform that has moved rapidly from a single family’s experience into the national policy arena. What began as concern about delay following a fatal road traffic collision is now part of a wider examination of how serious road crime is investigated and how justice is delivered to bereaved families.

The proposal focuses on a critical but often overlooked issue: the failure to secure time-sensitive forensic evidence promptly after a fatal crash. The delay shapes grief, prolongs uncertainty and can cause lasting psychological harm.

Sharlotte’s story

Aged 6, Sharlotte was killed by a driver who was two times over the drink-drive limit with class A drugs in his system, speeding and while on his phone. He mounted the pavement and hit Sharlotte where she died of her injuries.

Our specialist Serious Injury team represented Sharlotte’s parents during this extremely traumatic time in relation to the PTSD they suffered in the aftermath of the collision.

Following the collision, the driver responsible spent 11 weeks unconscious in a coma, preventing police from testing his blood samples during this time without his explicit consent.

Following her death, Sharlotte’s family were not only dealing with the devastation of losing a child, but the extensive delay to obtain answers during a critical investigation. There was a lack of clarity about what had happened and how the investigation would progress with the current legal loophole in obtaining consent.

For Sharlotte’s mother, Claire, the delay that followed her daughter’s death became inseparable from the trauma itself. Key questions remained unanswered for months and this delay prolonged her pain as they were desperately seeking answers

We have supported Sharlotte’s family’s call for this change in the law throughout the process and this experience resonated far beyond one family. It exposed a structural problem that many encounter after fatal collisions: a system that is slow to provide answers at precisely the moment when certainty matters most.

What is “Sharlotte’s Law”?

Sharlotte’s Law proposes reform to the way forensic evidence is obtained and processed following fatal and serious road traffic collisions, particularly where a suspected driver is unconscious or receiving hospital treatment, by amending Section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Under the current framework, investigators are unable to analyse blood or urine samples promptly because consent cannot be given and existing legal routes are unclear or time-limited. This can result in crucial evidence being delayed or lost altogether.

The proposed reform seeks to establish a clearer statutory basis for preserving and analysing evidence in strictly defined circumstances, ensuring that investigations are not compromised at the outset while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

The current position: why delays happen

In the most serious collisions, suspected drivers are often critically injured. Medical treatment rightly takes priority. However, the interaction between clinical care, consent requirements and forensic procedures can create unintended delay.

Under the current legislation, blood samples can be taken without consent but those blood samples are not allowed to be tested, unless that individual gives their consent.

Investigators must navigate capacity issues, permission thresholds and hospital workflows, often while evidential windows are closing. By the time authority is secured, it may be too late to obtain reliable results.

For families, this translates into prolonged waiting. Waiting to understand what happened. Waiting to know whether evidence exists. Waiting to see whether accountability will follow. From a legal and human perspective, that delay carries a heavy and lasting cost.

Where this sits in the Government’s Road Safety Strategy

The Government’s Road Safety Strategy sets out an ambition to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads, with a strong emphasis on tackling drink and drug driving and improving enforcement.

Sharlotte’s Law now falls squarely within that framework. The Strategy recognises that delays in processing evidence and forensic workflows can undermine investigations and weaken outcomes. As a result, these issues are now subject to active review and consultation.

This represents an important shift. The focus has moved beyond awareness and campaigning towards practical reform, with consideration being given to how consent, hospital procedures and evidential thresholds operate in fatal cases.

Sharlotte’s mum, Claire

Central to this reform effort is the voice of Sharlotte’s mother, Claire Reynolds. Her account of how the forensic delay compounded her grief has been instrumental in reframing the debate. She has spoken about how life’s milestones became reminders not only of loss, but of unresolved questions.

Claire Reynolds, Sharlotte’s mum, said: “Losing a loved one is the worst thing we could go through and being delayed on getting the answers that we need just adds to the pain we go through. Getting Sharlotte’s law through means there are no delays, no added pain, just justice.”

By articulating the emotional impact of delay, she has ensured that the discussion is not confined to process and policy, but remains rooted in the lived experience of bereaved families.

The proposals: what could change in practice

Current proposals recognise the pressure on forensic services and the delays created by hospital-based consent procedures. There is now an explicit focus on improving drink and drug driving enforcement by exploring alternative approaches where existing processes cause avoidable delay.

In practical terms, reform could allow evidence to be preserved and analysed earlier in fatal cases, leading to more efficient investigations and faster clarity for families. From the perspective of secondary victim claims, this has the potential to reduce prolonged uncertainty and mitigate the psychological harm that delay so often exacerbates.

Sharlotte’s Law will not undo loss. But it represents a meaningful opportunity to ensure that fatal road traffic collisions are investigated with urgency, care and compassion. For families like Claire’s, that change could make a profound difference to how they live with what has happened in the years that follow.

Read the case study about Sharlotte’s father’s claim where we recovered substantial damages for his severe and ongoing PTSD.