THE father and sister of an Ilkley woman killed in a car crash this week spoke of their anguish at the repeated delay of a Court case which arose from the accident.

The parents and sister of Rachel Scantlebury learned last week that it will be almost two years since her death before the driver of the car she died in will go before a jury accused of causing death by dangerous driving.

Miss Scantlebury's father Glyn Scantlebury said: "It is unbelievable. It is just prevarication and prevarication all the time. We hoped it would be concluded last week - we were hoping that last week would be the end of it.

"It has caused a lot of trouble for family and friends. It is hard to believe the way it has been going on. I want to know who is controlling it but you can't find out. We got pushed from pillar to post."

The case, which did not get listed in the magistrates' court until February this year - around eight months after the accident at the junction of Queen's Road and Princess Road, Ilkley - has again been put off, this time until next March.

Scott Dry, 42, of Westwood Mount, Ilkley, denies causing death by dangerous driving.

The defendant's London-based solicitor, Mark Haslam, said he fully understood the anguish being suffered by Rachel's family, but he laid the blame for the delay firmly on the prosecuting authorities.

Mr Haslam said: "I would like to make it clear we are not responsible at any stage for the delays in these proceedings."

The hearing was transferred to York Crown Court last month but could not be dealt with there because expert Crown evidence was not served until the morning of the hearing. It was re-listed for a hearing again at Bradford.

During the Bradford hearing a week later, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen Gullick, described the events in York as a 'complete disaster' and added: "It shows, I'm afraid, just what must not happen in this type of case."

Family members and witnesses had travelled to York for the trial and Judge Gullick told defence and prosecuting counsel: "This case should have gone ahead. It's an old case and all the necessary work should have been done.''

At the Bradford hearing, defence barrister Andrew Stubbs told Judge Gullick that the case was back before him to fix a new trial date, but he informed the judge that a defence expert was going on a world cruise and would not be back until February.

The earliest available date that could be fixed for the trial was March 20 and Judge Gullick noted that that was 20 months after the incident.

After the hearing, Mr Scantlebury, who lives with his wife, Gill, in Spain, said: "We were originally told on May 5 that the case would be held on September 19, and I was assured that the case would go ahead so we booked our flights on September 11. How many months do they need to get their act together?"

He added: "Believing that the case would be started on Monday and be over by Wednesday or Thursday we organised for a service, dedication of a small bench in Rachel's name and for the interment of Rachel's ashes for the Friday.

"As you can imagine we were totally shocked by the outcome of the case on Tuesday, but as you now know we have to go through it all over again in March next year.

"We are all totally devastated by this outcome and we cannot believe that the legal system can be such a shambolic mess. I have written a letter of complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and outlined our concerns at the time, inconsideration and ineptitude the legal system has for the police, witnesses and relatives and all concerned."

Claire Scantlebury, Rachel's older sister, said: "What is really wearing for us is that it will be 20 months since it happened."

She said that the repeated delays in completing the trial meant that the family could not yet try to put the tragedy behind them.

A spokesman for Bradford Crown Court said: "The case was not listed at the Crown Court until this year. March 20 was the first available date suitable for everybody."

A spokesman for CPS West Yorkshire said: "The Chief Crown Prosecutor, Neil Franklin, received a complaint from the family of the victim late on Friday about the delays in the progress of the case and the lack of information they have received.

"In response Mr Franklin has instigated an urgent investigation into the complaints raised by the family. Mr Franklin is anxious to have the clearest possible picture of how individual agencies (including the CPS) have discharged their particular responsibilities.

"Once this investigation has been concluded the family will be contacted directly and a full explanation provided."

Mr Haslam said that there was an initial delay in the issuing of a summons and further delays by the CPS not responding to requests for information and failing to disclose information. He said that the defence had been ready to go ahead in York last month.