Met police firearms

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Police Oracle editor Martin Buhagiar says a case highlighted this week illustrates why current legislation leaves police drivers vulnerable.

The petrol station cashier opened the door and walked out onto the forecourt with a can in his hands.

I assumed a customer had paid for the tin and left it in the shop but the attendant raised his hand in a menacing way. As the car behind me wheel-spun away from the pump, it all became clear.

The cashier threw the tin at the VW Golf leaving it with a fair-sized dent. “This is how they deal with fuel thieves in north London these days,” I thought to myself.

It is what happened afterwards that got me thinking about a far greater concern, however. Without stopping, the driver sped out of the exit turning left into oncoming traffic and continued to accelerate.

This was on Monday afternoon at the Esso Station in Archway Road, north London. The petrol station is on a roundabout and the driver decided to turn into four lanes of rush-hour traffic, rather than simply turn right and go with the flow. Who knows why?

Incredibly, he avoided a bus, a lorry and a van and made it to apparent safety as he disappeared out of view.

As I headed home, I wondered what a police officer would be expected to do in that situation. The thief has stolen £15 worth of petrol, hardly a priority in these days of cuts and over-stretched forces, but has risked the lives of pedestrians and other motorists afterwards. No doubt the public – and the police – would like to see this person caught and quickly, but officers pursuing could face serious consequences if this madman (or woman) mounted the pavement and hit a child while being followed.

Potentially prosecuted if you do, damned if you don’t.

Police Oracle has been covering the on-going saga of police pursuits for a while and, thanks to the government continuing to deliver meaningless drivel and little action, specialist police drivers are continuing to pursue criminals with the very realistic threat of criminal charges hanging over their heads.

This week a pair of Metropolitan Police officers were the latest to be told they could face criminal charges following the IPCC's investigation of a case which saw the driver jailed for 12 years.

I am sure you know the case. Convicted car thief Joshua Dobby, 23, was out on licence when he killed Makayah McDermott, ten, and his auntie Rosie Cooper, 34, as they went for ice cream in south London.

Officers fought to save their lives, the same bodies that Dobby stepped over as he made his escape. Following his sentencing it was confirmed Dobby had 53 convictions dating back a decade and was in the process of delivering this stolen car for cash so he could buy more drugs.

Some Police Oracle readers have correctly asked who is more culpable for this – the officers who pursued this reckless driver as he accelerated down one-way streets and through red lights, or a system that continued to release this clearly troubled man from custody every time officers arrested him? We can save that argument for another day - needless to say, we agree.

This is now an issue facing officers far too often.

In April, Greater Manchester PC Simon Folwell found himself in a similar position.

PC Folwell was pursuing 24-year-old Luke Campbell, who died after crashing into another car. The IPCC told the force to bring proceedings against the officer for gross misconduct for careless driving. GMP disagreed but was directed to open proceedings against the officer.

Try and catch a criminal in a car and potentially lose your job or, even worse, your freedom.

I live in an area that recently saw an increase in the number of nuisance motorcyclists - probably like most towns in the UK. Earlier this year neighbours and friends had clearly had enough and were moaning about the apparent lack of action.

“Where are the police?”

“Why don’t they chase them?”

“Knock them off their bikes and lock them up.”

They are just the lines I can print. I started by talking about the cuts and the falling number of officers nationally. I then explained why most of these motorcyclists do not wear helmets or removed them at the first sound of a siren and many of those I told were surprised. I was stunned they did not know.

Perhaps it suits some that so many members of the public are happy to blame the police for an apparent lack of action.

In June, the Police Federation of England and Wales sent a letter to forces warning drivers over the lack of protection the law gives them.

The staff association said officers had barely any legal rights and should not carry out any manoeuvre deemed illegal for civilian motorists.

The traffic sign safeguard is void if there is any element of risk to the public. The speed limit ‘safeguard’ is anything but as it will not stop charges of careless driving being brought.

Earlier this year the Fed also revealed more than 100 officers had been pursued over on duty driving matters during the preceding 18 months.

Tim Rogers, PFEW lead on roads policing, told us: “Legal advice has recently highlighted that police response and pursuit drivers are, in most circumstances, highly likely to fall within the definitions of careless and or dangerous driving.

“The federation has raised this matter with numerous MPs but to date the difficulties remain with our proposed draft for legislative change not yet having been progressed to a point where officers are appropriately protected.”

And last month the government was accused of not properly answering questions on the subject.

Halifax MP Holly Lynch wrote to Police Minister Nick Hurd raising concerns the law is not providing proper protection for emergency service drivers.

Mr Hurd explained the CPS says it is “very unlikely” to be deemed appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on public interest grounds against a member of the emergency services. That does not stop the IPCC recommending that charges are brought against police drivers though does it and the pressure that places on an officer's shoulders?

Then came the usual: “The government fully recognises the risks associated with pursuits,” before the reality: “Officers must be accountable to the public … for the way they reach their decisions, including potentially the prosecution of police officers for careless or dangerous driving.”

What clarity does that offer the federation or officers? None.

Moped-enabled crime continues to increase at an unprecedented rate - that could not be clearer. However, the protection offered to officers could not be more murky and that brings with it further problems.

A freedom of information request revealed that of the Met’s 32,000 police officers, more than 5,000 have been trained to carry out pursuits in the last five years. Of those, 315 had made the tactical pursuit and containment level since 2014. The shortage could be for a number of very obvious reasons, but until clarity is offered and the government commits to new regulations offering officers protection, it would not be a surprise to see the national number of police drivers fall.

Officers who engage in pursuits know how dangerous their job can be. The IPCC’s announcement this week illustrates that further obstacles could be waiting just around the corner once the pursuit is completed and the officers have apprehended the criminal.

The current legislation leaves them vulnerable and must be changed.

Let officers pursue criminals without living in fear of being pursued for doing their job. 

View on Police Oracle

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

If it is a case of speeding, careless driving, due care and attention then I think there should be an allowance for officers carrying out their lawful duty blue lighting to more serious crimes.

[Jedi Knight 59]

14 hours ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

If it is a case of speeding, careless driving, due care and attention then I think there should be an allowance for officers carrying out their lawful duty blue lighting to more serious crimes.

What officers need to do is drive to the highway code. Then when something happens and there's an outcry from the public then things may change.

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

It is possible to drive pursuits without being a total danger and the driver is responsible for his/her actions if they do something which is dangerous.  I have been involved in some hairy pursuits without me having an accident although those pursued have had an accident by their own incompetence.

About 15 years ago on a promotion board |I was asked a question about pursuits.  As I was a Federation Rep at the time I informed them that for many years the Federation had been asking the Home Office and Force Command over the principles of a vehicle pursuit and had so far to receive an answer.

I remained in the same rank for the next 10 years, but at the interview they could offer no real response to my reply.

As for Mopeds it always amazes me that they refer to Moped Crime.  The vehicles used are Motor Scooters NOT Mopeds. A Moped is a vehicle under 50cc which can also be propelled by pedals. 

Some of the examples given in the original post would be a positive No, No.  The most difficult thing is to answer a hypothetical scenario and I have always found that each actual case is different and it revolves around, if you can justify the pursuit.

[Jedi Knight 59]

2 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

It is possible to drive pursuits without being a total danger and the driver is responsible for his/her actions if they do something which is dangerous.  I have been involved in some hairy pursuits without me having an accident although those pursued have had an accident by their own incompetence.

About 15 years ago on a promotion board |I was asked a question about pursuits.  As I was a Federation Rep at the time I informed them that for many years the Federation had been asking the Home Office and Force Command over the principles of a vehicle pursuit and had so far to receive an answer.

I remained in the same rank for the next 10 years, but at the interview they could offer no real response to my reply.

As for Mopeds it always amazes me that they refer to Moped Crime.  The vehicles used are Motor Scooters NOT Mopeds. A Moped is a vehicle under 50cc which can also be propelled by pedals. 

Some of the examples given in the original post would be a positive No, No.  The most difficult thing is to answer a hypothetical scenario and I have always found that each actual case is different and it revolves around, if you can justify the pursuit.

 You could almost argue there that if the pursuit had been "hairy" it should have been terminated. "Hairy" would be the equivalent of High risk nowadays. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

No all done as per the advanced training and taking great pride in the expertise. It is the criminal who is high risk.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

4 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

No all done as per the advanced training and taking great pride in the expertise. It is the criminal who is high risk.

I don't disagree with you Zulu22 but the IPCC are taking the view that if the pursuit puts the criminal at high risk and they crash killing/seriously injuring themselves/bystanders they will want to see action taken against the officer for not calling off the pursuit. I think things have changed since my time in frontline policing when a view was taken that dangerous driving was a reason for pursuit and stopping criminals whereas officers unfortunately today find they are stood down because the risk is seen as being too great, and if an officer continues they run the risk of being prosecuted for any subsequent accidents because they are seen as contributing to the criminals dangerous driving. I feel genuinely aggrieved for officers today. They are far more between a rock and a hard place.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

As for Mopeds it always amazes me that they refer to Moped Crime.  The vehicles used are Motor Scooters NOT Mopeds. A Moped is a vehicle under 50cc which can also be propelled by pedals. 

They are mostly mopeds. A moped hasn't had to have pedals since 1977.

[HazRat 762]

15 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

They are mostly mopeds. A moped hasn't had to have pedals since 1977.

They're not mopeds (i.e. 49cc) that I'm seeing. They are maxi scooters with engines from 300 to about 750cc.

[PCSD 329]

7 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

It is possible to drive pursuits without being a total danger and the driver is responsible for his/her actions if they do something which is dangerous.  I have been involved in some hairy pursuits without me having an accident although those pursued have had an accident by their own incompetence.

As Cathedral Bobby said. It's not about the driving of the police driver and whether or not they are involved in a crash, officers today are being challenged over whether they caused the crash by driving dangerously whilst pursuing the vehicle driving dangerously. If I am managing to keep up with the target vehicle I must be as dangerous as he is, whether I am sticking to the system of car control or not. 

If I pursued a car tomorrow, through a residential area at high speed on the wrong side of a single carriageway road and it hit a car coming out of a junction causing serious injury, I would put odds on that the IPCC would want me for careless/dangerous due to me not calling off the pursuit.

This isn't just about the IPCC going after drivers for using their exemptions, but officers being held accountable for what other drivers do in response to the B&Ts.

Edited September 8, 2017 by PCSD

[Jedi Knight 59]

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that you can't give officers immunity from prosecution otherwise they'll just keep chasing until either the pursuit is concluded safely (which would be ideal outcome for all pursuits) or property is damaged or someone is seriously injured or killed, be that the subject or an innocent member of the public. Who knows how many lives have been saved because we have terminated a pursuit due to the subjects driving? Problem is we'll never know.

At what point would a pursuit be called off if we had immunity even if our driving was inline with force policy and the subject high risk?  when would it be acceptable for someone to be killed as the result of a pursuit? Innocent or otherwise.  I would say never, with one possible exception of terrorists on way to carry out an attack where large numbers were at risk and loss of a vastly lesser number of casualties was possible. Then the loss of one or two compared to possibly hundreds would be, while not acceptable as such, but would be a better outcome than to terminate a pursuit of them and large numbers die as a result.

[BlueBob + 692]

There is no easy or one sentence answer to this issue.  I don't think anyone is expecting immunity, rather a consideration as to how or why the driving style may be outside the accepted norm.  The media tends to show the lone officer with no public comment by the management either in support or otherwise.  

Hugely dffcult to enshrine in legislation without removing the rights and protections of the public.  And if it's not in law then difficult for a court to change its position.  CPS as an independent entity are applying fixed criteria set against the law.  

About the only way forward would have some form of legal judicial review, almost akin to the US grand jury process, but again, how can the framework strike the right balance to protec those fully appropriately trained and executed skills of the diver whilst not encouraging/ dealing with the driver inappropriately trained and/or operating outside of the protocols. And all without loss of protection of the public 

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

11 hours ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

I think things have changed since my time in frontline policing when a view was taken that dangerous driving was a reason for pursuit and stopping criminals whereas officers unfortunately today find they are stood down because the risk is seen as being too great, and if an officer continues they run the risk of being prosecuted for any subsequent accidents because they are seen as contributing to the criminals dangerous driving. I feel genuinely aggrieved for officers today. They are far more between a rock and a hard place.

If you were stood down from a pursuit, and continued then you would be in serious trouble.

9 hours ago, PCSD said:

As Cathedral Bobby said. It's not about the driving of the police driver and whether or not they are involved in a crash, officers today are being challenged over whether they caused the crash by driving dangerously whilst pursuing the vehicle driving dangerously. If I am managing to keep up with the target vehicle I must be as dangerous as he is, whether I am sticking to the system of car control or not. 

If I pursued a car tomorrow, through a residential area at high speed on the wrong side of a single carriageway road and it hit a car coming out of a junction causing serious injury, I would put odds on that the IPCC would want me for careless/dangerous due to me not calling off the pursuit.

This isn't just about the IPCC going after drivers for using their exemptions, but officers being held accountable for what other drivers do in response to the B&Ts.

Why would you be driving on the wrong carriageway?  I have never seen that on an advanced course, unless there are parked vehilces. 

4 hours ago, Jedi Knight said:

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that you can't give officers immunity from prosecution otherwise they'll just keep chasing until either the pursuit is concluded safely (which would be ideal outcome for all pursuits) or property is damaged or someone is seriously injured or killed, be that the subject or an innocent member of the public. Who knows how many lives have been saved because we have terminated a pursuit due to the subjects driving? Problem is we'll never know.

At what point would a pursuit be called off if we had immunity even if our driving was inline with force policy and the subject high risk?  when would it be acceptable for someone to be killed as the result of a pursuit? Innocent or otherwise.  I would say never, with one possible exception of terrorists on way to carry out an attack where large numbers were at risk and loss of a vastly lesser number of casualties was possible. Then the loss of one or two compared to possibly hundreds would be, while not acceptable as such, but would be a better outcome than to terminate a pursuit of them and large numbers die as a result.

You cannot give officers an immunity from prosecution as they are responsible for the way they drive and Police Training has never allowed shooting red lights at speed.  How would you know that the vehicle you were chasing were terrorists, unless by intelligence and observation. That is the huge imponderable in Policing, you never know why the vehicle is reacting in not stopping. Could be terrorists, a body in the boot, an abduction, No insurance, you just do not know.

[PCSD 329]

37 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

Why would you be driving on the wrong carriageway?  I have never seen that on an advanced course, unless there are parked vehilces. 

Please state where I have said wrong carriageway. I have said wrong side of a single carriageway road which I do on almost every single response run. 

I see you didn't respond to the rest of my post either. 

 

Edit: And in relation to what can be done about it - how about the the wording is changed for emergency services driver to "Falls (far - dangerous) below the standard expected of a competent appropriately trained driver". Ergo the prosecution would be able to offer evidence cases of significant wrong doing with IDR downloads and potentially evidence from Force Driving Instructors. Police drivers would be able to document their use of the system and similarly use the IDR system and evidence of Instructors/experts to assist with their defence. This would also have the benefit that differences could be made for response/advanced drivers based on their skill level - if an officer can show they have been trained in such a tactic/manoeuvre and it was carried out in line with training then they have a defence/exemption, if they aren't trained the buck stops with them to justify it. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by PCSD

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

It boils down, in my view, to the fact if that you pursue and the criminal crashes and kills self/bystander the IPCC will investigate. If you, while pursuing, speeded, drove on the wrong side of the carriageway, ran red lights, used undertaking, darted between traffic, etc committing any minor traffic offences, it is highly likely the IPCC will want to see you prosecuted for the offences.