There has been some concern recently emanating from ACPO and the Federation about the lack of legal protection for Police drivers who are authorised to get involved in pursuits as part of their role.
Following a recent Crown Court trial that I wrote about back in February where an officer who stood down his pursuit of a wanted, prolific and disqualified offender who was in a stolen vehicle, some significant discussion has taken place regarding the lack of mitigation available for Police drivers on the basis of training and ability when it comes to the Dangerous Driving offense.
In a letter from ACPO to all the Chief Constables of England and Wales the Police Pursuit Lead, Andy Holt, wrote:
In the Court of Appeal case (R v Bannister [2009]) the court prohibited a jury from taking into account a police officer’s skill and training in determining whether the driving was dangerous.
He went on to comment on the more recent case and pointed out that prosecution barristers had raised the bar yet again by asking the court to consider whether:
a police driver is criminally liable for the danger caused by the subject vehicle because, by pursuing or continuing to pursue, the police driver has caused the dangerous driving of the subject vehicle
Although this concept is not a new one – we don’t just keep chasing regardless of risks – it appears to extend the scope of Dangerous Driving to a point where any offender who attempts to escape from Police by driving dangerously could effectively cause the prosecution of the Police driver by this action alone.
This latest development puts practically all the aces in the hands of the criminals on our roads. It is more dangerous to our role than even a non-pursuit policy because it effectively makes any attempt to stop an offending vehicle an open door for a driving standards investigation and a Crown Court case if the driver makes a break for freedom.
This had me seriously considering my position with regard to anything other than a routine stop-check. I know of officers in my force who have fallen foul of the driving standards axe and have no desire to join their number. I thought that this information would be the sole basis of this blog until an email arrived in my inbox pointing me to a document recently published by one of the UK Police Federations.I read and re-read the document produced by practising barrister Mark Aldred and think that those of you who use blue lights to respond to incidents should take his comments on board.
’Officers conducting pursuits will, by pursuing, cause the subject to make off. They will exceed the speed limit and they will contravene road signs. The problem is, if these arguments are mounted by the prosecution to support a charge of Dangerous Driving, they are very difficult to counter’
With no exemption or mitigation available to Police in respect of technical or indirect offences of Dangerous Driving I have delved a little deeper in to the technicalities of other exemptions that I have believed would offer me protection from prosecution. This is where things get really scary…
All Police Officers who work on the front line and hold the relevant authorisation use their legal exemption in respect of speed limits, road signs and red lights on an almost daily basis. They were written into the legislation to ensure that all emergency vehicles, not just Police, were not unduly delayed when responding to emergencies. The concern I have is that the wording of these exemptions could be, in the current environment, used to prosecute those of us that avail ourselves of them.
The wording of the exemption in respect of red lights is as follows:
Traffic legislation/regulations provides that on any occasion when a vehicle is being used for police, fire, bomb or explosive disposal, National Blood Transfusion Service or ambulance purposes, and the observance of a prohibition conveyed by the red signal, including portable traffic signals, would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose it is being used on that occasion, then the prohibition may not apply. The vehicle shall not proceed in such a matter or at such a time:
a. As is likely to cause danger to the driver of any other vehicle on the road, or as to necessitate the driver or any other such vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident, or
b. In the case of traffic which is not vehicular, is likely to cause danger to that traffic.
It’s scenario ‘a’ that causes me concern. The very nature of response driving when approaching a red light, at a crossroads for example, is that the driver of the emergency vehicle uses the emergency lighting and sirens to announce their presence, slowing their speed and preparing to stop if required. The effect that the presence of an emergency vehicle with blues and twos activated has is that vehicles using the road with a green signal slow and stop to allow the emergency vehicle to pass through the junction. At the same time, stationary traffic in the same lane as the approaching emergency vehicle that may be stopped at that same red light will likely move forward over the stop line or to the side to allow the emergency vehicle to pass them and proceed through into the junction.
Extending the theoretical scenario to cover all points of the legislation is simple. If a vehicle approaching the same crossroads slows and stops behind vehicle ahead of it which has also stopped to allow the emergency vehicle to pass through the junction against a red light, it could be said to be doing so to avoid an accident (crashing into the rear of the first car to stop) and therefore cause the emergency driver to commit an offense by instigating this common series of events.
All these situations could, if raised in court in support of a prosecution, remove the legitimate use of the exemption and leave the emergency driver potentially exposed to conviction for contravening the red light unlawfully.
Thankfully the Federation and ACPO are pushing for new legislation to protect Police drivers from these vulnerabilities, but until they do I would urge all of you to think very carefully before you hit the big red button and start your run. In the current climate I would be very hesitant to do anything that could land me in disciplinary hot water or (in the worst case scenario) a courtroom. Let’s not forget that should we end up suspended for any significant time, or be moved to an office based non-driver role while a case is dealt with at court, and fail to use our warranted powers, Winsor would be asking for £5,500 back from our salaries.
If it’s not life or death I will be struggling, personally, to justify responding until this gets sorted out. My apologies to those that might not get the response they expect for the next few months!
