| Motoring Discussion > Pursuit driver in court. | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Old Navy | Replies: 37 |
|
Fri 18 May 12 11:02
Pursuit driver in court. - Old Navy
|
|
I know it is the DM's slant on the story but I can see why the coal face plods have little faith in some of their bosses. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146117/Police-afraid-car-chases-land-court-avoiding-high-speed-pursuit-criminals.html |
|
Fri 18 May 12 11:21
Pursuit driver in court. - -
|
|
On the face of it the prosecution seems ludicrous. No one was hurt due to the officers driving, hopefully the burglar was injured when he went through the railings, probably be his only just punishment. During the heat of the chase maybe some officers make a mistake now and again, take a chance too many when viewed cold through the lens the following day, pint of hindsight anyone?, and if innocent people get hurt by an officers incompetence or recklessness then fair enough some sort of prosecution could be justifiable, but not like this when no innocent was hurt....maybe he deserved a rollicking or futher discipline in which case leave it at that. Personally i want coppers to go and catch scum bags including catching them when they make off at high speed, though why they bother when CPS cock up regularly and dozy judges give perpetual thugs and criminals yet another chance or derisory community service, i'm damned if i know. I don't want them worrying about some career fast track climber closely examining chase footage hoping to nick them for something. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 12:05
Pursuit driver in court. - CGNorwich
|
|
"I know it is the DM's slant on the story" www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200149/National-rules-police-chases-cut-road-tragedies-watchdog-demands.html |
|
Fri 18 May 12 12:48
Pursuit driver in court. - Slidingpillar
|
|
Actually it's two related stories. I'd be strongly in favour of a redefining of "dangerous driving", done correctly you can make sure that normal police pursuit driving is exempt. But I'd not give a blanket exemption, as that is wrong too. The correct law would be worded to exempt police pursuit, except where the police driving does not match up to the expected standards - ie they hit something/somebody. Then the book should be thrown. No way could I word such a thing, but I think I've got the right idea. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 14:19
Pursuit driver in court. - Manatee
|
|
>> The correct law would be worded to exempt police pursuit, except where the police driving >> does not match up to the expected standards - ie they hit something/somebody. Then the >> book should be thrown. No way could I word such a thing, but I think >> I've got the right idea. Good try, but I think all you've done is illustrate the problem. It would be quite possible to hit someone/something while using best endeavours to drive perfectly in accordance with training, but then where would you be? Up the creek with your career in peril. Equally, it is possible to drive recklessly and not actually hit anything. I think the pusuit officer needs an indemnity, regardless of the consequences, unless he has disobeyed a direct order or clearly departed from SOPs. That's not going to be perfect, but you can't have a presumption of guilt even if an innocent bystander is killed. The biggest factor in my opinion is ensuring that pursuit drivers have the right aptitude, attitude and training so that they have the best of skills and don't get the red mist. We then have to live with what follows. Prosecuting police officers who have done all the right things will not bring anybody back, but it will ensure that fewer will be prepared to engage in any kind of pusuit thereafter. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 14:38
Pursuit driver in court. - Slidingpillar
|
|
Nope, don't buy that. A blanket indemnity would be abused, it's human nature. I'm sure the vast majority of police drivers in pursuits drive sensibly and within the limits of their vehicles, but there are always the odd ones out in any activity. As for reckless without hitting anything, not sure the present covers that any better. Of course if the CPS were "sensible" cases such as referred to in the first link would not only never be brought, anyone suggesting they were would be told to take a long walk on a short pier. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 21:48
Pursuit driver in court. - Leif
|
|
>> Nope, don't buy that. A blanket indemnity would be abused, it's human nature. I'm sure >> the vast majority of police drivers in pursuits drive sensibly and within the limits of >> their vehicles, but there are always the odd ones out in any activity. As for >> reckless without hitting anything, not sure the present covers that any better. As you say a blanket indemnity would not work, and would not be a good idea. You do need to be able to prosecute a copper for dangerous driving when in a pursuit, but it has to be sensible. If they were judged to be taking precautions and driving according to guidelines, then they should be safe from prosecution, even if a death occurs. But if they show gross negligence, then they should be prosecuted. And the onus has to be on the prosecution to prove dangerous driving. If we ask them to do pursuits as part of the job, then we have to allow them some leeway for error within reason. Or we must ban pursuits. Also there are two kinds of police driver. As I understand it the ordinary copper has some training, but not that much. Whereas the traffic officer is highly skilled at driving. So the standards are quite different. I have seen police cars in Luton doing what I thought was a stupid speed down a 30mph residential road, on a regular basis. But I have also seen police cars doing high speeds down roads quite safely. The law must recognise that it can be safe to do for example 50mph in a 30mph road under certain circumstances, and not safe to do 30mph in other circumstances, and decide if it will allow police and ambulance drivers to use their judgement to decide. If they follow the advice of Brake, for example, then we are doomed. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 22:37
Pursuit driver in court. - Manatee
|
|
I don't think I suggested a blanket indemnity, unless you take indemnities always to be blanket which is moot. I excepted clear departure from SOPs, which I would also say had to be wilful, and disobeying an order (e.g. to halt the pursuit). A police officer conducting a pursuit cannot do it if he is to be second guessed on his judgements, provided he has used all reasonable endeavours to follow procedures and obeyed any direct orders given to him during the pursuit. If he is given a job to do, and does it to the best of his ability and observing the above requirements it is more than unreasonable to prosecute him for it if it goes wrong. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 12:54
Pursuit driver in court. - Old Navy
|
|
>> "I know it is the DM's slant on the story" >> There is always a slant on a story, it could be outrage at the pursuit, the aquittal, or at the prosecution, depending on which way the wind is blowing, take your pick |
|
Fri 18 May 12 14:26
Pursuit driver in court. - Westpig
|
|
This does not surprise me in the slightest. It's not just The Daily Wail, it was in The Telegrpah as well this morning. Before I left, I was a Safe Driving Manager for my Borough. I'd oversee any accident reports and in conjunction with a more centralised traffic based office, would ensure police drivers complied with regs etc and would receive sanctions for non compliance, retraining if required, advice, guidance etc. For a number of years, extra to the role listed above.....i'd been advisiing them to watch their backs if nothing else. With MDT (Mobile Data Terminals) capable of pinpointing individual vehicles on a map, 'snail trailling' them up to 24 hours afterwards and looking at average speeds every 5 seconds....then IDR (Incident Data Recorders) black box type things, that record speed and any sirens/lamps used (all lamps)...then CCTV everywhere nowadays.....etc ....then even the most minor transgression can easily be found. I've long wondered when the Police Federation would say to officers 'don't bother driving, it's too weary'. Well it seems we're nearly there. When you think that any mistake can mean your own driving licence is affected, which means dearer insurance for your own and spouses car...for 5 years....and in severe cases you could lose your job or go to prison, then it's an angle that needs to be properly covered. The laws re careless or dangerous driving relate to an average driver..they make no consideration whatsoever for an emergency services driver at work...it's down to how sensible a magistrate or judge is (and on most occasions they are). Then there's the Road Traffic Act exemptions. For example, it doesn't allow driving up a 'No Entry'. So what happens when a police car pursuing a stolen car gets to a No Entry sign?...or an ambulance that would face a heavy detour? Well take a guess. Trouble is they have no safeguards to do it. I'm almost relishing this....it's about time the whole fudge was sorted out properly and those doing a difficult job are properly supported, not damned if they do and damned if they don't. Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 18 May 12 at 14:27
|
|
Fri 18 May 12 20:03
Pursuit driver in court. - Zero
|
| There has to be more to this, or a back story of some kind. Has the officer been previously warned about the vigour of his pursuits? Did he fail to call off the pursuit when ordered? I can't believe that any management, however bad, would hamstring themselves by demotivating staff in such a dramatic fashion. Surely? Tell me I am not wrong please! |
|
Fri 18 May 12 20:45
Pursuit driver in court. - Dutchie
|
|
If somebody nicked our car.I wouldn't like it back knowing somebody was killed in a pursuit. Sorry that is the way I feel about it. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 21:20
Pursuit driver in court. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I wouldn't like it back knowing somebody was killed in a pursuit. >> Sorry that is the way I feel about it. Why? Nothing to do with you Dutchie. Regrettable of course, but just one of those things. Of course if they managed to kill the thief without damaging the car or getting blood on the upholstery you'd probably be quite pleased. I would. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 20:45
Pursuit driver in court. - Woodster
|
| Yes Zeddo, normally something more to every DM 'story'. The CPS won't even consider a dangerous driving charge without a continued course of driving conduct - it's too difficult to prove. Generally, it's a 'state of mind' offence which is very difficult to prove without an admission. Without such an admission, a substantial weight of evidence is required to deduce that state of mind and continued standard of driving. I could imagine (and I emphasise imagine) a commentary with speeds, an instruction to discontinue which was not followed, download from the data recorded, speed camera images and so on. Together, these might provide the evidence. Having said all this, I'm in the camp of 'don't bother'. Simply to much at risk for the officer. In fact with the current proposals for officers by Mr Winsor, I'm surprised some of them are driving at all, let alone beyond the speed limits. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 21:04
Pursuit driver in court. - Kevin
|
| I like the irony of who is conducting the review of CPS guidelines and who raised their concerns about the case to the CPS. |
|
Fri 18 May 12 21:58
Pursuit driver in court. - Woodster
|
| Presumably in the context of his other views lately? |
|
Sat 19 May 12 01:46
Pursuit driver in court. - Iffy
|
|
...normally something more to every DM 'story'... The Daily Mail didn't conduct the pursuit - the copper did that. The Daily Mail didn't decide to investigate the pursuit - senior officers did that. The Daily Mail didn't decide to the charge the driver - the CPS did that. The Daily Mail didn't find him not guilty - the jury did that. Stop trying to be so clever, and for once, just once, concentrate on the message, not the messenger. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 08:47
Pursuit driver in court. - Woodster
|
| I don't have to try to be so clever anymore than you have to try to be so thick. It comes naturally. There's nothing clever in agreeing with Zero and providing some detail about how a dangerous driving prosecution comes about. So I'll make it simpler for you: Yes, all that you said is right. There wouldn't have been a prosecution without some evidence but the story doesn't explain what that evidence might be. I've suggested, for the benefit of this discusion thread what that might have been. The DM story is bare to say the least, but that's the benefit of publishing a newspaper - you can lean in whichever way you choose in respect of any story. I suspect oct contributors here understand that. 'Most' being the operative word. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 09:03
Pursuit driver in court. - Cliff Pope
|
|
Traffic laws, speed limits, signage etc are set at a level that provides a reasonable compromise between absolute safety and the contrasting need to get a move on and prevent total gridlock. This is set at a level deemed appropriate for an average motorist in an average car. There is an acceptable risk level. In a police chase situation we have to say either: a) police chase drivers through competence and training have a higher threshold before their driving, even at higher speeds and contravening ordinary regulations, reaches that risk level, or b) we acknowledge that there is a higher risk level from letting police contravene traffic laws, but we accept that risk in the interests of catching criminals. The problem with (b) is that we have to accept the occasional death of innocent parties to police chases. The problem with (a) is that we have then fudged the definition of dangerous driving, by acknowledging that a skilled driver can drive faster and with less regard for rules before his driving can be considered dangerous. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 11:45
Pursuit driver in court. - Manatee
|
|
The other factors Cliff are the blue lights and sirens? And the car being pursued. I suspect the issue here might have been the urban surroundings and the number of pedestrians as well as other vehicles around. Something the UK police appear not to do as a matter of course is to provoke a crash. A good shove around the back wheel area on one of the roundabouts early on may well have brought things to an early conclusion. I can say from experience this works (I was the shovee, not the shover, when an artic came across into my lane behind me - I thought the car would never stop spinning, it didn't go over fortunately). www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfii6xCAPzs I suppose that's not an option in the UK because the suspect might get hurt... |
|
Sat 19 May 12 19:02
Pursuit driver in court. - Leif
|
|
>> Traffic laws, speed limits, signage etc are set at a level that provides a reasonable >> In a police chase situation we have to say either: >> a) police chase drivers through competence and training have a higher threshold before their driving, >> even at higher speeds and contravening ordinary regulations, reaches that risk level, >> >> The problem with (a) is that we have then fudged the definition of dangerous driving, >> by acknowledging that a skilled driver can drive faster and with less regard for rules >> before his driving can be considered dangerous. No you haven't fudged the definition. But you thus acknowledge that exceeding the speed limit or driving through a red light might not actually be dangerous driving. As your imply in first paragraph, it depends on the drivers skill level. Most people do not have the skills to drive as per pursuit drivers, and those drivers I have come across who openly boast about being superior drivers are in fact dangerous and scare the life out of passengers. Traffic cops are highly trained, and they have an independent assessment of their skills. The real issue might be ordinary police officers, who do drive fast, on occasion, but are unless I am mistaken not highly trained, just trained a bit better than thee and me. The incidents we tend to hear about seem to involve ordinary police, not traffic police. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 09:13
Pursuit driver in court. - L'escargot
|
|
.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 19 May 12 at 09:16
|
|
Sat 19 May 12 09:12
Pursuit driver in court. - L'escargot
|
|
>> Stop trying to be so clever, .............. Ooooooh! |
|
Sat 19 May 12 09:30
Pursuit driver in court. - CGNorwich
|
|
Watch the full video of the pursuit and make up your own mind. www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/policeman-cleared-of-dangerous-driving-through-portsmouth-1-3474870 |
|
Sat 19 May 12 09:51
Pursuit driver in court. - -
|
|
Thanks CGN, will be very interesting to see what the resident experts in this field make of it. Far as i can see the officer displayed remarkable restraint, not 'pushing' the offender in any way. The MPV looks like a disabled conversion, no way would i be letting him get away, i wouldn't have shown such restraint. Judge and jury showed some common sense. |
|
Sun 20 May 12 18:08
Pursuit driver in court. - Leif
|
|
>> Watch the full video of the pursuit and make up your own mind. >> >> www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/policeman-cleared-of-dangerous-driving-through-portsmouth-1-3474870 They are both going horribly fast in built up and residential areas, touching 60 in places. It does look as if the traffic cop is slowing where hazards are, and then accelerating when the route is clear. Still, I do wonder if one bad move by a frightened driver could have led to disaster. I think we would all be shouting if the cops did not pursue these people, as it would give them the green light to flout the law. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 11:18
Pursuit driver in court. - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Stop trying to be so clever, and for once, just once, concentrate on the message, >> not the messenger. They're inseparable Iffy. As part of my job I'm asked to watch out for and report on relevant press coverage. The Mail's website is good for picking up leads but pretty hopeless as a real source. Pretty much every story is written to pander to a particular slant such as moral panic, H&S (or human rights) gorn mad, bungling beaurocrats or EU meddling. The facts are twisted, omitted and sometimes invented to suit the 'line'. A Googled cross check to another report or to a source such as a court judgement is required before I can pick the bones out and add it to my 'horizon scan' staff bulletin. It's a very successful newspaper but like Wiki it's relevance as a source for factual inquiry is to put it mildly suspect. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 12:56
Pursuit driver in court. - Fullchat
|
|
My tenpenneth. I have viewed this only once and not analysied each individual manouvre. Remember in car video give false perspectives of speed and the wider picture. The offender, as usual, clearly had no regards to public or his own safety. This one appeared to be stretching that one to its next level. Overall PC Holden appears to have acted professionally, safely and within guidelines. He demonstrated on several occasions control and restraint - keeping to the left of bollards and negotiating the roundabout where he lost contact with the offender. Even abandoning at the crossing. He maintained a good distance behind the offender and could not be accused of 'pushing'. In order to have an informed opinion as to whether it was right or wrong to prosecute we do not have sound. We have no commentary, we do not know what was said over the radio. We do not know whether the pursuit was terminated and he ignored the order, We do not know what other resources were available, if any, to tactically resolve the pursuit in which case would there be a point in continuing? There is a lot we don't know. From my armchair, bearing in mind the time of day (8.00pm), the amount of vehicles, pedestrians, geography and manner of offender's driving, I did have a slight feeling of discomfort in that termination of the pursuit maybe should have been a likely option. One question I would have is as to why, after the pursuit was abandoned, did he continue in response mode to another location where a marked X5 was parked and then return to the crossing? Probably a perfectly feasible explanation. There are however a lot of unknowns that we are not privvy to. But based on what I have seen I am pleased that he was acquitted and am sad that this is what Policing has come to. Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 19 May 12 at 12:59
|
|
Sat 19 May 12 17:20
Pursuit driver in court. - Westpig
|
|
I agree with Fullchat. The only extra to that, if my had my previous 'role hat' on...would be the speed of the red lights. There were two where the police car was not significantly slower than the bandit car (albeit the police driver had allowed the bandit car some considerable leeway by backing off prior to them). I don't offer this as criticism of the police driver, but if it were me reviewing the tape in a professional capacity i'd be asking that driver what vision they had at the time for vehicles on a green light (no doubt in conjunction with my own personal knowledge of the area....which i don't have in this case). I am amazed that this went to crown court in th fashion it did. Even if the officer HAD ignored a radio mesage to terminate the pursuit, there is a robust internal discipline system that could deal, as well as being relieved of police driving, moved off the roads policing unit etc...in other words MANAGED. My guess is the management of this has in effect been passed to the CPS to make a decision, rather than someone within the Constabulary...a sort of 'pass the parcel' only in this case it's difficult management decisions that are passed about. There are plenty of people nowadays who won't make managerial decisions, because they are too afraid of making the wrong one..or..find themsleves in management positions beyond their ability e.g. some civiilian managers in police control rooms, people who have never worked the streets. A good manager can allow a pursuit some leeway and then terminate when it becomes critical. A poor one will terminate it almost immediately. An equally poor one will allow it to run in all circumstances. There's more to this yarn than meets the eye. One thing that is good out of all this, is it has highlighted the difficulties involved and I sincerely hope that all the good people i've left behind, might now get some better support. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 18:40
Pursuit driver in court. - NortonES2
|
| In the absence of any other evidence, maybe the unfortunate PC has enemies? Not unknown, and it doesn't imply he was at fault in attracting enemies! Internal politics are not unknown. Former colleague was with CID, but didn't like the all-day drinking culture. They didn't like that he wasn't keen. Perhaps they felt insecure? Went to traffic to get away, then left the force. Gave good driving tips though:) |
|
Sat 19 May 12 18:26
Pursuit driver in court. - Iffy
|
|
...It's a very successful newspaper but like Wiki it's relevance as a source for factual inquiry is to put it mildly suspect... The story is based on a Guildford Crown Court case which concluded in February, so that cannot be the source. The clue is elsewhere in the copy: "...the Police Federation said yesterday...". Thus the story originates from a press release by the federation, which also explains why it was in the Telegraph on the same day. Quite reasonably, the federation is seeking to highlight an issue which is of concern to its members. Grinding that axe, the federation is unlikely to include infornation in its release which is not helpful to the cause, even assuming it has any. But those on here complaing of gaps in the story should look to the sources, not to the newspaper. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 18:31
Pursuit driver in court. - Woodster
|
| Agreed Iffy. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 18:39
Pursuit driver in court. - Iffy
|
|
...Agreed Iffy... My understanding of the federation is limited, but I've always taken it as the body for the rank and file. This barmy prosecution was initially the work of senior officers. So it seems to me the federation is doing a good job here - sticking up for its members against the crass stupidity of the bosses. And another pat on the back goes to the jury at Guildford Crown for seeing through it. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 18:36
Pursuit driver in court. - Manatee
|
|
>>But those on here complaing of gaps in the story should look to the sources, not to the newspaper. And therein is a major defect in both papers - regurgitating press releases, which are essentially adverts, and presenting them as news. I suppose that's what happens when you sack most of the journalists. It's not only the police service that has been dumbed down :-( |
|
Sat 19 May 12 18:47
Pursuit driver in court. - Iffy
|
|
...I suppose that's what happens when you sack most of the journalists. It's not only the police service that has been dumbed down... True to some extent, but getting any detailed information from a criminal case after it's heard is almost impossible. All the court will tell anyone is the verdict, and the sentence if that verdict doesn't contain the word 'not'. I've picked up cases which I've missed, but that relies on a good relationship with the prosecuting and defence lawyers. I believe anyone can buy a transcript via HM Court Service, but it costs hundreds and takes weeks if not months, so is not a realistic option. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 19:43
Pursuit driver in court. - Old Navy
|
|
Way back in the days of Ford Granada traffic cars I worked with the police for a few months. During that time I experienced a couple of high speed transits and at no point did I feel at risk or unsafe at the high speeds used when it was safe to "make progress". Although I am a way above average driver :-))) I have great respect and admiration for the highly trained traffic or response (or whatever they are called these days) drivers. In this case there must be much that we do not know. |
|
Sat 19 May 12 21:10
Pursuit driver in court. - Fullchat
|
|
Below are the CPS Prosecution guidelines which should be adhered to when going to charge. (Sorry if a little long but to understand how decisions are reached its worth a read. There are two stages - 1. The Evidential Test and 2. The Public Interest Test. Now how this case passed the two stages is why we are discussing the issue. Prosecutors have to ask themselves the following two questions when they are making their decisions: Is there enough evidence against the defendant? There must be enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against the defendant. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts must apply. Magistrates or a jury should only convict the defendant if they are sure that they are guilty. When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in court and whether it is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision. Where it is considered that it would be helpful in assessing the reliability of a witness' evidence or in better understanding complex evidence, an appropriately trained and authorised prosecutor should conduct a pre-trial interview with the witness. A decision to drop a case does not mean that the prosecutor has decided to believe one witness and not believe another. If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the prosecutor will ask the next question. Is a prosecution required in the public interest? It has never been the rule in this country that every criminal offence must automatically be prosecuted. For this reason, in each case, the prosecutor must consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour, or unless the prosecutor is satisfied that the public interest may be properly served, in the first instance, by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal. The public interest factors that can affect the decision to prosecute vary from case to case. The more serious the offence or the offender's record of criminal behaviour, the more likely it is that a prosecution will be required in the public interest. On the other hand, a prosecution is less likely to be required if, for example, a court would be likely to impose a nominal penalty or the loss or harm connected with the offence was minor and the result of a single incident. Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 19 May 12 at 21:11
|
|
Sun 20 May 12 22:36
Pursuit driver in court. - Westpig
|
|
>> I can't believe that any management, however bad, would >> hamstring themselves by demotivating staff in such a dramatic fashion. Surely? Tell me I am >> not wrong please! >> You have sadly hit the nail on the head. There ARE people out there who WOULD act in just such a fashion. It amazes me that this sort of hoo-hah hasn't been raised by the Police Federation before. It is quite common for police officers to be prosecuted for WDC, plead guilty with special circumstances, then have a special circumstances hearing at Magistrates Court in the hope the bench see through the whole thing and give them a minimum sentence. There'd be no point pleading NG and hoping for an acquittal...because there's no difference in law between an emergency service driver and Joe Public...and Joe Public doesn't (generally) do red lights and the wrong side of keep left bollards etc. Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 20 May 12 at 22:37
|
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
