Page 11 - Bedfed Conf2016 Flip Book

‘Police drivers need better legal protection’
Details on the difficulties faced by officers when treated as witnesses – making them more vulnerable - rather than suspects were explained by Mark Aldred, a barrister and former police sergeant.
“Don’t be misled into thinking the facts will speak for themselves,” he cautioned.
He explained the background of other cases where officers found themselves facing criminal charges and also introduced the change of wording being proposed:
“When a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service, rescue or police purposes, or for a purpose connected with the National Crime Agency the driver may depart from the standard of the careful and competent driver (or by his driving, cause another to do so) if and only if;
a) driving the vehicle in accordance with road traffic regulations would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used and;
b) any such departure is a proportionate response to the circumstances as the responder reasonably believed them to be and;
c) the driver has undergone or is engaged in, specialist driver training in accordance with S19 of the RSA 2006. Anthony Bangham, the NPCC lead on
pursuits, argued that the change should only apply to pursuit not response drivers.
The Federation’s campaign for legislative change was re-launched in January this year and it is hoped it will be debated in Parliament in January 2017.
l Get early Federation advice... can’t stress this enough
l Seek advice before making any statement.
Just because it is your belief you have done nothing wrong, this has no bearing and is totally irrelevant.
There are measures implemented which try to protect you such as a national steering group which offers advice in relation to POLACCs and has sight of most serious incidents. There are also guidelines from the Attorney General following a visit which guide prosecutors as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Guidelines and steering group? These are not enough! These are not a defence in law.
Proposals are also being put forward from the College of Policing which do differentiate between pursuits and response driving, but please be mindful that as soon as ‘risk’ is increased, careless and dangerous come into play.
Are you driving like a competent and careful driver? Are you a witness or are you now a suspect?
Current legislation means police response or pursuit drivers can find themselves being convicted, fined, banned and sacked just for doing their duty.
But Tim Rogers, the Federation’s national lead on police pursuits, is heading up a campaign for a change in the law to protect police drivers.
He told conference: “emergency response drives and pursuits are still measured against the standard of the careful and competent driver. you know, the driver that doesn’t drive above the speed limit, through red traffic lights, respond to incidents?
“In my Force, there are around 2,500 immediate response incidents each week
– that’s 2,500 occasions when police drivers put themselves at risk of prosecution as they go about their duties serving the public of the West Midlands.”
And he continued: “We are not being alarmist, and I concede that prosecutions in context are few and far between. But spare a thought for Officer Few and Far Between
who is mendaciously pursued through the criminal court only to be acquitted one, two, three or four years later and then told ‘you were just doing your job’.
“We are merely pointing out what our members, chief officers, MPs and the public need to know. There is a flaw in the system, and a risk to our members - and the public.”
Officers’ role, training and the expectation of society should, he argued, be considered in law given that they are trained to a standard licensed by the College of Policing.
An initial Federation campaign four years ago brought about the establishment of a NPCC steering group to consider police driving inquiries.
Tim explained: “The development was welcome, but the dynamic has now changed; fewer drivers, larger areas, longer response drives, single crewing, longer shifts. The IPCC now conducts most serious and fatal POLAC enquiries, they, of course, will not be using the NPCC steering group and I understand this.”
Witness or suspect
By Chris Smith, RPU, and Bedfordshire Police Federation representative
Let me start with a little background. You are on patrol on a Saturday evening when a car in front of you decides to make off. You follow your training to the letter, giving the criteria for a pursuit, asking for RPU, dogs and air support.
Oscar 1 gives authority to follow as you are IPP trained. You follow at a safe distance for a couple of minutes, however, to stay in contact with the offending driver, you do exceed the speed limit and you do contravene a red traffic light. The offender then suddenly crashes and, as a result, sustains serious injuries.
Not a position any of us want to be in but we are confident we have done nothing wrong. Or have we? Should we give an account straight off to the IPCC? Are we a witness or are we a suspect?
I have seen the presentation given by Mark Aldred on several occasions now and I have spoken to the officers who were in pretty much the same situation in Hampshire a
few years ago. They ended up in Crown Court on charges of dangerous driving!
There is no exemption in law regarding using a vehicle for police purposes as far as careless and dangerous driving is concerned and we are judged at court against the standard ‘competent and careful driver’. You therefore have to ask yourself, would Mrs Miggins drive down the road at 80mph in a 30mph limit, contravening a red light? Of course, she wouldn’t, so officer, I put it to you, you drove dangerously. (Yes, but my training, policing purpose, apprehending an offender...) Sorry, no defence in law, 12-month ban.
It makes grim reading, however, there are moves afoot to change legislation in relation to ‘reasonable use’ for emergency purposes, but this is still a way off, the earliest it being put before Parliament for debate is January 2017.
Let me therefore offer some advice straight from the barrister:
l You are a suspect should you be
involved in an RTC, even if indirectly involved
11