Police Pursuit Policy

"Should this Police Officer have been prosecuted for his standard of driving?"

  • No

    Votes: 7 15.2%
  • No - Of course not he was doing his job

    Votes: 36 78.3%
  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Yes - By pursuing that van he should be held accountable for the vans actions

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • Total voters
    46
#1
Whilst browsing the Daily Hate yesterday evening my attention was drawn to this story:

Police give up chasing thieves who stole kayak on quad bikes 'because culprits weren't wearing crash helmets and could be injured' | Mail Online

Long story short it involves Coppers who abide by their local pursuit policy and do not pursue theives making good their escape because they're on quad bikes but not wearing helmets.

Anyway the story got me thinking of this article and I just wonder whether I could borrow ten mins of your time to watch a silent video and ask you to answer a simple question. "Should this Police Officer have been prosecuted for his standard of driving?"

PC
 
#2
I've seen that video and shared it with a few of my Canadian counterparts and the resounding answer was no.

In relation to the police not chasing anyone (particularly on bikes/quads etc) this is ancient news. The Wail must be desperate for an plod outrage story to drag that out.


Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE
 
#3
OK, watched the video, which was supposed to be the dangerous bit from the traffic copper? The fleeing vehicle without lights, sirens and a trained driver was obviously dangerous, wrong way down a dual carriageway and through the barriers etc.
 
#4
I've seen that video and shared it with a few of my Canadian counterparts and the resounding answer was no.

In relation to the police not chasing anyone (particularly on bikes/quads etc) this is ancient news. The Wail must be desperate for an plod outrage story to drag that out.


Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE
Of course I fully agree with you however I'm just curious to see what way public opinion lies these days. I'd say only 1 in 5 pursuits we have now are given the go ahead after the initial risk assessment. Are the bosses being over cautious or do "the public" (whoever they may be) just want to have their cake and eat it?
 
#5
OK, watched the video, which was supposed to be the dangerous bit from the traffic copper? The fleeing vehicle without lights, sirens and a trained driver was obviously dangerous, wrong way down a dual carriageway and through the barriers etc.
The dangerous bit was meant to be pursuing him full stop. His bosses were wrongly of the mindset that by pursuing him he forced the driver of the stolen vehicle to drive dangerously.
 
#6
The dangerous bit was meant to be pursuing him full stop. His bosses were wrongly of the mindset that by pursuing him he forced the driver of the stolen vehicle to drive dangerously.
Ahh, now I see. So the flip side of that coin is, commit a crime, but make sure when you are getting away you drive like a tit and the police will instantly call off the pursuit giving you a free run.

Well, as a member of the public who shares the roads with pursuits, I would rather the pursuits continue and the scrotes fear being caught, (which obviously opens the whole sentencing can of worms). If ACPO had any balls they would take out full page adverts in the press stating that is you steal a motorcycle and ride without a helmet you will be pursued and any consequences of an accident fall on the theif, who is, after all a criminal.
 
#7
Ahh, now I see. So the flip side of that coin is, commit a crime, but make sure when you are getting away you drive like a tit and the police will instantly call off the pursuit giving you a free run.

Well, as a member of the public who shares the roads with pursuits, I would rather the pursuits continue and the scrotes fear being caught, (which obviously opens the whole sentencing can of worms). If ACPO had any balls they would take out full page adverts in the press stating that is you steal a motorcycle and ride without a helmet you will be pursued and any consequences of an accident fall on the theif, who is, after all a criminal.
Cheers for your opinion. Unfortunately ACPO assisted in creating and now support the current policy which resulted in the above matter going to court.
 
#8
I don't know if you have seen it, but there is a very good article on this issue on the below;

Response and Pursuit Drivers are Breaking the Law | MinimumCover – The Police Officer Blog

When a jury is asked to consider the question;

"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"


I believe that is a dangerous precendent.

I have mixed feelings on this. I don't want scrotes to take the piss and fail to stop with impunity.

However, I have been involved in one incident where a vehicle I was following in an unmarked car (not in pursuit of, ie, "blues and twos") after it failed to stop for marked vehicles. The bandit car hit a vehicle on a country lane (no casualties), and my partner and I were able to detain the three occupants.

Next day I saw on the incident log that the supernintendo had immediately sent the matter to standards to investigate the driver and my actions.

Nothing came of it for me, I think driving otherwise than in accordance, no insurance/MoT, fail to stop and dangerous driving (plus some cannabis) charges were had for the bad guys.

But I will let to guess the conclusions I came to about whether it was worth it or not.

I also wonder what others expect the police to do?
 
#10
Cheers for your opinion. Unfortunately ACPO assisted in creating and now support the current policy which resulted in the above matter going to court.
Well, in that case, my considered opinion is, you're****ed and as a consequence of you being****ed, we the general public are as well.

Why ACPO exists defeats me. They are a clique of old boys who run a private company and make massive profits on the back of screwing the policing of this country.
 
#11
I wasn't aware of the blog but I was aware of its content. Its the main reason why very few are renewing their advanced/pursuit driving tickets when they expire. Why risk your licence, your job or your liberty being a common theme.
 
#12
I couldn't give a flying **** about the health and safety of the criminals.

The only reason IMO for calling off a pursuit is that the criminal is likely to cause a greater danger to the public by their driving than they would actually present if they got away.


However, this story is in the DM so it's almost certain to be utter bollocks.
 
#13
Well, in that case, my considered opinion is, you're****ed and as a consequence of you being****ed, we the general public are as well.

Why ACPO exists defeats me. They are a clique of old boys who run a private company and make massive profits on the back of screwing the policing of this country.

I think you just answered your own question, mate.

While for the most part I respect the blokes at the coal face, generally speaking the higher the rank a police officer holds, the less use they are.
 
#14
I couldn't give a flying **** about the health and safety of the criminals.

The only reason IMO for calling off a pursuit is that the criminal is likely to cause a greater danger to the public by their driving than they would actually present if they got away.



However, this story is in the DM so it's almost certain to be utter bollocks.
Seconded.
 
#15
#16
The only reason IMO for calling off a pursuit is that the criminal is likely to cause a greater danger to the public by their driving than they would actually present if they got away.
.
You're out on patrol one night when you receive information a stolen car is heading your way. As you approach a junction it passes you in the opposite direction and begins to exceed the speed restriction to evade capture. You have no other information to go off. Is it not arguable that you have already increased the danger simply by being in a police car that the offender has seen and is now trying to evade?

Yours

Devils Advocate.
 
#17
You're out on patrol one night when you receive information a stolen car is heading your way. As you approach a junction it passes you in the opposite direction and begins to exceed the speed restriction to evade capture. You have no other information to go off. Is it not arguable that you have already increased the danger simply by being in a police car that the offender has seen and is now trying to evade?

Yours

Devils Advocate.
I think you need to think deeper about this. The original person at fault is the owner of the car. If they hadn't worked hard enough to be able to afford a car, there wouldn't have been a vehicle available to steal. The selfish car owner should have thought of this before he recklessly went out and provided temptation to a poor misguided youth. Stamp out the cause of crime as someone famous once said.
 
#18
I couldn't give a flying **** about the health and safety of the criminals.

The only reason IMO for calling off a pursuit is that the criminal is likely to cause a greater danger to the public by their driving than they would actually present if they got away.


However, this story is in the DM so it's almost certain to be utter bollocks.
Nail on the head. Article 2(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which as you know the UK is a signatory, places on the police "a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life ". This is where the absolute ban on pursuing stolen motorcycles comes from, as the pursuit of such vehicles is deemed particulary dangerous, particulary to the life of the rider (albeit he's put himself in that position). While I'm no great fan of ACPO myself, the pursuit guidelines were published (after taking counsel's opinion) in an attempt to clarify the circumstances (against the backdrop of ECHR) in which it is acceptable for police officers to carry out a pursuit and where the duty to apprehend an offender outweighs the offender's, and more particularly, the public's right to life. Nobody wants to see criminals getting away by merely putting the foot down, but equally, no-one wants to see kids mown down at bus stops or on pedestrian crossings either.
 
#19
I meant that the story about not being allowed to chase crims with no helmets on was bollocks.


In the case of the link that you'd posted, I'd at least hope that they would at least look into the circumstances. I'd rather that someone got away with a stolen van, than have that person crashing onto a railway, derailing a train and killing 30 people (for example). I would, of course, expect the police to try and keep a discreet pursiut, track the criminal down and arrest him at some point.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#20
The OP deserves our thanks for reminding me of this belting story, also involving quad bikes.

As for the question; can't see that the policeman was ever in any danger of losing control of his car or driving even slightly dangerously. The less said about the knob in front the better though. Probably a good call by the officer to stop when he did before Evel Knievel in the van got any more desperate.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top