Sir (North West
Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide protection
for drivers of emergency vehicles responding to emergencies
from civil liability and criminal prosecution in specified
circumstances; to make related provision about criminal
proceedings and sentencing; and for connected purposes.
I want to look at the case of PC Richard Jeffery, a Norfolk
officer who, on a dark night at the end of his shift was
driving back towards the police station when on the radio
came through a report of a stolen car being driven
erratically with no lights. He intercepted the vehicle and
followed it. He followed his training to the letter: he kept
a sensible distance and did not tailgate the vehicle. The
vehicle carried on being driven erratically and after a mile
or so it crashed. Tragically, the driver was killed. He was
four times over the limit and it was a stolen vehicle.
PC Richard Jeffery was suspended and investigated for gross
misconduct. Understandably, and as one would expect, the case
was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. After three
months, it decided there was no case to answer. The family of
the victim appealed the decision to the CPS, however, and the
case went on for several more months, but still there was no
case to answer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission
then investigated the accusation of gross misconduct for
nearly two years. Throughout that time, PC Richard Jeffrey
was suspended, Norfolk constabulary lost a long-serving and
experienced officer, and at the end of it, he was completely
exonerated.
The key point is that the CPS and the IPCC could not look at
the extra training and expertise of the police officer—they
could not apply the test of a competent and careful trained
response driver; they could judge him only by the “competent
and careful driver” standard, which is the standard applied
to us all. This officer faced a dilemma. He could easily have
said, “It’s the end of a long day, I won’t take the risk, I’m
going back to the police station”. What would have then
happened if this car, which was being driven by a driver four
times over the limit with broken lights and on a wet road,
had gone off the road and killed several people? He would
have had that on his conscience forever, so of course his
training kicked in, as one would expect.
There have been many other such cases recently, but I will
pick up on just a few. A colleague in the House this
afternoon brought to my attention the case of a constituent
of his who was a highly trained and decorated officer. He was
actually the pursuit commander and tactical adviser during an
incident involving a moped that was being driven highly
erratically. In fact, the driver was almost deliberately
trying to goad the police. The police followed. He was in the
second car, but he was the commander. Tragically, the moped
rider went off the road and was killed. The officer was
suspended, as one would expect—one does not necessarily
object to that. Eighteen months on, however, he had been
forbidden to work in any capacity and, quite staggeringly,
forbidden to leave his home for more than three days. There
is still no end to this saga—the case is ongoing—so I cannot
comment in more detail.
It seems that there is a scourge of mopeds being used for
crimes, and often moped riders know that if they take their
helmet off, they have more chance of getting away. Two months
ago in Kent—I am glad that some of my hon. Friends from Kent
are here today—a moped was being driven highly erratically.
It was actually doing wheelies and going up the wrong side of
a dual carriageway. Four police vehicles were involved. The
police officers concerned decided to take action and follow
the moped. The moped driver had an accident, went flying off
and injured himself—not critically, although it was thought
he had severe head injuries. The police officer driving the
car closest to the incident was suspended and then
investigated for grievous bodily harm and dangerous driving.
The case is ongoing. In fact, the driver recovered from his
head injuries very quickly, and two weeks on was committing
further crimes, while the police officer, who was doing his
duty, ended up being suspended. I cannot comment further
because the case is sub judice.
I want to look at cases that are no longer in the court arena
and have been decided—these are on the public record. A
firearms officer in Hampshire was deployed to a domestic
violence incident on new year’s eve in 2015. While
progressing to the incident, he used all his training to
drive highly professionally, correctly and properly; he went
through a couple of red lights and was involved in a slight
injury collision with a member of the public. In the end, the
“competent and careful driver” test was applied—neither the
CPS nor the IPCC could consider his training and
expertise—and he was charged with dangerous driving, and
nearly two years later the trial took place. I am pleased to
say that he was acquitted, but throughout that time Hampshire
was without its most senior firearms officer.
There have been other cases. There was one in Merseyside
involving a firearms officer and another involving a PC
Steventon in Yorkshire. The latter was in a car pursuing a
vehicle that had been observed at a petrol station. The
individual was suspected of burglary and other offences. The
police officer gave chase, and a long time later was charged.
The rationale was that, although he had an exemption for
breaking the speed limit and going through a traffic signal,
he did not have an exemption for the alleged dangerous
driving. He was suspended for 18 months, therefore, went to
court and was acquitted. Afterwards, the judge said:
“After all you and your family have been through it would be
an affront to natural justice if you were to face another
internal disciplinary procedure. I hope that will not be the
case”
and he expressed his hope that he leave a free man.
There are many other cases, but what runs through them is the
significant impact they have on the officers, who are doing
their duty to and serving the public, and the forces. There
are, however, guidelines. In a letter to one of my
colleagues, a Home Office Minister wrote: “There are
guidelines in place, and obviously the idea is to reduce the
risks associated with this activity”—pursuit—“and to set out
when it is in the public interest for a prosecution to take
place. Police should be able, without fear of prosecution, to
go ahead and carry out their duties”. The guidelines are
obviously not working. Time and again, the IPCC takes the
view—perhaps while wrapped up in the emotion and under a lot
of pressure from families —that it should take action, but it
says, “We won’t deal with it, we’ll let the courts look at
it”. That, I think, is a cop out. It is quite wrong that
these officers are being prosecuted in this way.
My Bill would simply make it clear that the expertise and
training of officers can be taken into consideration. In
other words, the test applied would not be the universal test
but a specific test for these emergency vehicle drivers. Some
of my colleagues have said, “Is this a charter for the police
acting irresponsibly, going berserk and getting carried
away?” It is categorically not. Obviously, they would have to
follow their training, the training manual and their
professional judgment, and nor would there be an exemption
for aggravating factors—for example, if the police officer
were over the limit, recovering from a sickness or driving
recklessly. The good news is that the training of police
drivers has now been consolidated across the entire country
through the road policing driving training programme, so we
have standard procedures across the country. It is time for
the law to be changed. I know that the Minister is
sympathetic. This simple change would tilt the balance in
favour of these professional, highly skilled public servants.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir , , , , , , Sir , , , , and present the Bill.
Sir accordingly
presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday
16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 145).
