Collision between police vehicle and pedestrian - Sussex Police, September 2017

At approximately 6.05pm on 19 September 2017 two Sussex Police officers were travelling along Kings Road, Brighton, with lights and sirens activated. The officers were responding to an emergency incident. In order to make progress around queuing traffic, the driver of the police vehicle positioned the vehicle into the oncoming traffic lane, which was clear.

While in the lane for oncoming traffic, the driver of the police vehicle went through a red light on a pedestrian crossing, striking a member of the public using the crossing. The injured person was treated at the scene and taken to hospital by ambulance, however, there was no indication the person had suffered serious injury.

While at hospital, further tests confirmed the pedestrian’s injuries were more serious than initially believed. The pedestrian suffered three broken ribs as a result of the collision.

Sussex Police Roads Policing Unit began an investigation and obtained a statement from the injured pedestrian before the incident was referred to us.

We interviewed the driver of the police vehicle twice on suspicion of dangerous driving. The passenger in the police vehicle was interviewed as a significant witness. The police vehicle was not equipped with video recording equipment or other equipment which would enable analysis of the speed of the vehicle or manner of driving.

We obtained witness statements from members of the public who saw the collision, however, the collision was not captured by any local CCTV cameras.

We obtained radio transmissions, 999 calls and police incident logs, in addition to a report from a collision investigator and technical information about the pedestrian crossing.

We also obtained and reviewed relevant law, policy, training and guidance.

Based on the evidence available, we were satisfied that at the time of this incident the police driver was responding to an emergency incident and was therefore authorised to use their exemptions, allowing them to break traffic law, as long as their actions could be justified and did not cause danger to other road users.

Evidence indicated that the police driver was approaching a pedestrian crossing which was green to pedestrians from the wrong direction. We were of the view that a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find that the fact that the police driver did not see the pedestrian crossing before they made the decision to ‘offside’ indicated they failed to assess all the potential hazards of ‘offsiding’ and therefore failed to follow policy and training. It could also find the decision to drive on the wrong side of the road was inappropriate in the circumstances.

The police driver failed to give an indication of their actual speed at the time and stated they were driving at a speed appropriate to the circumstances. We were of the view that it should fall to a tribunal to decide whether the police driver’s speed was appropriate in the circumstance.

We completed our investigation in March 2018 and submitted a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider a charge of dangerous driving. We also sent our investigation report to Sussex Police, to consider a case to answer for gross misconduct.

In May 2018 the CPS authorised a charge of dangerous driving.

In January 2019, the first day of the trial, the police driver offered to plead guilty to an alternative charge of careless driving, which was accepted by the court. The officer was sentenced to a 12-month conditional discharge.

The officer resigned from the police force in March 2019.

Sussex Police agreed the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct in April 2018. Following the officer’s conviction for careless driving, a gross misconduct hearing commenced on 1 July 2019. The hearing was adjourned after the panel chair expressed his view that the matter before him did not amount to gross misconduct and suggested Sussex Police review the seriousness of the alleged conduct.

Sussex Police reviewed the evidence and decided to re-determine the seriousness of the conduct. The force notified us that they now considered this was an issue of misconduct only. We accepted the re-determination and, as the officer had already resigned, no further action was taken.