Road traffic accident following pursuit and complaint about excessive force and treatment by police - Thames Valley Police, December 2018

At around 1.40 am on 29 December 2018, Thames Valley Police officers in a marked police car identified that a vehicle was speeding in the area of Didcot, Oxfordshire. Police signalled for the vehicle to stop by activating their blue lights. The vehicle made off at speed. Police pursued the vehicle through residential and commercial areas and along the A34. The vehicle exited the A34 and crashed into a roundabout. Both the driver and passenger of the vehicle sustained broken backs in the collision.

Thames Valley Police referred this incident to us on 31 December 2018. On 9 January 2019, the driver of the speeding vehicle made a complaint about his treatment by police following the collision. The driver alleged that, immediately after the collision, officers used excessive force on him during his arrest, that an officer who arrived at the scene a short time after was rude to him, and that he was treated harshly and incorrectly by officers and was kept in the cold while waiting for an ambulance.

In the course of investigating the circumstances of the accident and the driver’s complaint, we received and analysed CCTV footage from the pursuit car, the incident report and the incident data record for the police vehicle, as well as witness statements and ambulance records.

Evidence indicated that the pursuit was proportionate and necessary to stop the driver from driving erratically and at speed, and that the police vehicle was marked and fitted with suitable audio and visual equipment, as required by the guidelines. The police driver had the necessary training and qualifications to engage in the pursuit.

Because the police car’s dashcam was switched off before the ambulance arrived at the scene, there was a period of time that was not recorded. Therefore, during this time, there was no objective evidence that either supported or refuted the man’s claim that police used excessive force, were rude to him or kept him in the cold. The only available evidence was derived from accounts of the man, the passenger and the two police officers. Neither officer reported using the level of force described by the man. The passenger’s account did not support the man’s claim either.

One of the officers stated that the man was given a first-aid ‘space’ blanket. Officers did not provide the man with warm clothing, or moved him to a vehicle to stay warm before then.

Based on the evidence available, we did not uphold the man’s complaints that officers used excessive force on him, or that an officer had been rude to him.

However, we upheld the man’s complaint that he had been treated harshly and incorrectly by officers and kept in the cold.

Although we did not identify any particular guideline which says that arresting officers must ensure that detainees are kept warm or comfortable, we were of the view that both officers would benefit from being reminded of their responsibility to look after the health and welfare of their detainees. We completed our investigation in July 2019.

After reviewing our report, the force agreed.