In
a post a few days ago, Bill complained about my comments regarding arrest for a lorry driver in a pedestrian collision, saying that:
Regardless of fault he did kill someone. The whole point of the arrest is to establish if he was grossly negligent. That can't be decided there and then.
And frequent commenter
Blueknight noted:
The Police have to abide by ACPO's Road Death Manual.
..if an early assessment indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed, arresting suspect(s) who have been identified and are present at the scene of a fatal collision must be a priority, for example, in cases where
impairment through drink or drugs is suspected. In such circumstances, the escape of any potential suspect(s) and the intentional or accidental destruction of material (e.g., tachograph charts, documents, and reconnection of speed limiter)
must be managed.
The isolation of any suspect(s) and/or vehicle(s) is also important ..
Well, this incident occurred recently:
A teenage boy has died after being hit by a car on one of London’s busiest roads.
The 14-year-old died yesterday following the accident on the westbound North Circular Road near Brent Cross on Tuesday afternoon.
What is noticeable about
this one is as follows:
The driver of the Mercedes estate car involved stopped at the scene and was not arrested.
Now…why not? How come the police were concerned that a criminal offence 'may have been committed' in the
first incident, and yet not in the second?
11 comments:
The details are not disclosed, Julia. The driver could have been an important Police Lodge member, already late for a meeting.
Discretion used? That's what you want isn't it instead of robotic enforcement of the law?
Jaded
XX 3.30pm XX
Could the officers involved smell intoxicating liquor?
Did the driver stagger, have difficulty in speach?
Was there any ground, through his demeanour to suspect drink or drugs?
3:30pm or 3.30 am.... Unlikely that he had been drinking, although I will accept, it is not impossible. But taken with the other indicating factors....
The other question is, what the hell is a private company doing dictating police activity/ response in this country? Especially when they are not accountable nor subject to FOI requests.
As an ex LGV driver, retired because of medical reasons who drove hazardous loads it was always made very apparent in any form of training or discussion with police that being a vocational driver carries a much higher level of responsibility when driving, I used to drive past Brent Cross on a near daily basis as the depot was in near by Harlesden and I was witness to many stupid stunts by pedestrians on that stretch of road, including the overpass of the M1 junction, let alone the slip roads down to the Edgeware road. If on the rare occasion I was stopped because I had become involved in an incident, the Police went through everything with a fine toothcomb, as being a proffessional driver I was supposed to have anticipated the situation and avoided any negative circumstance.
As an ex LGV driver, retired because of medical reasons who drove hazardous loads it was always made very apparent in any form of training or discussion with police that being a vocational driver carries a much higher level of responsibility when driving, I used to drive past Brent Cross on a near daily basis as the depot was in near by Harlesden and I was witness to many stupid stunts by pedestrians on that stretch of road, including the overpass of the M1 junction, let alone the slip roads down to the Edgeware road. If on the rare occasion I was stopped because I had become involved in an incident, the Police went through everything with a fine toothcomb, as being a proffessional driver I was supposed to have anticipated the situation and avoided any negative circumstance.
"The other question is, what the hell is a private company doing dictating police activity..."
Exactly. The police and their operations should be directed by the Home Office, prosecutors and even the public they're suppose to serve. ACPO has no business issuing manuals to a publicly funded service. I really wish someone would challenge them in court. I believe it is an offence not to follow the directions of a police office; I'm pretty sure that obligation doesn't extend to diktats from a private business.
Many years ago a young child in our village was killed by a passing car. It was very sad for everyone involved including the car driver who was not in any way responsible. Why not you may wonder? Because the child ran out from a driveway and ran into the back side corner of the passing car. They would likely have been badly hurt even had the car been stationary.
Even the modern technique of arresting first and asking questions later would have been pointless so discretion is needed.
"""
Bill complained about my comments regarding arrest for a lorry driver in a pedestrian collision, saying that:
Regardless of fault he did kill someone. The whole point of the arrest is to establish if he was grossly negligent. That can't be decided there and then.
"""
No, the police don't have to abide by an ACPO policy, they have to abide by the law. ACPO policy is not law.
"Discretion used? That's what you want isn't it instead of robotic enforcement of the law?"
Yes, so long as we all understand the rules. I'd be pretty aggrieved, were I that lorry driver, reading this.
"3:30pm or 3.30 am.... Unlikely that he had been drinking, although I will accept, it is not impossible."
Sadly true!
"...being a vocational driver carries a much higher level of responsibility when driving,"
Really? Interesting to know.
The second police officer may or may not have had a good reason for not following the policy. As pointed out above it is a policy not a law ,the decision is always with the officer using his power so you will get inconsistency.
Post a Comment