Source · IOPC Learning Case

Police contact prior to a road traffic incident where a man sustained serious injuries - Sussex Police, September 2019

Sussex Police Ref: 2019/124916 Recommended 22 Jan 2021 Response due 19 Mar 2021
Road traffic incidents

In September 2019, a Sussex police officer, monitoring the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system became aware of a Citroen Picasso which may be using cloned registration plates. He drove from Hastings police station in search of the vehicle. Having found it, the officer followed the vehicle and reported on its progress, during this time he also activated the in car Cleartone video and audio recording system. The officer did not activate blue lights or sirens, but directed other specialist …

View on IOPC website ↗

Recommendations

1 total
Recommendation 1

The IOPC recommends Sussex Police consider adopting a term for an officer to clearly communicate that a vehicle, without being requested to stop, is taking evasive action.

Addressed to: Sussex Police
Linked bodies: Sussex Police
Not accepted
Force response

Not accepted: Sussex Police have reviewed our pursuit policy as requested by IOPC in conjunction with our head of driver training and our Driving Standards Manager.  We are satisfied that the Pursuit Policy that is currently in place is sufficiently robust to actively manage Police pursuits; therefore we believe no fundamental change is necessary. There are undoubtedly learning points for the officer and control room staff, and I am satisfied that these have been identified and dealt with appropriately.  A key issue is, as described in the IOPC draft, is the lack of communications by PS [redacted] to the force control room that he had not activated his emergency equipment, which in turn meant that Oscar 1 was not in full possession of the facts of the pursuit when making their risk assessment.Sussex Police contend that this is not a force organisational issue, moreover it is a matter for the individual officer (s) to learn from via reflective practice – I am satisfied that this has been achieved.Notwithstanding the lack of communications, the actions that PS [redacted] took in not activating his emergency equipment are commensurate with his level of training and are for the officer to justify having given regards to the circumstances at the time and level of risk. It is a proportionate & trained tactic to not use blue lights and sirens during pursuits; or to use them intermittently as circumstances and risk dictate.  There have been occasions where officers have been held to have pushed a subject by unwarranted use of emergency equipment.  Conversely, it has been found that by adopting a low key approach this can reduce risks taken by offenders and also allows more time for other police units to get into a position to be able to assist.  We believe that by amending our policy to mandate the use of blue lights and sirens in a pursuit situation we are removing a tactical option from a pursuing officer’s consideration.Having reviewed our driver training programme, I am satisfied that pursuit trained drivers are sufficiently instructed in the tactical options available to them in safely concluding a pursuit; this includes discussion around the use of their emergency equipment. Any decision to not use blue lights and sirens must be proportionate and commensurate with the risks identified at the time and should be made giving due regards to the National Decision Model, Code of Ethics, TPAC Tactics Directory and APP for Police Pursuits. It is our contention that by mandating the use of emergency equipment this removes a valid option from a ground commander’s tactical plan and could in turn increase the risk in certain circumstances.  Sussex Police are satisfied that the current approach is in line with national standards for the management of police pursuits and allows for officers to make informed decisions based on the circumstances that they are presented with, therefore we do not believe any change is necessary.