The Police Ombudsman has concluded that no police officer should be disciplined following the death of a 23-year-old driver who crashed into a tree while being followed by police near Derry/Londonderry in January 2006.
The accident happened on the Culmore Road at around 03:30 hours on 21 January 2006. The driver (Man A) had earlier failed to stop when waved down by police in the Shantallow area of the city.
In line with normal procedure following a fatal collision in which police have been involved, the incident was referred by police to the Police Ombudsman for independent investigation.
Police Ombudsman investigators attended the collision scene and co-ordinated forensic and photographic examinations. The police car and Man A’s vehicle were also examined, and statements were received from a number of witnesses who had knowledge of Man A’s movements prior to the crash.
These enquiries established that at about 21:00 hours on 20 January, Man A’s father had given him a lift to his girlfriend’s home. While there, Man A consumed a quantity of alcohol, before getting a taxi back home at about 03:00 hours.
Man A then got into his car and drove to visit a group of friends who were socialising at a nearby house, before leaving a short time later to give a friend a lift home.
Officers said car was making a lot of noise and its wheels were spinning.
At about 03:30 hours Man A was alone in his car and driving along Moyola Drive in the Shantallow estate when he encountered a police patrol dealing with a separate incident. Members of the patrol later told Police Ombudsman investigators that Man A’s car was making a lot of noise and had its wheels spinning as it approached them.
An officer recalled moving to the middle of the road and gesturing with her torch for the driver to stop. While the car initially slowed down, she said that when it was about five to eight metres away it accelerated, forcing her to run out of its way. Her account was corroborated by other police officers, as well as civilian witnesses.
Officer said he commenced a 'safe follow' after the car had been driven at a colleague.
Three officers in a nearby police car then began to follow Man A’s vehicle. The driver of the police car told Police Ombudsman investigators that he commenced a “safe follow” of Man A’s vehicle in order to communicate its movements to other police patrols which might be in a position to immobilise it by deploying a “stinger” device. Police radio transmissions were analysed and these confirmed the driver’s account.
The three officers in the police car said they followed Man A at speeds of between 30 and 50 mph with their vehicle’s flashing lights and sirens activated. The driver (Police Officer 1) said he maintained a distance of between 10 and 60 metres from Man A’s vehicle, a distance which had varied because at times Man A’s car had slowed down, giving him the impression it was going to stop, before speeding up again.
As Man A drove along the Culmore Road, which leads to the border with the Republic of Ireland, the officers behind him stated that his car weaved from side to side before taking up position in the centre of the road where it continued for a distance of around 300-400 metres at a speed of approximately 60-70 mph.
Car left road on left hand bend and struck a tree.
Police Officer 1 said he then dropped further back, maintaining a distance of around 150 metres from Man A’s car. He recalled that as Man A approached a long left hand bend, the headlights of another vehicle could be seen approaching from the opposite direction. He said Man A’s car then left the road before colliding with a tree.
The officers went to Man A’s aid before calling for an ambulance and requesting additional police support. Man A was taken to Altnagelvin Hospital but never regained consciousness and was declared dead on the morning of 22 January 2006.
A police sergeant conducted a preliminary breath test on Police Officer 1, which he passed.
Police Ombudsman investigators spoke to the driver of the car which had been travelling in the other direction at the time of the collision (Witness A). He said he had heard police sirens and saw two cars, the second of which was a police car, coming round the bend in front of him at high speed.
He estimated that the vehicles were travelling at about 100mph, and said the police car was about 15 to 20 feet behind the other vehicle. He said the first car went straight across his path, as if the driver had forgotten to turn, before colliding with a tree. The police car then passed him about five seconds later, before turning around and returning to the scene.
Later that day, the scene was examined by a senior forensic officer who estimated from tyre marks that Man A had been travelling at a speed of at least 53mph as his car crossed a bus stop lay-by before striking the tree.
No mechanical problems with Man A's car, no problems with the road surface, and no indication of any contact with the police car.
The scientist found no evidence of a major failure in the steering, brakes or suspension of Man A’s car prior to the crash. There were no irregularities or surface contaminants on the road which might have caused Man A to lose control, and there was no indication of any contact between the police car and Man A’s vehicle.
The scientist also stated that in his opinion, Witness A had overestimated the speed of Man A’s car and the police vehicle at 100mph, and said the police estimate of 60-70mph was likely to be more accurate. This speed, combined with Police Officer 1’s estimation that he had been about 150m behind Man A at the time of the collision, tallied with Witness A’s account of the police car passing him five seconds after Man A.
This was corroborated by a second examination of the scene by a specialist forensic collision investigator, who concluded that the two cars were likely to have been travelling between 66 and 72mph, with a distance of around 148 to 161 metres between them.
An examination of Man A’s mobile phone produced no evidence that he had been using the device at the time of the collision.
A subsequent post mortem examination revealed that Man A’s blood had 139 milligrams of alcohol per 100ml, indicating a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit for driving. No traces of any recreational drugs were found.
During their investigation of the incident, Police Ombudsman investigators considered police policies for the conduct of “follows” and “pursuits” of suspect vehicles.
They found that the PSNI had, by the date of the collision, not implemented a force-wide policy which was compliant with guidelines set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers. They also found inconsistencies in approach between different police command areas.
Inconsistencies in police pursuit policy rectified with introduction of new policy in 2007.
This has since been rectified following the introduction in January 2007 of the PSNI Policy on the Management of Police Pursuits. The Police Ombudsman noted that the policy “provides consistent and clear definitions and instructions as to the obligations of police officers in dealing with situations in which vehicles fail to stop for police” and “provides a robust framework for the effective management of pursuits from the early stage of such incidents.”
Given the evidence of the case, and the then lack of a consistent pursuits policy, the Police Ombudsman concluded that there were no grounds for disciplinary action against any police officer.