Two police officers have been disciplined after a Police Ombudsman investigation found that a traffic collision in which a pedestrian sustained a broken ankle had not been properly investigated.

The pedestrian (Woman A) was knocked down by a car at Bridge Street in Omagh on 9 December 2008. She was taken to hospital and underwent surgery to have a pin and plate inserted into her ankle.

Several years later, during civil proceedings arising from the collision, Woman A’s daughter contacted police to complain that the driver of the vehicle had not been insured at the time, and had never been prosecuted. The police later asked the Police Ombudsman to independently investigate the police handling of the case.

Police Ombudsman investigators reviewed police documentation, and obtained statements from the police officer who investigated the case, as well as from his supervisor and from Woman A and her daughter.

They established that a police officer had gone to the scene of the accident and in line with normal procedure, had filled in collision report forms and submitted them to his supervisor.

The officer noted on the forms that the collision was “serious”, and that he had still to speak to the pedestrian. He listed the primary cause of the incident as relating to the pedestrian being “heedless of traffic crossing carriageway” and took a note of the driver’s insurance details.

The officer’s notebook entry was also examined. It noted that the vehicle was dirty, and there were no marks to suggest contact. The driver was recorded as having said that Woman A had come onto the carriageway and her umbrella had caught the wing mirror of his car. A preliminary breath test was recorded as having been conducted, with a negative result.

The officer also noted that Woman A had been in obvious pain and could not remember what had happened.

However, Woman A said she had not been spoken to by police at the scene. She said police had contacted her daughter at about 11.20pm on a later date, but was told it was too late to come round to take a statement. Woman A said she never heard from police again in connection with the incident. 

Woman A’s daughter confirmed that police had contacted her late one evening, and had never contacted her again. She said she next spoke to the officer in September 2011, when she called to make him aware that the driver had not been insured. She said police took no further action is respect of this.

When interviewed, the officer said no witnesses to the collision had identified themselves to him, and he could not recall what steps he had taken to locate witnesses. He accepted that he should have taken a statement from Woman A, and he also recalled her daughter contacting him in or around September 2011. He remembered fraudulent insurance being mentioned, but could not recall exactly what had been said, and had made no note of the conversation. Neither could he remember if he had taken any action as a result.

The officer accepted that he should have recorded a statement from Woman A and followed up on her injuries, but said he had been ill and put any shortcomings in the investigation down to his illness.

The officer’s supervisor accepted during interview that he should have supervised the case better.

As a result of the investigation, the Police Ombudsman’s Office recommended that the investigating officer should be disciplined for failing to properly investigate the initial collision and the subsequent report that the driver had been uninsured. It was also recommended that the officer’s manager be disciplined for failing to properly supervise the investigation.

The PSNI has since confirmed that disciplinary action has been taken against both officers.