Police drivers are now facing less risk of conduct or criminal proceedings after a successful Federation campaign for a change to legislation, but the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is still exploiting a policy vacuum which means that, despite the efforts of those in driver training, forces simply cannot train for every eventuality officers are expected to deal with. 

That is the view of Tim Rogers, secretary of West Midlands Police Federation and national Federation lead on pursuits and driver training, who was commenting after a South Wales PC was cleared of dangerous driving after a four-day crown court trial ending in a jury taking four minutes to reach a verdict.

“The Federation successfully campaigned for a change in legislation to better protect police drivers and the new law came into effect in 2022. But mendacious investigators are now exploiting aspects of this legislation to still try to prosecute officers for acting instinctively to protect the public,” Tim explains. 

“Through the Federation campaign, I convinced the Government the old test was unworkable, so this was changed. We also told the Government that the police service could not train for every situation and that when officers act instinctively to help the public but do something that isn’t on a page of a training manual they may be mendaciously pursued – and we have clearly been proved right.

“Crime and criminality is a constantly evolving science, so to have a training module specific for all scenarios is simply impossible. 

“The police driver training portfolio is excellent. It is able to react quickly and bring in new tactics in response to evolving criminal trends, but it takes time and in this time we could be forced to advise officers to do nothing if faced with a situation for which they have not received training to deal with. This is a situation we are being forced into by the ridiculous application of a workable and sensible piece of legislation.  

Prosecution

“The provisions within the authorised professional practice (APP) offer some scope for officers to use their initiative but are not good enough, leaving sufficient scope for prosecution, as we predicted.

“Investigators seem to be incapable of taking a pragmatic stance and this flawed approach will ultimately mean the public is put at risk.

“The campaign has meant police drivers are in a much better, and more protected place, since many cases that would have been routinely charged are now not pursued but it is does appear that at times the IOPC is intent on prosecuting officers who follow their training but act instinctively to deal with incidents as they unfold.” 

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was introduced after the Federation campaign Tim led, provided new legislation to ensure that police officers’ driving is not judged by the standards of the ‘careful and competent’ driving public as was the case but rather according to those of their peers and in line with their skills and training.

“Police drivers have brilliant training which is now prescribed in law. It is this prescribed training that is assessed rather than the previous nonsense of judging as a member of the public,” says Tim.

Confidence

“The strict governance around training delivery gives confidence of exacting and consistent standards and allows all ‘correctly trained’ officers to avail themselves of the new law. We have seen countless cases that would previously have seen prosecutions pursued dealt with in the supportive way that would be expected.

“But, unsurprisingly, driver training does not cover tactics to deal with everything an officer is expected to deal with.  Criminals fleeing on a pedal bikes, and those on foot are prime common examples. In the South Wales case, an offender was fleeing from a serious crime on a pedal bike,” says Tim.

“Officers sent to deal with these types of incidents are expected to do precisely that – deal. How would the public react to officers who on arrival thought: ‘No training for this?’ The fear of prosecution would potentially legitimise them standing impotently by.

“But, of course, professional officers use their judgement and act instinctively to help the public by keeping them safe. They should have confidence that if they act reasonably, albeit with no tactic on a page for an investigator to see, they should be supported.”

But Tim says officers, when acting in the interests of public safety and doing as they are expected by using their initiative to stop and detect crime, are then charged because the investigator says “no training for that” and they end up in court.

“If they stand impotently by and let the offender escape as to do something would be criticised as was the case here they then create the jeopardy of being charged for malfeasance. They are in a no-win situation which just should not be the case,” he adds.

Criminality

“We do not wish to have to advise all officers to do nothing outside their training but this ridiculous approach by investigators is in danger of making criminality aware of this frailty.”

The South Wales officers made several reasonable requests for the offender to stop; a serious offence had been committed, and it was likely that the offender would commit further acts.

Having exhausted all reasonable options to stop the offender, the officer used his vehicle proactively to direct the cyclist into a dead end - a brick wall. The cyclist hit the wall and is arrested, but sustained injury.

The officer was then criticised for causing serious injury by dangerous driving because the driver training specialist called to review the case said the officer was not trained to perform this tactic.

“The truth is there is no training and what are officers to do when there is no training. You simply cannot train for every situation that an officer might come across, and you do have to allow them to act instinctively when they are seeking to protect the public,” says Tim.

“They must be able to be flexible and adaptive. The vulnerability within the new legislation is the situation when a tactic is improvised to keep the public safe.

Exemption

“The exemptions within the new law should have caveats, which would mean new tactics are being sanctioned through the National Police Chiefs’ Council groups. For example, electric bike tactics are being developed but are currently not part of prescribed training so are not legally covered. The exemption should cover this.

“We will be seeking an amendment to the current legislation to allow for situations where officers have to act instinctively given the situation that unfolds in front of them.”

While a jury only took four minutes to clear the South Wales officer of charges of dangerous driving, he has had the stress of the court case and uncertainty hanging over him which should have been avoidable, Tim believes.

“To add insult to injury, he is also still waiting to hear if South Wales Police will be pursuing conduct proceedings against him,” he said.

Since the new legislation came into effect, a Subject Matter Experts (SME) group has been established to give evidence to decision-makers based on the new legislated driving standard.

This group is referenced in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidance and is the legitimate point of reference for assessing driver standards against the new standard.

READ MORE: Jail sentences for officer attacks should be the norm.