Andrew Brown
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2022-0371
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 16 Jan 2023
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
16 Jan 2023
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroner’s Concerns
During the inquest, the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. 1. There is insufficient reference to other road users and pedestrians and their safety in the Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
2. The Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is too open to interpretation in the section on “silent approach” in section 1.55 Warning equipment – (sirens, blue lights and headlamp flasher) and the first three paragraphs of section 1.57 Blue Lights. The scope or threshold of the exception in the two sections is not clear and it is also not clear whether the exception in the latter section applied to response drivers.
2. The Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is too open to interpretation in the section on “silent approach” in section 1.55 Warning equipment – (sirens, blue lights and headlamp flasher) and the first three paragraphs of section 1.57 Blue Lights. The scope or threshold of the exception in the two sections is not clear and it is also not clear whether the exception in the latter section applied to response drivers.
Responses
Response received
View full response
PROFESSIONALISM HQ
Dr Anton van Dellen
HM Assistant Coroner
Deputy Assistant Commissioner West London Coroner’s Court
New Scotland Yard
25 Bagley’s Lane
Victoria Embankment Fulham
London London
SW1A 2JL
SW6 2QA
Date: 06.01.2023
I am the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the Directorate of Professionalism in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). I write to provide the response on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the matters of concern addressed to the MPS in the Report to Prevent Future Deaths dated 21st November 2022.
On behalf of the MPS may I first of all express my sincere condolences to Mr Brown’s family. Our thoughts and sympathies are very much with them.
Matter of Concern 1
There is insufficient reference to other road users and pedestrians and their safety in the Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
Response
The MPS Police Driver and Vehicle Policy – Vehicle and Equipment SOP provides guidance to officers and staff on the use of vehicles and equipment provided by the MPS and supports safe driving within the MPS. It details clearly the step-by-step processes that should be undertaken when using MPS vehicles and the equipment carried either in or on the vehicle, and informs officers / staff of any risks associated with the process. Although this SOP is predominantly focussed on the required actions of MPS officers and staff when using police vehicles and equipment, in relation to the use of warning equipment (blue lights, sirens, headlamp flashers), guidance is provided to officers and staff concerning the safety of other road users and pedestrians. Specifically, section 1.55 of the MPS Police Driver and Vehicle Policy – Vehicle and Equipment SOP contains the following statements: ‘The use of warning equipment does not give a police vehicle the right of way but the driver may, however, take advantage of any precedence offered by other road users and pedestrians, if it is safe to do so.’
I can confirm that the MPS have carefully considered the Coroner’s concerns and whether there are any helpful amendments which we could make to the policy. However, on this occasion it was agreed that any amendment would make the policy too prescriptive. As outlined in the evidence to the Court during the inquest, police driving is based on the Highway Code and Road Craft, both of which are focussed on the safety of road users and pedestrians. A delicate balance must therefore be struck as to the level of detail within the MPS policy to ensure that it is not unworkable.
Matter of Concern 2
The Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is too open to interpretation in the section on “silent approach” in section 1.55 Warning equipment – (sirens, blue lights and headlamp flasher) and the first three paragraphs of section 1.57 Blue Lights. The scope or threshold of the exception in the two sections is not clear and it is also not clear whether the exception in the latter section applied to response drivers.
Police drivers deal with a wide range of incidents on a daily basis, each with their own set of unique circumstances resulting in drivers facing numerous decisions regarding their driving response choices and the different methods that can be used, whether that be the use of full warning equipment, part warning equipment or a silent approach. The use of this equipment cannot be prescriptive as the decision whether to make use of any exemptions or use warning equipment will always rest with the driver who is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is driven in a safe manner in line with their training and skill level.
It would not be possible to provide a prescriptive list to police drivers of all foreseeable circumstances that it would be appropriate to use a ‘silent approach’. Accordingly the threshold is not set in the policy because it would restrict officers in using their professional judgement, during dynamic situations, as to the most appropriate manner of driving when responding to an incident.
The use of exemptions (observing speed limits, observing keep left / right signs, complying with traffic lights (including pedestrian controlled crossings and red X matrix signs) for a policing purpose, is only available to Response level drivers and above. Basic drivers are not afforded the use of exemptions for a policing purpose and this is documented within the Vehicle and Equipment SOP, People SOP and within the MPS internal website pages Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.
Dr Anton van Dellen
HM Assistant Coroner
Deputy Assistant Commissioner West London Coroner’s Court
New Scotland Yard
25 Bagley’s Lane
Victoria Embankment Fulham
London London
SW1A 2JL
SW6 2QA
Date: 06.01.2023
I am the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the Directorate of Professionalism in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). I write to provide the response on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the matters of concern addressed to the MPS in the Report to Prevent Future Deaths dated 21st November 2022.
On behalf of the MPS may I first of all express my sincere condolences to Mr Brown’s family. Our thoughts and sympathies are very much with them.
Matter of Concern 1
There is insufficient reference to other road users and pedestrians and their safety in the Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
Response
The MPS Police Driver and Vehicle Policy – Vehicle and Equipment SOP provides guidance to officers and staff on the use of vehicles and equipment provided by the MPS and supports safe driving within the MPS. It details clearly the step-by-step processes that should be undertaken when using MPS vehicles and the equipment carried either in or on the vehicle, and informs officers / staff of any risks associated with the process. Although this SOP is predominantly focussed on the required actions of MPS officers and staff when using police vehicles and equipment, in relation to the use of warning equipment (blue lights, sirens, headlamp flashers), guidance is provided to officers and staff concerning the safety of other road users and pedestrians. Specifically, section 1.55 of the MPS Police Driver and Vehicle Policy – Vehicle and Equipment SOP contains the following statements: ‘The use of warning equipment does not give a police vehicle the right of way but the driver may, however, take advantage of any precedence offered by other road users and pedestrians, if it is safe to do so.’
I can confirm that the MPS have carefully considered the Coroner’s concerns and whether there are any helpful amendments which we could make to the policy. However, on this occasion it was agreed that any amendment would make the policy too prescriptive. As outlined in the evidence to the Court during the inquest, police driving is based on the Highway Code and Road Craft, both of which are focussed on the safety of road users and pedestrians. A delicate balance must therefore be struck as to the level of detail within the MPS policy to ensure that it is not unworkable.
Matter of Concern 2
The Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is too open to interpretation in the section on “silent approach” in section 1.55 Warning equipment – (sirens, blue lights and headlamp flasher) and the first three paragraphs of section 1.57 Blue Lights. The scope or threshold of the exception in the two sections is not clear and it is also not clear whether the exception in the latter section applied to response drivers.
Police drivers deal with a wide range of incidents on a daily basis, each with their own set of unique circumstances resulting in drivers facing numerous decisions regarding their driving response choices and the different methods that can be used, whether that be the use of full warning equipment, part warning equipment or a silent approach. The use of this equipment cannot be prescriptive as the decision whether to make use of any exemptions or use warning equipment will always rest with the driver who is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is driven in a safe manner in line with their training and skill level.
It would not be possible to provide a prescriptive list to police drivers of all foreseeable circumstances that it would be appropriate to use a ‘silent approach’. Accordingly the threshold is not set in the policy because it would restrict officers in using their professional judgement, during dynamic situations, as to the most appropriate manner of driving when responding to an incident.
The use of exemptions (observing speed limits, observing keep left / right signs, complying with traffic lights (including pedestrian controlled crossings and red X matrix signs) for a policing purpose, is only available to Response level drivers and above. Basic drivers are not afforded the use of exemptions for a policing purpose and this is documented within the Vehicle and Equipment SOP, People SOP and within the MPS internal website pages Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
An investigation was commenced into the death of Andrew MacIntyre Brown, aged 23. The investigation concluded on 18 November 2022. The conclusion of the jury in the inquest was:
Road Traffic Collision: The [Police] driver made a reasonable decision to follow a suspect vehicle, then carried out an inadequate risk assessment, in doing so he drove at an unsuitable speed and inappropriately decided not to use lights and sirens. At 0.6 seconds prior to the collision, the driver applied the brakes at the speed of 61mph which was 16.1 metres from the pedestrian crossing. The police car then collided with two pedestrians on the pedestrian crossing; this led to the death of Andrew MacIntyre Brown on the 5th November 2019. Considering the evidence, there were inadequacies in the policies and training in regards to the use of blue lights and sirens at night.
The medical cause of death was 1a Head injury
Road Traffic Collision: The [Police] driver made a reasonable decision to follow a suspect vehicle, then carried out an inadequate risk assessment, in doing so he drove at an unsuitable speed and inappropriately decided not to use lights and sirens. At 0.6 seconds prior to the collision, the driver applied the brakes at the speed of 61mph which was 16.1 metres from the pedestrian crossing. The police car then collided with two pedestrians on the pedestrian crossing; this led to the death of Andrew MacIntyre Brown on the 5th November 2019. Considering the evidence, there were inadequacies in the policies and training in regards to the use of blue lights and sirens at night.
The medical cause of death was 1a Head injury
Circumstances of the Death
Before undertaking response driver trainer, the Police driver needed to have read material which included Police policies relating to response driving. These policies were also available on the Police intranet. The Police driver passed the written examination (which included questions on Police policies) to commence Police response driver training course and passed the course in September 2018. On 1st November 2019, the Police driver struck the deceased at a pedestrian crossing whilst driving at night over the speed limit and whilst not using blue lights and sirens, severely injuring the deceased. The Police driver was subsequently convicted of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and was dismissed by the Police for gross misconduct. The inquest was heard before a jury and the jury was asked whether the Police policies in 2019 regarding the use by response-trained drivers of speed exemptions, activation of blue lights or sirens, and/or night-time emergency response driving was inadequate. The jury’s findings were that the Police policy was inadequate in that there was insufficient reference to other road users and pedestrians and their safety in the policy and the policy was also too open to interpretation, both which possibly contributed to the death.
Copies Sent To
4. The Commissioner of the Metropolis
6. National Police Chief’s Council
7. Independent Office for Police Conduct
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Apply best offer principle equally in GLOS
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Outdated Operational Guidance
Post Office to engage in negotiations during HSSA appeal period
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Outdated Operational Guidance
Set deadline for HSS claims with guidance on late applications
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Outdated Operational Guidance
Clarify whether HCRS and OCS assessment processes differ
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Outdated Operational Guidance
Establish standing public body to administer future redress schemes
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Outdated Operational Guidance
Devise redress process for affected family members
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Outdated Operational Guidance
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.