Opinion: Norfolk Constabulary in the dock over hit-and-run

Norfolk Constabulary is rightly under the cosh after bizarre revelations about the actions of two police officers involved in a traffic accident over a year ago.

The incident has only come to light because of the tenacity of EDP journalist Simon Parkin, and the facts further underline the growing lack of public confidence in the police force.

In broad daylight on Saturday, March 5 last year, the officers’ police car rammed into the back of an Audi at 49mph on the A146 near Beccles.

The driver was a 34-year-old woman who had seen the police BMW speeding up behind her. She said: “There was nowhere for me to go… it was a large jolt… I could feel my vehicle being shunted forward, even though both vehicles were travelling along the road.”

The shocked driver pulled over, but the police car, which was not attending a blue-light emergency, just drove past and into the distance. However, thankfully she did manage to record the registration number and report this to the police control room.

READ MORE: Hit-and-run police officer avoids charges... because he 'can't remember' crash

READ MORE: How could amnesia wipe memory of hit-and-run police driver?

READ MORE: Could hit-and-run police officer’s memory loss affect other cases?

A prima facie case of failing to stop after an accident and careless driving, you might think.

But the plot thickens. Nothing was reported until the next day; too late for the driver of the police car, PC Karl Warren to be breathalysed and importantly medically checked.

Now you and I would have been “banged to rights” on this one but, after an internal investigation, any charges and misconduct allegations were dropped.

Why? The decision came when medical experts diagnosed transient global amnesia (TGA) after PC Warren said he could remember nothing of the crash. He is now on administrative duties, driving a desk.

Yet dashcam footage from the police vehicle clearly shows what happened. And PC Ryan Hargrave, sitting beside PC Warren in the police vehicle, witnessed the events. He is facing a misconduct hearing for not immediately reporting the accident and not following proper procedures, including breathalysing his colleague.

So why is the time lag so important in this rare case of transient global amnesia?

According to Dr Michael Grey, an expert in rehabilitation neuroscience at the UEA’s School of Health Science, the episode usually lasts from eight to 24 hours.

He adds that TGA is well known in the legal community: “But the challenge is that diagnostically it is hard to test for, especially if you are doing it 24 hours after the event”.

PC Warren certainly knew about the condition, because he told police investigators: “I have no recollection of it happening and I believe that is due to the fact that I have had an episode of transient global amnesia.”

As the accident was not reported within the optimum time frame, it is hard to understand how the internal police decision based on “expert evidence” could have been so conclusive as to drop all charges based on a TGA diagnosis.

Conveniently perhaps, TGA is also a medical condition which escapes you having to advise the DVLA unless you have a bus, coach or lorry licence.

So, who made the decision not to prosecute? If it was the Crown Prosecution Service, because there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, in the circumstances of this case, that would be astonishing. There was dashcam footage as well as another police officer in the vehicle to give evidence.

READ MORE: Norfolk crime commissioner shares anger over hit-and-scandal

READ MORE: Ex-officers describe 'disbelief' at 'appalling' hit-and-run scandal engulfing police

As for the crucial question of the TGA evidence, why not let the court decide? That’s what courts do every day with the rest of us if we plead not guilty; or if we plead guilty and put forward amnesia as mitigation.

The courts hear expert witnesses all the time. And who were these medical experts? We need to hear from the CPS urgently on this if we are to have confidence in its decision-making process.

If it was the police who advised not to prosecute, then some might think that extraordinary. Whatever the explanation, it is little wonder that there is an uncomfortable feeling that it was all brushed under the carpet.

Despite assurances from Chief Constable Paul Sanford and Police and Crime Commissioner Giles Orpen-Smellie to root out misconduct in their force, questions still need to be answered.

Trust in police encompasses trust in specific officers and the police service as an institution. People are more likely to trust the police if they have positive evaluations and expectations of its fairness, effectiveness and integrity.

At the end of April this year a report was published in the House of Lords Library: “Police standards and culture: Restoring public trust”. It said: “The police’s authority is dependent on public consent: if the public withdrew their support, the police would lose its authority.”

The facts, as presented, do not seem to meet these high thresholds.

Perhaps there is more to tell and, now this incident is in the public gaze, the Chief Constable and the PCC should show their authority and look again at the evidence. And give us answers to some of these questions, not bland generalities.

On the face of it, there appears to be different rules for “them and us”, and a worry that there is “something rotten in the state of Denmark”.

Peter Franzen OBE is a former editor of the EDP.