The IPCC and the St Leonards Crash

A Sussex Police Authority meeting having interested me in this topic, I looked online for relevant information.

BBC News online on 29 October 2005 reported, "Five young people have been killed in a road accident, with police saying they had 'involvement' with the vehicle immediately prior to the crash. The accident happened in St Leonards, East Sussex, in the early hours. A Sussex Ambulance spokeswoman said all five occupants of a blue Metro car died at the scene. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said officers in a marked vehicle saw the car after receiving a report about it. It crashed two minutes later on Battle Road, at 0142 BST."

A couple, woken by the crash, looked out of their window to see a badly damaged Metro in their driveway, and a police car in the road. The couple had heard no police siren or screeching of tyres.

A spokeswoman for the Independent Police Complaints Commission said, "We will be managing the inquiry, but the police will be running it."

Another BBC report on the same date added that the car had been stolen, and that the IPCC were investigating "because police were 'involved' with the vehicle just before the crash." The report gave the young people's ages as between 14 and 17. The crash happened "at 0142 BST on Battle Road. Police officers in a marked vehicle made contact with the Metro just two minutes earlier after receiving a report from a member of the public about it." Less than five hours later, a car owner reported to the police the taking of his car, and was told soon after that his car was the crashed Metro. "The IPCC refused to confirm whether the car was stolen". Local teenagers had thought that the police were chasing the car. "The car hit a lamppost, three walls and another car parked on a driveway."

An update on 30 October 2005 added, "The accident happened . . . shortly after the stolen Metro is believed to have struck a cyclist. Police officers in a marked vehicle had spotted the Metro two minutes before the crash . . ."

Hastings today online, 31 October 2005 said, "It is believed they hit a cyclist minutes before the accident who called police and minutes later a marked police car spotted the vehicle and began following them."

Then on 12 May 2006, Hastings today online reported, The Independent Police Complaints Commission met with the families . . . on Tuesday. Lee Morgan's father said, "They are not telling us anything. They said the police car had been following them for two miles. I asked the police why they didn't stop them as they knew the car was stolen." His mother added, "They told us the police car was following them and it did put its lights on . . . They told us the police car was 90 seconds behind the Metro when it crashed and the police car was travelling at 32mph and it was all caught on CCTV." [According to those figures, the police car was 1,408 yards (about 1.29 kilometres) behind the Metro at the time of the crash.]

On 27th October 2006, Hastings today said, "The Observer reported last week that an inquest has still not been arranged as the coroner is examining the paperwork relating to the case."

Six months later, Hastings today online, said, "POLICE have been cleared of any blame for the deaths of five teenagers in a Hollington horror crash." According to the paper, the victims' families had branded the inquiry 'a total cock-up'. The families received a letter from the Crown Prosecution Service saying there was 'no realistic prospect of convicting him [the police driver] of any criminal offence'.

Shortly after, the families received a second letter from the IPCC saying that the officer could face disciplinary action if the coroner's report on the deaths showed that the driver had broken 'the police code of conduct'.

According to The Sunday Times online, February 26 2006, "31 people died in police-vehicle collisions in 2003-4, with 2,000 casualties, a rise on the previous year. According to the same source, "the investigators are a mix of former police officers and investigators from customs and insurance".

In The Telegraph online, 02/11/2006, under the heading "Menezes firearms squad kills man in attempted robbery", one reads, "The IPCC said it had no idea which officer fired the gun as it is only given 'code names' from which to work." Was this another case about which an IPCC spokesperson could have said, "We will be managing the inquiry, but the police will be running it"?

The IPCC enquiry was raised briefly at a meeting of the Sussex Police Authority on 19th October 2006.

My attention was drawn to the crash again on 29th January 2007 when an inquest into the deaths of the five teenagers started, and.local newspapers and tv took an interest. As the police might have been involved in the crash, the coroner sat with nine jurors.

Hastings today on 29th January reported that "the jury was told that a group of youngsters had been drinking". "There were also traces of cannabis in some of the youngsters who died", but "the jury was told that cannabis can stay in the system for a long time, so this may not be relevant."

On 30th January, Hastings today had more signficant detail to report. An eyewitness who "had difficulty recalling the evening . . . said she thought the car was being chased by police because officers were on the scene so quickly". Evidence given by a toxicologist showed that all five teenagers tested positive for cannabis use, the presumed driver's test showing "high levels". For alcohol, however, tests on the presumed driver - and on one of the other boys - proved negative. The other three teenagers had been drinking alcohol. The drink-drive limit is 80mg in 100ml. of blood. The two girls tested below that level, and a 16-year old boy measured 102mg., "a very mild level of intoxication".

As regards the hearing of 31st January, the same paper's report started, "Paul Sandeman, 29, an acting sergeant for Sussex Police, was alone behind the wheel of a patrol car when he picked up the trail of a stolen blue Metro" (cf. the eyewitness's mention of "officers". The Argus reported her statement differently: she said "the police car's prompt arrival suggested it may have been chasing the stolen car ").

Other significant details: "Mr Sandeman . . . said he was a Class Four police driver, the highest rank being Class One and the lowest Class Five. He said he was not a trained 'safe follow' driver and was not authorised to engage a vehicle in a pursuit."

The Argus was interested in the cannabis evidence, which was inconclusive: the toxicologist could not say that the presumed driver "was under the influence of cannabis" when the car crashed, and "could not dismiss the possibility that the four other teenagers were under the influence of the drug at the time".

The Argus on 1st February reported evidence given by the police driver. The following is an extract from that report::

' After being alerted via his control room of a stolen Rover Metro, Acting Sgt Sandeman - who was on patrol alone - spotted the car in the Hollington area of St Leonards at about 1.30am.

' He told the jury: "My initial intention, because of the number of people in the vehicle, was to follow it until more resources became available.

' "This was in case the vehicle stopped and the occupants got out. I followed the vehicle to the top of Wishing Tree Road. As I turned out of Wishing Tree Road, the vehicle increased in speed.

' "At that point I indicated to the vehicle to stop by turning on my blue lights, giving them a double-flash of my headlights and by turning my indicator left.

' "The Metro proceeded without hesitation. I made a decision on the spot to follow the vehicle and put on my sirens.

' "As I reached 60mph I wasn't gaining. I decided I wasn't going to make any further progress to catch up with the vehicle." '

Hastings today and The Argus added little of substance subsequently, apart from an account in The Argus for 5th February of evidence given by a 15-year-old boy who had been involved in "about two-and-a-half hours of joyriding" until about ten minutes before the fatal crash.

The story of 30th and 31st October that a cyclist had called the police after being hit by the stolen Metro does not seem to have featured at all, though in the light of the police's dishonest initial accounts of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes one would like to think that either the story was true or that it had not been given to the press by the police.

Blame for the deaths of the teenagers lies principally with the driver of the stolen car, if it is true that no mechanical fault was involved, and with Acting Sergeant Paul Sandeman, unless his unauthorised pursuit of the stolen vehicle ("he double-flashed his headlights, turned on his blue lights and indicated left" and " I . . . put on my sirens") could be thought not to have caused the young driver to have increased speed to an unsafe level.

The other four teenagers are to blame for their support of the driver; Sussex Police for their poor training and inadequate supervision of front-line officers; Sussex Police Authority and the IPCC for shortcomings in their uncritical acceptance of unsatisfactory police procedures; and HMIC for their weak inspection procedures, based largely on police self-assessment.

The owner of the stolen car is only more blameworthy than the rest of us if he failed to secure the vehicle as far as practicable. The rest of us are responsible insofar as we elect the government - which affects the character of society - and some of the members of the local police authority - which has responsibility for the character of the police force.

An IPCC press release of 9th February 2007 from IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin about the conclusion of inquests into the deaths of the five teenagers said:

"The inquest revealed some confusion about the pursuit policy adopted by Sussex Police, including both how it was communicated to patrol officers and how it was comprehended.

"I will consider these issues when deciding whether there are any misconduct issues and broader lessons to be learned.

"Once I have made this decision it will be conveyed to the officer concerned, to the families, and to the wider public and media.

"We will then publish the recommendations made in the investigation report, which was produced by Sussex Police under my management. We will also, if necessary, communicate any lessons learned from this investigation to Sussex Police and to the police service in general."

Further comment was added to a page on Sussex Police Authority.