Mr Leslie Bingham
Investigation into the circumstances surrounding a fatal collision between a pedestrian, Mr Leslie Bingham, and a liveried South Yorkshire Police car on Saturday 7 January 2017
Please note, this investigation was completed and submitted to the decision maker before 8 January 2018, while we were still the IPCC. Therefore, the report will contain the investigator’s opinion, which may differ from the final outcome. The report refers to the IPCC and the Commission throughout, and does not reflect the new structure of the IOPC.
Independent investigation report
Investigation information
Investigation name: Mr Leslie Bingham
IPCC reference: 2017/078404
Investigation type: Conduct
IPCC office: Wakefield
Lead investigator: Belinda Bostock
Case supervisor: Neil Lineham
Commissioner Carl Gumsley
Status of report: Final
Date finalised: 28 June 2017
Contents
Introduction ...... 4 The investigation ...... 5 Subjects of the investigation ...... 6 Policies, procedures and legislation considered ...... 6 Chronological summary of the evidence ...... 8 Conclusions ...... 27 Summary for publication ...... 29 Appendix 1: The role of the IPCC...... 32
Introduction
The purpose of this report
1. I was appointed by the IPCC to carry out an independent investigation into a road traffic collision between a liveried South Yorkshire Police car and Mr Leslie Bingham. At 6.19pm on 7 January 2017, PC Steven Hazlehurst was driving a liveried South Yorkshire Police car along Penistone Road, Sheffield, when he was involved in a collision with a pedestrian, Mr Leslie Bingham. Mr Bingham received fatal injuries and paramedics pronounced him dead at the scene at 6.38pm. South Yorkshire Police referred the incident as a death or serious injury matter (DSI) to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) on the same date. Following a full review of the evidence, the IPCC asked South Yorkshire Police to record a conduct investigation against the officer.
2. This is my report for the Commission. It summarises and evaluates the evidence, and refers to relevant documents. In my conclusions I will: a) set out the facts that have been established, the sequence of events and their consequences b) give my opinion about whether the subjects of the investigation have a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, or no case to answer c) draw attention to any evidence which may be the basis for a decision by the Commissioner that performance of any subject of the investigation may have fallen below the standard expected of them d) draw attention to any lessons which may need to be learned by any organisation related to the investigation about which the Commissioner may wish to make a recommendation e) provide the Commission with sufficient information, and if appropriate express a view about whether it should refer any subject of the investigation to the CPS
3. It is intended that, for the purposes of this report, the powers and obligations of the Commission will be exercised by the Commissioner, Carl Gumsley I will also send this report to South Yorkshire Police, which must then advise the Commissioner what action it will take in response to it. If the Commissioner does not agree with South Yorkshire Police, it may make recommendations and ultimately directions about what action to take. The Commissioner will also decide whether to make a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
4. This investigation is also intended to assist in fulfilling the state’s investigative obligation arising under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by ensuring as far as possible that the investigation is independent, effective, open
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 4
and prompt, and that the full facts are brought to light and any lessons are learned.
5. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) imposes an obligation on the state to protect human life. This involves both a prohibition on the state taking life and, in certain circumstances, a positive duty to protect life. It has been determined that the circumstances of Mr Bingham’s death engages Article 2 because his death was as a direct result of being hit by a South Yorkshire Police vehicle.
The investigation
Terms of reference
6. The Terms of Reference for this investigation were approved by Commissioner Carl Gumsley on 19 January 2017. The terms of reference specific to this investigation are: 7. To investigate the circumstances surrounding a fatal collision between a pedestrian, Mr Leslie Bingham, and a liveried South Yorkshire Police car on Saturday 7 January 2017 and to consider, in particular: The driving experience and qualifications of the officer driving the police car; The manner of driving; The surrounding road conditions; The condition of the vehicle being driven; Relevant legislation (particularly road traffic legislation), regulations, policies, guidance, and protocols.
8. To assist in fulfilling the state’s investigative obligation arising under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by ensuring as far as possible that the investigation is independent, effective, open and prompt, and that the full facts are brought to light and any lessons are learned. 9. To identify whether any subject of the investigation may have committed a criminal offence and, if appropriate, make early contact with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). On receipt of the final report, the Commission shall determine whether the report should be sent to the DPP. 10. To consider and report on whether there is organisational learning, including: whether any change in policy or practice would help to prevent a recurrence of the event, incident or conduct investigated
whether the incident highlights any good practice that should be shared
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 5
Family concerns and complaints
11. The family have raised concerns about the speed at which the officer drove the police vehicle and the harsh acceleration required to achieve his maximum speed in the short distance he travelled.
Subjects of the investigation
12. I considered that there was an indication PC Hazlehurst may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of criminal and/or disciplinary proceedings.
13. Any police officer whose conduct is under investigation is categorised as a subject of the investigation. A notice of investigation must be served on all subjects, informing them of the allegations against them.
14. They must also be informed of the severity of the allegations. In other words whether if proven they would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct.
15. Misconduct is defined as a breach of the standards of professional behaviour. Gross misconduct is a breach of the standards of professional behaviour so serious that, if proven, dismissal would be justified.
16. In addition, if there is an indication an officer may have committed a criminal offence they must be advised of this.
PC Steven Hazlehurst
17. On 27 February 2017, I served PC Hazlehurst with a Regulation 16 notice under the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012. It was alleged: • ‘His driving fell below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.’
18. I also informed PC Hazlehurst that there was an indication he may have committed a criminal offence.
19. I interviewed PC Hazlehurst under the criminal caution on 30 March 2017. At the beginning of the interview, his solicitor informed me that PC Hazlehurst would not answer any questions put to him during the interview. He would be relying on the content of a prepared statement dated 30 March 2017. The interview was audio recorded; I prepared a written transcription of the interview.
Policies, procedures and legislation considered
20. I examined a number of national and local policies in relation to this incident, in order to ascertain whether the policies were complied with, and whether the existing policies were sufficient in these circumstances.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 6
Road Traffic Act 1988 21. S1 Causing death by dangerous driving – `A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. ` 22. S2B Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving – `A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.`
South Yorkshire Police Statement of Agreed Policy – Police vehicles ref Pi18.2 23. This policy is part of SYP agreed policy on the P18 Road Policing Joint Specialist Operations Unit (JSOU) and in conjunction with Authorised Professional Practice (APP) Road policing. “In line with the instructions contained within APP the following additions will also apply.” It provides information surrounding such topics as driver grading’s and the use of recording equipment within the police vehicles. It specifies that : “All officers who are trained in the use of in-car video systems must ensure that, when using a video equipped patrol car, the video is operational throughout their tour of duty and the audio must not be switched off. If the recording facility is found to be at fault or not working, this must be reported to a supervisor of at least Sergeant rank. This supervisor will decide if the vehicle should remain operational. Every effort must be taken to have the faulty device repaired promptly.” 24. Also contained within the same policy is the declaration that : “All police officers are required to drive in accordance with the law, this includes the driving of personal vehicles for police purposes. This also includes the use of legal exemptions where appropriate and necessary.”
Authorised Professional Practice Road Policing – Police driving 25. The Legal framework provides guidance on the law in respect of response driving
“The law, as defined in statute by the Road Traffic Act 1988, prohibits dangerous and careless driving. This applies to police officers as well as the
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 7
public. Police officers must exhibit the care and skill of a competent and careful driver, the standard by which an officers driving is judged.”
26. Statutory services and/or other organisations prescribed for by the Department of transport are afforded specific exemptions in law to undertake their duties. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 exempt emergency vehicles from : • “Observing speed limits • Observing keep left/right signs • Complying with traffic lights (including pedestrian controlled crossings). Police drivers may find themselves considering the contravention of signs and regulations where no statutory exemption exists. In each case, decisions on such matters rely on the professional judgement of the officer involved (linked to the NDM). Their decisions must be supported by the legitimacy of their actions based on operational necessity and the practical options available. Even where a statutory exemption exists, an officer must always give due regard to their driving manner and behaviour which should not put other road users or members of the public at a risk which cannot be justified.”
Chronological summary of the evidence
27. During this investigation, a volume of evidence was gathered. After thorough analysis of all the evidence, I have selected the evidence I think is relevant and answers the terms of reference for my investigation. As such, not all the evidence gathered in the investigation is referred to in this report.
28. However, the methodology of the investigation, including key decisions that were made, strategies that were set, and details of people referred to in this report, are included in the attached appendices
29. In order to reach my findings it was necessary for me to analyse and evaluate the evidence.
30. I am required to form an opinion about whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct for each subject. In doing so I will not reach findings of fact that would be conclusive of misconduct or gross misconduct; these findings should be left for any subsequent misconduct hearing or meeting.
The circumstances surrounding the fatal collision between Mr Leslie Bingham and a liveried South Yorkshire Police car on Saturday 7 January 2017. Specifically, the manner of PC Hazlehurst’s driving and road conditions at that time
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 8
PC G 31. Police Constable (PC) G is a SYP officer. On 7 January 2017, she was the front seat passenger in a SYP Vauxhall Antara driven by PC Hazlehurst. At 6.19pm, the car she was travelling in struck Mr Bingham in the offside carriageway on Penistone Road, Sheffield. Immediately after the incident, she participated in a Post Incident Procedure (PIP) held at SYP premises, where she provided an initial account of her recollections of the events that evening.
32. On 1 March 2017, PC G provided a witness statement under Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (Section 9 statement) to the IPCC. On 7 January 2017, she was working a shift covering the hours of 5pm to 3am together with PC Hazlehurst.
She was asked to attend a report of harassment as a diary appointment; this required her to attend premises in the High Greave area of Sheffield later in the evening.
33. At approximately 5.30pm, PC G and PC Hazlehurst travelled around the city centre Ring Road and onto Penistone Road travelling in the direction of Hillsborough with the intention of attending the diary appointment.
34. The officers called at McDonalds for a toilet break; they also purchased a cup of coffee.
35. PC Hazlehurst asked PC G to take the lead on the diary appointment explaining to her he had had previous dealings with the complainant and there had been some difficulties. He told her he would prefer to take a “step back.”
36. PC G said they returned to the police vehicle and drove back onto Penistone Road. She recalled they were initially held at a red traffic light as they drove away from McDonald’s car park to join Penistone Road.
37. PC Hazlehurst contacted the control room via his radio to inform them he and PC G were about to attend the appointment and they may be there for some time.
38. After being held at the red light PC Hazlehurst drove onto Penistone Road while she read the incident log in respect of the harassment appointment she was about to attend. She recalled she had her head bowed down while reading.
39. PC G discussed SYP policy in respect of dealing with allegations of harassment with PC Hazlehurst; she had only recently transferred from another police force and was unfamiliar with the local procedures in place. PC G thought she might have had her “peli light” (a small torch) on her bulletproof vest illuminated to assist her with reading the document in the dark, although there were streetlights, which assisted with this.
40. PC G could not recall whether the road surface, at the time of the collision, was wet or dry. Neither could she recall whether there was any excessive engine
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 9
noise from the police car, nor whether she experienced being pushed back into her seat, indicating PC Hazlehurst might have accelerated harshly. She stated her head was bent down reading and her peripheral vision and view out and around the vehicle was “hindered”.
41. After a short time, PC G felt the car brake and she “heard a loud bang”. PC Hazlehurst shouted something, unfortunately, she is unable to recall his exact words, she looked up and saw something on the windscreen; she realised they must have hit something.
42. She got out of the vehicle and saw Mr Bingham laid in the road behind the police car. She could see that he had very serious injuries and commenced cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); she was later joined by an off-duty paramedic who took over the provision of first aid.
CCTV footage and crime scene investigator photographs
43. SYP undertook closed circuit television (CCTV) enquiries with the surrounding businesses. They obtained CCTV footage of the incident from Swann Morten, a local business situated on the junction of Owlerton Green and Penistone Road. IPCC investigators obtained a copy of the footage and an investigator completed a video viewing log:
18.16.58 - Mr Leslie Bingham walks along the pavement on Owlerton Green in the direction of Penistone Road and Pizza Hut, which is situated at the junction of Owlerton Green and Penistone Road;
18.17.07 – Mr Bingham continues to walk along Owlerton Green in the same direction;
18.17.39 – Mr Bingham continues to walk along Owlerton Green in the same direction;
18.18.37 – Mr Bingham arrives at the junction of Owlerton Green and Penistone Road. He crosses a filter lane on Penistone Road (for traffic turning left onto Owlerton Green) and then lane one of Penistone Road; he walks into lane two where he is struck by a police vehicle. The footage provides a limited view of the collision, due to the angle of the CCTV camera. It is only possible to see the collision in the top left corner of the screen. The footage shows the shadow of Mr Bingham enter the road as car headlights become visible but the actual moment of impact cannot be seen. The vehicle and Mr Bingham falling from the vehicle comes into shot and this is clearly seen in the middle of the screen.
44. A South Yorkshire Police Crime Scene Investigator took photographs of the scene and surrounding area, these are contained in appendix 3.
Witness accounts
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 10
45. The Humberside and South Yorkshire Police collision investigations unit is a regional department. The IPCC asked Humberside Police officers working within the department to obtain initial witness accounts on behalf of the IPCC.
Mr C 46. Mr C was the front seat passenger in a taxi with three of his friends, Ms D, Ms B and Ms F. He provided a statement to IPCC investigators dated 24 January 2017. He said that, at approximately 6.15pm on 7 January 2017, they were in a taxi travelling along Penistone Road towards Hillsborough. He described conditions as dark, the road was damp and traffic was steady, not too heavy.
47. The taxi stopped in a filter lane at red traffic lights on Penistone Road as it waited to turn left towards the Owlerton Greyhound Stadium. He stated they had been stationary at the traffic lights for approximately 5 minutes when he saw Mr Bingham to his left. Mr Bingham was in the process of crossing Penistone Road. He described Mr Bingham as having grey wavy hair; he was wearing cream trousers and a dark coloured coat.
48. Mr C described Mr Bingham as walking “casually”. He said that as Mr Bingham got to lane two of Penistone Road he seemed to become aware of the presence of oncoming traffic, this caused him to “pick up his pace”. Seconds later a police car collided with him while he was still in lane two of the carriageway.
49. Mr C realised the vehicle was a police car and recalled it did not have any blue lights or sirens activated.
50. He said that the force of the impact caused Mr Bingham to lift up into the air, where he somersaulted, before landing flat in the carriageway. Mr C said a male police officer, who looked to be in shock after the collision, had driven the police car. A female police officer, who had been a passenger in the police car, attended to Mr Bingham and commenced CPR.
51. Mr C confirmed the traffic lights were green, in favour of the police car, at the time of the collision and he did not consider the police car to have been travelling at excessive speed.
Ms D 52. Ms D was one of the back seat passengers in the taxi on 7 January 2017. She provided a statement to IPCC investigators dated 20 January 2017. She described seeing Mr Bingham walking across Penistone Road. She said that, while Mr Bingham was crossing the road, he quickened his pace but this did not amount to him running. She thought Mr Bingham had “taken the opportunity to cross the road then realised he had made a mistake and sped up.”
53. Ms D saw the police car travelling towards her from the direction of Sheffield city centre; she confirmed it had not been displaying blue lights or sirens.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 11
Ms B 54. Ms B was one of the back seat passengers in the taxi; she sat in the middle between Ms D and Ms F. She provided a statement to IPCC investigators on 24 January 2017. She saw the police car drive through a pedestrian crossing on Penistone Road and recalled the traffic lights were green in favour of the vehicle. She saw Mr Bingham crossing Penistone Road but she was unsure if he was at the pedestrian crossing or not.
55. She thought Mr Bingham had “tried to chance crossing” Penistone Road. She also confirmed that the police car was not displaying blue lights or sirens.
Ms F 56. Ms F was also a back seat passenger in the taxi; she provided a statement to IPCC investigators on 24 January 2017. Ms F corroborated the accounts provided by Mr C, Ms D and Ms B in that the police car was not displaying blue lights or sirens and Mr Bingham appeared to have misjudged the speed of the approaching traffic.
Mr E 57. On 7 January 2017, Mr E was in his car with his wife; they were stationary on Owlerton Green waiting at red traffic lights to turn left onto Penistone Road. He provided Humberside Police officers with a statement dated 11 January 2017 and IPCC investigators with an additional statement dated 3 February 2017.
58. On Saturday 7 January 2017, Mr E was driving his wife’s car, in which she was the front seat passenger. They were travelling along Owlerton Green. He described the weather at the time as fine and dry but overcast. It was dark but the visibility was good. He described the road surface as dry.
59. Their route took them along Owlerton Green towards a traffic light controlled junction with Penistone Road. As they approached the junction, the traffic lights on Owlerton Green were showing red. They were held at the lights, there were no vehicles in front of them.
60. They had been waiting for approximately 30 seconds when he heard a loud thud in front of him; he did not see the collision. He saw the police car pass in front of him, along Penistone Road, from his right to his left. The car came to a stop; he also saw Mr Bingham laid in the road. He did not realise the car was a police vehicle until it had stopped; he noted that it did not have its blue light or sirens activated.
61. Mr E approached the male officer who had been driving the police car immediately after the collision, the officer said, “I’m a professional, but it has shaken me up”.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 12
Mrs E 62. Mrs E was in her car with her husband on Owlerton Green waiting at red traffic lights to turn onto Penistone Road. She provided Humberside Police officers with a statement dated 11 January 2017 and IPCC investigators with an additional statement dated 3 February 2017.
63. Penistone Road is a dual carriageway; in addition, there is third lane, a left filter lane, at its junction with Owlerton Green to assist traffic turning left. Mrs E saw Mr Bingham walk across the filter lane on Penistone Road, towards a small triangular pedestrian central reservation; she fully expected Mr Bingham to wait at this location due to the traffic lights on Penistone Road being green in favour of traffic leaving the city. It became more difficult for her to see Mr Bingham once he was on the triangular pedestrian reservation due to the number of posts for the various traffic lights and other street furniture.
64. She turned to her husband and engaged him in conversation. She then heard a loud bang and turned her head. She saw Mr Bingham “fly up in the air”. She also saw a police car traveling along Penistone Road in the offside lane; it passed in front of her. She did not think the police car had reduced its speed as it passed her but it subsequently came to a halt quickly. She did not consider the police car was travelling “too fast” and recalled it was not displaying its blue lights or sirens.
Ms H 65. Ms H provided a statement to Humberside Police officers dated 9 January 2017 and an additional one to IPCC investigators dated 30 January 2017. On 7 January 2017, she was driving her vehicle along Penistone Road towards the city with her friend Ms A, a front seat passenger.
66. She recalled it was dark, not raining and visibility was good. The area was well lit and all the streetlights were working.
67. Ms H stopped at red traffic lights on Penistone Road in a right filter lane; her intention was to turn right onto Owlerton Green.
68. There was no other traffic in front of her and from her position she was able to see Penistone Road in the direction of Sheffield city centre. She also had a clear view of the junction between Penistone Road and Owlerton Green.
69. Ms H saw Mr Bingham walking towards Penistone Road from the direction of Owlerton Green near to Pizza Hut. She saw him walk onto the left filter lane on Penistone Road stating he was “determined” and “not sauntering along”; she believed he was looking straight ahead. He continued into the second lane of the dual carriageway and then began to run; she does not know what caused his change of pace. She then saw the police car, although she was not immediately aware it was a police car. The car was travelling in the outside lane of the dual carriageway towards her. She thought she may have been able to see the police car earlier had she
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 13
looked but she focused upon Mr Bingham and his movements. She thought Mr Bingham might have run to try to cross the road before the police car reached him.
70. Ms H believed the passenger side of the police car hit Mr Bingham’s right side; she added it looked “as if he (Mr Bingham) had run into the car and the car had ran into him.” Mr Bingham went onto the bonnet of the police car and somersaulted off; he came to rest on the carriageway near to her car.
71. A car that had been parked alongside her then drove past Mr Bingham and turned onto Owlerton Green. I have not been able to identify the vehicle or its occupants during the course of my investigation.
72. She did not believe the driver of the police car had seen Mr Bingham because there had been no attempt to swerve to avoid contact with him.
73. Ms H did not believe Mr Bingham was using the pedestrian crossing situated a short distance away from him. She confirmed the traffic lights would have been green to the police car, as the traffic lights that she was waiting at were on red. She added; “the driver took no avoiding action, so I believe that they didn’t see the pedestrian, and there were no obstructions in the road to stop him from being seen”.
Ms A 74. Ms A provided a statement to Humberside Police dated 12 January 2017 and an additional statement to the IPCC dated 30 January 2017. She was the front seat passenger in Ms H’s car; she corroborated the account provided by Ms H.
Mr K 75. Mr K is employed by Yorkshire Ambulance Service as a Clinical Supervisor. Part of his role is to attend serious incidents. He provided IPCC investigators with a Section 9 statement dated 16 May 2017. On 7 January 2017, he was working from Middlewood Ambulance Station as the duty Bronze Commander overseeing the Sheffield and Barnsley area.
76. At 6.19pm, he responded to the collision with Mr Bingham; at 6.38pm he certified Mr Bingham to be dead.
Ms J 77. Ms J is a paramedic, employed by Yorkshire Ambulance Service, based at Middlewood Road Ambulance Station at Sheffield. She provided IPCC investigators with a Section 9 statement dated 22 May 2017. On 7 January 2017, she finished her shift at 5.45pm and she was making her way home along Penistone Road.
78. She realised there was no movement in the traffic and looked across the carriageway; she saw the police vehicle with a damaged windscreen, which
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 14
indicated to her that it had been hit by something. She then saw PC G knelt down in the road performing CPR on Mr Bingham.
79. She got out of her car, went over to Mr Bingham, and took over resuscitation from the police officer. She asked PC Hazlehurst what had happened. She cannot remember his exact words but he told her he had struck Mr Bingham. He confirmed to her that he did not have his blue lights activated and was travelling at normal road speed; she cannot remember the exact words he used.
Home Office pathologist 80. XXXXXXXXXXX is a Home Office forensic pathologist; he provided a statement to HM Coroner, Mr Chris Dorries, dated 10 April 2017. I obtained a copy of his statement.
81. On 9 January 2017, the pathologist performed a post-mortem examination on Mr Bingham; he concluded the cause of death was due to “multiple injuries”. He also confirmed there were no traces of drugs or alcohol in Mr Bingham’s system.
The condition of the South Yorkshire Police Vauxhall Antara registered number YR63URM
Police Constable M 82. Police Constable M provided me with a Section 9 statement dated 15 June 2017. On 15 July 2016, he was the driver of the Vauxhall Antara registered number YR63 URM. He experienced a problem with the vehicle, an increased idle engine speed, which resulted in the vehicle “lurching forward and accelerating to a speed” faster than he had intended to travel. He reported the fault and withdrew the vehicle from service.
Mr N 83. Mr N is the vehicle fleet manager for South Yorkshire Police; he provided me with a Section 9 statement dated 18 April 2017.
84. He confirmed SYP have owned the Vauxhall Antara YR63URM from new. The vehicle went into police service on 16 December 2013 as a 4x4 capability beat car.
85. On 10 August 2015, police officers reported the Vauxhall Antara had a fault: it was over revving and had excessive tick-over, but no fault could be detected.
86. Between 10 August 2015 and 19 October 2016, the Vauxhall Antara was taken into the SYP garage and a Vauxhall dealership garage on six occasions for the faults to be rectified. On 19 October 2016, the vehicle was fitted with a new engine; it returned into police service on 23 December 2016.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 15
87. PC P, a West Yorkshire Police Collision Investigator examined and road tested the vehicle after the collision. His report is detailed at paragraph 109 of this report.
Additional evidence
Incident Data Recorder Interpretation
88. PC T is a Senior Forensic Collision Investigator for Derbyshire Police; he attended the incident on Penistone Road on 7 January 2017 and commenced an investigation on behalf of the IPCC. He produced an Incident Data Recorder Interpretation report dated 3 March 2017 and he provided me with a copy of this report on the same date.
89. The SYP Vauxhall Antara, registered number YR63 URM is fitted with a UDS Incident Data Recorder (IDR) Unit number %148058. The IDR is a device, which automatically recorded information about the police vehicle’s speed, course and direction immediately before and at the time of the collision with Mr Bingham. It has integrated sensors to record acceleration, changes in direction, inputs for recording speed and status information such as the condition of the ignition, lights and other important vehicle equipment.
90. The device constantly stores data in its short-term memory, but when it senses that an incident has occurred, it stores the previous 30 seconds worth of recorded data in its long-term memory together with 15 seconds of data following the event.
91. At 6.14pm on Sunday 8 January 2017, PC T downloaded the information held within UDS IDR Unit number %148058.
92. PC T concluded the data is consistent with the vehicle being stationary near to the McDonalds restaurant on Penistone Road 300 metres prior to its collision with Mr Bingham, the vehicle accelerated from rest to 42 miles per hour (mph). It reached its maximum speed of 42mph, 17 metres prior to the point of impact, at which point it began to decelerate.
93. Emergency braking was detected 8 metres prior to the point of impact; the police vehicle had reduced its speed to 36mph at the time it struck Mr Bingham
Calibration 94. o On 1 February 2017, PC T attended the WYP Collision Investigation unit in company with Vehicle examiner Mr V. Within the confines of the building, they measured a 200-metre calibration track on the floor. o They connected a laptop to the vehicle data recorder unit via a serial port in the glove box. With the UDS software in calibration mode, PC T drove the vehicle over the 20-metre track on four occasions and the calibration data was captured on the laptop by Mr V. The average of the four runs was calculated and compared to the calibration figure from when the IDR unit
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 16
was installed in the vehicle. The calibration was five percent lower than when the unit had been installed. o PC T contacted Vauxhall Special Vehicles who supplied the Antara to SYP; they advised that the above test should be conducted over a 100-metre track. On 22 February 2017, the same procedure was undertaken at the WYP Collision investigation unit over a 100-metre track. On this occasion, the calibration reading was two percent lower than when the unit had been installed. This indicates that the speed-reading from the downloaded data is two percent less than the actual speed of the vehicle. o On this occasion, a comparison was also made to establish the accuracy of the speedometer fitted to the vehicle. Police officers drove the vehicle along a nearby dual carriageway. It was agreed, once the vehicle speedometer reached 40mph, that the driver would activate the blue light on the police vehicle. Once activated PC T activated a hand-held laser, focusing on the front number plate of the Vauxhall Antara. This was repeated on three occasions. When the speedometer in the vehicle displayed 40mph, the actual speed recorded was 37mph, indicating the speedometer was reading over by eight percent. o This suggested that, when PC Hazlehurst drove the police vehicle at an actual speed of 42mph, the speedometer would have shown he was travelling at 45mph.
Police vehicle ‘dash cam’
95. SYP Vauxhall Antara registered number YR63 URM was fitted with a forward- facing video camera, commonly known as a ‘dash-cam’ black box.
96. The black box is situated in the boot of the vehicle; it can only be opened by a SYP garage mechanic. On 9 January 2017 in the presence of IPCC investigators and police officers from the Humberside serious collision unit, a SYP mechanic removed the SD memory card from the black box. It was handed to a Humberside police officer,who placed it in a sealed exhibits bag and into the police exhibit stores.
97. 0n 12 January 2017 the SD card was brought to the IPCC office at Wakefield and handed to an IPCC investigator, who then placed it in the IPCC exhibit locker.
98. Mr L is a CCTV Systems and Support Technical Manager employed by Premier Hazard Limited On 16 January 2017, an IPCC investigator gave Mr L the SD card taken from the SYP Vauxhall Antara registered number YR63 URM, from which he produced a working copy; he also downloaded the footage onto his laptop.
99. Mr L provided me with a Section 9 statement dated 16 January 2017. He examined the footage stored on the SD card. He found the camera had last recorded footage on 26 November 2016. The last footage on the SD card shows technicians working on the vehicle in an engine bay.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 17
He confirmed that there was no footage for 7 January 2017. He downloaded the recorded footage and provided an IPCC investigator with a copy. Further enquiries with Humberside police have revealed that the dash cam was disconnected during the engine refit and was not reconnected on returning it back to the police service.
Traffic light sequencing on Penistone Road
100. Mr O is a principal engineer employed by Sheffield city council. His duties involve him managing a transport network throughout the city.
101. On 22 March 2017, he provided me with a traffic sequencing report to the IPCC for traffic signals at Penistone Road/ Bradfield Road/Owlerton green Sheffield. On 31 May 2015, he provided a statement to South Yorkshire Police on behalf of the IPCC.
102. The statement refers to the traffic lights at the various junctions on Penistone Road; Penistone Road and Owlerton Green and the pedestrian crossing at this junction, which also covers the northbound carriageway of Penistone Road, the Bradfield road junction with Penistone Road, and traffic lights at the junction with a KFC restaurant onto Penistone Road.
103. Mr O has stated that all of these traffic lights are designed to work in sequence. Should a vehicle be travelling northbound on Penistone Road and pass through a green traffic light at a speed of 30mph, it should pass through all the subsequent traffic light junctions when the lights are displaying a green light, presuming that the vehicle maintains a speed of 30mph.
Reconstruction of 4 April 2017
104. On 4 April 2017, PC P, a West Yorkshire Police collision investigator and an inspector from Humberside Police serious collision investigation unit, conducted a reconstruction of the incident on behalf of the IPCC using the data recorded by the USD IDR and information provided by PC G.
105. The officers used a police Vauxhall Antara vehicle of the same make and model as the one driven by PC Hazlehurst. A police officer dressed in clothing similar to that worn by Mr Bingham’s assisted during the reconstruction.
106. A police officer drove the identical vehicle from the traffic lights at the McDonalds restaurant on Penistone Road to the collision site at its junction with Owlerton Green at 30mph. On the first occasion, a police officer dressed in clothing similar to that worn by Mr Bingham positioned himself on the left side of lane one of the dual carriageway. They repeated the journey on two further occasions with the police officer positioning himself in the centre of lane one of the dual carriageway and finally on the white line dividing lanes one and two of the dual carriageway.
107. The officers repeated the entire process at speeds of 35mph, and 41mph. They video recorded all nine journeys showing PC Hazlehurst’s perspective from inside the police car and Mr Bingham’s perspectives from the three location on
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 18
Penistone Road. I have obtained copies of the video recordings of the reconstructions.
108. PC P has used the data and evidence captured from the reconstruction in his Collision Investigation and Reconstruction report.
Collision Investigation and Reconstruction report prepared by PC P, collision investigator, West Yorkshire Police 109. On 16 January 2017 PC P, West Yorkshire Police, commenced a vehicle examination of the SYP Vauxhall Antara registered number YR63 URM. PC P prepared a report detailing his findings, which was reviewed by a Senior Forensic Collision Investigator with the Forensic Collision Investigation Unit of North Yorkshire Police.
110. PC S is a collision investigator employed by South Yorkshire police. At 6.35pm on 7 January 2017, he attended the scene of the collision on Penistone road and provided PC P with his Forensic Collision Investigation and Reconstruction Interim Synopsis to assist PC P with his collision investigation report.
111. PC P included the following information in his Collision Investigation report : PC S describes the weather upon his arrival at the scene as being “cold and damp. As such, there were no adverse weather conditions such as crosswinds, or low sun, which may have adversely affected the driver’s control.”
112. PC S suggests the line of sight for both Mr Bingham and PC Hazlehurst is 200 metres.
113. PC P reported damage to the front nearside of the police vehicle, which consisted of cracking to the corner of the bumper and adjacent headlamp. The nearside of the bonnet was deformed and the nearside of the windscreen smashed.
114. He concluded the damage was consistent with striking a pedestrian on the extreme front nearside of the vehicle and the pedestrian then being projected onto the bonnet before colliding with the windscreen.
115. He also noted that the nearside door mirror had been rotated. This was consistent with the pedestrian becoming entangled with the mirror as they left the bonnet and windscreen of the vehicle.
116. During the examination, PC P connected the vehicle to a Vauxhall diagnostics machine; he established it had a stored diagnostic trouble code P200A. This code relates to a fuel and air issue that would have resulted in an engine management light being illuminated. The effect would be to reduce engine power. PC P road tested the car and found it to be in an effective working order.
117. PC P established there were no mechanical faults with the vehicle or its engine that may have contributed to the collision.
118. He also examined the road surface at the scene of the collision and found it to be in a good state of repair.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 19
119. The vehicle had a portable satellite navigation device attached to the windscreen immediately to the right of the rear view mirror. The device “was positioned within the swept area of the windscreen but outside of zone ‘A’ as defined by the M.O.T. Inspection Manual.” “However, due to its physical size being greater than 40mm, the vehicle would be rejected if presented for an M.O.T. test” - with the device still attached to the windscreen.
120. PC P said, in his opinion, the positioning of PC Hazlehurst’s personal satellite navigation device, on the windscreen to the right of the rear view mirror, could potentially have obstructed PC Hazlehurst’s view of the road ahead, particularly to the nearside. He did concede it was possible to see underneath the unit. He added that the charging cable dangling beneath the device provided a nuisance and possible distraction to PC Hazlehurst as he changed gear.
121. PC P calculated the speed that Mr Bingham walked from the CCTV footage obtained from Swan Morten. He concluded Mr Bingham initially walked at a speed of 1.5m/s, this increased to 2.5m/s as he crossed Penistone Road.
122. PC P concluded the following: “Based on a vehicle travelling at 30mph and crediting the driver with a reaction time of between 0.7 and 1.5 seconds I consider that the driver started to react to the presence of the pedestrian within the range of 20 to 35 metres prior to the impact. “On the basis that the pedestrian was travelling at 2.5m/s as they crossed the Barnsley bound lanes then with the vehicle travelling at 41mph the collision was unavoidable on the part of the driver by the time the pedestrian stepped into the road. “If the driver had taken 1.5 seconds to react prior to applying the brakes from the calculated distance of 35 metres prior to impact, I consider that had the vehicle been travelling at 30mph prior to this collision, the impact could have been avoided had the driver reacted in exactly the same way. “If the driver had taken 0.7 seconds to react prior to applying the brakes from the calculated distance of 20 metres prior to impact, based on the Highway Code, I consider that had the vehicle been travelling at 30mph this collision would have been unavoidable on the part of the driver.”
123. He concluded that the police vehicle would have been visible to Mr Bingham had “proper safety check’s [sic] been made prior to crossing the road.”
124. He considered that, had Mr Bingham used the crossing in the correct manner, the collision would not have happened.
125. PC P calculated that, had PC Hazlehurst been travelling at 30mph at the point when Mr Bingham first started to cross Penistone Road, there would have been insufficient time and distance for a pedestrian travelling at 2.5m/s, to safely cross the carriageway, without PC Hazlehurst having to take some form of avoiding action, either braking or steering.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 20
The driving experience and qualifications of PC Hazlehurst
126. The IPCC obtained a copy of PC Hazlehurst’s training records from SYP.
127. PC Hazlehurst completed the SYP Standard driving course in September 2013.
128. He completed the SYP ‘Personnel carrier test’ and ‘4 wheel drive on road’ course in November 2015.
129. PC Hazlehurst attended a four-day driving course between 1–4 September 2015. His driver assessor commented: “Throughout the first 2 days there was a tendency to occasionally miss speed limit signs and mirror checks. This was discussed and remedied prior to test day.”
130. I was also provided with his road traffic incident reports and this showed that PC Hazlehurst had been involved in a pursuit on 2 January 2016 As a result of this incident he attended, an ‘Attitude awareness session’ which ‘highlighted some areas of driving which he could reflect upon’.
131. Police officers attend an Attitude Awareness session after a police vehicle incident; it is a PowerPoint presentation with interaction from the officer receiving it. It encourages reflection by the police officer and establishes what may have been done differently, or what could be done to ensure the safety of all, to ensure that officers learn from their experience.
132. No further information is available with regard to the comments made in PC Hazlehurst’s session, as per point 129 above, as the officer who conducted the session has now retired and no further records are in existence.
Interview with Police Constable Hazlehurst 133. PC Hazlehurst provided me with a prepared statement dated 30 March 2017 prior to his interview. He is a qualified police driver with a permit graded as ‘standard’.
134. On Saturday 7 January 2017, he was on duty with PC G; he drove a Vauxhall Antara police vehicle (YR63 URM) for which he had carried out a familiarisation course. He had driven the vehicle on numerous occasions.
135. He said police officers had faulted the Vauxhall Antara for problems with ‘over revving on idle’ and acceleration. The dealership had only recently returned the vehicle to SYP.
136. On 7 January 2017, PC Hazlehurst was in company with PC G, they had attended to a matter in Sheffield and were returning to the area where they worked. He drove along Penistone Road; he is familiar with this road, having driving along it many times previously. Both officers called at McDonald’s for a toilet break and to purchase coffees.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 21
137. It was decided PC G would take the lead when dealing with an harassment appointment which had been allocated to them. She was reading the paperwork as PC Hazlehurst drove away from McDonald’s restaurant. He turned left onto Penistone Road and positioned his police car in the outside lane of the dual carriageway.
138. He “proceeded at a pace” he “concluded to be reasonable for the road conditions and at or around the speed limit, as” he “was in no hurry.”
139. PC Hazlehurst was still in the offside lane on Penistone Road when he first saw Mr Bingham. Mr Bingham was moving quickly, from the officer’s left, across the nearside lane. PC Hazlehurst “immediately attempted to stop but struck” Mr Bingham before coming to a halt. Following the collision the officer contacted his control room via his radio and requested an ambulance.
140. During his interview IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst what the speed limit is on Penistone road; he made no reply.
141. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if there was a satellite navigation device in the police car, if there was, where was it positioned; he made no reply.
142. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if a satellite navigation device had obscured his view; he made no reply.
143. When IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst where he positioned his coffee cup that he had purchased from McDonalds and if he drank from it while he drove the vehicle he made no reply.
144. When IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he had used his work or personal mobile phone while driving he made no reply.
145. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he had used his police airwave terminal while driving; he made no reply.
146. When IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he had been distracted by the diary appointment he was attending he made no reply.
147. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he could remember what colour the traffic lights were as he approached the junction of Penistone Road and Owlerton Green; he made no reply.
148. When IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst at what point he saw Mr Bingham he made no reply.
149. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he tried to brake or swerve upon seeing Mr Bingham; he made no reply.
150. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he had seen Mr Bingham prior to the collision; he made no reply.
151. When IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if it was appropriate or safe to drive above the speed limit on Penistone road he made no reply.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 22
152. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he was aware that the slower the speed he drove the more reaction time he would have had in which to stop; he made no reply.
153. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he looked at the speedometer in the police vehicle at any time prior to or at the point of impact with Mr Bingham; he made no reply.
154. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he had any legal exemption not to be driving at the speed limit; he made no reply.
155. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if he felt that the faults with the vehicle, identified in his prepared statement, had affected the vehicle at the time of the incident; he made no reply.
156. IPCC investigators asked PC Hazlehurst if, as a police officer, he considered he should be setting the standard by which others should be driving; he made no reply.
Analysis
157. The evidence suggests the SYP Vauxhall Antara registered number YR63 URM had suffered mechanical faults, namely over revving and excessive tick-over between 10 August 2015 and 19 October 2016. The vehicle received a new engine on 19 October 2016 and returned to police service on 23 December 2016. I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest the vehicle had developed a fault following the fitting of the new engine. PC Hazlehurst drove the vehicle on 6 and 7 January 2017, the evidence suggests he did not report experiencing any defects.
158. PC P inspected the vehicle on behalf of the IPCC; he concluded there were no defects that would have caused or contributed to the collision. The evidence suggests the vehicle was in good working order.
159. PC Hazlehurst had attended a SYP driving course; he was issued with a ‘standard’ police driving permit authorising him to drive unit beat vehicles. He also participated in a familiarisation course which enabled him to drive SYP 4x4 vehicles; specifically the Vauxhall Antara.
160. His driver training record shows his instructor observed PC Hazlehurst had failed to observe speed limits during the first two days of his course; the record confirms this trait was rectified by the end of his course.
161. PC Hazlehurst also attended an ‘Attitude awareness course’ after a previous road traffic incident in which it was highlighted that some areas of his driving required reflection. The indication being that his driving did not meet the standards expected of him.
162. The APP Road Policing, Police driving states that “an officer must always give due regard to their driving manner and behaviour which should not put other road users or members of the public at a risk which cannot be justified.”
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 23
163. The evidence recovered from the UDS IDR data recovered suggests that, on 7 January 2017, when PC Hazlehurst drove his police car along Penistone Road, he accelerated from rest to a speed of 41mph while travelling in a 30mph restricted area. His speed reached a maximum speed of 42mph at 17 meters from the point of impact, when the vehicle began to decelerate. The vehicle was steered to the right and emergency braking occurred, and at the time the vehicle collided with Mr Bingham it was travelling at 36mph.
164. The witness accounts suggest the traffic light at the junction of Penistone Road and Owlerton Green were showing green in favour of PC Hazlehurst at the time his vehicle struck Mr Bingham.
165. The evidence from Ms H suggests that, immediately after the collision, a vehicle, positioned to her nearside, at the traffic lights at the junction of Penistone Road and Owlerton Green, set off and turned right to travel along Owlerton Green. The driver’s action may suggest the traffic light had changed to show a red light to traffic travelling behind PC Hazlehurst and a green light to drivers waiting to cross Penistone Road and travel along Owlerton Green.
166. I am unable to say if PC Hazlehurst accelerated from a standstill at the traffic light junction at McDonalds on Penistone Road to a speed of 30mph, and maintained that speed until he approached the next traffic light signal at Owlerton Green, the traffic light at that junction would have displayed a red light to him or not.
167. Mr O stated the traffic lights on Penistone Road operate in a sequence. He explained that, if a driver passed through one traffic light while it was displaying a green light and travelled at a constant 30mph, the driver could expect to pass through all the subsequent traffic lights when they were showing a green light. Mr O has undertaken to establish at what point in time the traffic lights at the junction of Penistone Road and Owlerton Green turned red against PC Hazlehurst. This will allow a vehicle examiner to establish whether the lights would have turned red against PC Hazlehurst had he not exceeded the 30mph speed limit. This information is not available to me at this time.
168. PC Hazlehurst approached the traffic lights on Penistone Road at its junction with the McDonalds restaurant when the lights were showing red. PC Hazlehurst confirmed, in his prepared statement, he had driven along Penistone Road many times previously; he declined to answer further questions during his interview. Consequently I have been unable to establish if he was familiar with the traffic light sequencing and whether his motivation for exceeding the speed limit was to ensure he could pass through the traffic lights at the junction of Penistone Road and Owlerton Green while they were displaying green in his favour.
169. In the absence of the traffic light sequencing data, I have applied the principles of pace, time and distance to the sequence of events. In my opinion, had PC Hazlehurst not exceeded the 30mph speed limit, there is an indication that he may have approached the traffic light junction with Owlerton Green at a time when the traffic lights were showing red against him. I cannot discount the fact
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 24
that the motivation for PC Hazlehurst to exceed the speed limit was to ‘jump the traffic lights’ at the Penistone Road/Owlerton Green junction.
170. The South Yorkshire Police statement of Agreed Policy states: “All officers are required to drive in accordance with the law”.
171. The APP Road Policing, Police driving states: “The law, as defined in statute by the Road Traffic Act 1988, prohibits dangerous and careless driving. This applies to police officers as well as the public. Police officers must exhibit the care and skill of a competent and careful driver, the standard by which an officers driving is judged.”
172. The APP Road Policing, Police driving states: “An officer must always give due regard to their driving manner and behaviour which should not put other road users or members of the public at a risk which cannot be justified.”
173. PC Hazlehurst stated in his prepared statement he thought he was travelling “at or around the speed limit”; he has not provided me with any evidence to suggest he may have had a lawful reason for not complying with the 30mph speed limit when he drove along Penistone Road on 7 January 2017.
174. In my opinion, the available evidence indicates that PC Hazlehurst did not adhere to the 30mph speed restriction on Penistone Road, and there was no lawful reason for him to exceed the speed limit.
175. In my opinion, a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find evidence that PC Hazlehurst did not exhibit the care and skill expected of a competent driver.
176. The evidence suggests that, on 7 January 2017, the road surface at the junction of Penistone Road and Owlerton Green was dry and in a good state of repair. The areas was illuminated by overhead street lighting and all lights were in full working order.
177. There is a pedestrian crossing situated at the junction of Penistone Road and Owlerton Green. I am unable to say why Mr Bingham did not use the pedestrian crossing to cross a busy dual carriageway.
178. All witnesses suggest Mr Bingham was walking with a purpose and he chose to cross Penistone Road without the use of the pedestrian crossing. The evidence suggests he crossed a filter lane and lane one of the dual carriageway. Mr Bingham became aware of the traffic approaching from his right when he began to cross lane two of the dual carriageway. The evidence, from witnesses and the calculations made by PC P, suggests at this point in time Mr Bingham “looked surprised” and “quickened his pace”, perhaps indicating he thought he may be capable of crossing the second lane of the carriageway prior to the arrival of the oncoming police vehicle, or that he had over committed himself and was unable to safely return to the nearside of the dual carriageway.
179. The reconstruction suggested Mr Bingham would have had a clear and unobstructed view of the traffic approaching him from the direction of the city
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 25
centre from 200 metres away. I do not know if Mr Bingham required spectacles or, if he did, he was not wearing them on the evening of 7 January 2017.
180. The reconstruction confirmed that the location of PC Hazlehurst’s personal satellite navigation device, on the front windscreen adjacent to the rear view mirror, could have restricted the driver’s view of the road ahead, particularly to the nearside. However, the examiner did concede PC Hazlehurst would have been able to view the nearside by looking underneath the device.
181. Enquiries with South Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department established there is no force policy in respect of the use of officers’ personal satellite navigation devices in SYP vehicles.
182. The UDS data suggests PC Hazlehurst applied the vehicles brakes when he was only eight metres away from Mr Bingham. PC Hazlehurst declined to answer any questions during his interview. Consequently, I am unable to say whether the positioning of the satellite navigation device was a contributory factor restricting PC Hazlehurst’s view of the road to his nearside.
183. The reconstruction confirmed that the colour of Mr Bingham’s clothing blended into that of the walls of the surrounding buildings, which made it almost impossible for PC Hazlehurst to have seen him as he drove along Penistone Road at 41mph. This also proved to be the case when driving along Penistone Road at the 30mph speed limit.
184. The vehicle examination established the speedometer on the SYP Vauxhall Antara showed the vehicle to be travelling eight percent faster than the true speed. When PC Hazlehurst reached his maximum speed of 42mph, his speedometer would have shown him that he was travelling in excess of 45mph in a 30mph restricted area.
185. It is a well-established principle that the faster a vehicle is travelling the longer it will take to stop. This is because of two factors, the increased speed and the subsequent increase in the distance travelled during the driver’s reaction time.
186. PC P conducted calculations based on PC Hazlehurst driving at 30mph and crediting the officer with a reaction time of between 0.7 and 1.5 seconds. He considered that PC Hazlehurst started to react to the presence of Mr Bingham within the range of 20 to 35 metres prior to the impact.
187. PC P concluded that, had PC Hazlehurst been travelling at 30mph prior to this collision (and not 41mph), and had the officer taken 1.5 seconds to react prior to applying the brakes from the calculated distance of 35 metres prior to impact, the impact could have been avoided had PC Hazlehurst reacted in exactly the same way as he did.
188. PC P concluded that, had PC Hazlehurst been travelling at 30mph prior to this collision (and not 41mph), and had the officer taken 0.7 seconds to react prior to applying the brakes from the calculated distance of 20 metres prior to impact, the impact could not have been avoided had PC Hazlehurst reacted in exactly the same way as he did.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 26
189. I am unable to say with any certainty what PC Hazlehurst’s reaction time was. PC P concluded that, had the officer had been driving at 30mph and his reaction time was 1.5 seconds, the officer would have been able to avoid contact with Mr Bingham; if his reaction time was 0.7 seconds, he would not.
190. SYP statement of agreed policy – police vehicles ref Pi18.2 clearly states all officers should ensure that the dash cam is operational throughout their tour of duty. If it is not working, it must be brought to the attention an officer of the rank of sergeant or above. PC Hazlehurst drove the Vauxhall Antara on 6 and 7 January 2017. I have not received any evidence to suggest he established the dash cam was not working on either date or reported the fault to a supervisor in accordance with SYP policy.
Conclusions
191. Below, I have set out my conclusions for the appropriate authority and Commission to consider.
192. If there are to be court or disciplinary proceedings, it will be for the relevant panel in those proceedings to make final determinations. For example, where I conclude that a person subject to the investigation has a case to answer for gross misconduct, this does not amount to a legal determination that there has been gross misconduct. If a charge is then brought by the appropriate authority, a misconduct hearing will hear the evidence, and make its own findings about whether the charge is proved or not.
193. After reviewing my report and considering my recommendations, the Commission will decide whether any organisational learning has been identified that should be shared with the organisation in question. They may also recommend, or direct, unsatisfactory performance procedures.
Misconduct
194. For each person under investigation, I must determine whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. In other words, whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable panel properly directed, could find that the conduct of the person under investigation fell below the standard of behaviour expected of them.
195. Based on the evidence above, it is my opinion that there is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find a case to answer for gross misconduct in respect of the allegation that PC Hazlehurst’s: ‘driving fell below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.’
Criminal offences
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 27
196. On receipt of my report, the Commission delegate must decide if there is an indication that a criminal offence may have been committed by any person under investigation.
197. If they decide that there is such an indication they must decide whether it is appropriate to refer the matter to the CPS.
198. Having analysed all the evidence, it is my opinion that there is an indication that PC Hazlehurst may have committed a criminal offence.
199. The Commission delegate may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to refer any matters to the Crown Prosecution Service. I recommend the following offences are considered:
Name Criminal offence
PC Steven Hazlehurst 1. Sec 2 B of the RTA 1988 Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. 2. Driving without due care and attention. 3. Exceeding the speed limit
Performance
200. If disciplinary charges are not directed or brought, then an appropriate authority may invoke unsatisfactory performance procedures and in some circumstances can be directed to do so. A matter should only be dealt with as either misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, not both.
Provisional organisational learning recommendations
201. After reviewing this report, the Commission will consider whether learning has been identified for any organisation involved in the investigation. If any learning is identified, the Commission can make organisational learning recommendations and send these to the organisations in question under separate cover.
202. Recommendations can include improving practice, updating policy or changes to training.
203. Often these recommendations and any responses to them are published on the recommendations section of the IPCC Website
204. In this case, I have identified the following learning to draw to the Commissioners attention : The SYP agreed policy on the P18 Road Policing JSOU in conjunction with Authorised Professional Practice (APP) Road policing states that it is the
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 28
officer’s responsibility to ensure that the in-car video system is operational throughout their tour of duty and the audio must not be switched off. If the recording equipment is found to be at fault or not working it must be reported to supervisor, at least the rank of Sergeant, and every effort should be made to have the faulty device repaired promptly. The evidence available shows that the last footage recorded on the ‘dash- cam’ fitted to the SYP Vauxhall Antara registered number YR63 URM was 26 November 2016, when it was the subject of an engine refit. The vehicle was operational again on 23 December 2016. Several officers had used the vehicle prior to the incident on 7 January 2016 and it appears that none had reported that the device was not working. Had this matter been attended to in the correct manner the device would have captured valuable footage of the incident which would have assisted the IPCC investigation. Enquiries were made to establish what the South Yorkshire police policy is with regard to police officers using their own personal satellite navigation devices in police vehicles. It has been confirmed that there is no policy and it appears that this has also not been addressed in the driver training provided to police officers. PC Hazlehurst positioned his satellite navigation devices at the side of the rear view mirror, therefore reducing his line of sight and obstructing the full view of the road ahead. Training and or policy decisions should be considered for the future with regard to the use of personal satellite navigation devices in police vehicles, and the correct and safe positioning of them.
205. The Commissioner may wish to consider highlighting the above matters to the appropriate authority.
Summary for publication
206. The following summaries are of the incident and our investigation. If the decision is made to publish the case on the IPCC website, this text will be used for that purpose.
Section of summary Text
Summary of incident On 7 January 2017 a South Yorkshire police liveried police vehicle was involved in a fatal road traffic collision on Penistone Road Sheffield.
A police officer who was not attending an emergency response, but was attending a pre-arranged diary appointment, was driving the vehicle.
Data obtained from the vehicle revealed that the vehicle was being driven at 42mph prior to impact with the
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 29
deceased; Penistone Road is governed by a 30mph speed restriction.
Summary of During the investigation investigators interviewed the investigation officer, obtained statements from several witnesses, seized, and viewed CCTV footage. Various vehicle examinations were also carried out, along with a reconstruction of the incident.
The investigator concluded that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal could conclude that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct.
Mr Leslie Bingham - Final report for publication (redacted) 30
Mr Leslie Bingham
An investigation into the circumstances surrounding a fatal collision between a pedestrian, Mr Leslie Bingham, and a liveried South Yorkshire Police car on Saturday 7 January 2017
Independent investigation report
Appendices
Appendix 1: The role of the IPCC
The IPCC carries out its own independent investigations into complaints and incidents involving the police, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the National Crime Agency (NCA) and Home Office immigration and enforcement staff when the seriousness or the public interest require it.
We are completely independent of the police and the government. IPCC commissioners by law may never have worked for the police.
All cases are overseen by a Commission delegate, providing strategic direction and scrutinising the investigation. The investigation At the outset of an investigation a lead investigator will be appointed who will be responsible for the day to day running of the investigation on behalf of the Commission. This may involve taking witness statements, interviewing subjects to the investigation, analysing CCTV footage, reviewing documents, obtaining forensic and other expert evidence, as well as liaison with the coroner, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and other agencies.
They are supported by a team including other investigators, lawyers, press officers and other specialist staff.
Meaningful updates are provided to families and other stakeholders both inside and outside the IPCC at regular intervals.
Throughout the investigation, a series of reviews and quality checks will take place.
The IPCC investigator often makes early contact with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and are sometimes provided with investigative advice during the course of the investigation however we are usually asked by the CPS to keep any such advice confidential. Investigation reports Once the investigator has gathered the evidence they must prepare a report. The report must summarise the evidence and refer to or attach any relevant documents. As notices of investigation have been served in the course of the investigation, the report must also give the investigator’s opinion about whether any police officer or member of staff has a case to answer for misconduct.
The report must then be given to the Commission delegate who will decide if a criminal offence may have been committed by any of the subjects of the investigation and whether it is appropriate to refer the case to the CPS for a charging decision.
Appendices 32
The Commission delegate will then decide whether to make individual or wider learning recommendations for the police. They also consider whether the actions of anyone serving with the police were unsatisfactory. If so, they will be dealt with through the police force’s unsatisfactory performance procedure (UPP). UPP is handled by the person’s line manager and is intended to improve the performance of both the individual and police force. Misconduct proceedings The report must be given to the appropriate authority (normally the police force) responsible for the subjects of the investigation. They must then inform the Commission what action they propose to take, in particular whether they will bring misconduct charges in relation to any of the police officers or staff who were subjects of the investigation. If the Commission delegate is unhappy with the appropriate authority’s response, the Commission has powers to recommend or ultimately direct it to bring disciplinary or UPP. Criminal proceedings If there is an indication that a criminal offence may have been committed by any subject of our investigation the IPCC may refer a subject to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS will then decide whether to bring a prosecution against any person. If they decide to prosecute, and there is a not guilty plea, there may be a trial. Relevant witnesses identified during our investigation may be asked to attend the court. The court will then establish whether the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Inquests Following investigations into deaths, the IPCC’s investigation report and supporting documents are usually provided to the coroner. The coroner may then hold an inquest, either alone or with a jury. This hearing is unlike a trial or tribunal. It is a fact finding forum and will not determine criminal or civil liability. A coroner might ask a selection of witnesses to give evidence at the inquest. At the end of the inquest the coroner and/or jury will decide how they think the death occurred on the basis of the evidence they have heard and seen. Publishing the report After all criminal proceedings relating to the investigation have concluded, and at a time when the IPCC is satisfied that any other misconduct or inquest proceedings will not be prejudiced by publication, the IPCC may publish its investigation report.
Redactions might be made to the report at this stage to ensure that individuals’ personal data is sufficiently protected and occasionally for other reasons.
Appendices 33