I didn’t set out to be run down at lunchtime on 25 February. Rather, I’d set out with my partner to go shopping and grab a burger for lunch. What followed the innocuous decision of my partner to beep a car for cutting us up is a reminder of the randomness of life and also raises some serious questions about policing in Britain today.
The other driver’s response was to brake-check us (an increasingly common and dangerous behaviour) and, bizarrely, having failed to cause a collision, then reverse his car and ram us. Twice.
As I wasn’t driving and it wasn’t my car, I had less ‘skin in the game’ than my partner but I fully supported their decision to follow the car as it sped off, to get the other driver’s insurance details or capture his number plate on my phone.
After a short pursuit where the other driver took hair-raising random turns to try to lose us, and crucially now filming events on my mobile phone, I spotted the opportunity to get out and speak to the driver and check what damage he had done, as oncoming traffic had caused him to pull over.
“Pull up behind him, block him”, I suggested, but unfortunately my partner left the other driver space to reverse. Which he did, at me, as I climbed out of the car.
Now, my language at this point is far from edifying, a terrible case of potty mouth, which is embarrassing. In my defence I was in fear for my safety and angry at what was happening. Crucially, in legal terms, it also offers no excuse for what followed next. For having failed to run me down in reverse, the driver stopped, eyeballed me, revved his engine and ran me down in first, knocking me over his bonnet.
Having done so, he sped off, leaving me shocked, bruised, but thankfully not seriously injured, on the tarmac. All of this I had captured on my mobile phone, which in truly heroic modern fashion I hadn’t dropped as I was launched into the air.
Police investigation
The incident reported on 999 and footage supplied, Cleveland Police initially took the whole thing very seriously: it was to be investigated as attempted GBH by CID. Forensics even came to take photos of the injuries to my elbow and head.
And then a curious thing happened.
Suddenly the case was handed to a rookie uniformed PC, who proceeded to do very little with it for a month (no statements taken from me or my partner, no evidence of the ramming incident taken) before apologetically emailing to say no further action would be taken against the driver who ran me down.
The reasons? It was ‘your word against his’ apparently, despite the video footage. There was no CCTV and no unbiased witnesses, and of course, there was my shouting and swearing.
A Victim’s Right to Review produced the same result and Cleveland Police seemed to think I should mark it up to experience and mind my language in future.
The problem is I’m a bloody-minded individual (is that swearing?!) and to quote Vic Reeves, ‘I wouldn’t let it lie’. If this driver could do this to me, he could do it again, and his next victim might not be so lucky. If the police wouldn’t take him off the road, then I was going to try.
The amateur sleuth
Helpfully the Motor Insurer’s Bureau allows the insurers of a vehicle to be identified from its registration, and from there an insurance claim can be launched.
As part of this I analysed the footage, rapidly pausing and unpausing the video so the chaotic events could be pared down to clear screenshots. These offered evidence that the police seem to have overlooked, or simply never bothered to seek.
By reference to identifiable road markings and the car’s direction as it hit me, it’s clear the car was driven AT me, despite ample room for the driver to drive away if his only intention had been to escape this big sweary man.
Which begs the question, if I could find this evidence in fifteen minutes easy work on my phone, why couldn’t the police?
I appreciate that the police are stretched by years of cuts and underinvestment (which even as a one-time Tory, I opposed.)
Cleveland Police struggles with one of the highest crime rates in the country, and a recent spate of drugs related violence that necessarily must take priority over other matters. But attempted GBH is a serious matter, one step down from attempted murder, not to mention the other charges that could have been considered in what was a violent and dangerous incident.
As with the recent shocking case of Henry Nowak there appears to be a lack of curiosity in the police response to both crimes. Basic questions are left unasked.
What was the truth of the situation?
What caused it?
How can conflicting accounts be tested and challenged?
What evidence is there to prove what actually happened?
These are all questions that even rookie, uniformed police officers should be asking when confronted with a crime, be it murder, attempted GBH or something less serious. It is basic police work, and it shouldn’t be left to amateur sleuths like me (surname notwithstanding) to do it for them.
Sadly, given my recent experience at the hands of Cleveland Police I’m not convinced that even the basics are being got right, and that’s a worrying thought for all of us.
