Call handler decisions and actions examined after man dies on motorway – Metropolitan Police Service and Leicestershire Police, August 2023

Leicestershire Police received several calls from members of the public reporting an accident on a motorway. One of the callers reported a vehicle had driven past at high speed before crashing into the central reservation.

Highway Agency Traffic Officers arrived at the scene, and the vehicle was recovered and moved to the hard shoulder. The driver of the vehicle contacted their brother to report the crash.

The brother asked the Highway Agency to remain with the driver until recovery arrived, but they did not stay at the scene, stating they had not heard the request due to the road noise.

The brother was concerned and called 999. He was connected to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) due to his location. He explained the situation and said it was not safe for his brother to remain at the motorway as he was not mentally stable. The MPS gave the brother a non-emergency number for Leicestershire Police, who covered the incident location.

The brother called the number and was put on hold. He called 999 again and was connected to the MPS a second time. The advice given was the same - to call the non-emergency number.

The brother contacted Leicestershire Police again and told the call handler that he was concerned for the driver, his brother. He asked if officers could wait with his brother or take him to a place of safety while he travelled up to him. He said his brother was vulnerable and had tried to take his own life in the past.

The call handler did not create a log of the call and, as such, no decisions about grading or deployment were made. No officers were sent to the scene. The call handler did not explore the brother’s concerns about possible mental health issues.

The driver stepped into a lane on the motorway half an hour later. He was struck by a vehicle and died at the scene.

We received a death or serious injury referral from Leicestershire Police and decided to independently investigate the actions and decisions of MPS and Leicestershire Police officers and staff before the man’s death.

The driver’s brother also complained about the way his call to the police was handled, saying the MPS took too long to provide a number for Leicestershire Police, that the police did not respond to his calls for help, and Leicestershire Police wasted his time which led to missed calls from his brother before his death.

We considered whether local and national policies, guidance and training were followed, including the brother’s complaint that MPS staff should have taken full details from him and passed them on to Leicestershire Police.

Our investigators obtained statements from police officers and staff and reviewed motorway CCTV footage, as well as footage from the dashcam of the National Highways vehicle. We examined recordings of the calls made by the driver’s brother, airwave communications, risk assessments, incident logs, and policy and guidance.

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence, but that a call handler from Leicestershire Police had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the call handler had a case to answer for misconduct for failing to carry out their work diligently, including not asking questions about the brother’s concerns or risk assessing the situation, and not creating any form of record (against policy). We shared our report with Leicestershire Police, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the call handler and that they should take the form of a misconduct meeting.  

The misconduct meeting concluded in April 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for duties and responsibilities. These amounted to a finding of misconduct, and the officer was given a written warning lasting 12 months.

We found that the call handler’s decision making was based on very little information. They did not question the driver’s brother about his concerns or check existing logs for past incidents. We found it was not possible to say whether the outcome for the driver may have been different if the call handler had probed sufficiently or decided to deploy resources, but they failed to act diligently and carry out the duties and responsibilities to the expected standard.

We found no evidence that anyone else at Leicestershire Police intentionally wasted the brother’s time, and his concerns were listened to and action was taken, although unfortunately too late.

We did find that the performance of two MPS call handlers fell short of what was expected. Both call handlers had limited understanding of the process for calls made ‘out of area’. Both gave different explanations of the process, neither of which followed policy. We recommend that their performance be dealt with through management action.

We also found that the brother should have been asked additional questions about his brother’s mental health by MPS call handlers. More information would have been passed to Leicestershire Police to aid their understanding, had this happened.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We did not identify any organisational learning in this case.