Man dies in collision after being reported to police as ‘in trouble’ on a road - Thames Valley Police, December 2018

On 16 December 2018, at 1.47am Thames Valley Police (TVP) received a 999 call reporting that a man was “in trouble on the road”, “hitchhiking” and could be barely seen “unless you almost knock him over”. A call taker took some details from the caller to establish the man’s whereabouts and a description, and created a ‘call’ that they graded as ‘immediate’. No officer was available at the time to deploy.

At 1.49am a control room supervisor changed the call grading to ‘telephone resolution’. This grading does not require a police attendance.

At 1.50am TVP received another call concerning the same man, and further calls were received after that. The incident grading was changed back to ‘immediate’.

At 2.06am a police unit was dispatched to deal with the incident and arrived at the scene at 2.09am. At 2.19am, officers reported that they had found a body in the central reservation. The man was pronounced dead at 2.20am.

Our investigators reviewed the 999 calls made to Thames Valley Police as well as the command logs generated around this incident. A review of the initial call gave rise to concerns that the call taker may not have recorded concerns expressed by the caller as to the safety of the individual. There were also concerns that the call taker may not have asked questions to allow for a better assessment of the risk to the man.

We served two members of TVP staff with notices alleging breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. Our investigators were only able to interview the call taker. The other member of staff, the control room supervisor, retired shortly after the incident and did not engage with the investigation, nor provide an account.

The call taker admitted that they did not ask additional questions to better understand the incident or record all the information provided by the caller. They explained that they assumed that other people would understand the dangerousness of the situation and, with hindsight, understood they were wrong to make this assumption.

The call taker agreed that being new to the role was a factor in their not asking additional questions. At the time we interviewed them, the call taker had been in post for an additional six months and was therefore more experienced and had gained learning from that.

We were of the view that the call taker had a case to answer for misconduct and that this would best be addressed by management action. This would ensure their manager had an understanding of the issues involved and the learning which had come out of it, which would allow for the call taker to receive appropriate support.

We were also of the view that the control room supervisor appeared to have inappropriately regraded the incident as not requiring police attendance. As they did not engage in our investigations, we were unable to ask them questions regarding their rationale. We were of the opinion their decision appeared to have been wrong and that a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could have found they had a case to answer for misconduct, had they still been serving. As the control room supervisor had retired, no further action was taken.

We completed our investigation in July 2019.

After reviewing our report, TVP agreed. The call taker received management action.

An inquest held in summer 2019 recorded the man’s death as an accident.