FATAL ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISION M25
J27 – J26 March 19th 2018
Mike Rawson – Retired Metropolitan Police
Traffic Sergeant
On March 19th 2018 a fatal traffic collision occurred on a section of ALL LANE RUNNING Smart Motorway between J27 (M11) and J26 (Waltham Abbey) of the M25 orbital motorway in the following circumstances.
An Audi A3 was stationary in Lane 1 of the anti-clockwise carriageway as a result of a shredded tyre, the driver and three passengers had left the car and were standing on the grass verge behind the crash barrier.
The driver of an HGV, following another HGV in Lane 1, had four seconds in which to see, react and avoid the car.
The HGV struck the car, crossed the crash barrier, killing instantly the two women and leaving a young girl suffering life threatening injuries.
The driver pleaded guilty to two counts of Causing Death by Careless Driving at Chelmsford Crown Court and was given the minimum penalty available to the court.
I asked Essex Police to refer Highways England (now National Highways) to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration to be given to prosecuting the highway authority for Corporate Manslaughter in respect of this collision.
The highway authority had made a decision to abolish the hard shoulder, fully aware this would place those who became stranded in a ‘live lane’ in far greater danger than if their vehicle was on the comparative safety of a hard shoulder.
Essex Police declined to make the referral but appointed an unnamed inspector to review the circumstances of the collision.
It is presumed the inspector had access to the transcript of the court case when preparing the report but it has been acknowledged by the Chief Constable that he was certainly aware of the judge’s comments, which he repeated several times during the hearing, ‘IF THERE HAD BEEN A HARD SHOULDER THIS ACCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED’.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the report is to be found in the following words, reproduced from the extensively redacted report I received from Essex Police, –
‘I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE TRAGIC DEATHS ASSOCIATED IN THIS CASE CAN BE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABSENCE OF A HARD SHOULDER AND DO NOT FEEL IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT HAD A HARD SHOULDER BEEN PRESENT THE FATALITIES WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED’.
The following quote is reproduced from the report, ‘The topography of the road afforded the driver of the HGV a view of around 250 metres and, whilst his view was partially obstructed by a second HGV pulling in front of him, the Audi would still have been visible to him due to the curvature of the road. In addition, the movement required to avoid the Audi would have been just one metre and in the opinion of the forensic collision investigator the driver had sufficient time, with only four seconds to react, to have avoided the collision.
As such it is the opinion of the collision investigator that this collision resulted due to the inattention of the driver, a fact which was tested and agreed in court with a guilty verdict’.
I would take issue with all of the above statements and suggest the inspector has not seen the dash cam footage, either recovered from the defendant’s vehicle several months after the collision or supplied to Essex Police a short time before the trial, which resulted in a change to the indictment from Causing Death by Dangerous Driving to Causing Death by Careless Driving, a lesser charge reflecting the circumstances.
If there was evidence to support charges of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, such as the driver having had an opportunity to see the stationary Audi some 250 metres before the collision and that four seconds was sufficient for the defendant to avoid the car, as claimed by the inspector, the CPS would not have downgraded the charges to Careless.
To the best of my recollection, when outlining the facts of the case, prosecuting council made no reference to the 250 metres.
It is clear the court accepted the dash cam footage as a true version of events on that fateful evening.
The footage records the entire journey the defendant made from the moment he left his depot in Kent to the moment of impact (this was shown to the court and stopped immediately before the impact to spare the family of the victims the sight of their loved ones suffering a violent death).
The defendant’s driving throughout the journey was faultless.
There was no prior warning of the stationary vehicle in Lane 1 – nothing was displayed on the overhead gantry in the vicinity of the Bell Common Tunnel.
The footage clearly shows the first occasion the defendant had sight of the Audi was when he had just four seconds to react to its presence in the live lane.
Prior to impact, whilst travelling through the Bell Common Tunnel, the defendant was overtaken by a foreign registered HGV with a box trailer, which then moved into Lane 1 with the defendant following at a safe distance.
When the foreign registered vehicle indicated to pull out and moved to Lane 2 the defendant had four seconds in which to see and react to the Audi.
During that four seconds the defendant had to check his mirrors to avoid changing lanes and possibly colliding with a vehicle in Lane 2.
Contrary to the opinion of the Collision Investigator the defendant had insufficient time to avoid the stationary car and, despite his best efforts, his vehicle struck the Audi, crossed the Armco barrier and killed the two ladies.
The report claims responsibility for the collision rests with the defendant stating, a fact which was tested and agreed with a guilty verdict.
There was no trial, the facts were not tested and there was no guilty verdict because the defendant pleaded guilty to both indictments ‘to spare the families the ordeal of a trial’ as his council explained to me during a recess when I expressed surprise his client had pleaded guilty.
Incredibly, the report claims the absence of a hard shoulder played no part in this collision whilst claiming that, had a hard shoulder been available, this collision would still have happened and the two people killed.
I am amazed at such a statement from an individual I am told is an experienced roads policing supervisor.
The inescapable fact is the Audi was stationary in a live lane of a motorway used by vehicles travelling at 100’ per second (approx. 80’ per second in respect of this HGV) but the author of the report states the absence of a hard shoulder played no part in events because the occupants were on the verge just as they would have been had their car been on a hard shoulder.
Had their car been on a hard shoulder it would not have been an obstruction in a live lane and it would not have been struck by a passing HGV and the occupants would be alive today.
As stated previously, the defendant pleaded guilty, there was no jury and no trial.
The court was shown the dash cam footage and the judge stated in the clearest of terms – ‘Had there been a hard shoulder this accident would not have happened’.
The judge, taking into consideration the defendant’s Guilty Plea and the facts surrounding the case, sentenced the defendant to four months imprisonment suspended for twelve months (on both counts) and to 200 hours Community Service.
This extremely lenient sentence clearly reflected the judge’s conclusion in respect of the evidence he had heard from both council.
I would suggest Judge Gratwicke, sitting at Chelmsford Crown Court in February 2020, is far better placed than an Essex Police Inspector to decide where the blame lies for this tragedy.
The claims made in the Essex Police Report are cause for serious concerns as regards truthfulness and the conclusions reached are, frankly, ludicrous.
In exonerating the highway authority from any blame for this collision the inspector contradicts the views of the trial judge as well as the common sense view that the absence of the hard shoulder was the major contributory cause of this collision.
In conclusion, I reject entirely the content of the flawed report and I am not in the least surprised the author wishes to remain anonymous.
The next time Essex Police decide to review the actions of its officers it is suggested they find someone with a degree of common sense and an honest and truthful approach to the task.
Mike Rawson March 18th 2022
PDF version here
4.5