Police do not pursuemotorcylce thieves because the thieves were not wearing crash helmets.

[Haggisdj]

Police in Manchester did not chase suspected motorcycle thieves because the thieves were not wearing crash helmets. This was in line with national guidelines.

I can see both sides of this argument but something inside me still says that this is wrong. Opinions please.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-manchester-11211260

[New Judge]

It is a quite shocking example of how regard for the perpetrator’s welfare trumps the right of the victim to have the police apprehend somebody who has stolen his goods.

The message here: nick a bike, don’t bother with a crash helmet, and you’ll be able to travel to wherever you want untroubled by the inconvenience of having your collar felt.

So what’s next? Nick a car, don’t bother to put a seat belt on and off you go.

And what after that? Mug an old lady for a purse and run off. Of course, there’s always the risk that you might trip over, or that you might run into the road and be knocked down. So we won’t chase you just in case you hurt yourself.

Please don’t laugh at my examples. Who would have thought even just a few years ago that police would refuse to chase a motor-cycle thief because they were concerned for his welfare? These things tend to develop by stealth, bit by bit in the hope that nobody will care. “After all,” will be the response “We already leave motor-cycle thieves alone if they are not wearing a helmet. It’s not much different to a car thief not wearing a seat belt”.

The attitude of the police (and I mean the policy setters, not the individual officers) has made this country the laughing stock of the world. The police should consider victims first, last and all the points in between and stop fretting whether the poor villains may injure themselves as a result of their criminal activities.

[eyethenkyew]

I am no longer in the Police, but can give you examples of where two colleagues were killed pursuing a suspected stolen car, or where innocent members of the public died as a result of a Police pursuit etc etc.

Ultimately, the Police are between a rock and a hard place: damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Speaking in hindsight's the easiest thing in the world to do: far more difficult is acting on the spur of the moment - and getting it wrong! None of us has a crystal ball. The bottom line is that unless human life is imminently in danger, the welfare of the offender is deemed to be of great importance nowadays and the Police find themselves hamstrung by successive guidlines and edicts from the Home Office which prevents them doing the kind of job which Joe Public feels they should be doing. Work that little lot out, but believe me it goes way against the grain of any Police Officer to just stand by and let the bad guys get away.

[New Judge]

Quite.

I have no issue with the individual officers. They are doing what their masters tell them. It is the masters with whom I take issue.

The deal between the State and the individual is that the individual relinquishes the right to apprehend and punish people who transgress against them and in return the State undertakes to do it for them. Increasingly it is becoming obvious that the State is reneging on its part of that deal, and this example is a manifestation of that process.

Of course there are risks to the public, and to police officers and to criminals where pursuits, especially those involving vehicles, are concerned. Everything reasonably possible to mitigate those risks must be done. At its extreme it could be said that no such pursuits must take place but that would not be reasonable.

In this instance the policy has been developed solely to ensure the safety of the miscreant. There is no additional risk posed to officers or the public because the thief is not wearing a crash helmet. Since it is he who created the risk in the first place by his criminal activity he must accept responsibility for his actions. He should not expect the issue of his safety to be transferred to others who are going about the legitimate business of catching him. If that means he comes off the bike and caves his skull in, then it is his fault, not that of the officers pursuing him,

I know the current legislation would mean he would have an arguable case that the police had neglected their duty of care to him. It is that legislation which needs changing as any reasonable person (always a good legal test) might find that the police owe him no such duty in the circumstances.

[VHG]

Problem is:

Thief drives off at high speed with no helmet

Police chase them, bike crashes, and perhaps leaves driver of stolen bike paralysed from the neck down.

Family of thief sue police for 3 million pounds

If they win the police (ie us tax payers) have to pay family 3 million pounds

Blame the no win no fee lawyers if you want to blame anyone

[R1Geezer]

Yes where as I take on board most of what you say judge, the basic fact here is that as VHG says, they are worried about getting sued. More Elf and safety I'm afraid. Essentially they don't give a thrupney about actual safety they don't want to get sued. Same with the "hard hat" hiltlers, they don;t care if you get you head caved in they just don't want to get sued for it.

[New Judge]

Yes, exactly the point I made in my second post, VHG.

The civil law in the UK needs to be tightened so as to put the onus on the criminal in these circumstances to have a duty of care for his own safety. There is no earthly reason why anybody should have a "duty of care" to a miscreant who is making off with stolen goods, or to a burglar who cuts himself as he climbs the wall and into your garden when you have glass shards embedded in concrete on top of the wall to discourage such activity.

This sort of philosophy is not portraying Britain as a “caring society” as some would suggest. It is making us the laughing stock of the world.

[hc4361]

Another problem is the presumption of guilt at the outset of the pursuit.
Yes, perpetrators should be arrested but not by putting innocent lives in danger. There has been many cases of third parties being killed and maimed during pursuit.
The police would have no way of knowing how adept these thieves were at riding motorbikes. The chance of injury to themselves and others was high.
In the event he killed himself.

[New Judge]

This is all very true, hc.

However, the issue here is that the police refuse to pursue a motorcyclist without a helmet, but they will pursue those wearing one. Therefore the only additional risk between the two scenarios is to the rider. Even if he has not stolen the machine (and the police usually know when a vehicle has been stolen) he has still failed to stop when told and failed to wear a helmet.

We must not confuse the issue here. The additional risk is to the law breaker and nobody else. By failing to pursue him the police are mitigating that risk - which he has posed - in his favour to the detriment of and without regard for the victim.

[hc4361]

Of course the true victim in our scenario is joe public. The motorcycle owner will be compensated for the theft of his motorbike, and the insurance company routinely hoiks premiums to cover their losses.
It is a lose/lose.