She should have faced charges: top traffic cop's verdict on fatal accident Special

8:23am Thursday 14th February 2013 in Latest By Paula Roberts

She should have faced charges: top traffic cop's verdict on fatal accident Special She should have faced charges: top traffic cop's verdict on fatal accident Special

A TOP Dorset traffic cop says the special constable involved in a fatal collision while on her mobile phone should have been prosecuted.

Collette Carpenter was involved in a conversation with her partner when her Peugeot 206 collided with motorcyclist David Bartholomew.

An inquest heard Miss Carpenter, formerly of Colehill, initially denied using her phone during the journey but later admitted she had used it throughout the entire journey on loudspeaker, positioned on her lap.

Details of the case were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided not to prosecute after the collision on the A31 Ferndown bypass on March 20 last year.

Inspector John Mallace, of Dorset Police’s traffic unit, told the Echo: “The legislation in my view is quite clear. She was using a hand-held mobile device while driving which is illegal.

“We submitted the file to the CPS but they took the decision not to prosecute.

“The legislation is quite clear that if you have to touch the hand-held device at any point in order to action the call then it’s not hands-free.

“People are negligent with their mobile phones. Even on the way to the inquest court with Mr Bartholomew's family in the car I saw a lorry driver with no hands on the wheel using his mobile phone.”

Insp Mallace said research has shown that using a mobile phone while driving is more distracting than being under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

He said the county’s No Excuse campaign, which uses a combination of enforcement and education, had seen a marked reduction in fatal and seriously injured casualties.

Insp Mallace said: “People know they shouldn’t use their mobile phone while driving and that if they do they are putting themselves and innocent members of the public at risk.”

He added: “It is inherently dangerous.

“There are far more people killed on the roads in Dorset than are murdered and people need to be aware that driving is a privilege and they need to think about how they are driving. We all do.”

Speaking after the inquest, Mr Bartholomew’s partner of 12 years Lindsey Witcombe said: “I would just like to thank everyone for their supportive comments.

“I do feel the need to point out that the investigating officers who presented this case to the Crown Prosecution Service and then subsequently appealed the decision not to prosecute, have tried their utmost to get justice for David and get this heard in a court of law. The CPS seems to have appointed themselves both judge and jury and disallowed its progress.”

 

Comments(43)

djd says...
8:31am Thu 14 Feb 13

So, all those who were so quick ot blame the police for not prosecuting one of their own.....now you know !! Blame the CPS.

Report this post »

scrumpyjack says...
8:45am Thu 14 Feb 13

djd wrote:
So, all those who were so quick ot blame the police for not prosecuting one of their own.....now you know !! Blame the CPS.
They wouldn't listen yesterday so why will they today.

Report this post »

rayc says...
8:54am Thu 14 Feb 13

"He said the county’s No Excuse campaign, which uses a combination of enforcement and education, had seen a marked reduction in fatal and seriously injured casualties."

Is this true? In 2009 there were 20+ fatalities on Dorset Roads, this fell to 10 in 2010. Since then the fatalities have been increasing year on year and in 2012 they were higher than 2009. These statistics have been published in the Echo.

Report this post »

speedy231278 says...
9:10am Thu 14 Feb 13

djd wrote:
So, all those who were so quick ot blame the police for not prosecuting one of their own.....now you know !! Blame the CPS.
While not part of the force in the strictest sense, the CPS is there to prosecute people who have broken the law. As far as I see it, they are effectively an extension of the Police force. Regardless of the semantics, a body who is trusted with making sure people uphold the law and are punished for failing to do so has failed in a shocking manner to do so on this occasion.

This woman should be in court on a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. By changing her story on the manner in which she was using the phone and/or the length of time she was doing so, she had admitted lying to the authorities, which is also an offence. Clearly, she is not trustworthy and the incident required further investigation, not sweeping under the carpet.

Report this post »

djd says...
9:15am Thu 14 Feb 13

speedy231278 wrote:
djd wrote:
So, all those who were so quick ot blame the police for not prosecuting one of their own.....now you know !! Blame the CPS.
While not part of the force in the strictest sense, the CPS is there to prosecute people who have broken the law. As far as I see it, they are effectively an extension of the Police force. Regardless of the semantics, a body who is trusted with making sure people uphold the law and are punished for failing to do so has failed in a shocking manner to do so on this occasion.

This woman should be in court on a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. By changing her story on the manner in which she was using the phone and/or the length of time she was doing so, she had admitted lying to the authorities, which is also an offence. Clearly, she is not trustworthy and the incident required further investigation, not sweeping under the carpet.
Sorry Speedy, the CPS are an arm of the Civil Service directly accountable to the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General, not the police. They have the final word every time..

Report this post »

funkyferret says...
9:17am Thu 14 Feb 13

Sorry Speedy231278, lying to the authorities is not an offence. If what is being claimed can be disproved, the court can take that into account, but that's all that can be done.

Report this post »

Teddy 1 says...
9:30am Thu 14 Feb 13

Good point rayc..what exactly changed in 2011? Seems the dramatic reductions in casualties ceased when they stopped talking and reminding drivers of the law and focussed purely on the fine income. As I have written on here before, are those causing the collisions of the same profile as those detected by the cameras and officers?Just plugging the words no excuse which means little to anyone and hasnt that been used by some local domestic abuse campaign?
Do they inform/remind police officers and employees of driving law and no excuse i wonder? I know my neighbour told me he heard form them when he was training...does this still happen, i guess not!

Come on Mr Underhill, it's time to wise up, review no excuse and change leadership of the road safety work, clearly the message is tired and the old 'strategy' is sadly slowely failing.

Report this post »

The Renegade Master says...
9:32am Thu 14 Feb 13

What's the difference between talking to someone hands free on your phone and talking to a passenger?
What's the difference between talking to someone hands free through the phones internal speaker and having it linked up to a hands free kit?
I would imagine the answer to both those questions is very little.
So what to do? Ban hands free kits? Ban having mobile phones in your car unless they are turned off? Ban talking to passengers? How about banning radios too? Shouldn't smoking in cars be banned also? All these things can be a distraction.
This off duty special constable could just as easily have been distracted by singing along to her favourite song at the time of this tragic accident. So, do we hang, draw and quarter this young woman for making a mistake? Or do we accept that accidents happen and sometimes they have tragic consequences? Remember that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life too.

Report this post »

kangman2012 says...
9:38am Thu 14 Feb 13

Top Traffic Cop says that she should have been prosecuted but the CPS said that they wouldn't prosecute. Says it all really - as the saying goes "power corrupts",

Report this post »

ruthieru27 says...
9:44am Thu 14 Feb 13

Nice to see that the CPS don't care that a woman who took the life of an innocent man is free to walk the streets. I wonder who will be the next person she kills on the road whilst performing an illegal act.
Ah justice isn't it just wonderful.

Report this post »

Cosmic Crusader says...
9:46am Thu 14 Feb 13

I hope that the deceased's family are seriously considering taking the case to the civil courts. There surely must be a justifiable case for the no win no fee legal brigade to take on.

Report this post »

EdBmth says...
9:46am Thu 14 Feb 13

The Renegade Master wrote:
What's the difference between talking to someone hands free on your phone and talking to a passenger? What's the difference between talking to someone hands free through the phones internal speaker and having it linked up to a hands free kit? I would imagine the answer to both those questions is very little. So what to do? Ban hands free kits? Ban having mobile phones in your car unless they are turned off? Ban talking to passengers? How about banning radios too? Shouldn't smoking in cars be banned also? All these things can be a distraction. This off duty special constable could just as easily have been distracted by singing along to her favourite song at the time of this tragic accident. So, do we hang, draw and quarter this young woman for making a mistake? Or do we accept that accidents happen and sometimes they have tragic consequences? Remember that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life too.
Have a look at the work that has been conducted by The Department of Psychology at The University Of Utah that has shown that the difference in quite considerable.

Report this post »

rayc says...
9:52am Thu 14 Feb 13

kangman2012 wrote:
Top Traffic Cop says that she should have been prosecuted but the CPS said that they wouldn't prosecute. Says it all really - as the saying goes "power corrupts",
It would be good to remember that the independent CPS was formed as the result of a Royal Commission in1978.
"A Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was set up under Sir Cyril Philips. Its report was published in 1981 and had the following three main criticisms of the Criminal Justice system in England and Wales:

- the police should not investigate offences and decide whether to prosecute. The officer who investigated a case could not be relied on to make a fair decision whether to prosecute

- different police forces around the country used different standards to decide whether to prosecute

- the police were allowing too many weak cases to come to court. This led to a high percentage of judge-directed acquittals."

I am grateful that the decision to prosecute is with the CPS and not the Police.

Report this post »

oneshortleg says...
9:52am Thu 14 Feb 13

The Renegade Master wrote:
What's the difference between talking to someone hands free on your phone and talking to a passenger?
What's the difference between talking to someone hands free through the phones internal speaker and having it linked up to a hands free kit?
I would imagine the answer to both those questions is very little.
So what to do? Ban hands free kits? Ban having mobile phones in your car unless they are turned off? Ban talking to passengers? How about banning radios too? Shouldn't smoking in cars be banned also? All these things can be a distraction.
This off duty special constable could just as easily have been distracted by singing along to her favourite song at the time of this tragic accident. So, do we hang, draw and quarter this young woman for making a mistake? Or do we accept that accidents happen and sometimes they have tragic consequences? Remember that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life too.
Could not agree with you more, yes she lied about her statements and that was wrong, but whilst i feel sympathy for the family of the man that died, witnesses said she was exiting the road safely. The man on the bike was overtaking at an accident blackspot near a junction that has warning signs for motorbikes on this road, I would made no difference if she had been holding a phone, a ciggerette, or doing nothing!

Report this post »

oneshortleg says...
10:01am Thu 14 Feb 13

So this top Dorset Traffic Cop thinks she should have been prosecuted, yet no prosecutions were brought when the police ran down Greg Love in Bournemouth in 2006 leaving him with severe brain damage and the family having to sue for compensation!

Report this post »

uvox44 says...
10:06am Thu 14 Feb 13

I wish the law was changed so if you are caught using a mobile whilst driving your phone is taken away then and there and you get an automatic months ban - there is simply and absolutely no reason to use one whilst you are driving.

Report this post »

oneshortleg says...
10:28am Thu 14 Feb 13

So sat navs, smoking, eating listening to the radio don't distract you?

Report this post »

PokesdownMark says...
10:43am Thu 14 Feb 13

yes I understand there is actually a significant difference between talking to a passenger and talking to someone one the phone. I think I read that entirely different brain patterns can be observed. Something to do with the brain having to work harder when talking to someone on the phone because it automatically tries to create an internal representation of that whole person. But if the person is next to you, even if you aren't looking, it doesn't. Facinating stuff!

Report this post »

TheDistrict says...
10:45am Thu 14 Feb 13

oneshortleg wrote:
So sat navs, smoking, eating listening to the radio don't distract you?
Satnavs NO. Once they are set up, they are a no contact adivsory service. As for the rest, including the use of a mobile telephone, unless it is on a hands free kit, is not only a distraction to driving, but means one is only driving with one hand, and not the requisite two. Therefore they become a danger to themselves and other road users.

Toot the users of mobile phones, then you will see how much their concentration is wandering when they reawake to driving.

Report this post »

speedy231278 says...
10:55am Thu 14 Feb 13

funkyferret wrote:
Sorry Speedy231278, lying to the authorities is not an offence. If what is being claimed can be disproved, the court can take that into account, but that's all that can be done.
So, I can lie to Police, lie to an inquest, and lie to a court of law? I thought that was perjury. Silly me!

Report this post »

speedy231278 says...
10:57am Thu 14 Feb 13

scrumpyjack wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
djd wrote:
So, all those who were so quick ot blame the police for not prosecuting one of their own.....now you know !! Blame the CPS.
While not part of the force in the strictest sense, the CPS is there to prosecute people who have broken the law. As far as I see it, they are effectively an extension of the Police force. Regardless of the semantics, a body who is trusted with making sure people uphold the law and are punished for failing to do so has failed in a shocking manner to do so on this occasion.

This woman should be in court on a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. By changing her story on the manner in which she was using the phone and/or the length of time she was doing so, she had admitted lying to the authorities, which is also an offence. Clearly, she is not trustworthy and the incident required further investigation, not sweeping under the carpet.
Your ignorance knows no bounds and you have just proved it.

You really have no idea.
That clearly makes two of us.

Report this post »

scrumpyjack says...
11:29am Thu 14 Feb 13

"takes one to know one" the retort of the playground. Impressive.

Report this post »

step up says...
11:33am Thu 14 Feb 13

As I said in previous article. One rule for them another for us. Corruption pure and simple. She broke the law. Somebody died. If were me would I face prosection? ? This country has no moral compass.

Report this post »

muscliffman says...
11:41am Thu 14 Feb 13

oneshortleg wrote:
So sat navs, smoking, eating listening to the radio don't distract you?
As others point out the answer is a qualified 'No they don't'.

All those activities you identify are entirely passive, the brain is not actively engaging with another person.

Talking to others in a car is also less distractive, as senses other than blind vocal communication are at work.

This has all been well researched, mobile phones (even on hands free) and two way radios do require extra attention from the driver. Balancing a mobile phone on your lap would also compound the distraction, I am sure.

Knee-jerk to this particualr case is understandably currently running at 'hang her' level. The pictures published elsewhere of this SPC arriving at the Inquest grinning don't help me very much with that one!

However considered opinion must be that a Court of Law should have been engaged in this case - without doubt in my view.

Police or CPS, we can argue all day, but the bottom line is the 'establishment' - not what you know but so often who you know. I would like believe these are independant bodies. But reality is so likely to be different.

Report this post »

Cherry19 says...
11:52am Thu 14 Feb 13

I think the issue that has angered people so much is that this lady is a Special Constable, paid or voluntary, it matters not, she was 'employed' by the Police Service & would have clearly known the boundaries, in fact, as reported, she has ticketed 6 drivers for just this offence! ... and she changed her story, basically she lied! I truly hope she is no longer a Special Constable.

It's this 'couldn't care less', arrogant attitude towards other people that causes accidents such as these ... for all her need to speak to her partner, this man lost his life, what was so important to her that it couldn't wait till she got to work? ...

Report this post »

rayc says...
11:53am Thu 14 Feb 13

speedy231278 wrote:
funkyferret wrote:
Sorry Speedy231278, lying to the authorities is not an offence. If what is being claimed can be disproved, the court can take that into account, but that's all that can be done.
So, I can lie to Police, lie to an inquest, and lie to a court of law? I thought that was perjury. Silly me!
She never lied to the inquest and she has not been tried a court of law. She admitted the phone 'use' during the investigation.

Report this post »

scrumpyjack says...
12:06pm Thu 14 Feb 13

step up wrote:
As I said in previous article. One rule for them another for us. Corruption pure and simple. She broke the law. Somebody died. If were me would I face prosection? ? This country has no moral compass.
You actually believe that don't you?

Despite the poor man's partner and his son saying the complete opposite.

Despite the coroner saying the complete opposite.

Despite the press statements and reports saying the complete opposite?

But hey what do they know? You have it all sorted and don't need anyone to tell you any different.

Report this post »

the smiling assassin says...
12:11pm Thu 14 Feb 13

The Renegade Master wrote:
What's the difference between talking to someone hands free on your phone and talking to a passenger? What's the difference between talking to someone hands free through the phones internal speaker and having it linked up to a hands free kit? I would imagine the answer to both those questions is very little. So what to do? Ban hands free kits? Ban having mobile phones in your car unless they are turned off? Ban talking to passengers? How about banning radios too? Shouldn't smoking in cars be banned also? All these things can be a distraction. This off duty special constable could just as easily have been distracted by singing along to her favourite song at the time of this tragic accident. So, do we hang, draw and quarter this young woman for making a mistake? Or do we accept that accidents happen and sometimes they have tragic consequences? Remember that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life too.
No, we shouldn't prosecute every motorist who makes a mistake... unless that mistake costs someone their life and then we (the CPS) should!!

Report this post »

Seabeam says...
1:29pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Special constable, special trearment?

Report this post »

speedy231278 says...
1:49pm Thu 14 Feb 13

scrumpyjack wrote:
"takes one to know one" the retort of the playground. Impressive.
You Sir, are a wit. But only half of one.

Report this post »

a.g.o.g. says...
3:07pm Thu 14 Feb 13

The motorcyclist may have been making a
manouvre that exposed him to greater danger but whether or not it or his speed at the time was illegal the only way to test the innocence of the other driver in such sadly fatal circumstances should have been by jury of her peers. The potentially illegal use of a mobile phone is a Redd Herring. Full stop.

Report this post »

dvdr says...
3:20pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Yes, there is a difference between talking to, or listening to, a passenger and paying attention to a mobile phone. I insist to my wife when she is a passenger that she must not talk to me when approaching a junction or roundabout, so that I can concentrate fully on what I am doing, and what others around me are doing. A telephone does not know what is going on and when to shut up and wait until it is safe (?) to continue.

Report this post »

rich53 says...
4:40pm Thu 14 Feb 13

I saw a picture in the daily express of this woman outside the court with a massive grin on her face,can someone tell me is she still a special!.

Report this post »

britbilly says...
4:51pm Thu 14 Feb 13

I have always said that anyone wishing to commit murder in this country only has to ensure that they are behind the wheel of a car at the time, and this should fall into that category. I have been knocked down on my bike more than once, the worst being in 1998 and nearly cost me my life. It did result in 3 years off work, an intimate knowledge of Odstock Hospital and my career and pension. To my knowledge the car driver was not even prosecuted. The cell phone is the most dangerous thing inside a car other than the moron behind the wheel who feels that one's conversation is far more important than actually watching what they are doing. My sympathy to the family of another victim.

Report this post »

The Renegade Master says...
5:03pm Thu 14 Feb 13

the smiling assassin wrote:
The Renegade Master wrote:
What's the difference between talking to someone hands free on your phone and talking to a passenger? What's the difference between talking to someone hands free through the phones internal speaker and having it linked up to a hands free kit? I would imagine the answer to both those questions is very little. So what to do? Ban hands free kits? Ban having mobile phones in your car unless they are turned off? Ban talking to passengers? How about banning radios too? Shouldn't smoking in cars be banned also? All these things can be a distraction. This off duty special constable could just as easily have been distracted by singing along to her favourite song at the time of this tragic accident. So, do we hang, draw and quarter this young woman for making a mistake? Or do we accept that accidents happen and sometimes they have tragic consequences? Remember that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life too.
No, we shouldn't prosecute every motorist who makes a mistake... unless that mistake costs someone their life and then we (the CPS) should!!
So the motorcyclist who was overtaking at a junction on a notorious road for accidents is entirely blameless? I think not. I rode bikes for a number of years in my youth and I can clearly remember my instructor telling me never to overtake where there was a road joining on the right as a car could emerge, not see you and you end up in a head on collision. It was a golden rule and one that has stayed with me.
Accidents happen, but unfortunately in this day and age everything is about apportioning blame to someone. The fact that this young woman has not been charged shows she was not driving unsafely or dangerously. Ok she shouldn't have been nattering away on her hands free perhaps but that clearly was not responsible for this tragedy.

Report this post »

PigWhistle0709 says...
6:01pm Thu 14 Feb 13

step up wrote:
As I said in previous article. One rule for them another for us. Corruption pure and simple. She broke the law. Somebody died. If were me would I face prosection? ? This country has no moral compass.
The CPS decided to prosecute me over something practcailly identical to another case in which they decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Mind you, the guy in the other case was John ('two jags, two jabs, two...') Prescott...

Report this post »

LNZ1 57 says...
6:57pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Many thanks to all those who have expressed support to our family. We are now informed that Colette Carpenter has now resigned as a “Special” constable with immediate effect!

Report this post »

retry69 says...
7:12pm Thu 14 Feb 13

I am sure that will please a lot of people and best wishes to you all

Report this post »

wilkiemini says...
9:27pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Good i'm glad to hear that she has resigned, all we need now is for her to say sorry to the family involved (like she actually means it and without the stupid grin on her face) for killing their loved one and for lying about her actions!
If she were my daughter I'd be thoroughly ashamed of her!

Report this post »

dorsetred says...
11:47pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Ins Mallace say's should have prosecuted knowing they can't, looks good anyway, Hillsboro, Hacking etc etc

Report this post »

fixedthatforyou says...
11:38am Fri 15 Feb 13

What a lot of commenters on this fail to note is that it is difficult for the cps to go ahead with cases like this in a criminal court because they understand the difficuties in winning the case.
Jurys are often reluctant to convict people of death by dangerous driving so the charges are sometimes dropped to a lesser charge with a better rate of conviction or like this dropped completely.
It is the nature of the jury that meant this case was not tried in a court.
Although it is no comfort to the family, awards for compensation in the civil courts happen more often. loosing in crown court would make a civil case harder to win.

Report this post »

fixedthatforyou says...
11:39am Fri 15 Feb 13

What a lot of commenters on this fail to note is that it is difficult for the cps to go ahead with cases like this in a criminal court because they understand the difficuties in winning the case.
Jurys are often reluctant to convict people of death by dangerous driving so the charges are sometimes dropped to a lesser charge with a better rate of conviction or like this dropped completely.
It is the nature of the jury that meant this case was not tried in a court.
Although it is no comfort to the family, awards for compensation in the civil courts happen more often. loosing in crown court would make a civil case harder to win.

Report this post »

2012bmthgal says...
4:53pm Fri 15 Feb 13

oneshortleg says...
10:01am Thu 14 Feb 13
So this top Dorset Traffic Cop thinks she should have been prosecuted, yet no prosecutions were brought when the police ran down Greg Love in Bournemouth in 2006 leaving him with severe brain damage and the family having to sue for compensation!

Totally agree! My brother is friends with Greg and the whole thing was horrific but once again the police just get away with it.
They are quick enough to pull anyone over if they even so much as THINK you are using your phone. I have been stopped before for 'using my phone' - i was tucking my hair behind my ear and they looked very silly when I showed them my phone was in my bag, in the back of the car! Yet she admits to using her phone ((Illegal)) and is let off scott free?!

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree