Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Two arrested on suspicion of attempted murder as London bike cop run over

Incident took place on Kennington Park Road on Wednesday afternoon

Two men have been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a police officer on bike patrol in South London was run over as he attempted to stop a vehicle.

The Metropolitan Police is appealing for witnesses to the incident, which happened on Kennington Park Road, Lambeth, yesterday afternoon at approximately 2.45pm and involved a black Vauxhall Meriva.

According to a statement from police, “The vehicle appeared to deliberately run over the officer who had got off his bicycle. He was struck by the car and ended up on the bonnet before falling to the ground.

“The suspects drove off at speed in the direction of Peckham,” police said, adding that the vehicle was found at 3.35pm abandoned in Frederick Crescent, SW9.

The officer involved, a 39-year old male who is a member of the Roads and Transport Policing Command, was taken to hospital with arm and leg injuries and is now recovering at home.

Two men, one aged 22, the other 23, were later arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

Detective Sergeant Ranjit Sekhon of the Roads and Transport Policing Command said: "I would urge anyone who witnessed either the collision or the car speeding away to contact us.

“I would also like to speak with anyone who saw two men running from the car after it was parked in Frederick Crescent.

"It is extremely fortunate that the officer, who was attempting a routine traffic stop, was not more seriously injured.

"It is important that we speak with as many people as possible to piece together the moments leading up to the collision," he added.

Anyone who has information is asked to contact the witness appeal line on 020 8543 5157 or the charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.

Please note for legal reasons, comments are now closed on this story.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

41 comments

Avatar
oozaveared | 8 years ago
0 likes

Okay I am going to take issue here with the one law for them brigade.  If this driver was prepared to run over a uniformed copper in broad daylight and make a run for it.... I want him in jail.  Just think what he'd be prepared to do to you or me.  

That is why I think coppers should get special protection.  Even most hotheads and nutters calm down at the sight of the uniform but someone that doesn't even give a s**t about that is a proper menace to us all.

Avatar
ironmancole | 8 years ago
4 likes

Whereas most would say where road violence is concerned the entire legal system is criminal 

Avatar
ironmancole | 8 years ago
4 likes

Clearly a two tier system that should be challenged on equality grounds. What if men were treated differently to women in the same situation, black and white, homo and heterosexual etc? 

Playing devils advocate I can understand the need to offer officers an extra level of protection but fundamentally and irrespective of rank, class, status, age or any other factor all are made equal and should be recognised as such by the law.

As for intent that needs to be gotten rid of where a vehicle is concerned. Why?

In no other scenario would a court accept that causing injury or death with a weapon was an accident, therefore lesser punishment but the car, not recognised as a weapon but a shiny essential utility that can do no wrong somehow escapes the weapon category so intent, unless plainly premeditated and evidenced beforehand, will always be considered as lacking.

Somehow where a police officer is involved intent is automatically assumed but for a civilian intent is automatically removed. It is utterly chaotic.

What it should simply come down to is did this individual take a life or not. Circumstances and other technicalities aside a life has been stolen or damaged, in the majority of cases for no good reason at all.

It should be challenged though, either take road crime seriously or declare open season but this mixed messaging and two tier inequality is bullshit.

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to ironmancole | 8 years ago
1 like

ironmancole wrote:

Clearly a two tier system that should be challenged on equality grounds. What if men were treated differently to women in the same situation, black and white, homo and heterosexual etc? 

Playing devils advocate I can understand the need to offer officers an extra level of protection but fundamentally and irrespective of rank, class, status, age or any other factor all are made equal and should be recognised as such by the law.

As for intent that needs to be gotten rid of where a vehicle is concerned. Why?

In no other scenario would a court accept that causing injury or death with a weapon was an accident, therefore lesser punishment but the car, not recognised as a weapon but a shiny essential utility that can do no wrong somehow escapes the weapon category so intent, unless plainly premeditated and evidenced beforehand, will always be considered as lacking.

Somehow where a police officer is involved intent is automatically assumed but for a civilian intent is automatically removed. It is utterly chaotic.

What it should simply come down to is did this individual take a life or not. Circumstances and other technicalities aside a life has been stolen or damaged, in the majority of cases for no good reason at all.

It should be challenged though, either take road crime seriously or declare open season but this mixed messaging and two tier inequality is bullshit.

In that context, would you be happy to see cyclists colliding with pedestrians, with no intent, be charged with various degrees of assault? 

If you read the article, the copper was trying to stop a vehicle on foot. In the execution of his duty. 

If you remove the very little protection we get from the Courts whilst trying to do the job, a job which quite a few of us would leave tomorrow by the way, then the game is really up.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to DivineChorus | 8 years ago
1 like

DivineChorus wrote:

ironmancole wrote:

Clearly a two tier system that should be challenged on equality grounds. What if men were treated differently to women in the same situation, black and white, homo and heterosexual etc? 

Playing devils advocate I can understand the need to offer officers an extra level of protection but fundamentally and irrespective of rank, class, status, age or any other factor all are made equal and should be recognised as such by the law.

As for intent that needs to be gotten rid of where a vehicle is concerned. Why?

In no other scenario would a court accept that causing injury or death with a weapon was an accident, therefore lesser punishment but the car, not recognised as a weapon but a shiny essential utility that can do no wrong somehow escapes the weapon category so intent, unless plainly premeditated and evidenced beforehand, will always be considered as lacking.

Somehow where a police officer is involved intent is automatically assumed but for a civilian intent is automatically removed. It is utterly chaotic.

What it should simply come down to is did this individual take a life or not. Circumstances and other technicalities aside a life has been stolen or damaged, in the majority of cases for no good reason at 

In that context, would you be happy to see cyclists colliding with pedestrians, with no intent, be charged with various degrees of assault? 

If they did so as a result of breaking the law, then yes, of course. Although a car is likely to be a rather more effective weapon, and safer for the user.

You keep talking about motorists hitting people 'without intent', but very often it's  because they were speeding, usung a mobile, 'taking the racing line' or other such things, all of which require a deliberate, presumably voluntary,  action. How such things can be 'without intent' baffles me.

Avatar
davel replied to oldstrath | 8 years ago
0 likes

oldstrath wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

ironmancole wrote:

Clearly a two tier system that should be challenged on equality grounds. What if men were treated differently to women in the same situation, black and white, homo and heterosexual etc? 

Playing devils advocate I can understand the need to offer officers an extra level of protection but fundamentally and irrespective of rank, class, status, age or any other factor all are made equal and should be recognised as such by the law.

As for intent that needs to be gotten rid of where a vehicle is concerned. Why?

In no other scenario would a court accept that causing injury or death with a weapon was an accident, therefore lesser punishment but the car, not recognised as a weapon but a shiny essential utility that can do no wrong somehow escapes the weapon category so intent, unless plainly premeditated and evidenced beforehand, will always be considered as lacking.

Somehow where a police officer is involved intent is automatically assumed but for a civilian intent is automatically removed. It is utterly chaotic.

What it should simply come down to is did this individual take a life or not. Circumstances and other technicalities aside a life has been stolen or damaged, in the majority of cases for no good reason at 

In that context, would you be happy to see cyclists colliding with pedestrians, with no intent, be charged with various degrees of assault? 

If they did so as a result of breaking the law, then yes, of course. Although a car is likely to be a rather more effective weapon, and safer for the user.

You keep talking about motorists hitting people 'without intent', but very often it's  because they were speeding, usung a mobile, 'taking the racing line' or other such things, all of which require a deliberate, presumably voluntary,  action. How such things can be 'without intent' baffles me.

Agreed: society, 'we', most individuals(?) accept the effects of 'dangerous driving' as 'accidents', because while they were sexting at the wheel they didn't intend to endanger anyone else. We need to view it as antisocial behaviour, like we now do with drink driving.

Avatar
Housecathst | 8 years ago
2 likes

I'm sure it'll be down graded to careless driving once his solicitor has told him what to say, perhaps it was sun got in his eyes. 

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to Housecathst | 8 years ago
1 like

Housecathst wrote:

I'm sure it'll be down graded to careless driving once his solicitor has told him what to say, perhaps it was sun got in his eyes. 

That decision would be made by the CPS. 

Avatar
Bill H | 8 years ago
2 likes

I really hope that the officer makes a complete recovery,  but I would be a liar not to say that part of me wants to compare and contrast incidents involving police versus the rest of us!

 

 

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to Bill H | 8 years ago
2 likes

Bill H wrote:

I really hope that the officer makes a complete recovery,  but I would be a liar not to say that part of me wants to compare and contrast incidents involving police versus the rest of us!

 

 

If I'm riding my bike at home and involved in a Road Traffic Collision - same as everyone else

If I'm riding my bike at work as part of my duty and involved in a Road Traffic Collision - same as everyone else.

If I'm targeted/assaulted whilst in the execution of my duty, whilst on a bike, differently. The offender is then Assaulting a Constable in the Execution of their Duty. 

 

But once again, intent has to be proven. 

Avatar
DivineChorus | 8 years ago
5 likes

Heard that he's being released from hospital.

He was hit by the car whilst dismounted from the bike. Car veered towards him whilst he was conducting a traffic stop, who knows, may have seen the driver on the phone, driving carelessly, you know those things us Plod never deal with.

So he was deliberately targeted whilst in the 'execution' of his duty' from the sounds of the report.

I'll echo what Stumps says in relation to 'one rule for them', you couldn't be further from the truth if you think that, the judiciary mainly see getting assaulted on duty as an occupational hazard,hence now I drive a desk. 

Hope the officer makes a quick recovery.

Avatar
Stumps | 8 years ago
4 likes

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Stumps | 8 years ago
2 likes

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

Avatar
Stumps replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes

bendertherobot:

 

It depends on the circumstances doesn't it.

Bill H:

"but I would be a liar not to say that part of me wants to compare and contrast incidents involving police versus the rest of us!"

 

Feel free to state and compare the us and them scenario's.

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Stumps | 8 years ago
2 likes

stumps wrote:

bendertherobot:

 

It depends on the circumstances doesn't it.

Bill H:

"but I would be a liar not to say that part of me wants to compare and contrast incidents involving police versus the rest of us!"

 

Feel free to state and compare the us and them scenario's.

It does, but I read on there the other day that you couldn't assault someone with a motor vehicle. Can we accept that's incorrect now?

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to DivineChorus | 8 years ago
0 likes

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

 

If you go out with 'mens rea' or intent to cause harm to a person using a motor vehicle as a weapon, then that is an murder/attempt murder/GBH/ABH

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Vehicles can be used as a weapon, as in offensive weapon 'made, used or adapted'.

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to DivineChorus | 8 years ago
2 likes

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

 

If you go out with 'mens rea' or intent to cause harm to a person using a motor vehicle as a weapon, then that is an murder/attempt murder/GBH/ABH

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Vehicles can can be used as a weapon. 

Indeed. And I don't need it explaining to me. You might like to explain it to someone else though. 

I'd not agree with "going out with" though. You can form intent at any part of your journey depending on the offence.

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
1 like

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

 

If you go out with 'mens rea' or intent to cause harm to a person using a motor vehicle as a weapon, then that is an murder/attempt murder/GBH/ABH

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Vehicles can can be used as a weapon. 

Indeed. And I don't need it explaining to me. You might like to explain it to someone else though. 

I'd not agree with "going out with" though. You can form intent at any part of your journey depending on the offence.

 

Fair point, I should have used the correct terminology rather than 'going out' especially involving a journey, I meant it in the respect of 'prior to the offence taking place'

Avatar
Ush replied to DivineChorus | 8 years ago
1 like
DivineChorus wrote:

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

http://road.cc/content/news/182921-italy-gets-tough-killer-drivers-how-d...
We regularly report on cases where motorists convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving have been handed a community order or suspended prison sentence, rather than a custodial one. In Italy the driver would be jailed for at least two years.

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to Ush | 8 years ago
0 likes

Ush][quote=DivineChorus wrote:

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

road.cc some time earlier wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/182921-italy-gets-tough-killer-drivers-how-d... We regularly report on cases where motorists convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving have been handed a community order or suspended prison sentence, rather than a custodial one. In Italy the driver would be jailed for at least two years.

 

I was quoting a comparable incident. Intent and using the vehicle as a weapon would be murder.

Driving dangerously and causing death but without intent, death by dangerous driving. If the evidence points towards dangerous rather than than careless. 

CPS decide the charge. 

Believe it or not, we are on the same side. I ride bikes, I see shocking driving, I get passed close. 

Im just pointing out the difference between the intent of a pre determined assault versus poor quality or dangerous driving.

Avatar
Ush replied to DivineChorus | 8 years ago
1 like
DivineChorus wrote:
Ush wrote:
DivineChorus wrote:

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

CPS decide the charge.

I'm just pointing out that you left out one of the most common charges laid against car drivers that have caused the death of a cyclist. Why you did that I really don't know. It could be due to simple ignorance. I don't see you on any side. Just pointing out that you've left out what is, for most cycling deaths a likely possibility.

Avatar
DivineChorus replied to Ush | 8 years ago
0 likes

Ush wrote:
DivineChorus wrote:
Ush wrote:
DivineChorus wrote:

 

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

CPS decide the charge.

I'm just pointing out that you left out one of the most common charges laid against car drivers that have caused the death of a cyclist. Why you did that I really don't know. It could be due to simple ignorance. I don't see you on any side. Just pointing out that you've left out what is, for most cycling deaths a likely possibility.

 

As I said, CPS will decide the charge, dependant on evidence and the likelihood of a successful condition.  

Someone who has caused in what a Police Officer deemed to be an instance of dangerous driving, the death of a cyclist or any other road user, would be arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. 

Read the various reports on here regarding arrests at the scene or later after statements from witnesses have been taken, most will say as above. 

After that it's down to the CPS to decide the charge if any, if that is Careless then they deem that to be the one that is most likely to succeed at Court. 

Happens in every aspect of the law, the adage is 'Arrest high, they will charge low' 

 

Avatar
TerreyHill replied to DivineChorus | 8 years ago
1 like

DivineChorus wrote:

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence.

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this.

 

That's not quite right - an assault can be proved by showing recklessness on the part of the accsued (unless, of course, it's a charge of murder or a section 18 GBH, both of which require proof of a specific intent).

Avatar
LarryDavidJr | 8 years ago
1 like

Sureley this now sets precedent?  

Avatar
pants | 8 years ago
2 likes

The moral of the story is if you were to be run over by a car, be a police man/woman.

Avatar
LarryDavidJr | 8 years ago
7 likes

Glad he's ok.

But the hypocrisy is enraging.

 

"one law for them"

Avatar
IanW1968 | 8 years ago
11 likes

If your copper on a bike, your a copper.

 If your a doctor on a bike your a cyclists and they're all asking to be killed. 

Avatar
Kestevan | 8 years ago
15 likes

Surely all the two accused need to do is to refuse to say which of them was driving.....9 points and a slap on the wrist for failing to identify.  Or does that only apply to drivers who try to run over cyclists who don't happen to be police officers?

Pages

Latest Comments