After recognizing that its first inquiry included “flaws,” the police oversight agency has taken the decision to review the case of a woman who was murdered after she was hit by a police car while trying to get away from the officers who were pursuing her. The lady was attempting to elude the cops who were chasing her at the time of her death. It was the accident between the woman and the automobile that ultimately proved fatal for the woman.
Kimberley Cameron, who had attained the age of 27 at the time of her dying, was traveling on the A41 Bicester Road near to Aylesbury in the county of Buckinghamshire in the month of April 2021 when she died away unexpectedly. At the time of her passing, she was in the county of Buckinghamshire.
Following the completion of their inquiry, the members of the inquest jury came to the conclusion that she had gone away as a result of injuries acquired as a result of being involved in a car crash.
During the course of the inquest, “significant new information” emerged, necessitating a response from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which had been looking into the event up until that point.
In response to the news, her parents, Kevin and Liane Cameron, have expressed their happiness and said that they “had always felt that the first IOPC inquiry was fundamentally flawed.”
The marked police car was traveling along the A41 Bicester Road in Aylesbury at the time of the incident. The road is located in Buckinghamshire. It was in route to Waddesdon to conduct an investigation into a “serious” crash that had taken place in that location. The incident occurred at the time when there was a marked police vehicle present in Waddesdon at the time.
On the early evening of April 16, 2021, Ms. Cameron was out jogging when she was struck by a marked police vehicle that was moving while its blue lights and sirens were on.
The individual behind the wheel was a member of the Thames Valley Police Department, and he was on his way to investigate reports of a catastrophic accident that included a huge number of automobiles in a hamlet that was situated near by.
In a letter to Ms. Cameron’s family, Mel Palmer, regional director of the IOPC, wrote the following: “when I realize the police was utilizing lights and sirens, he was causing serious danger by exceeding the speed limit while driving on the wrong side of the road,” which was obtained by the. Ms. Cameron’s family received the letter. “When I recognized that the police were activating their lights and sirens, he was creating a big hazard by exceeding the speed limit while driving on the incorrect side of the road,” Mel Palmer stated, “While I recognize that the police were using lights and sirens, he was presenting a major threat by exceeding While driving on the opposite side, one should adhere to the speed limit. the road.” “It’s true that the police was driving on the wrong side of the road, which was providing a distraction for other drivers.” “Even though I am aware that the police was using his lights and sirens, the fact of the matter is that he was significantly increasing the probability of being involved in a collision by driving in excess of the permitted speed limit,”
According to the statement, the first investigation was flawed in such a manner that it had a significant impact on subsequent decisions about punishment, performance, and/or referral to the CPS.
The actions of the officer were considered to be “compliant with the relevant rules and procedures” in the report that was compiled based on the results of the first investigation that was conducted by the IOPC. This report was made available to the general public in February of 2022.
It is now believed that vital new information was disclosed during the investigation by a police driving instructor who was working on the case. This new information is understood to have been given by the investigator. The reason for this is because the officer was not able to get a good look at the crossing from where he was positioned, therefore this happened. This testimony provided evidence that firmly showed the officer should have greatly slowed down, and it proved that they should have done so. Additionally, it shown that they should have done so. In addition to this, the results showed that they did not considerably slow down.
A definition of “most recent findings”
Ms. Palmer claims that the information that was provided at the inquest by the police driving trainer was not requested as part of their investigation. This may be deduced from the fact that no effort was made to get the information.
“We believe that there is a strong chance that alternative decisions would have been made about punishment, performance, and/or whether or not the problem should have been brought to the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service.” “Had we been able to get our hands on these extra pieces of evidence while we were doing our inquiry, there is a good chance that we would have arrived at different conclusions,” you say. “We feel that there is a considerable probability that alternative judgments would have been reached about punishment, performance, and/or whether or not the event should have been brought to the Crown Prosecution Service.” “We believe there is a substantial possibility that alternative decisions would have been reached about whether or not the issue should have been brought to the Crown Prosecution Service.” [T]here is a significant possibility that other choices would have been made in this situation.
During the 2.2 seconds before to the event, the police car was traveling at an average speed of 62 miles per hour (99 kilometers per hour) in a region with a speed restriction of 40 miles per hour (64 kilometers per hour). In this particular region, the maximum legal speed is forty miles per hour.
The results of the inquiry into the accident revealed that Ms. Cameron had been waiting at the crossing for at least four seconds while the push-button lights were on.
In the narrative finding that was produced by the investigation, it was noted that the police vehicle had been operating under emergency conditions, and that the visibility between Ms. Cameron and the police car had been hampered by other automobiles just before to the incident. This information was included in the finding that was made as a result of the inquiry. The inquiry’s final finding used this piece of information as supporting evidence. The inquest came to this verdict as a result of its investigation.
