Recurring concern

Unreliable blue-lights response decision-making

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 24 Nov 2020•Latest report 21 Nov 2022

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of controls specifically dedicated to deciding, mandating or applying blue-lights responses, including policy exceptions, response thresholds, training, guidance and operational interpretation for police or emergency communications personnel.

Not included

Excludes generic emergency-response, driver-training or communications deficiencies that are not specifically tied to blue-lights response decisions.
Excludes vehicle equipment failures, driving misconduct and delays occurring after a blue-lights response decision has been made.
Excludes unrelated emergency prioritisation or dispatch decisions where the blue-lights response requirement is not the identified control.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2020–2022
Stated actions: 0

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust1

Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust1

Essex Police1

Metropolitan Police Service1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

21 Nov2022
West London
Concerns raised2
1. Unclear scope or threshold of the silent approach exception
2. Unclear application of the Blue Lights exception to response drivers
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  The policy will not be amended because further detail would be too prescriptive and potentially unworkable alongside the Highway Code and Road Craft.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceUnable to act
1. Position
  A prescriptive silent-approach threshold or list is not feasible because incidents vary and it would restrict drivers’ professional judgment in dynamic situations.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Andrew MacIntyre Brown · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Andrew MacIntyre Brown, aged 23, died after being struck by a police vehicle at a pedestrian crossing on 5 November 2019. The vehicle was travelling at an unsuitable speed at night and was not using lights and sirens. The report identifies concerns that police driving policies insufficiently addressed the safety of pedestrians and other road users and were unclear about the circumstances in which a silent approach could be used.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unclear scope or threshold of the silent approach exception
Wider context from the report
“1. There is insufficient reference to other road users and pedestrians and their safety in the Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). 2. The Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is too open to interpretation in the section on “silent approach” in section 1.55 Warning equipment – (sirens, blue lights and headlamp flasher) and the first three paragraphs of section 1.57 Blue Lights. The scope or threshold of the exception in the two sections is not clear and it is also not clear where the exception in the latter section applied to response drivers. ”
Source location
Andrew MacIntyre Brown · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unclear application of the Blue Lights exception to response drivers
Wider context from the report
“1. There is insufficient reference to other road users and pedestrians and their safety in the Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). 2. The Metropolitan Police Service Police Driver & Vehicle Policy - Vehicle and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is too open to interpretation in the section on “silent approach” in section 1.55 Warning equipment – (sirens, blue lights and headlamp flasher) and the first three paragraphs of section 1.57 Blue Lights. The scope or threshold of the exception in the two sections is not clear and it is also not clear where the exception in the latter section applied to response drivers. ”
Source location
Andrew MacIntyre Brown · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The policy will not be amended because further detail would be too prescriptive and potentially unworkable alongside the Highway Code and Road Craft.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I can confirm that the MPS have carefully considered the Coroner’s concerns and whether there are any helpful amendments which would make to the policy. However, on this occasion it was agreed that any amendment would make the policy too prescriptive. As outlined in the evidence to the Court during the inquest, police driving is based on the Highway Code and Road Craft, both of which are focussed on the safety of road users and pedestrians. A delicate balance must therefore be struck on the level of detail within the MPS policy to ensure that it is not unworkable.”

Source location
Response from Metropolitan Police
Page 2 · response
Published 21 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
A prescriptive silent-approach threshold or list is not feasible because incidents vary and it would restrict drivers’ professional judgment in dynamic situations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Police drivers deal with a wide range of incidents on a daily basis, each with their own set of unique circumstances resulting in drivers facing numerous decisions regarding their driving response choices and the different methods that can be used, whether that be the use of full warning equipment, part warning equipment or a silent approach. The use of this equipment cannot be prescriptive as the decision whether to make use of any exemptions or use warning equipment will always rest with the driver who is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is driven in a safe manner in line with their training and skill level.”

Source location
Response from Metropolitan Police
Page 2 · response
Published 21 November 2022
Open published response
24 Nov2020
Essex
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of sufficiently clear Essex Police Comms Officer training on when a blue lights response should be mandated
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Sharon Louise Kelly · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Sharon Louise Kelly, who had a long history of mental health and alcohol problems and frequent suicide attempts, informed a family member that she would kill herself on the anniversary of her baby son’s death. On 27 June 2019, an ambulance attended her property but did not enter while awaiting delayed police attendance; when services eventually entered, Ms Kelly was deceased. The concerns included delays and communication between ambulance and police services, risk assessment and police response procedures, and arrangements for urgent mental health assessments.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of sufficiently clear Essex Police Comms Officer training on when a blue lights response should be mandated
Wider context from the report
“Whether there is sufficient clarity in the training for Essex Police Comms Officers as to the circumstances in which a blue lights response should be mandated (in light of the evidence of Insp ████████ as to the response on 27 June 2019) ”
Source location
Sharon Louise Kelly · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Unclear scope or threshold of the silent approach exception

Unclear application of the Blue Lights exception to response drivers

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Lack of sufficiently clear Essex Police Comms Officer training on when a blue lights response should be mandated

Respondent positions 2