PFD report

Muhammad QASIM · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jun 2025•Birmingham and Solihull

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
11

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Inconsistent training of standard police drivers on spontaneous pursuits
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable police pursuit management and authorisationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable safety governance of spontaneous police pursuits
  2. Failure to obtain full forensic collision investigation reports in fatal incidents
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable forensic collision investigations in fatal incidents
  3. Lack of consistent APP guidance on when a spontaneous pursuit can occur
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety governance of spontaneous police pursuits
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.9

  1. Action

    Require lead investigators to assess each fatal road traffic incident and consult the Coroner early about whether a full forensic collision investigation report is needed.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 September 2025.
  2. Action

    Update internal guidance for lead investigators to address securing full forensic collision reports and consulting the Coroner about the investigative approach.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 September 2025.
  3. Action

    Have internal technical leads liaise with investigators early in road traffic fatality investigations to support appropriate evidence considerations.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 September 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Policing partners are responsible for providing independent collision investigation assistance within their technical expertise.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inconsistent training of standard police drivers on spontaneous pursuits

Wider context from the report

“1. For the college of policing: The inquest heard evidence from 2 specialist police driving instructors in different police forces. Both had a different interpretation of when a spontaneous pursuit could occur as set out in the APP guidance. One force did not train officers who were standard drivers in relation to spontaneous pursuits as these were thought to be a type of pursuit and dependent on first satisfying the main definition of a pursuit under the APP guidance. The other force considered spontaneous pursuit to be a stand alone type of pursuit and trained standard driving officers in relation to it. The confusion around what amounts to a spontaneous pursuit and when one can occur, and the difference in training of police standard drivers, creates a risk of future deaths and action should be taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police pursuit management and authorisation; Unreliable safety governance of spontaneous police pursuits.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to obtain full forensic collision investigation reports in fatal incidents

Wider context from the report

“2. For the IOPC: The IOPC were investigating the conduct of the police driver in this case. As a result of their investigation no full forensic collision investigation report was obtained. The IOPC need to confirm where investigative responsibilities lie when a conduct investigation is being conducted in all fatal incidents to ensure lessons are learnt from the death and adequate evidence is obtained. The lack of a full forensic collision investigation report in this case creates a risk of future deaths and action should be taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable forensic collision investigations in fatal incidents.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of consistent APP guidance on when a spontaneous pursuit can occur

Wider context from the report

“1. For the college of policing: The inquest heard evidence from 2 specialist police driving instructors in different police forces. Both had a different interpretation of when a spontaneous pursuit could occur as set out in the APP guidance. One force did not train officers who were standard drivers in relation to spontaneous pursuits as these were thought to be a type of pursuit and dependent on first satisfying the main definition of a pursuit under the APP guidance. The other force considered spontaneous pursuit to be a stand alone type of pursuit and trained standard driving officers in relation to it. The confusion around what amounts to a spontaneous pursuit and when one can occur, and the difference in training of police standard drivers, creates a risk of future deaths and action should be taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety governance of spontaneous police pursuits.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unclear investigative responsibilities during conduct investigations in fatal incidents

Wider context from the report

“2. For the IOPC: The IOPC were investigating the conduct of the police driver in this case. As a result of their investigation no full forensic collision investigation report was obtained. The IOPC need to confirm where investigative responsibilities lie when a conduct investigation is being conducted in all fatal incidents to ensure lessons are learnt from the death and adequate evidence is obtained. The lack of a full forensic collision investigation report in this case creates a risk of future deaths and action should be taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Require lead investigators to assess each fatal road traffic incident and consult the Coroner early about whether a full forensic collision investigation report is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Going forward, all lead investigators will need to assess the circumstances of an incident and have early contact with the Coroner to determine whether a full Forensic Collision Investigation Report is required. If one is required, we will either request this from a police force or source an independent report if necessary.”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Update internal guidance for lead investigators to address securing full forensic collision reports and consulting the Coroner about the investigative approach.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will update the internal written guidance we provide to IOPC lead investigators to ensure consideration is given to securing a full Forensic Collision Investigation Report and that there is consultation with the Coroner about our approach. Our internal guidance will be updated within the next six weeks but in the meantime, our internal technical leads will liaise with investigators in the early stages of any investigations involving a road traffic fatality to ensure the correct considerations are made.”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Have internal technical leads liaise with investigators early in road traffic fatality investigations to support appropriate evidence considerations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will update the internal written guidance we provide to IOPC lead investigators to ensure consideration is given to securing a full Forensic Collision Investigation Report and that there is consultation with the Coroner about our approach. Our internal guidance will be updated within the next six weeks but in the meantime, our internal technical leads will liaise with investigators in the early stages of any investigations involving a road traffic fatality to ensure the correct considerations are made.”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review current police pursuit training requirements, including national standards and authorised training arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have reviewed the current training requirements for police pursuits:”

Source location

Response from the College of Policing
Page 1 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the current Police Pursuit APP guidance and identify ambiguity in the term “spontaneous pursuit”.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We have reviewed the current Police Pursuit APP guidance. While the initial definition of a police pursuit is considered clear and appropriate, we acknowledge that the term ‘spontaneous pursuit’ may be open to interpretation. This could suggest that a pursuit might occur without first meeting the established definition.”

Source location

Response from the College of Policing
Page 1 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Progress an amendment to replace “spontaneous pursuit” with clearer guidance aligned with the National Decision Model.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We will progress an amendment to the Police Pursuit APP to replace the reference to ‘spontaneous pursuit’ with clearer, more precise guidance aligned with the National Decision Model (NDM).”

Source location

Response from the College of Policing
Page 1 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue monitoring and addressing inconsistencies in police pursuit training delivery through quality-assurance frameworks and feedback mechanisms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are committed to ensuring that the learning from this case leads to meaningful and lasting improvements in policing practice and will continue to work closely with NPCC leads and police forces to ensure that national guidance and training reflect best practice and support safe operational decision-making. We aim to publish the revised guidance by December 2025, subject to consultation and governance processes. The College will continue to monitor and address any inconsistencies in training delivery through its QA frameworks and feedback mechanisms. We will also ensure that learning from this case is disseminated nationally through our operational learning channels, including bulletins and updates to training materials.”

Source location

Response from the College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue working with NPCC leads and police forces to align national guidance and training with best practice and safe operational decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are committed to ensuring that the learning from this case leads to meaningful and lasting improvements in policing practice and will continue to work closely with NPCC leads and police forces to ensure that national guidance and training reflect best practice and support safe operational decision-making. We aim to publish the revised guidance by December 2025, subject to consultation and governance processes. The College will continue to monitor and address any inconsistencies in training delivery through its QA frameworks and feedback mechanisms. We will also ensure that learning from this case is disseminated nationally through our operational learning channels, including bulletins and updates to training materials.”

Source location

Response from the College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Disseminate learning from the case nationally through operational learning channels, bulletins, and training-material updates.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are committed to ensuring that the learning from this case leads to meaningful and lasting improvements in policing practice and will continue to work closely with NPCC leads and police forces to ensure that national guidance and training reflect best practice and support safe operational decision-making. We aim to publish the revised guidance by December 2025, subject to consultation and governance processes. The College will continue to monitor and address any inconsistencies in training delivery through its QA frameworks and feedback mechanisms. We will also ensure that learning from this case is disseminated nationally through our operational learning channels, including bulletins and updates to training materials.”

Source location

Response from the College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 5 September 2025

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

Policing partners are responsible for providing independent collision investigation assistance within their technical expertise.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With specific reference to matters involving road traffic incidents, the IOPC does not possess the technical skills or expertise to undertake collision investigation work. As such, we work with policing partners who have a duty to provide independent assistance by way of”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 1 · response
Published 5 September 2025

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

The respondent lacks the technical skills and expertise to undertake collision investigation work itself.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With specific reference to matters involving road traffic incidents, the IOPC does not possess the technical skills or expertise to undertake collision investigation work. As such, we work with policing partners who have a duty to provide independent assistance by way of”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 1 · response
Published 5 September 2025

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

The streamlined collision investigation report was considered sufficient because evidence indicated the police vehicle had not caused the collision through physical contact.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The IOPC lead investigator was advised that a full forensic collision report into the crash would not ordinarily be produced because Mr Qasim’s vehicle had not collided with another vehicle– it had left the road and impacted with a tree.”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 2 · response
Published 5 September 2025

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

Chief Officers are responsible for arranging pursuit-driver selection, training and authorisation, and determining operational deployment in accordance with national standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Code of Practice on the Management of Police Pursuits (Home Office, 2011) states that Chief Officers should arrange the selection, training, and authorisation of officers involved in pursuits in accordance with national standards. These national standards are set out in the Police Driving National Policing Curriculum and cover the initial phase pursuit, tactical phase pursuit, and command and control. It is the responsibility of each Chief Officer to determine the operational deployment of officers trained and authorised in both the initial phase (response drivers) and tactical phase (advanced drivers).”

Source location

Response from the College of Policing
Page 1 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Disseminate the identified concerns to internal technical leads and the operational policy team.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 September 2025.
  2. 2

    Set minimum standards for streamlined collision investigation reports to ensure relevant information is secured.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 September 2025.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Disseminate the identified concerns to internal technical leads and the operational policy team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will continue to use our internal technical leads in the IOPC to provide advice to IOPC lead investigators and your concerns have been brought to their attention as well as to the attention of our operational policy team.”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Set minimum standards for streamlined collision investigation reports to ensure relevant information is secured.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In instances where we feel it is appropriate to secure a streamlined collision investigation report, we will set out the minimum standards we expect for that report, to ensure all relevant information is secured.”

Source location

Response from the IOPC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 September 2025

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026