Henry David Hicks · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 24 December 2014, I commenced an investigation into the death of Henry David Hicks, aged 18 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 28 June 2016. The jury made a narrative determination, a copy of which I attach to this letter.

Henry Hicks died as a consequence of a road traffic collision that occurred on Friday, 19 December 2014.

He lost control of the moped he was riding at 53mph in a 20mph limit on Wheelwright Street in Islington (adjacent to HM Prison Pentonville), clipped a taxi and came off, landing in front of an oncoming vehicle.

Two unmarked police cars had been following the moped up Caledonian Road, suspecting the vehicle was a ringer and the rider was drug dealing. Both cars activated their warning equipment. One turned into Wheelwright Street after the moped, and the other carried on up Caledonian Road.

The driver and operator of police car 1 and the driver and operator of police car 2 (Officers A, B, C & D) all gave evidence in court that they were never in a position to signal to the rider of the moped to pull over, though this was what they wanted to happen.

All four gave evidence that they believed at the time of the collision, and that they still believed at the time of the inquest, that the rider was unaware of police behind him wanting him to stop.

For these reasons the officers said, they did not consider themselves to be in pursuit and therefore did not seek authorisation to continue.

The jury made a determination that Henry Hicks was aware of the police behind him and that this was a police pursuit within the definition of the Metropolitan Police Service standard operating procedure. The jury also made a determination that Henry’s attempt to avoid the police was a contributory factor in the collision.

Whilst I appreciate that we do not know whether, if the police officers had sought authorisation, this would have been granted, and so whether, if they had treated this as a pursuit, the outcome would have been different, it seems to me that this is a matter I must bring to your attention. All four officers gave a proper understanding of the MPS relevant standard operating procedure. However, by implication, the jury did not accept that this SOP was complied with on 19 December 2014.