A cyclist who claims he was knocked off his bike by a driver and that police forces worked to cover up the incident has been allowed to take his damages claim to trial.
Cambridgeshire Police reported that Gijsbert van Buuren fell off his bike of his own accord in Histon in August 2013. But Van Buuren produced transcripts from an eyewitness who says they saw a driver “clip” Van Buuren and knock him off his bike. They add they gave their account to the police officers who arrived on the scene but that they were not subsequently asked to provide a witness statement.
Van Buuren’s witness contradicts another witness statement recorded by officers that indicates Van Buuren slipped on loose gravel at the side of the road having been “going too fast for the conditions and lost control of his cycle.” That statement was submitted by the driver immediately behind Van Buuren.
Van Buuren submitted a complaint alleging that Cambridgeshire Police had “deliberately falsified the record/investigation of the incident to conceal the existence of a collision between a motor car and Mr van Buuren’s bicycle.”
> Police officer who crashed into cyclist was driving on wrong side of the road, watchdog confirms
That complaint has since turned into legal action against the force, as well as the neighbouring Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police forces, and the Independent Office of Police Conduct – a police watchdog – alleging “misfeasance in a public office” and seeking £4.8 million in damages. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal allowed Van Buuren’s claim to go to trial in the High Court.
The crash left Van Buuren unconscious for more than 30 minutes and needing his spleen removed. In his judgement, Sir Geoffrey Vos wrote: “There are some concerning allegations about Mr van Buuren’s physical treatment at the scene of the accident and in relation to how and when he was taken to hospital” but he also wrote that Van Buuren’s claims that his psychiatric disorder and PTSD were caused by the police forces’ “malicious failure properly to investigate his accident” are made “without medical evidence.”
Sir Geoffrey also wrote that “It is obvious from Mr van Buuren’s demeanour in court that he is, as he maintains, suffering from some mental health problems” whilst adding that his allegation “that the police were motivated by a desire to kill him and a hatred of cyclists […] appear extravagant and may turn out to be quite wrong and inappropriate.”
The appeal has been granted on the basis that cases such as these are “critical” to retaining public confidence in the police and that claims such as Van Buuren’s should be “neither ignored nor swept under the carpet.” The trial is intended to take place before the end of the year.
22 thoughts on “Cyclist to sue three police forces for £4.8m at High Court, alleging they covered up driver knocking him off his bike”
While apparently “mental ‘elf” is now quite mainstream (if you listen to the meeja), I suspect in court with anything but an incompetent police lawyer, the following will be enough to ensure this claim fails:
(Plus I’m not sure about the baseline success rate for suing the police – I’d imagine it’s pretty low).
Otherwise it would be interesting to see where this goes. Of course it’s tempting to suggest the “following driver” who stated he crashed by himself might have motivation for saying that…
I’ve never heard of the mental elf defense being used in a case for not investigating vehicular assault. Must be a new kind of evidentiary rule that applies only to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Plenty of studies out there that show humans make absolutely terrible witnesses with often totally contradictory accounts of the same events being given without the need for any ulterior motive. I have no idea whether or not the vehicle clipped the cyclist. I am willing to believe that some witnesses say they saw just that, while other say they saw no such collision. It will be up to the jury to study the full evidence and come to a conclusion and it will be an interesting case to follow.
I suspect in court with anything but an incompetent police lawyer, the following will be enough to ensure this claim fails…
It’s not often I disagree with CoaB, but I think this plaintiff could win! At first, probably like many, I couldn’t be bothered to read the actual judgment but I was prompted to do so by the police apologist below. He claims to be a police officer/ somebody who works for the police, and he does appear to fulfil several criteria which indicate that claim could well be true: being too idle to read the evidence, getting the basic facts wrong and being essentially crap.
The 3 Appeal Court judges have done a good job (with the usual NAL proviso) and I am taking what they state to be matters of fact as just that. Section 8 of the judgment summarily disposes of the police officer/ apologist below. The police behaviour described by the plaintiff is so similar to bent police behaviour I have experienced myself, and similar to documented bent police behaviour throughout the Hillsborough inquiries that I suspect he’s right in much of what he claims. Similarly, the pretty crap procedures and conclusions of the IPCC and IOPC seem to be running true to form.I look forward to hearing about the High Court case
It’s not often you are optimistic about the legal system…
You aren’t thinking that even if this succeeded this might set precedent though?
Hopefully road.cc will keep tabs on this one!
Whilst I will quite easily agree it’s difficult to find a competent police force in the UK, suggesting that the police as an institution want this individual (or cyclists as a group) to die seems beyond the pale.
A much easier case could be made I think that they don’t care about vulnerable road users. like cyclists.
I disagree with your assessment that the police don’t care about vulnerable road users, and the case itself shows they took statements from both of the conflicting witnesses ( hence the outcome to date). When I was hit by a car and seriously injured on my bike a few years ago, the police successfully prosecuted the driver.
Where this chap might have some success will be playing on his change in mental health- if of course he wasn’t lying, and claiming his mental health has made him paranoid the police were out to kill him.
I’m sure that by the time this case gets to discovery, his lawyer will get him to simmer down.
I disagree with your disagreement. Every interaction with the police I’ve ever had or heard about around cycling has been negative, they are routinely dismissive, lazy, and uncaring when asked to deal with road crime, they fail to take statements, they fail to follow up on statements, they often simply “forget” a case exists for long enough that it runs out the clock for them to send a NIP and then they can claim “nuffink to be done now sorry”. Bike theft, close passes, aggressive road rage driving, even literal assault – a good mate of mine was asked in all seriousness what he’d done to “provoke” a man who tailgated him for over a mile leaning on his horn and full-beams, overtook dangerously, brake checked, and then got out and punched him off his bike before leaving the scene.
Even so I used to be as naive as Boopop and think it was mere indifference, but I’ll disagree with them as well – quite often there is active malice, they do in fact despise cyclists and wish us harm, because quite often cops are just the same angry, dimwitted, gammon-faced buffoons who rant in Daily Mail comment sections about us but in a uniform. If you really want to lose all your illusions about the police, find your way into any of the groups or forums they think are private and they talk amongst themselves. They’re more careful about those these days of course, but I remember when there was a badly configured plod forum around the time of one of the big G20 protests and someone posted how to sign up. You couldn’t post until the mod approved your account but they hadn’t ticked the box in the config that stopped unapproved accounts from *viewing* the forum, and it was grotesque. Literally hundreds of posts from all over the country desperately hoping they’d be drafted in to support the Met, fantasising about bashing in skulls and “giving the crusties what they deserve for once”.
Maybe this gent is merely paranoid, but believing the police are out to do you harm is a significantly more rational mindset than believing they’re your pals.
I disagree with your disagreement with the disagreement! 😂
Anyway you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion on my comment- Asking for opinions on police actions is akin to product reviews whereby most people who post their reviews do so because of bad service, and most who are satisfied do not.
I had excellent service; mind you I am one of them and if they had treated me badly they’d never have heard the end of it!
I was however ( before claims of preferential treatment are made) treated exactly the same way as anyone else and it took many months to get to court and get a positive outcome.
I disagree with all this disagreement – it’s very disagreeable.
You’ve misread it I believe, the report states that the eyewitnesses who said they saw a vehicle clip the cyclist told the police at the scene what they’d seen but “they were not subsequently asked to provide a witness statement” whereas the driver immediately behind who said the cyclist lost control without any outside agency involved was asked to give a statement.
‘They add they gave their account to the police officers who arrived on the scene but that they were not subsequently asked to provide a witness statement.
Van Buuren’s witness contradicts *another witness statement* recorded by officers that indicates Van Buuren slipped on loose gravel at the side of the road having been “going too fast for the conditions and lost control of his cycle.” *That statement was submitted* by the driver immediately behind Van Buuren.’
* Pick the statement bones out of this!
* Pick the statement bones out of this!
I appreciate you have your reputation as a self-professed suspect police officer to protect, but you could trouble yourself to read the evidence and not jump straight into ‘the police must be telling the truth ‘. This ‘statement’ is written by the Master of the Rolls:
The first question was as to why none of the defendants had contacted Mrs C to
ascertain her evidence as to the circumstances of the accident either: (a) immediately
after the accident (since it was now known that she had given her details to Constables
A and B), (b) when Mr van Buuren complained that the Cambridgeshire Constabulary
had “failed to investigate the circumstances” of the accident by “failing to interview
witnesses”, (c) when Mr van Buuren appealed the rejection of his complaint on the
same grounds to the IOPC, or (d) when Mr van Buuren informed them that Mrs C had
witnessed him being knocked off his bicycle by the car directly behind him (apparently
driven by Mr D). It was clear on the face of the police record that only Mr D’s account
had been considered, and that Mr D had not apparently provided a signed statement,
yet his claim that Mr van Buuren had “fallen off” was accepted without question.
Counsel for the defendants seemed unable to answer these questions, save to say that
the collision report itself was the answer.
In what may not be quite simple enough words: the Master of the Rolls considers it not disproved that the person the police claim provided the unsigned statement that the cyclist ‘fell off of his own accord’ is actually the driver of the car who knocked the cyclist off, causing him severe injuries.
Are those sufficient ‘bones’ for you? This all looks like standard ‘bent copper’ practice to me, and it is to be hoped that the High Court does a better job of sorting it all out than it did last time.
Well it’s not terribly difficult to “pick the statement bones out of this”, Van Buuren has a statement from witnesses who saw the car hit him, the police have a statement from a witness who says he fell off without any contact with the car, Van Buuren’s witnesses told the police what they had seen but the police declined to take a statement from them. Probably best just to admit that you didn’t read it properly in the first place.
When I was hit by a car and seriously injured on my bike a few years ago, the police successfully prosecuted the driver
Well done! Please show us the evidence of the ‘successful prosecution’, or is the evidence just some text saying ‘we have successfully prosecuted the driver’?!
This is why I never cycle without a camera.
Much harder (but not impossible) for the police to ignore what really happened.
Much harder (but not impossible) for the police to ignore what really happened
Not if they’re as good at it as Lancashire! They will definitely ignore this report, and Stagecoach haven’t replied yet, although they do allow themselves a week.
The police and cps need to dearly realise it’s 2016 not 1926…tho with the ex headmaster at the helm it won’t…
I suppose expecting them to come /fully/ up to date would be too much to ask.
As long as this plaintiff can be reasonable with the allegations I think they have a good chance. To show that the police didn’t perform the investigation to the same standard as they’d usually perform a car on car crash investigation should be quite easy to prove. To show that they did it maliciously will be harder…unless there’s an email degrading cyclists or some body cam footage at the scene…
To show that they did it maliciously will be harder…
That rather depends on whether you view deliberately covering up ‘malfeasance’ as ‘malicious’. The conduct of 3 police forces and the IOPC long after the 13-years-ago incident is now, thanks to the appeal court, under scrutiny. Previously, as is clear to those of us not involved in the case who are therefore free to speculate, the police simply concluded, without bothering with any of that ‘evidence’ nonsense, ‘this bloke’s a nutter’, supported the driver involved and binned the case as they usually try to do. That’s why the case is so important, and should not be ‘lost’.