The policeman who claimed to have amnesia after causing a hit-and-run crash is to face misconduct charges after Norfolk Constabulary was criticised for dropping disciplinary action against him.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has ruled that the force was wrong not to pursue misconduct procedures against PC Karl Warren over the incident, which saw him drive into another car at 49mph before leaving without stopping.
The ruling raises serious questions over the way Norfolk police has handled its investigation into the crash and the conduct of the two officers in the car.
READ MORE: 10 things we know about Norfolk police hit-and-run scandal
READ MORE: Norfolk hit-and-run police officer claims ‘accident amnesia’
READ MORE: Norfolk police hit and run officer has driving licence taken
The extraordinary case has prompted outrage from members of the public and from former police officers since it was revealed in this newspaper.
The IOPC - which launched its own investigation after receiving a complaint from the woman driver involved in the crash - said the force had placed too much emphasis on “contradictory and conflicting” medical evidence that PC Warren had been suffering amnesia.
Too much consideration was also given to the potential effect on the officer rather than the “harm and distress” caused to the driver he ran into, it added.
Welcoming the IOPC findings, she said: "I am pleased that finally someone has seen sense in this investigation.
“It is only right that a lot of elements of what happened with PC Warren are investigated more thoroughly. I have always believed he should face a gross misconduct hearing and it is encouraging that the independent body agrees. Perhaps now we can really get to the bottom of what happened."
PC Warren, an armed officer, drove a BMW X5 marked vehicle into the back of an Audi being driven by the 34-year-old Norwich woman at almost 50mph on the A146 between Beccles and Lowestoft in March 2022.
He failed to stop at the scene and neither PC Warren nor his colleague PC Ryan Hargrave, who was a passenger, reported the crash at the time.
Misconduct charges were not brought against PC Warren after investigators accepted medical evidence he had been suffering from transient global amnesia (TGA) at the time of the crash, which left him with no recollection of it.
The Crown Prosecution Service dropped criminal proceedings after accepting the same evidence.
But following a review into Norfolk police's handling of the incident, the IOPC has criticised the force's decision that PC Warren had “no case to answer”.
Its review decision, seen by this newspaper, states: “The Norfolk police investigation gave undue weight to one part of the medical evidence and gave too little consideration to contradictory elements.”
It has recommended PC Warren face a disciplinary panel for gross misconduct - a breach of police professional standards “so serious that, if proven or admitted, dismissal would be justified”.
READ MORE: ‘Not good enough’ - Woman on hit-and-run scandal and police response
READ MORE: Norfolk chief constable admits failings in hit-and-run case
READ MORE: Ex-officers describe 'disbelief' at 'appalling' hit-and-run scandal
Norfolk Constabulary has been given 28 days to respond.
A police spokeswoman said: “We have received a letter from the IOPC concerning the victim’s right to review in this case.
“We are currently assessing the recommendations. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE POLICE OFFICERS?
PC Warren was initially charged with criminal offences of failing to stop after an accident, not reporting it and driving without due care and attention.
But the CPS dropped charges after further medical evidence.
A separate investigation by Norfolk police’s professional standards department saw investigating officer Derek Kevern conclude that, if proved, the actions of both PC Warren and PC Hargrave would amount to misconduct.
But Detective Chief Inspector James Brown, the senior officer tasked with making a final decision on the investigation, decided that while PC Hargrave should face a disciplinary hearing, PC Warren had no case to answer.
WHAT HAS THE IOPC NOW SAID?
The IOPC said its review had looked at whether the police investigation's outcome had been “reasonable and proportionate”.
In his report, Ian Taylor, the IOPC official, states: “It is my view that, in deciding that there was no case to answer for PC Warren, too much emphasis was placed by the investigating officer and [DCI Brown] on elements of the medical evidence and, in particular, the subsequent decision of the CPS not to prosecute.”
He said it was “undoubtedly sufficiently serious” to justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
With PC Warren being an advanced driver and firearms officer, if it was concluded he was not suffering a medical episode at the time the “level of culpability is likely to be high”, he added.
‘LITTLE RECOGNITION OF THE HARM TO VICTIM’
The IOPC review criticises the Norfolk police investigation for failing to pay enough attention to the impact on the victim.
It states that while “consideration appears to have been given to the potential harm PC Warren might suffer”, other than an apology in the investigating officer’s report there was “little recognition of the harm and distress caused”.
It also says the scandal has also resulted in “very significant issue of reputational damage done to the police and the effect on public confidence”.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here