The Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel meets several times a year and is ‘responsible for holding Kate Green, the Deputy Mayor for Safer and Stronger Communities, to account on policing and fire rescue issues’

With 17 members in total – including 10 appointed councillors from each of the Greater Manchester local authority areas, the panel is consulted on police and fire plans and funding. 

Supposedly, ‘the panel works to ensure that the actions and decisions made by the Deputy Mayor reflect public priorities’.

However, as we noted in January this year when £13.1 million in extra funding was given to the police in spite of strong public opposition, it’s clear that this panel serves the police’s interests in expanding its powers and reach. 

NPMP members went to the panel to see what was discussed. 

Election of a new chair

As the first panel meeting in this financial year, the panel had to appoint a chair. They did this within 30 seconds, electing Janet Emsley (Labour, Councillor for Rochdale). Janet wouldn’t even speak with residents when we went to the panel to voice our concerns in January, saying to members of the public: ‘I’d really rather you weren’t here today’. She flat-out refused our one page briefing  on information about why GM shouldn’t be giving the police a £13 million increase in funding.

The panel then collectively agreed the notes from the last meeting, where there was no reference to our concerns being raised. It doesn’t seem like the panel in any way wants to represent views of residents who aren’t supportive of the police. 

Progress Reports on the 2024-2029 Police and Crime Plan

The panel first discussed the Fire and Rescue Service Plan, and then went on to discuss the Police and Crime Plan. Deputy Mayor Kate Green gave a progress update on two of the ‘priorities’ for GMP that were outlined in this plan: 

Priority 1 – ‘Improving Public Trust and Confidence in Policing’ 

Priority 2 – ‘Increasing Police Accessibility, Consistency, Responsiveness, and Outcomes’ 

Kate began by praising GMP as “the most improved police force in the country”, citing significant improvement in solved crime rates and more stop and searches and arrests being carried out. 

But what does this actually mean when we look closer at GMP’s own reports?

In actual fact, the Priority 2 report shows solved outcome rates have remained static over the past 12 months, at 12.6%. 

Between 2023 and 2024, Greater Manchester saw a 52% increase in the use of stop and search. We already know that Black and Asian people are disproportionately targeted by stop and search powers and are subject to more arrests, and this shows in GMP’s ironically named ‘Race Equality Report’. 

In Greater Manchester, Black and Black heritage people are 2.4x more likely to be stopped and searched than White people, and Asian and Asian heritage people are 1.4x more likely. For arrests, Black and Black heritage people are 1.8x more likely to be arrested, and for Asian and Asian heritage people this figure is 0.8x, and this has risen from the previous year. 

The Priority 1 report states 65% of public survey respondents had confidence they could get help from GMP in an emergency (this is only an increase of 3-4% from previous surveys). In addition, 46% had confidence in GMP in a non-emergency (compared to only 43% and 44% in previous surveys). Despite the positive spin, both of these statistics show the police are in no way trusted to deal with emergency situations or harm. We must explore alternative ways to invest in community safety and wellbeing. 

The false promise of community consultation

During the discussion on ‘Improving Public Trust and Confidence in Policing’, major emphasis was placed upon “proactively going out and seeking what ethical issues people in Greater Manchester” would like the Independent Police Ethics Committee to consider. 

Responding to a question on whether budget constraints would inhibit this process, Kate gleefully responded by stating that “GMP, [had] a budget of well over £800 million” and so this was unlikely. 

This is incredibly ironic to discuss getting residents’ input, considering that the GMCA ignored the results of their own public consultation on whether the amount of council tax that goes towards the police should be increased in January. 67.6% of respondents said they didn’t support an increase in the police precept. Yet, the panel ignored this and went ahead and approved a £13.1 million increase in funding anyway.

According to Kate, GMP are “fairly open to when things go wrong”. Shockingly, she cited the following examples: the racist policing of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (mostly children) at the Christmas markets last year, and Moss Side’s Caribbean Carnival. 

But we know that in both of those cases, it was community organising that forced GMP and the GMCA to apologise. It was Kids of Colour, in collaboration with Liberty, who got GMP to stop sending discriminatory letters banning people from Carnival based on undisclosed and arbitrary criteria. And the charity Traveller Movement condemned GMP’s internal investigation of the Christmas markets as “inadequate” in April of this year, calling for an independent investigation. 

Tellingly, the Deputy Chair of the panel Barbara Bentham (Labour, Councillor for Salford) made this statement on increasing trust in police using community consultation: “I think we need to recognise that there is gonna be a long-term problem with people who we need to re-educate and who have certain behaviours instilled in them”.

This incredibly concerning statement shows clearly that the GMCA panel aren’t interested in listening to the public about issues of policing at all, and instead are merely using public consultation as a front to propel police interests – a pretty rosy view of ‘public consultation’.

Key takeaways for community to be aware of: 

Here’s a list of the key things discussed in both Progress Reports that will impact on future policing in Greater Manchester. 

1. The Baird Inquiry and Violence Against Women and Girls

The 2024 Baird Inquiry – an independent investigation into the experiences of women and girls in GMP custody – uncovered, in the words of Mayor Andy Burnham, “examples of extremely poor, indefensible and inhumane treatment” by GMP.

The Inquiry detailed evidence of unlawful arrests and detentions; inappropriate and traumatising strip searches, including of victims of sexual abuse; systemic failures in supporting people who are vulnerable, and deeper cultural issues within the force. 

Yet again when there is a scandal, the police and the political institutions that support them promise us training will fix everything. The report on police trust that Kate Green presented in the meeting detailed that police have responded to the Baird Inquiry by making ‘improvements in training on domestic abuse and trauma informed practice.’

The harm they inflict every day will not be waved away with training, and the stats are clear that people don’t really trust the police to support them. And why would they? 

When we look in particular at strip searches in GMP, approximately 12 strip searches were carried out per day between 2022 and 2023, and alarmingly, 431 children were strip searched between 2020 and 2025, with 136 being carried out in 2024 alone. Strip searches are dehumanising, violent, abusive and we must see an end to them. 

Misconduct hearing outcomes often show that officers who harass and abuse their female colleagues — or target vulnerable women, including those who have come to the police to report sexual violence — are frequently given only final written warnings or allowed to resign before facing dismissal. For example, one Superintendent between October and December 2024 was given a ‘final written warning’ for ‘subjecting a female colleague to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature’. 

This is in spite of Kate Green’s assertion during this panel that the Chief Constable Stephen Watson has a “zero-tolerance approach” to misconduct, and Deputy Chief Terry Wood’s emphasis on a “root out and boot out” approach, saying that he personally “suspends a lot of people”. 

Kate Green claims that GMP have a ‘strong story to tell on gender-based violence’ but again, their own statistics show this simply isn’t true. There is no change in charged outcomes for domestic abuse, remaining at 10.3%. There are also no changes in charged outcomes for rape. For sexual offences, there’s actually been a 0.9% decrease in charged outcomes. 

Misogyny and abuse are deeply embedded within policing, something that clearly cannot be altered with a few more dismissals or ‘special trainings’.   

2. Joint Enterprise 

GMCA has developed its first iteration of a draft Framework for Joint Enterprise. 

Joint enterprise is a racist law; Black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted under joint enterprise than white people. We need to see the end of Joint enterprise.

After years of campaigning from family and community members, Kids of Colour and JENGbA, especially on behalf of boys like those involved in the Manchester 10 case, the GMCA and Andy Burnham finally seem ready to acknowledge that the use of Joint Enterprise “is seen to have a disproportionate impact on young Black males”. Tellingly, however, it states in the Priority 1 report that this framework will “not create any routes for Mayoral intervention in ongoing investigations nor court proceedings”. It’s an incredibly shallow statement that will seemingly have no bearing on the many boys and young men who are sitting in prison or currently being trialled in specially designed ‘super-courts’. 

We must keep a collective eye on this and remember that the devil is in the details. We need to see changes in outcomes, and justice for those convicted.

3. Live Facial Recognition 

GMP are preparing for the roll out of Live Facial Recognition technology through a national Home Office programme, and have been working closely with the much-disgraced Metropolitan Police in doing so. 

The Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, at the University of Cambridge has highlighted that facial recognition is unethical and there are concerns around racial bias. The Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER) highlighted that introducing this technology to Scottish policing would have highly detrimental effects on race equality, community-police relations and human rights. 

There is no dedicated legislation in the UK on the use of facial recognition technologies.

In the EU, the European Parliament recently introduced rules heavily restricting the use of LFR through the Artificial Intelligence Act 2024 (AIA). The act prohibits the use of LFR in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement, unless such use is “strictly necessary” to search for specific suspects, missing persons, or victims of exploitation, or to prevent threats of terrorism or physical safety of people. In an open letter to the Prime Minister in August 2024, several human rights and civil liberties organisations suggested following the new restrictions introduced in the EU.

We know already that in London, the areas in which LFR has been rolled out are those which have primarily working-class and Global Majority populations. We can surely expect to see the same in Manchester. 

4. Police Pursuits

An insultingly brief mention was given to the issue of police pursuits in Manchester. The panel mentioned that there have “been public concerns about the conduct of our blue-light services in recent years”, but gave it no further attention. This is in spite of the campaign efforts of families working with the End Police Pursuits campaign, who have lost so many loved ones to reckless, unnecessary pursuits targeted at young, working-class Black people. The campaign continues to grow, the issues haven’t gone away, so look out for future events and actions to support the campaign.

5. Attempts to diversify the police

The Priority 1 report stated GMP continues to experience challenges in recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce and particularly Black and Black heritage police officers. Only 9.04% of officers are Black or of Black heritage. Worryingly, the report outlined plans to ramp up recruitment efforts at football and cricket clubs and in schools and churches. We have written before about just how limited and flawed an intervention diversifying the police is. 

6. Safer Summer Town Centres Campaign 

At the behest of the Home Office, GMP are implementing this summer a ‘safer town centre campaign’. This campaign centres on high-profile, visible town policing in our town centres, targeting so-called ‘Anti-Social Behaviour’, which often does little more than  criminalise and harass people who are homeless, and those with addictions. It forms a part of wider efforts at ‘neighbourhood policing’, an iron fist in a velvet glove, with 176 more officers in neighbourhoods. 

Conclusions: 

The new normal for GMP is more of the same. As is clear to overpoliced people and communities, we need to see alternatives to policing. While people have been demanding and organising for this for decades, it’s not clear to communities and residents how the panel is accountable to people over the police. Only by building community power will we be able to care for our communities in Greater Manchester. This means learning more, supporting community alternatives to policing and resisting policing and the harms it creates. 

To get involved in the fight, reach out via social media or email. 

See you on the streets.

Further links.

Agenda for Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel on Tuesday, 10th June, 2025, 3.00 pm

https://www.civico.net/gmca/22241-Greater-Manchester-Police-Fire-and-Crime-Panel

26.03.2024

At the end of the Coroner’s Inquest on 26th March 2024, Ronaldo’s family says:

Ronaldo Johnson – known to many as Ron or Uncle Dodo – was a shy boy who was well loved by his peers. He was a boy of very few words but when he spoke he was honest, extremely wise or very funny. At 16 he became his nephew’s official carer, a role he took on with pride. Ron was patient, kind, caring, strong, loving, passionate and dedicated to caring for others. He lit up any room he entered. 

Ron is bitterly missed by his heartbroken family, friends and wider community.

Ron was the back seat passenger in a car which collided with a taxi after being pursued by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) on 31st March 2021. He died from his injuries in hospital on Tuesday 6th April 2021.

Not only has his family endured a devastating loss, they have had to fight every step of the way to get the truth of what happened.

Ron’s family have been made to wait 3 years for an Inquest, for which they were only granted a half day. They have been met with restrictions, roadblocks and a lack of transparency and complete lack of empathy and care throughout this process. We feel it is unjust that the coroner refused to grant an Article 2 inquest – which takes place when the state and/or its agents have failed to protect someone’s right to life.

We believe that GMP failed in their ‘duty of care’. The APP guidelines dictate that they have a responsibility to prioritise the preservation of life, the prevention of injuries and public safety. The pursuing officer confirmed that his priority was apprehending and pursuing a suspect. His decision, by his own admission, was based on limited information, no knowledge of the car being linked with any criminal activity (besides allegedly running a red light) and a lack of certainty or awareness of occupants in the car and injuries. We believe the responsibility to prioritise the preservation of life was breached and totally disregarded. 

Article 2 would also have enabled a ‘Prevention of Future Deaths’ report. Given the coroner’s refusal to do this, his refusal to grant a narrative conclusion and refusal to acknowledge that Ron’s death occurred in the context of a police pursuit lead us to be concerned by the thwarting of learnings out of this process and we’re deeply concerned about future lives being lost as a result.

Losing Ron has devastated his family, friends, loved ones and the community. We are fighting for justice for Ronaldo and will continue to fight for him. We ask you to support the Ronaldo Thierry Johnson Foundation. We are also working collectively with other families who have lost their loved ones in high-risk, unnecessary police pursuits. We do not want to see another life lost and invite you to support the #EndPolicePursuits campaign.

NPMP and Kids of Colour

04 March 2024

On the one year anniversary of the passing of Anu Abraham, we again extend our love and solidarity to his loved ones. 

As his friends and loved ones have noted, Anu was a wonderful, caring, kind and compassionate young man.  

Anu was let down so horrendously by institutions that failed to show him the care he deserved.  

We are dismayed, if not surprised, that these failures have continued after his passing. Anu’s family are still having to search and fight for justice and accountability. 

As long as Anu’s family remains committed to seeking justice, we will stand with them. 

As Anu’s family have made clear, questions must be answered regarding institutional racism, inadequate mental health support and a lack of duty of care, in both West Yorkshire Police and Leeds Trinity University. 

We invite others to learn about Anu, the terrible injustice which brought about his passing, and to raise the alarm for justice. 

Please follow @justice4anugrah on Twitter.

We are raising money to cover the family’s legal fees for the Coroner’s Inquest into the death of their beloved Ronaldo Johnson. You can donate at this link.

Ronaldo was a kind, giving, intelligent, well-mannered teenager. He was a talented sportsman on the football pitch, in the kickboxing ring and in the gymnastics hall. He is bitterly missed by his heartbroken family, friends and wider community.

Ronaldo was involved in a road traffic collision on 31 March 2021. He was the back seat passenger in a car which collided with a taxi after being pursued by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) after they allege that the driver failed to stop at a red light. Ronaldo died from his injuries in hospital on Tuesday 6th April 2021.

In 2021/22 alone, a total of eight people lost their lives in road traffic fatalities involving police pursuit by GMP. The majority were young working-class men and boys disproportionately of Black, Asian and Gypsy, Roma, Traveller heritage. Eight deaths was the highest on record for GMP and the highest of any police force in England and Wales that year. To put it in wider context, an average of sixty people die on the roads in Greater Manchester annually. If eight people were to die in police pursuits every year that would mean that 1 in every 7 road traffic deaths involve the police.

Ronaldo’s family have not only had to endure a devastating loss, but they’ve also had to fight to find out the truth about what happened. They are part of a group of families who have lost loved ones in unnecessary, high-risk police pursuits by Greater Manchester Police, and they are fighting for answers.

After a long wait, the Coroner’s Inquest into Ronaldo’s death has begun, and the family are confronted with legal fees which are not covered by legal aid.

Please spare whatever you can to help them continue their fight for justice.

1. We call for an immediate end to the systematic over-policing of racially minoritised and working-class young people by road traffic officers.

A recent report published by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) confirms that a record high number of road traffic fatalities involving Greater Manchester Police (GMP) took place in 2021/22. In total, eight people lost their lives in six separate road traffic incidents, the majority of which involved pursuits by GMP officers. This is on top of the three deaths that took place in 2020/21 [1]. Understanding why some drivers fail to stop for the police necessitates a reckoning not only with the distinctive psychology of young drivers [2], who constitute the majority involved in such pursuits, but also an understanding of the wider context of the systematic, racist and classist over-policing of young people in our communities. In Greater Manchester, and reflecting wider patterns in policing, a disproportionate number of the drivers killed in police pursuits were either Black or Brown or from Gypsy, Roma, or Traveller communities. Accordingly, we call for an immediate end to the systematic over-policing of racially minoritised and working-class young people by police, and particularly road traffic officers, in Greater Manchester.

2. We call for the immediate prohibition of police initiating pursuits in circumstances involving non-violent offences or minor traffic violations, and for the APP guidelines to be revised accordingly. 

As the families of people that have lost their lives following police pursuits, we note that IOPC investigations and coroner’s inquests have found that our loved ones died following police pursuits in which the drivers of the pursued vehicles were suspected of minor traffic violations or other nonviolent offences. In each of our experiences, police officers testified that they had decided to initiate a risky, high speed pursuit after the pursued drivers failed to stop when signalled to do so for a relatively minor offence including, variously, overtaking a vehicle too closely, turning right on a red light, and being suspected of driving a stolen vehicle. The prevalence of this phenomenon is confirmed by studies which have found that ‘the most common reasons for police initiating pursuits are traffic violations or general concerns about the manner in which the pursued driver was driving, rather than suspicions of any other crimes.’ [3] In such circumstances, we believe that police pursuit tactics are unnecessary, disproportionate, and unjustified and will inevitably result in serious injuries, loss of life, and great trauma to affected families and communities.

We have significant concerns about the discretion afforded to police drivers in determining when to initiate a pursuit. The Authorised Professional Practice (APP) guidelines govern police conduct including in the area of police driving and pursuits. The APP acknowledges that police pursuits place members of the public ‘under a significant degree of risk’ and that, ‘wherever possible, trying to prevent a pursuit from taking place must be a primary consideration.’ Specifically, the APP instructs officers to consider whether the pursuit is ‘justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion.’ In addition, pursuing officers and incident managers are instructed to continually assess whether the pursuit is necessary when ‘balanced against [the] threat, risk and harm for which the subject driver is being pursued.’ [4] However, these are merely guidelines and, in reality, officers are afforded tremendous discretion in determining whether a pursuit should be initiated.

Accordingly, we are calling for an immediate revision to the APP guidelines prohibiting police from initiating pursuits in circumstances involving nonviolent offences or minor traffic violations. This call is supported by studies conducted in Britain and other national contexts – including Canada, Australia, and the United States – where the risks associated with high speed police pursuit have been deemed too great to justify the immediate physical apprehension of motorists who flee from the police for suspected theft or minor traffic offences. [5]  On this basis, public officials in major cities such as Washington D.C. and Cincinnati have revised their pursuit policies to restrict the circumstances under which pursuits can be initiated resulting in significantly fewer pursuits, collisions, deaths and injuries. [6] 

3. We call for the recording and transparent publication of all traffic stop data.  

The growing number of deaths from police pursuit is directly related to the over-policing of racially minoritised and working-class young people by road traffic officers. In contrast to some street-level stop-and-search laws, road traffic officers have the power to stop drivers without reasonable suspicion that they have done something wrong under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This affords officers tremendous discretion in who they choose to stop and why. Even more troubling, road traffic stops are not routinely recorded leaving the public with virtually no police data on how often the power is used, or why, and who it is being used against. 

In 2021, concerns that police were disproportionately stopping Black people resulted in the initiation of a pilot in which the Metropolitan Police became the first force to record the ethnicity of drivers stopped by its officers. Findings indicated that Black people were 56% more likely to be stopped than their white counterparts. The pilot has since been scrapped. Accordingly, we call for the recording and transparent publication of all traffic stop data by Greater Manchester Police.  

4. We call for overhead motorway signs be changed as soon as a police pursuit enters the motorway system

Police pursuits that enter the motorway system pose a significant threat to life. Currently motorway signage is only altered when the pursued driver enters the wrong side of the motorway to alert drivers to the risks. It is vital that other road users are aware of an active pursuit so that they are alert to the risks and have time to respond. Accordingly, we call for the mandatory changing of motorway signage as soon as a pursued driver enters the motorway in any direction.

5. We call for officers to carry out their duty of care and commitment to ‘keep the public safe’ by prioritising the safety of the public, passengers in a pursued vehicle and the driver of the pursued vehicle ahead of the desire to apprehend suspects.

Police pursuits pose a high risk that can result in death or serious injury to the drivers and passengers of pursued vehicles as well as members of the public in the immediate vicinity. To pursue without due regard for the driver, passengers, and the broader public, demonstrates GMP’s lack of care and consideration for public safety. Accordingly, we call for the reinforcement of APP guidelines to clearly establish that officers must prioritise this duty of care and commitment to public safety over the apprehension of suspects. We also call for all local police guidelines on police pursuit to be brought into conformity with national guidelines. 

This duty of care should extend to the immediate aftermath of any road traffic incident resulting from a police pursuit. It is vital that officers prioritise the safety and well-being of those that may have been injured before seeking to apprehend any suspects. Despite APP guidelines to this effect, GMP officers have been involved in pursuits which led to collisions in which officers have opted to pursue drivers on foot as opposed to stopping to assess whether there were casualties that required medical attention. Such decisions can prevent critical information being conveyed to medical professionals with potential impacts for life and survivability. Accordingly, we want to see greater clarity in APP guidelines about the requirement to prioritise the preservation of life and treat injuries over the apprehension of suspects.

6. We condemn the state agencies and other supposedly ‘independent’ investigatory bodies tasked with holding the police to account and call for immediate reparative action to support families who have lost loved ones to police pursuit. 

No one expects to lose their loved one to police pursuit whether they were a driver, passenger, or a passerby/pedestrian. However, the reality is that the death of our loved ones was only the beginning of our suffering. We are appalled by the conduct of the various state agencies and other supposedly ‘independent’ bodies tasked with providing support and investigating pursuits in order to hold police to account. The only formal support comes in the form of a police-provided family liaison officer though not all of us were even extended this service. The IOPC is responsible for the investigation which is often led by former police officers, unduly lengthy in duration, and rarely results in findings of misconduct. A coroner’s inquest cannot be held until the IOPC has concluded the investigation which means that some of us have waited two, even three, years for inquests to take place. All the while our lives and grieving processes are put on hold. 

We believe these so-called ‘support systems’ and processes of investigation only serve to further perpetuate harms and should be replaced by truly independent bodies informed by the experience of those affected by police violence. Inquests should take place within stricter time frames and police should be required to attend in-person as opposed to online which was customary in many of our cases. We also believe that inquests should provide families with access to all information, the ability to draw upon the insight of independent experts, and publicly-funded legal aid. In light of the complexities of all cases where lives are lost following police pursuit and the right of families to have their cases fully and thoroughly investigated, inquests should always be allotted ample time to be completed. We also support the ‘Hillsborough Law’ which called for ‘a legal “duty of candour” on public authorities, officials, and public servants to tell the truth at official investigations and inquiries’. [7] Those called on to give expert testimony or deliver reports should also be vetted to establish their independence from the police and IOPC.

Signatories
Northern Police Monitoring Project
Liberty
NETPOL
StopWatch
Inquest
Copwatch Network UK
Bristol Copwatch
Imran Khan & Partners

Notes:

[1] Independent Office for Police Conduct, ‘Annual deaths during or follow police contact report – 2022/23,’ 28 July 2023. For force specific data see the time series tables (ODS format) accessible online: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/publications/annual-deaths-during-or-following-police-contact-report-202223 

[2] Bridie Scott-Parker, Barry Watson, and Mark King. ‘Understanding the Psychosocial Factors Influencing the Risky Behaviour of Young Drivers’. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 12 (1 November 2009): 470–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.08.003.

[3] Quote taken from Independent Police Complaints Commission, Police Road Traffic Incidents: A Study Involving Serious and Fatal Injuries (London: IPCC, July 2007), p. 24-25. Also see, D. Best, Fatal Pursuit: Investigation of Road Traffic Incident (RTIs) Involving Police Vehicles, 1998-2001: Identifying Common Factors and the Lessons to be Learned (London: Police Complaints Authority, 2002); D. Best and K. Eves, Following Fatal Pursuit: A Follow-up Assessment of Road Traffic Incidents, 2001-2002. Second Report into Fatal Road Traffic Incidents Involving Police Vehicles (London: Police Complaints Authority, 2004); D. Best and K. Eves, Police Pursuits in Wales: The Results of a One-year Monitoring Exercise in the four Welsh Police Forces, 2002-2003 (London: Police Complaints Authority, 2004). 

[4] College of Policing, APP (authorised professional practice) (2022). Accessed online: https://www.college.police.uk/app/roads-policing/police-pursuits 

[5] See Best, 2002; Best and Eves, 2004; Best, 2002; Best and Eves, 2004; Gabi Hoffman and Paul Mazerolle, ‘Police pursuits in Queensland: research, review and reform,’ Policing: An International Journal, vol. 28, no.3 (2005): 530-545; Nicola Christie, ‘Managing the safety of police pursuits: A mixed method case study of the Metropolitan Police Service, London, Safety Science 129 (Sept 2020). 

[6] G. P. Alpert, Police Pursuit: Policies and Training (National Institute of Justice, US Dept of Justice, USA, 1997)

[7] Lynn Sudbury-Riley, ‘’Hillsborough Law’: bereaved families let down again,’ University of Liverpool Management School, 8 December 2023. Accessed online: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/management/blog/research/hillsborough-law-bereaved-families-let-down-again/