Technically correct I assume but would the MIB go after the force who were part of the pursuit on the grounds of culpability - no chase, no crash, damage avoided?
Nope. The
driver has an absolute duty to stop immediately when requested to do so by a constable in uniform.
The police have to then weigh their responsibilities under ECHR (preservation of life, etc) to the wider public, and their responsibilities vis a vis enforcing the law (preventing and detecting crime, apprehending offenders, etc). Provided the dibble's actions are properly risk assessed and compliant with the various levels of legislation, the driver that fails to stop is responsible for the consequences of their actions.
The process for authorising a pursuits is quite long winded, but quite simple. You'll call up and say something like, "this is PC Farguhar, I'm in pursuit of a fail to stop in Cleo Lane, I am a qualified pursuit driver in a suitable marked vehicle. Weather conditions are ABC, traffic conditions are XYY, in pursuit of bandit car Ford Tippex registration HJK currently doing 190 in a 20 zone."
The control room inspector, who has nothing more worrisome on their plate than their coffee getting cold, will be trained to do the risk assessment. As the commentary continues from the copper pursuing the bandit car the inspector will continually risk assess against a legislative and risk matrix. The pursuit driver can override that as they have eyes on and have the most information, but its rare they do. I never myself overuled it, although I did once call off a pursuit myself as my own strobes were blinding me in the fog and if I cant run without strobes I shouldn't be hooning.
Anyway, point is that provided the feds are doing everything by the book the bandit car driver is entirely responsible for the criminal and civil consequences of their unlawful behaviour.
