Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2021

Lee Marsden

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2021-0084, written 26 Mar 2021. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report26 Mar 2021
Reference2021-0084
DeceasedLee Marsden
CoronerMatthew Cox
Coroner areaManchester North
CategoryRoad (Highways Safety) related deaths · Police related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published2

The report

Text recovered by OCR from a scanned PDF. OCR is imperfect: check anything you rely on against the source PDF. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1)

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:
1. Highways England

2. North West Motorway Police Group

CORONER

| am Matthew Cox, Assistant Coroner for the Coroner area of Manchester North

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS

| make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009 and
Regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

On the 15 March 2021 | concluded an inquest into the death of Lee David Marsden who died on
20 December 2019. | reached the following conclusion: Road Traffic Collision

CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH

The deceased was seen accessing an area between junctions 2 and 3 of the M66 motorway on
foot at 20:04 hours on 20 December 2019,

The North West Motorway Police Group (NWMP6G) notified Highways England of the sighting via
electronic interface at 20:05:28 hours. As a result of this communication, Highways England set
advisory speed limits of 60 mph between junctions 2 and 3 at 20:08:01 hours. Two further reports
of sightings were made, one of which (at 20:10 hours) was by an off-duty police officer who asked
that consideration be given to imposing a speed-limit of 30mph at junction 3. NWMPG updated
Highways England of these reports using the prefix 06/8126 to indicate that one of the informants
was a police officer. The significance of the prefix 06/8126 was not appreciated by Highways
England.

The evidence was that had Highways England appreciated that the informant was a police officer,
the speed limit would have been set at 30mph between junctions 2 and 3 with a target time for
implementation of 2 minutes. This would have meant that the 30 mph speed limit would have
been in place by 20:12:58 hours.

At 20:16 hours, the Deceased was struck by a vehicle in the third land of the northbound
carriageway. His body was projected into the southbound carriageway where other vehicles
collided with him. He sustained fatal injuries and his life was pronounced extinct at the scene.

At 20:22:17 hours, almost six minutes after the impact, an advisory speed limit was set on both
carriageways by Highways England between junctions 2 and 3.

Evidence from the Forensic Collision Investigator was that had the speed limit of 30mph been in
place, the Deceased would have had a greater chance of avoiding the impact.

CORONER’S CONCERNS

SURONER'S CONCERNS
During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my

opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is
my statutory duty to report to you.

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:-

1. There was a delay in activating the warning signals to reduce the speed of traffic travelling
along the M66 motorway between junctions 2 and 3 to 30mph,

. The efficacy of communication between Highways England and North West Motorway
Police Group in that there was a failure to appreciate the significance of the prefix numbers
06/8126

. No internal review of the circumstances of this fatal accident has been undertaken by
Highways England with the consequent loss of an opportunity for learning

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe each of you
respectively have the power to take such action.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely 21
May 2021. I, the Assistant Coroner, may extend the period.

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the
timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed.

COPIES and PUBLICATION

| have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons
namely:-

The family of Lee David Marsden

| am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both ina complete or redacted or summary from. He may
send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. You may
make representations to me the coroner at the time of your response, about the release or the
publication of your response by the Chief Coroner.

Signed) WA

Responses

2 responses published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Highways England (PDF)
REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS RESPONSE IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  The Assistant Coroner for the Coroner area of Manchester North, Matthew 
Cox  of  Newgate  House,  Newgate,  Rochdale  OL16  1AT  in  response  to  a 
‘Regulation  28  Report  to  Prevent  Future  Deaths’  following  an  inquest  hearing 
into the death of Lee David Marsden that concluded on 15 March 2021.  

1 

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND 

I am 
Limited of Piccadilly Gate, Store Street, Manchester M1 2WD. 

, Regional Director for the North West, Highways England Company 

2 

CORONER’S MATTERS OF CONCERN 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:–  

a.  There was a delay in activating the warning signals to reduce the speed of traffic 

travelling along the M66 motorway between junctions 2 and 3 to 30mph. 

b.  The  efficacy  of  communication  between  Highways  England  and  North  West 
Motorway Police Group in that there was a failure to appreciate the significance 
of the prefix numbers 06/8126. 

c.  No  internal  review  of  the  circumstances  of  this  fatal  accident  has  been 
undertaken by Highways England with the consequent loss of an opportunity for 
learning.  

3 

DETAILS OF ACTION TAKEN 

a.  Activating warning signals  

Please see paragraph 5a. below.  

b.  Prefix numbers 06/8126  

Prior  to  the  incident  on  20  December  2019,  Highways  England  Regional 
Operations Centre staff were not aware of the significance and meaning of the 
prefix  numbers  transferred  from  the  North  West  Motorway  Police  Group 
(NWMPG)  incident  logging  system  via  an  automatic,  electronic  interface  which 
allows  the  log  to  be  edited  and  confidential  information  redacted  prior  to  being 
transferred, into the Highways England Incident Management System.   

In this case, ‘06’ is the police force identifier for Greater Manchester Police, and 
‘8126’  is  the  police  officer’s  ‘collar’  number.  The  prefix  numbers  were  included 
within  the  electronic  transfer  of  information  from  the  NWMPG  to  the  Highways 
England  incident  log  however,  the  textual  description  did  not  state  that  the 
information  had  come  from  a  (off-duty)  police  officer.  If  it  had,  the  information 
could  have  been  treated  as  an  approved  ‘trusted’  source  confirming  the 
presence of a pedestrian on the motorway.  

In  discussions  with  the  NWMPG  it  has  been  agreed  that  the  use  of  prefix 
numbers  as  numerical  identifiers  in  such  circumstances  could  lead  to  relevant 
information  not  being  considered,  and  could  lead  to  a  delay  in  confirming  the 
presence  of  a  pedestrian  on  the  Strategic  Road  Network  and  the  signing  of  a 
further reduced advisory speed limit in accordance with our company policy and 
work instruction.  

Highways  England  and  the  NWMPG  have  agreed  that  going  forward  details 
relating  to  the  source  of  information  should  be  clearer  and  relayed  between 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 organisations in a ‘free text’ format as part of the electronic interface of incident 
logs.  

Highways England will brief the circumstances of this incident together with the 
outcome of our review to the North West Regional Operations Centre staff. The 
(Cheshire,  Merseyside,  Greater 
Police  Operators  within 
Manchester),  as  well  as  Lancashire  Constabulary  and  Cumbria  Constabulary 
will  similarly  be  briefed.  This  joint  approach  will  cover  all  the  police  forces 
operating within the North West geographic area of the Strategic Road Network.  

the  NWMPG 

c. 

Internal review of the circumstances  

An  internal  review  has  been  carried  out  into  the  Regional  Operations  Centre 
handling  of  the  incident  in  December  2019,  as  requested  by  the  Coroner.  Our 
review concluded that on the information available to the Operations staff at the 
time, our staff complied with the company policy and work instructions in place, 
and  the  incident  was  managed  appropriately.  Highways  England  Regional 
Operations  Centre  staff  were  not  aware  that  one  of  the  entries  on  the  log 
originated  from  a  call  from  an  off-duty  police  officer,  or  the  significance  and 
meaning  of  prefix  numbers  electronically  transferred  to  the  Highways  England 
incident  log  from  the  NWMPG.  The  Coroner’s  Officer  brought  this  point  to  our 
attention shortly before the inquest. With that information, we have taken action 
as explained at paragraph b. above. 

4 

TIMETABLE FOR ACTION 

Date 

Action 

01/06/2021 

Briefing for the North West Highways England Regional Operations 
Centre  staff  and  police  officers  in  relation  to  the  use  of  ‘free  text’ 
entries  transferred  between  organisations  within  incident  logs 
where  appropriate.  This  briefing  will  be  shared  with  all  Highways 
England Regional Control Centres as best practice nationally. 

5 

EXPLANATION AS TO WHY NO ACTION IS PROPOSED 

a.  Activating warning signals  

Highways England has a national policy and a work instruction in relation to the 
activation  of  motorway  variable  signs  and  signals.  The  notification  of 
‘unconfirmed  pedestrian’  on  the  carriageway  initially  results  in  the  setting  of 
signs  and  signals  to  indicate  an  advisory  60mph  speed  limit  supported  by 
‘unconfirmed’ signing, where available. Once the presence of  a pedestrian has 
been  confirmed  by  an  approved,  trusted  source  such  as  a  Highways  England 
Traffic  Officer  or  Highways  Inspector,  or  the  police,  the  advisory  speed  limit  is 
lowered further and supported by ‘confirmed’ signing, where available. We have 
reviewed  our  procedure  and  consider  it  to  be  robust  and  appropriate  so  no 
action is proposed.  

6 

SAFETY OF ROAD USERS 

The  safety  of  our  road  users  is  an  imperative  for  our  business  in  what  we  set  out  to 
achieve, and a core value of our organisation. We are working hard to make our entire 
network  safer,  and  consider  that  the  action  we  have  taken  will  improve  safety  through 
enhanced communication.  

2 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 

18 May 2021 

Signed:  

Regional Director for North West 

3
Response from North West Motorway Police Group (PDF)
REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS RESPONSE IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  The Assistant Coroner for the Coroner area of Manchester North, Matthew 
Cox  of  Newgate  House,  Newgate,  Rochdale  OL16  1AT  in  response  to  a 
‘Regulation  28  Report  to  Prevent  Future  Deaths’  following  an  inquest  hearing 
into the death of Lee David Marsden that concluded on 15 March 2021.  

1 

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND 

I am Superintendent 
West Motorway Police Group Regional Control Centre.  

 of Cheshire Constabulary, responsible for the North 

2 

CORONER’S MATTERS OF CONCERN 

The MATTER OF CONCERN for this report:–  

The  language  and  manner  of  communication  between  Highways  England  and 
North West Motorway Police Group in that there was a failure to appreciate the 
significance of the prefix numbers 06/8126. 

3 

DETAILS OF ACTION TAKEN 

Prefix numbers 06/8126  

Prior  to  the  incident  on  20  December  2019,  Highways  England  Regional 
Operations Centre staff were not aware of the significance and meaning of the 
prefix  numbers  transferred  from  the  North  West  Motorway  Police  Group 
(NWMPG) incident logging system via an automatic, electronic interface into the 
Highways England Incident Management System.  Highways England operate a 
tiered response to reports of incidents on the network, giving a higher degree of 
priority to information from a ‘trusted source’ (including police officers) than that 
received  from  other  sources.    In  this  case,  the  police  operator  used  ‘06’  the 
police  force  identifier  for  Greater  Manchester  Police,  and  ‘8126’  the  police 
officer’s force identification or ‘collar’ number. The prefix numbers were included 
within the electronic transfer of information to the Highways England incident log 
however, the textual description did not state that the information had come from 
a (off-duty) police officer.   The Highways England  operator has not recognised 
this  as  information  from  a  ‘trusted’  source.    Highways  England  has  a  national 
policy  and  a  work  instruction  in  relation  to  the  activation  of  motorway  variable 
signs  and  signals.  The  notification  of 
the 
carriageway  initially  results  in  the  setting  of  signs  and  signals  to  indicate  an 
‘unconfirmed’  signing,  where 
advisory  60mph  speed 
available.  Once  the  presence  of  a  pedestrian  has  been  confirmed  by  an 
approved,  trusted  source  such  as  a  Highways  England  Traffic  Officer  or 
Highways  Inspector,  or  the  police,  the  advisory  speed  limit  is  lowered  further 
and supported by ‘confirmed’ signing, where available. 

‘unconfirmed  pedestrian’  on 

limit  supported  by 

Highways  England  and  the  NWMPG  have  agreed  that  going  forward  details 
relating to the source of information will be clearer and a free text description will 
be added to the log to identify the source of information in clear language.  

Police operators and supervisors within NWMPG will be briefed to add this plain 
language to logs.  

4 

TIMETABLE FOR ACTION 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Date 

Action 

25/05/2021 

Briefing note for North West Motorway Police Group staff circulated 
advising of the need to use ‘plain language’ when identifying Police 
or other Emergency services employees who are referred to on a 
log corroborating an incident report.  

6 

SAFETY OF ROAD USERS 

The  safety  of  our  road  users  is  an  imperative  for  our  business  in  what  we  set  out  to 
achieve, and a core value of our organisation. We are working hard to make our entire 
network  safer,  and  consider  that  the  action  we  have  taken  will  improve  safety  through 
enhanced communication.  

7 

25 May 2021 

Signed: 

Superintendent. 

2

Related reports

Other reports by Matthew Cox

See all →

More reports categorised “Road (Highways Safety) related deaths”

See all →

Track Road (Highways Safety) related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Road (Highways Safety) related deaths, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.