Lewis Johnson

Lewis Dean JOHNSON - determination on 22.05.25 

This has  been  an  inquest  on behalf of Our Sovereign  Lord  The King  by  me, 
Mary Elizabeth Hassell, Senior Coroner for Inner North London, touching the 
death  of  Lewis  Dean  Johnson  who  died  on  9  February  2016  at  Clapton 
Common  A107  in  London.    The  jury  has  made  a  narrative  determination  as 
follows. 

“Lewis Dean Johnson died on 9 February 2016 following a road traffic collision 
with a traffic light pole at approximately midday at Clapton Common A107, near 
the junction with Castlewood Road in London.  Mr Johnson’s medical cause of 
death was blunt abdominal trauma with aortic rupture. 

On  the  morning  of  9  February  2016,  Mr  Johnson  was  driving  a  300cc 
motorcycle and carrying a pillion passenger.  Both individuals were engaged in 
snatching mobile phones from members of the public.  This activity resulted in 
Mr Johnson and his pillion passenger being pursued by the Metropolitan Police 
Service (MPS) for over three minutes prior to the road traffic collision. 

Mr Johnson’s manner of driving during the pursuit included travelling in excess 
of speed limits, driving on the wrong side of the road, passing vehicles on the 
nearside, and driving on the pavement.  The manner of Mr Johnson’s driving 
was influenced by the fact that he was being pursued by the police in a high 
speed pursuit that involved the pursuing police vehicle following too closely at 
times,  a  factor  that  placed  additional  pressure  on  Mr  Johnson  affecting  his 
decision making. 

Opportunities to reduce risk to Mr Johnson and the public by the driver of the 
pursuing  vehicle  were  missed.    In  particular,  the  pursuing  police  driver 
continued to drive too close to the motorbike, at times, following a point in the 
pursuit  where  the  motorbike  mounted  the  pavement  forcing  a  pedestrian  to 
move out of the way. 

The presence of the pursuing police car also caused other road users to pull to 
the  side  of  the  road  to  assist  the  movement  of  the  police  car  through  traffic.  
One of these road users was the driver of a white box van at Clapton Common, 
which caused Mr Johnson to lose control of the motorbike before he collided 
with the road traffic light pole. 

Mr Johnson’s failure to stop was motivated by a desire to avoid arrest whilst in 
possession of stolen goods. 

The driver of the pursuing police vehicle did not have the qualification (IP code) 
required  by  MPS  policy  at  the  time  to  engage  in  the  pursuit  of  motorbikes.  
Nonetheless, a pursuit took place because of a lack of knowledge amongst the 
police driver, the vehicle operator and MPS control room staff of policy relating 
to  pursuit  of  motorcycles,  and  a  lack  of  adequate  communication  of  these 
policies.  As such, appropriate termination based on the policy requirement for 
an  IP  code  did  not  occur.    This  failure  was  due  in  part  to  the  MPS  failing  to 
implement, disseminate and train relevant staff on relevant policies effectively.”

OFFICIAL 

Sent by email only to: 
anna.mazepina@camden.gov.uk 

30 September 2025  

Dear Ms Hassell  

Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Death Reports arising from the inquest touching 
on the death of Lewis Dean Johnson  

Thank you for your Preventing Future Deaths Report arising from the inquest into the 
death of Mr Lewis Dean Johnson. I also thank you for the extension you have kindly 
granted to allow the IOPC to respond. We have carefully considered your report and set 
out our response below in relation to the following concern: 

At inquest I heard that the terms of reference set out for the forensic collision investigator 
by the IOPC (then IPCC) at the outset of the investigation, did not include an instruction to 
attempt to measure the distance between the pursing vehicle and the subject vehicle at 
points when the two appeared to be closer together. Obviously this omission did not have 
an impact upon Lewis Johnson’s death, but it did have an impact upon the inquest. It 
meant that the jury had no clear objective evidence about the distance between his motor 
cycle and the police car behind. Given that learning and at times policy are informed by 
such findings, it appears that this would be helpful to include in future investigations when 
death follows a police pursuit. 

The IOPC is committed to ensuring that whenever we carry out an independent 
investigation into a death or serious injury, our investigation is thorough and evidence-
based with a clear focus on learning and accountability.  

We work to ensure we gather all relevant and available evidence and seek expert advice 
where it is necessary and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Collectively, this 
helps to inform the investigation and our ability to reach evidence-based decisions. With 
specific reference to matters involving road traffic incidents, the IOPC does not possess 
the technical skills or expertise to undertake collision investigation work. As such, we work 
with policing partners who have a duty to provide independent assistance by way of  
objective and unbiased opinion in relation to matters within their expertise. The reports 
produced by Forensic Collision Investigators are provided to the IOPC and the salient 
points are then included in the IOPC investigation report. 

With regards to the investigation into the tragic death of Mr Johnson on 9 February 2016, 
the IOPC declared an independent investigation on 12 February 2016 and as part of this 
investigation, it decided to instruct a Forensic Collision Investigator to draft a report. This 
report indicates that the terms of reference were agreed between the Forensic Collision 
Investigator and the IOPC but they are then not quoted within the investigator’s report.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OFFICIAL 

During the investigation, we also instructed an NPCC expert and within those terms of 
reference they refer to the Forensic Collision Investigator being asked to prepare a report 
to contain information including “distances”. The Forensic Collision Investigator report 
provides a detailed CCTV analysis that discusses the distance between Mr Johnson’s 
motorcycle and the police car in seconds but does not provide a measured distance in 
metres. The expert does not comment on whether this was possible or not. A copy of both 
documents are provided with this response.  

Actions to be taken / Organisational Learning  

Considerable time has passed since Mr Johnson’s death and there have been numerous 
developments in roads policing and investigations into deaths and serious injuries arising 
from police pursuits since 2016.  

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 introduced a new legal test to assess 
the standard of driving of a police officer for the offences of dangerous and careless 
driving. In determining whether an offence has been committed, the standard of driving is 
compared to that of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the relevant 
prescribed training. Under the new test, evidence of a police officer’s training and the 
assessment  of a police driver training expert are required to determine whether the driving  
fell below (or far below) the standard expected of a competent and careful constable who 
has undertaken the same prescribed training. The IOPC now has protocols in place with 
the NPCC and College of Policing for the IOPC to instruct subject matter experts from a 
panel organised by the NPCC who can provide an expert opinion on compliance with 
policy, procedure and training.  

In addition, in all IOPC investigations into fatal road traffic incidents, the IOPC may make 
representations for a full Forensic Collision Investigation Report to be completed by a 
Forensic Collision Investigator, or we may commission one from an independent source.  

The Forensic Collision Investigator would be the expert responsible for measuring distance 
between two vehicles. However, it is our understanding that this process is not always 
possible or straight forward and can, on occasion, be particularly complicated and take a 
significant amount of time. In light of this it may not be possible, or proportionate, in every 
road traffic collision investigation to pursue this line of enquiry.  

We are in the process of updating the internal written guidance we provide to IOPC lead 
investigators to ensure consideration is given to securing a full Forensic Collision 
Investigation Report and that there is consultation with the Coroner about our approach. 
Following your Preventing Future Deaths Report, our guidance will now also require 
investigators to consider if a distance calculation should form part of the terms of reference 
for the Forensic Collision Investigator. This guidance will be available to IOPC lead 
investigators within the next fortnight. 

In the meantime, our internal technical leads will liaise with investigators in the early 
stages of any investigations involving a road traffic fatality to ensure the correct 
considerations are made. In instances where we feel it is appropriate to secure a 
streamlined collision investigation report, we will set out the minimum standards we expect 
for that report, to ensure all relevant information is secured.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OFFICIAL 

I trust that the information provided clarifies our role and offers reassurance regarding the 
matters raised. We are committed to upholding the principles of impartiality and 
independence, which are fundamental to the integrity of our investigative processes.  

Yours sincerely 

Catherine Bates 
Deputy Director of Investigations – West 

3