Special constable Collette Carpenter who was involved in fatal crash with biker David Bartholomew resigns

LET OFF: Collette Carpenter LET OFF: Collette Carpenter

A SPECIAL constable who was involved in a fatal road crash while talking on her mobile phone has resigned.

Collette Carpenter was involved in a conversation with her partner when her Peugeot 206 collided with motorcyclist David Bartholomew.

An inquest this week heard how Miss Carpenter, formerly of Colehill, denied using her phone during the journey but later admitted she had used it throughout the entire journey on loudspeaker, positioned on her lap.

Details of the case were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided not to prosecute after the collision on the A31 Ferndown bypass on March 20 last year.

They said while evidence showed she was using her phone while driving, there was no evidence she was holding it at the time of the collision. The CPS added there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”.

Yesterday it was revealed that Miss Carpenter, who had continued to work as a volunteer special constable for Dorset Police, had in fact resigned.

In a statement, the force said: “Dorset Police can confirm that the special constable involved in this incident has officially resigned, “We have nothing further to say on the matter.”

The decision not to prosecute Miss Carpenter angered Mr Bartholomew’s children James and Charlotte and his partner Lindsey Witcombe.

Speaking about the resignation, Lindsey said: “We are reassured to hear that Collette Carpenter has resigned from being a special constable with immediate effect.

“We understand her records will be marked and if there is any attempt in the future to gain entry into the force her dishonesty will be flagged up because she has fallen well short of the standards required to maintain public confidence.”

Politician’s letter to attorney general

A DORSET MP says he will be writing to the attorney general about the Carpenter case.

Chris Chope, MP for Christchurch, is to take up the issue of why she was not prosecuted for using a hand-held device while driving.

The legislation states that the use of a hand-held phone or similar hand-held device while driving is prohibited.

It describes a hand-held device as something that “is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function”.

Mr Chope, who is a former roads minister, said: “I would be happy to write to the attorney general about it and will link it to the Daily Echo articles.”

He would ask for an explanation as to “how someone caught committing an offence has not faced prosecution”.

Comments(29)

djd says...
8:18am Sat 16 Feb 13

Goodbye. Dorset Police will be the better without you.

Lord Spring says...
8:38am Sat 16 Feb 13

Just because she has not been prosecuted does not mean she can not be still prosecuted.
As an TV actor in the news, has now been charged with an offence which was not previously going to court.

Babybop says...
9:15am Sat 16 Feb 13

I hope Mr Chope's letter is successful!

Turtlebay says...
9:59am Sat 16 Feb 13

She was not prosecuted because she was using it's hands free mode, which is permissible.

Turtlebay says...
10:01am Sat 16 Feb 13

It is still a mental distraction but one's hands are both on the steering wheel.

proverbol says...
10:33am Sat 16 Feb 13

The mobile phone aspect is proving to be a red herring! She still killed a man whilst driving her car and should be prosecuted for dangerous driving or at least driving without due care and attention. She should have been sacked the following day. Can the family seek compensation for their loss?

Avengerboy says...
10:39am Sat 16 Feb 13

This case was bringing the whole penal system in to disrepute. Her resignation was inevitable but still an unhappy conclusion for many. Imagine any Dorset police officer trying to reprimand you for using your mobile in the car in the next few weeks!

Cherry19 says...
11:28am Sat 16 Feb 13

Wonder is someone is trying to make her public profile look better by telling us she has resigned, however, it doesn't wash with me, Dorset Police should have sacked her and made it clear that no officer (voluntary or not) is acceptable if they lie, which she did about this issue of the phone ...

I hope Mr Chope gets a positive response in this matter, we have to have clear guidelines from the CPS, the statements given by her clearly record her change of story about the phone use.

Our thoughts are with David, who lost his life, and to his family who are having to not only come to terms with their loss, but also deal with all the aftermath the inquest, but I hope they find strength in knowing that the public support them.

muscliffman says...
11:35am Sat 16 Feb 13

Once more we seem to getting knee-jerk comments.

The Special Police Constable, as I read it, was not using a hands free mobile phone device fitted in the car she was driving. She was using a normal totally detached mobile phone balanced somehow upon her lap - (allegedly) in a 'hands free' speaker mode.

The law is quite precise on this, the former with the car accessory system fitted is quite legal, the latter (even if true) is not.

Two more issues intrigue me here. Firstly why did she ever have the opportunity to resign, surely her confession of lying at a serious and formal legal investigation should have been regarded as an act sufficient to cause summary dismissal from an outfit like the Police - upon grounds of serious lost repute.

Secondly, we have a new PCC who has been appearing in the media with something to say about anything on a regular basis - using his own new publicly funded media assistants no doubt! On this one Police related topic, when the public might like to have heard a view from him, and he could indeed have earnt some much needed crdibilty, so far we hear....absolutely nothing.

Holes Bay Curve says...
12:00pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Turtlebay wrote:
She was not prosecuted because she was using it's hands free mode, which is permissible.
>>>>>https://www.gov
.uk/using-mobile-pho
nes-when-driving-the
-law


'When you can use a phone in your vehicle

If you’re the driver, you can only use your phone in a vehicle if you:

need to call 999 or 112 in an emergency and it’s unsafe or impractical to stop

are safely parked

Using hands-free devices when driving

You can use hands-free phones, sat navs and 2-way radios when you’re driving or riding. But if the police think you’re distracted and not in control of your vehicle you could still get stopped and penalised.'


It is disgraceful that someone who is meant to uphold the law , lets down the whole Police force by her actions, be it, driving without due care, OR disregarding the law.

yasinac says...
12:12pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Shame she waited until after the inquest to do what was right. And with regard to be in a telephone conversation it all depends on what the conversation was as to whether it was distracting or not! Obviously that will never be known but surely the CPS made a huge error in judgement in not prosecuting this woman.
My sincere condolences to his heartbroken family and to his children especially that have been robbed at having their dad by their side at milestone moments in their lives.

Bob49 says...
12:36pm Sat 16 Feb 13

I beggars belief that she has now only resigned.

I'm sure many would have thought that she had left the police long ago, if only though having 'lied' in her original statement.

However there still remains the question of what caused this fatal crash. Someone must have been driving incorrectly or it would not have happened.

As said above, the mobile phone is a distraction in this debate.Why was her car in the road when clearly oncoming traffic (the motorbike) had priority ?).

UZZY says...
1:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Resigned ???....She should have been sacked before she being sent to prison

arti273 says...
1:53pm Sat 16 Feb 13

As far as I can see Mr Chope hasn't said he is actually going to write to the attorney general.

He merely states (presumable when pressed by the Echo for a comment) he "would be happy to write to the attorney general about it” And "He would ask for an explanation as to “how someone caught committing an offence has not faced prosecution”.

I'd be happy to have taxpayers pay £10,377 for the repairs to my roof, £2,600 for my new bathroom and £881.25 to repair my sofa, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Perhaps he could make it an open letter and the Echo could publish it so we can all see it?

Controversial But True says...
3:17pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Resigned from a voluntary job!! Ha ha!!!

Derf says...
4:49pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Where does it say in the article when she resigned?
Could it not be she resigned immediately after the incident. The Echo and the police haven't said she resigned after the inquest, the police haters on here have merely jumped to that conclusion.

As for the MP, just empty noises to jump on a bandwagon of public opinion ( as always )

awsokend says...
5:12pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Me was pulled over for eating a triple bypass beefburger
others get away with it by the looks of things.
its not fair on I.

Chris the plumber says...
5:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13

there were two invovled in this incident a motor cycle over taking on hatching approaching a junction, a very dangerious thing to do and a car driver not paying sufficient attention !! both in my view and the view of the inquest to blame so Mr Chope is vote hunting by pandering to the majority who blame the car driver and the majority were not at the inqueset to hear exactly what happened.

Letcommonsenseprevail says...
5:38pm Sat 16 Feb 13

She didn't resign, she quit. There's a difference. You can't resign from a voluntary position, because it's not a job..... Always cracks me up when the lower classes use the word 'resign'. Like they're sat on a board of directors..........

nosuchluck54 says...
5:42pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Chris the plumber wrote:
there were two invovled in this incident a motor cycle over taking on hatching approaching a junction, a very dangerious thing to do and a car driver not paying sufficient attention !! both in my view and the view of the inquest to blame so Mr Chope is vote hunting by pandering to the majority who blame the car driver and the majority were not at the inqueset to hear exactly what happened.
Speechless!!!

muscliffman says...
7:57pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
She didn't resign, she quit. There's a difference. You can't resign from a voluntary position, because it's not a job..... Always cracks me up when the lower classes use the word 'resign'. Like they're sat on a board of directors..........
How strange. But pardon us 'lower class' pl*bs if we have offended with this word. But I think you are totally wrong.

Many positions in life which do not involve remuneration, or would be classed as a 'job', require a resignation to bring them to a close.

Some of them, like a Special Police Constable, also involve legal responsibilities - including a requirement, when appropriate, for resignation.

Such positions also include unpaid Trustees, unpaid Company Directors (EG Of an incorporated Charity), many voluntary organisation committee members (of anything), unpaid governing Board members (Schools, Hospitals)..........
......etc.

The Seasider says...
8:51pm Sat 16 Feb 13

An innocent man lost his life due to an accident caused by a driver who was not paying due care and attention at the time.

It seems obvious that she should be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving and using a phone whilst driving.

The CPS has sufficient evidence, due to her admissions, and it is clearly in the public interest to pursue the matter (it is not a triviality), so prosecutions must result. The only reason not to prosecute is for the CPS to collude with the police because the driver was a police employee. This is NOT a factor which should be considered in prosecuting her.

Let a JURY decide her innocence or guilt. It is not for the CPS to be 'judge, jury and executioner' and presume they know best. Let all the facts come out for a court to decide guilt.

Next, Mr Chope should consider what the Dorset PCC is doing regarding this case. Also, consider new offences on the statute books, particularly; causing death by reckless/ careless/ negligent driving and not just death by dangerous driving. The law is far to narrow is this area, and too many families lose loved ones on the roads but never get any justice out of our 'justice system'. This tragic injustice really needs to end.

retry69 says...
9:20pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
She didn't resign, she quit. There's a difference. You can't resign from a voluntary position, because it's not a job..... Always cracks me up when the lower classes use the word 'resign'. Like they're sat on a board of directors..........
Thats a comment to remember for the future my lower class friends.

Yankee1 says...
10:19pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Lord Spring wrote:
Just because she has not been prosecuted does not mean she can not be still prosecuted.
As an TV actor in the news, has now been charged with an offence which was not previously going to court.
She can also be sued in civil court.

The bar is much lower for a successful case there.

Browser123 says...
11:09pm Sat 16 Feb 13

The Seasider wrote:
An innocent man lost his life due to an accident caused by a driver who was not paying due care and attention at the time.

It seems obvious that she should be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving and using a phone whilst driving.

The CPS has sufficient evidence, due to her admissions, and it is clearly in the public interest to pursue the matter (it is not a triviality), so prosecutions must result. The only reason not to prosecute is for the CPS to collude with the police because the driver was a police employee. This is NOT a factor which should be considered in prosecuting her.

Let a JURY decide her innocence or guilt. It is not for the CPS to be 'judge, jury and executioner' and presume they know best. Let all the facts come out for a court to decide guilt.

Next, Mr Chope should consider what the Dorset PCC is doing regarding this case. Also, consider new offences on the statute books, particularly; causing death by reckless/ careless/ negligent driving and not just death by dangerous driving. The law is far to narrow is this area, and too many families lose loved ones on the roads but never get any justice out of our 'justice system'. This tragic injustice really needs to end.
Seems dangerous driving did not cause the accident as witnesses state car exited junction correctly but that biker overtook in a bikers black spot..
Agree driver should be charged with using mobile phone whilst driving.And quite rightly resigned as police must not break any law.
Let a jury decide if the driver or the biker was at fault.

scrumpyjack says...
12:16pm Sun 17 Feb 13

nosuchluck54 wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
there were two invovled in this incident a motor cycle over taking on hatching approaching a junction, a very dangerious thing to do and a car driver not paying sufficient attention !! both in my view and the view of the inquest to blame so Mr Chope is vote hunting by pandering to the majority who blame the car driver and the majority were not at the inqueset to hear exactly what happened.
Speechless!!!
If only.

scrumpyjack says...
12:20pm Sun 17 Feb 13

The Seasider wrote:
An innocent man lost his life due to an accident caused by a driver who was not paying due care and attention at the time.

It seems obvious that she should be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving and using a phone whilst driving.

The CPS has sufficient evidence, due to her admissions, and it is clearly in the public interest to pursue the matter (it is not a triviality), so prosecutions must result. The only reason not to prosecute is for the CPS to collude with the police because the driver was a police employee. This is NOT a factor which should be considered in prosecuting her.

Let a JURY decide her innocence or guilt. It is not for the CPS to be 'judge, jury and executioner' and presume they know best. Let all the facts come out for a court to decide guilt.

Next, Mr Chope should consider what the Dorset PCC is doing regarding this case. Also, consider new offences on the statute books, particularly; causing death by reckless/ careless/ negligent driving and not just death by dangerous driving. The law is far to narrow is this area, and too many families lose loved ones on the roads but never get any justice out of our 'justice system'. This tragic injustice really needs to end.
I love hearing from special people who know all the facts without any actual involvment.

Sigh. They are just so clever and brilliant.

Sickofidiotsonhere says...
1:13pm Sun 17 Feb 13

It's good to know that there's so many law abiding citizens out there who have never once used the hanbs free facility
whilst driving

Omni314 says...
10:10am Mon 18 Feb 13

It's not her policing that was in question. She should quit driving and re-take her test.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree