Pc Christopher Corker was set to stand trial at the Old Bailey for causing the death of Arthur Holscher-Ermert by unsafe driving.
The family of a young man struck and killed by a police patrol car has voiced “shock” and “disappointment” after charges against the officer involved were withdrawn at the last minute.
Pc Christopher Corker, 40, was scheduled to stand trial at the Old Bailey on Monday for causing the death of Arthur Holscher-Ermert through unsafe driving in Peacehaven, East Sussex.
Pc Corker was accused of purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road towards the 27-year-old pedestrian in a “misguided and dangerous attempt to stop him running away”.
The case was predicated on graphic video evidence from the police cruiser and a passing motorist that captured the incident shortly after 11.10 p.m.
However, on Monday, the court heard that two expert investigations had since agreed that Pc Corker’s manoeuvre would have prevented a collision if the victim had not altered direction.
Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford KC provided no evidence, and Pc Corker was formally cleared of two charges: causing death by reckless driving and careless driving.
Judge Richard Marks KC expressed his sympathy to the family in court, stating, “It appears to have been a tragic accident.”
The family of Pc Corker, from Worthing, West Sussex, issued a statement after the hearing, stating that the CPS has decided to end criminal proceedings against him, which has been ongoing for over two years. One witness told him, “You are still responsible for killing Arthur. Never forget his name. Never. Dirty bastard.”
“We are shocked to see that Pc Corker will not be held criminally liable for his actions.
“Our fight for the truth and accountability continues. We now look forward to Arthur’s inquest.”
Earlier, Mr Sandiford addressed the court and explained the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to withdraw the charges.
He further explained: “The Crown’s case against this defendant was that the collision was caused by him deliberately steering his vehicle on the wrong side of the road towards the deceased.”
He said that the manoeuvre was a “misguided and dangerous attempt to prevent the deceased from fleeing”.
Following the crash, the defendant had given a prepared statement but no explanation for what happened, the court was told.
The two experts had since concluded that Pc Corker’s actions would have avoided a collision had the victim not also changed course.
Mr Sandiford said: “It would appear he may had the same intention as the officer in the sense he was changing direction to try to run behind the police vehicle and ran in front of it.
“Unfortunately, because the officer had already reacted there was a collision.”
According to him, the officer “braked heavily and the vehicle came to a stop”.
Mr. Sandiford commented: “The deceased tried to stop and appears to have stumbled into the front of the officer’s vehicle.”
In effect, the experts agreed that the officer’s action, moving to the right and onto the wrong side of the road, “would have avoided a collision had the deceased continued on his path,” according to the prosecution.
Pc Corker, who sat with his legal team in court, left without commenting.
Previously, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) forwarded a dossier of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to investigate charges against two Sussex Police officers in connection with Mr Holscher-Ermert’s murder.
About The Author
