IOPC Finds No Evidence of Tactical Contact or Stinger Use Before A66 Crash That Killed Seven

An initial investigation into the devastating A66 collision that claimed the lives of five young men and two police officers has found no indication that officers deliberately made contact with the pursued vehicle or deployed a tyre-puncturing device before the crash. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which is leading the inquiry, released the preliminary findings as it continues to piece together the sequence of events that unfolded in the early hours of 22 August near Middlesbrough.

The crash involved a Volkswagen Passat and a marked Cleveland Police vehicle and occurred at South Bank, a short distance from the A66. It followed a police pursuit that had already been abandoned by the time of the impact. According to the watchdog, the pursuit was initiated at 03:33 BST, and just six minutes and 12 seconds later, the Passat slowed as it neared the A66, turned right, and began travelling the wrong way along the dual carriageway.

The pursuing police driver did not follow the Passat onto the wrong carriageway. Instead, the officer switched off the blue warning lights and continued along the correct side of the A66. Approximately 17 seconds later, the Passat collided with the car occupied by PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. Both officers, aged 37 and 38 respectively, were not involved in the pursuit at that stage and were killed in the collision.

The five people travelling in the Passat who died were Michael Robert Cahill, 23, Jakub Matusiak, 23, Makai Saddington, 18, and two 17-year-olds, Theo Rae and Cole Robert Worthy. Their deaths, alongside those of the two officers, have prompted an outpouring of grief across the local area and beyond.

Emily Barry, the IOPC's director of engagement, addressed the speculation that has circulated since the crash. She confirmed that there is no suggestion the collision resulted from any direct police contact, nor was a stinger—a portable spike strip designed to puncture vehicle tyres—used in an attempt to stop the Passat. The statement appears aimed at quelling rumours about the tactics employed by officers before the fatal impact.

Barry also emphasised the wider human cost of the incident. She said the IOPC continues to recognise the devastating and long-lasting impact on the families, the force, the policing community, and the wider local community. Her comments reflect the sensitivity surrounding an incident that has touched multiple families and raised difficult questions about pursuit procedures.

Despite the preliminary findings, Barry cautioned that a full conclusion is still months away. The volume of material that must be reviewed means the investigation will take considerable time to complete. The IOPC has commissioned two expert reports to support its work: one focusing on collision reconstruction, and another assessing the policies and procedures that govern officers during pursuits.

A forensic collision investigator is still working to determine the speed of both vehicles at the moment of impact—a critical detail that could shed further light on the dynamics of the crash. The reconstruction report is expected to play a central role in establishing exactly how the two vehicles came together on the dual carriageway.

The sequence of events established so far raises important questions about how a routine pursuit escalated into a tragedy involving seven deaths. The decision by the pursuing officer not to follow the Passat the wrong way up the dual carriageway, and instead to extinguish the blue lights, indicates an attempt to de-escalate the situation. Yet the collision occurred moments later, suggesting the Passat and the unmarked or marked police vehicle carrying the two officers met under circumstances that remain under scrutiny.

The deaths of PC Blades and PC Clough have been particularly felt within Cleveland Police. Both officers were described by their families as heroes in tributes published in the days after the crash. Their loss has highlighted the risks faced by officers who may find themselves in the path of dangerous driving incidents even when they are not actively engaged in a pursuit.

The IOPC's involvement underscores the gravity of the case. As the independent body responsible for overseeing police conduct in England and Wales, its findings will be closely examined by the families, the force, and the public. The preliminary conclusion that neither tactical contact nor a stinger was used removes one potential source of controversy, but it does not answer all the questions surrounding the crash.

Tactical contact, sometimes referred to as "tactical ramming," is a contentious tactic in which police deliberately drive into a suspect vehicle to bring it to a halt. It is typically reserved for extreme circumstances and requires careful authorisation. A stinger, by contrast, is a more common tool used to deflate tyres and slow a fleeing vehicle. The IOPC's finding that neither was employed before the collision is likely to shape the direction of the remaining investigation.

The full investigation will also examine the relevant policies and procedures in place for officers during pursuits. This strand of the inquiry could lead to recommendations about how police handle high-speed chases, particularly when suspects drive the wrong way on dual carriageways—a scenario that poses extreme danger to officers and the public alike.

For the families of the seven who died, the wait for answers will continue for months. The IOPC has acknowledged the devastating impact of the incident, and its final report is expected to provide a comprehensive account of what happened on that August morning. Until then, the initial findings offer a partial picture: no deliberate contact, no stinger, but still no definitive explanation for how seven lives were lost in a matter of seconds.