Compliance not flight

Jun 27, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – I am not discussing the specifics of the incident of Thursday night when a teenager died following him being pursued by the police and him ending up crashing and dying. It is for an investigation to establish what exactly happened and who were at fault.

Unfortunately, much of public debate relating to this incident has been clouded by emotion and, in some cases, a misunderstanding of what the law actually permits the police to do. It is important to separate legitimate concern about police conduct from the basic principle that lawful authority cannot be selectively obeyed based on age or convenience.

In this column, I propose to deal with the general principles and not the specific incident itself, of which I do not have the full details at this time.

There is no legal exemption that allows a person to disregard a lawful police order simply because that person is a teenager. Once a lawful instruction is given—whether to stop, present documents, or submit to questioning—it applies equally to all persons regardless of age.

The police, in turn, are mandated to enforce the law and maintain public order. If individuals could simply ignore lawful instructions without consequence, the entire framework of road safety and criminal enforcement would collapse into voluntary compliance.

When a person chooses to flee from police, they are actively escalating a situation. That decision introduces uncertainty, heightens risk, and often forces officers to make rapid operational judgments under pressure.

The argument that police should simply “take the number plate and let it go” may sound reasonable in hindsight, but it misunderstands the immediate purpose of enforcement. A number plate identifies a vehicle, not necessarily the driver, and does not guarantee accountability or recovery of evidence.

More fundamentally, abandoning pursuit in every instance would create a predictable loophole. Any offender would quickly learn that escape guarantees immunity in the moment, provided they can outrun or evade initial interception.

That said, the authority to pursue is not a licence for recklessness. Police officers are bound by operational protocols that require them to balance enforcement with public safety, including the safety of suspects, and themselves.

High-speed pursuits are among the most dangerous aspects of policing precisely because they unfold in real time and can quickly affect uninvolved road users. This is why officers are expected to assess proportionality and necessity at every stage of an engagement.

It is also important to recognise that the primary responsibility for initiating a dangerous chain of events often lies with the decision to flee. A driver who complies with a lawful stop eliminates the need for pursuit altogether.

Historical incidents, including those where young drivers have lost their lives after attempting to evade police, underscore the tragic consequences that can follow split-second decisions to disregard lawful instructions. These outcomes are precisely why compliance is not merely a legal duty but a safety imperative.

Some years ago, a youngster who had borrowed a car was stopped by the police and asked for his documents. He decided to drive away. The police ended up chasing him and he crashed onto the Mahaica Bridge and died. There were persons then, as now, who were saying that the police should have taken the number of the vehicle and not pursue the fleeing motorist. But if the police does this, they will find that more and more persons will end up fleeing after being asked to stop or comply with some other lawful instruction.

At the same time, every such incident must be subject to thorough investigation. The question is not whether police have the right to pursue, but whether the manner of pursuit adhered to established standards.

The police must be able to enforce the law effectively, and that they must do so responsibly. Either principle taken alone leads to imbalance.

There is often confusion in public discourse between accountability and restriction. Holding police to standards of care does not mean disabling them from performing their duties; it means ensuring those duties are carried out within clearly defined legal and ethical boundaries.

Equally, age cannot become a shield against lawful enforcement. While youth may be a factor in how officers exercise discretion, it does not nullify responsibility or the consequences of attempting to evade lawful authority.

Ultimately, road users must understand that the safest course of action when signalled by the police is compliance, not flight. Running from the police is not a neutral act, it is a deliberate choice that sometimes carries severe risks.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

• compliance, crashing and dying, Flight, Peeping Tom

---