Haverhill family ‘lost for words’ as hit-and-run case reopened

A woman said she was “lost for words” after police backtracked on a decision to close an investigation into her brother’s hit-and-run crash.

Joe Luccarini, 32, was left with a neck fracture after he was hit by a car in Haverhill, Suffolk in August last year and the suspect fled.

His sister Emily Luccarini, 34, said she was disappointed when police told her the case had been closed due to a six-month time limit on taking fail-to-stop incidents to court.

The law states that cases of causing serious injury by careless driving did not have the same time limit. Police said it had reopened the case after reconsidering the “psychological impact” on Mr Luccarini.

Last week the BBC highlighted the case, when Miss Luccarini said “justice shouldn’t have an expiry date” and her brother had been left barely unable to leave his house.

In confirming the investigation was being reopened, Suffolk Police did not reference the fractured neck sustained by Mr Luccarini as a reason in its statement.

“When an officer tried to contact the victim in February to provide an update that the fail-to-stop offence had now expired, their calls were not answered and police were not subsequently made aware of the extent of the psychological impact of the collision on the victim,” said a police spokesperson.

“However, there is scope to consider charges for serious injury based on the psychological impact of the collision.

“The charge for failing to stop after an accident can no longer be pursued as this is subject to statutory time limits, but it could still be considered as an aggravating factor to the primary offence.”

The spokesperson later clarified that as Mr Luccarini’s physical injuries were not deemed life-changing and he was in the hospital for under three days, it was unlikely officers could successfully charge the suspect with causing serious injury by careless driving.

The force also said in the days after the incident, officers wanted to ensure they had carried out all inquiries before making an arrest, but unfortunately the suspect fled, believed to be to London, and had been untraceable.

Initially the force stated the offences were classed as summary offences under the Road Traffic Offenders Act, meaning the suspect “must be laid before the court within six months of the time from when the offence was committed”.

Miss Luccarini said she was “lost for words” when she found out the police would reopen her brother’s case.

“I was incredibly choked up and I was confused because I listened to [Suffolk Police and Crime Commissioner] Tim Passmore’s interview on BBC Radio Suffolk, where he had approached Suffolk Police himself to ask if the case could be reopened and he was told no,” she said.

“For me that was it. There was never a possibility of that happening and then suddenly to be told it is happening, it is being reopened, I needed to sit down.”

Miss Luccarini said she “did feel happy” about the news but she had been left “cross because this mistake has robbed my brother of justice”.

“I’ve got hope that this can be rectified, but if the law is that complicated and even the police can get it wrong, that’s not right,” she continued.

“The only way this has come about is via the media pushing the police.”

She added that her brother was similarly happy, but had “lost faith in the police services”.

Retired barrister David Lamming, from Boxford in Suffolk, said: “The Luccarini family has been seriously misled and caused unnecessary distress.

“The police should apologise, properly investigate, and charge the driver with the offence if and when located and arrested.

“The police spokesperson who misinformed the family should apologise and be sent for retraining in road traffic law, and Mr Passmore, too, should apologise.”

Mr Passmore said he was “unaware” the case was due to be reviewed, but he was “very pleased” for the family.

“I just hope the reopening of the case, looking for information, will actually bring the culprit to justice and get the victim’s needs satisfied,” he said.

He believed “something had gone wrong”, but it was “not necessarily an error”.

“My understanding is that the law is very, very unclear and I think by applying different methodology, now this case can be reopened,” he added.