Police force vows to change way it responds to iPhone 'crash detection' calls after teenage driver, 19, was left to die in wreckage despite his device sending 999 alert

A police force has vowed to change the way it responds to 'crash detection' calls after a teenage driver lay dying when his car crashed into a tree despite his iPhone automatically calling 999.

Hampshire Constabulary admitted there had been 'room or error' in its response to the crash which left George Dillon, 19, helpless in the wreckage of his VW Golf after smashing into a large tree.

New written guidance now sent out to members of the force says unless it is able to 'quickly re-establish contact with the caller and confirm police are NOT required', it should be 'deploying officers to the location provided by the data'.

The force's comments come after a coroner called for better 'understanding, training and procedures' to help officers deal with automated calls when there is a 'an indication of a collision where a risk to life may exist'.

Mr Dillon's inquest heard his Apple device had automatically called 999 indicating he had been in 'a serious car crash and was not responding' to his phone on 18th May last year.

When their return call received no answer, operators logged there was 'no direct request made' meaning police did not initially attend the scene in Romsey, near Southampton and he died in hospital two days later from his injuries.

Apple introduced the feature - where iPhone users can set their phone to automatically make an emergency call when it detects someone has been in a severe car crash - in 2022.

Now, Hampshire Constabulary has responded and insisted it has already issued training to officers after assistant coroner for Hampshire, Henry Charles, raised concerns.

Responding to Mr Charles' comments, the force, whose Chief Constable is Scott Chilton, said it had already implemented changes.

'At the time of the incident there was no national guidance available as to how police forces should be responding to crash notifications,' the force's solicitor wrote.

'Following the inquest, [we] accepted the need to put clear guidance in place. As a result immediate action was taken.'

This included a video message update and 'clear direction' to all staff of the expected course of action in response to an automated call.

Additionally, written guidance was sent across Hampshire and Thames Valley forces explaining 'the expectation that operators will deploy to all crash technology notifications if we are not able to get a human response or other information to support it being a false notification'.

A copy of this guidance was attached and showed officers being told there had been an 'immediate change to our operational guidance relating to these types of calls'.

It read: 'The overarching principle we are working to is that (on the balance of probability) these activations are likely to have resulted from a genuine crash.

'Unless we are able to quickly re-establish contact with the caller and confirm police are NOT required, we should be deploying officers (on a Grade 1 response) to the location provided by the data.'

Continuing their reply to the coroner, the force said it had also developed a 'toolkit' available to all operators and call room staff which directs the call taker to confirm the location of the crash.

It continued: 'In the case of Apple Crash detection and Ford Notifications, if there is no response on call back and no further information the operator is directed to create a Grade 1 incident for immediate deployment.

'Changes have been made in part, because, as recognised at the inquest, the technology has advanced to the extent that the Constabulary's previous approach left room for error.

'Notwithstanding the development of these technologies has taken place with little or no interaction between private companies providing these notifications and UK Policing.

'A copy of the Constabulary's Toolkit has been shared and it is now being used to further national discussion on the subject.'