Victoria Hamer - Assistance at the scene
Interesting question, does assistance at the scene refer to the assistance Ms Victoria Hamer gave to Loraine?
Until recently we assumed it was. Although we dispute that Lorraine was given any assistance by Ms Hamer after she took Lorraine’s pulse at the neck. We also question that Ms Hamer phoned the vet after 7 minutes as a witness states that she phoned the vet on her mobile after obtaining the number from Ms Hamer.
In fact, assistance at the scene has a different interpretation defined as:
· Ms Hamer did not leave the scene. Leaving the scene of an accident you are involved in is illegal. Therefore, why are you given credit for staying at the scene?
· Ms Hamer confirmed she was the driver. It is simply not feasible for Ms Hamer to claim she was not the driver she was the only one in the car.
· Ms Hamer gave a roadside interview. This made no difference whatsoever. If we assume that the police during the interview at the police station wanted to expand or question anything the was said during the roadside interview M s Hamer did or would have answered “No Comment”.
I ask do you feel that having killed someone by breaking the law that you should be given a reduction in your sentence by staying at the scene, confirming you were the driver, and given a roadside interview that later you can basically withdraw as you answer all questions put to you with “No Comment”. Farcical
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just what assistance what given to Lorraine before I arrived, not the Vet, to start CPR? NONE!
His Honour Judge Paul Cook stated that he considered Ms Hamer’s “assistance at the scene”. Just what exactly was this assistance? The following timeline is provided by the police:
I have done a time line for Chris, but as you can see, it’s almost 9 minutes before he runs out to help – I’m not sure this will help or distress him more
18:21:43 Collision
18:21:55 Witness 1 pulls up – goes to LB
18:21:57 HAMER into view – approached and comforted by witness 2 HAMER sat on floor by witness 2
18:22:34 Witnesses 3 and 4 now also with LB – number on phone by this stage
18:27:20 Male goes to front door of address – No reply, returns to road
18:28:18 HAMER up and runs out of shot (Towards her car)
18:28:23 Witness 3 to h/a front door, knocks windows.
18:28:54 HAMER back and over to deceased
18:29:04 Witness 3 towards pool area shouting
18:29:10 HAMER appears to assist other witnesses
18:29:26 HAMER stands up and speaks to witness 2
18:30:25 CB runs to scene with witness 3
There the footage ends as this was all we required evidentially.
The above timeline supplied by the police taken from CCTV footage confirms that Ms Hamer did return to her car some 7 minutes after ploughing into Lorraine. We are then expected to believe that Ms Hamer runs to her car which was some 30 metres away. Retrieves her mobile phone, makes a call, has a conversation, and returns the 30 metres to be, as the police state, “HAMER back standing over deceased”. We are expected to believe she did all this in 36 seconds.
The lead investigating officer confirmed that:
o Ms Hamer did not make a call to the vet this was done by a witness
o We don’t know why Ms Hamer returned to her car but the police evidence is that no phone call to the Vet was made on Ms Hamer’s phone, of course this could not be confirmed because she gave a no comment interview
o The Vet did not start CPR
o I started CPR when I arrived on the scene
So, Ms Hamer was incorrectly given credit that in effect reduced her sentence, our barrister, the prosecuting advocate who should be representing Lorraine, got the facts completely wrong as you can see from the transcript below, and we do not know what Ms Hamer remembered what was in her car that needed to be changed or removed.
In her statement Ms Hamer says that she run to her car to call the vet. Mrs Martin, barrister for the prosecution, on page 8 item F of the court transcript says
F “Your Honour, emergency services were summoned by a number of motorists, and it’s right to say that at one stage, having been put in a car by one of the other female motorists, Victoria Hamer got out of that car where she’d been put for her own safety, to run back to her car to get her phone to phone the veterinary surgery to summon help which did come to the scene, and in fact CPR was attempted by a vet from the practice where Victoria Hamer worked.”
This description of events is both inaccurate and extremely offensive. Firstly, it was me that started CPR of which there is no mention. I started CPR after composing myself very shortly after I arrived at the scene some 9 minutes after the incident. That means it was approximately 9 minutes where nobody including an experience veterinary nurse helped Lorraine. The vet subsequently attended site and took over CPR. This had no effect on the outcome as I would have continued CPR for the short time before the paramedics arrived. We don’t have the exact time the paramedics arrived we believe it was around 15 minutes after the 999 call meaning there was only a 5 to 6 minute difference between me starting CPR and the paramedics on site.
Ms Hamer did not phone the Vet this is confirmed by the police by what witness A states in her statement. Witness A states, “She gave me the telephone number and I phoned them on my mobile”. So who actually phoned the vets? If it was not Ms Hamer then the statements in court are incorrect and the question must be asked why did Ms Hamer return to her car?
Was Ms Hamer reactive or proactive i.e. did she phone the vet after being asked if anyone had medical experience? All the documentation suggests, proactive but from what we have been told this was not the case. In any case the call was made some 7 minutes after the incident why did it take that long for Ms Hamer to make the call? Ms Hamer is an experienced veterinary nurse who should have CPR skills why didn’t she give CPR or at least give instructions to someone else.
I would suggest that most people and certainly an experienced veterinary nurse would know that time is of the essence. You do not make a decision as to whether or not the victim is dead, that is the role of the doctor. Your role is to perform CPR until the paramedics take over. They continue until the doctor says otherwise. Ms Hamer did nothing to aid Lorraine and there is some doubt as to why she returned to her car 7 minutes after the collision after which she continued to do nothing.
When you know the details and have a more accurate picture of what action was taken, what training and what experience Ms Hamer has, should His Honour Judge Paul Cook have judged Ms Hamer to have given any assistance at the scene and as a result reduced her sentence?
“All members of the team should be trained and confident in delivering basic life support measures which include chest compressions, …”
Reference: https://www.theveterinarynurse.com/
Ms Hamer, in her statement says that she took Lorraine’s pulse at the neck and could not find one. I would suggest that the vast majority of the public, let alone a trained experienced veterinary nurse, would know that the next action would be to perform CPR. Did Ms Hamer do this? No! She sat in a car or on the side of the road.