On a February afternoon, Lee Holmes, a 53-year-old businessman, was pursuing a red car that had deliberately rammed into his vehicle when the driver reversed and ran him over, leaving him with a cut head and bruised hip. the police who investigated told Holmes they could not take action against the driver because Holmes had been swearing at the man during the confrontation, according to a report from the source. as Holmes pursues a civil lawsuit against the other driver's insurance company, he is also calling on police to reopen the criminal case.

Video shows the moment Holmes was mowed down — but police called it insufficient

The source report includes a video of the incident in which Holmes can be seen pursuing the red car and then confronting the driver, who reverses into him and drives off.. Holmes told the source he suffered a cut on his head and bruised elbow and hip. Despite the video evidence, police said they had carried out extensive enquiries and investigated a counter allegation, but deemed there was insufficient evidence to progress with charges against the driver.

The discrepancy between the visible assault and the police conclusion has left Holmes frustrated. He argues the video clearly shows a deliberate act of running down a pedestrian, yet the police focused on his own conduct — specifically , the fact that he was shouting and swearing when he approached the driver.

Why Holmes's criminal-law degree left him 'shocked' by the outcome

Holmes, who holds a degree in criminal law, told the source he was astonished by the decision. 'From my understanding, there's a number of things the police could have charged him with. Instead, they've got a problem with me swearing and shouting, which is ridiculous,' he said. He added that had he landed on his head he could have been seriously injured or killed.

His legal background gives him a professional perspective, but it also underscores a deeper issue: police discretion in road rage incidents can weigh victim behaviour as heavily as perpetrator violence. The source notes that Holmes requested a review of the decision to close the case, but that request was rejected. The police response suggests that, in their view, the severity of his verbal behaviour bar was high enough to nullify the physical assault.

The counter-allegation that police say balanced the scales

A critical detail in the source report is the police mention of a 'counter allegation' that was investigated alongside Holmes's complaint. The nature of that counter allegation is not specified in the article , but it appears to have factored into the 'insufficient evidence' finding.. This raises open questions: Did the driver claim Holmes was the aggressor? Was Holmes's pursuit of the red car after the initial hit-and-run considered a form of escalation?

Without clarity on that counter claim, the public is left with an asymmetric picture. The video shows one clear act of violence — the driver reversing into Holmes — but the police investigation evidently balanced that against Holmes's own actions. The identity of the other driver also remains unnamed by police, making it difficult to assess any history or prior interactions.

A civil lawsuit against the driver's insurer: Holmes's alternative route

Frustrated by the criminal investigation's closure, Holmes has launched a civil action against the insurance company of the other driver, according to the source. Civil cases require a lower standard of proof — a balance of probabilities — than criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt), which may give him a stronger chance of compensation for his injuries.

Holmes is also continuig to push the police to reopen their investigation . Whether the civil proceedings will unearth evidence that the police overlooked, or prompt a new look from the authorities, remains an open question. For now, the businessman is left to pursue justice through a courtroom rather than a criminal court.