Lee Holmes, a Middlesbrough businessman, was struck by a motorist following a road rage incident. Cleveland Police closed the investigation despite video evidence, citing Holmes's use of profanity during the confrontation.

The red car's double-collision in Middlesbrough

The incident began when a driver in a red car cut off Lee Holmes in Middlesbrough. According to the report, after Holmes's partner honked the horn in frustration, the other driver stopped and reversed into the vehicle twice before attempting to flee the scene. Holmes pursued the driver to obtain insurance details and began recording the interaction on his mobile phone.

As Lee Holmes approached the vehicle, the driver accelerated and slammed into Holmes's legs, sending him sprawling. The impact resulted in a head cut as well as bruised elbows and hips. Despite the severity of the physical encounter, the driver managed to leave the scene, though Holmes was able to secure the vehicle's registration number and dashcam footage of the event .

Why "shouting and swearing" blocked a Cleveland Police prosecution

Cleveland Police informed Lee Holmes weeks later that the case was closed, citing that the evidence did not meet the "evidential threshold test" required for a criminal prosecution. as the report says, a letter from the police explicitly noted that Holmes's "shouting and swearing" during the altercation was part of the rationale for dropping the charges.

This decision has sparked significant controversy, as Lee Holmes maintains that his use of strong language—while perhaps unwise—should not negate the evidence of dangerous driving and physical assault. The police have since confirmed that both internal reviews and the Victims' Right to Review process upheld the decision to close the case, directing any further complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Lee Holmes's criminal law degree and the pivot to civil litigation

Lee Holmes, a lettings agency boss and former chair of the South Tees Conservative Association, is leveraging his own degree in criminal law to challenge the outcome. because the criminal justice system failed to produce a charge, Holmes has launched a civil suit against the driver's insurance provider to seek damages for his injuries.

This shift from criminal to civil court reflets a growing trend where victims of road rage or assault turn to insurers when police forces decline to prosecute. By pursuing the insurer, Lee Holmes is attempting to hold the driver financially accountable , even as the state declines to hold them criminally liable for the collision in Middlesbrough.

The mystery of the counter-allegation and the IOPC

A critical but unexplained element of the case is the "counter-allegation" mentioned by Cleveland Police.. while the police stated that this counter-claim was part of their extensive enquiries, the source does not specify what the driver alleged against Lee Holmes, leaving a significant gap in the public understanding of why the "evidential threshold" was not met.

It remains unclear whether the driver claimed self-defense or alleged that the profanity escalated into a physical threat. Without transparency regarding these counter-claims, the public is left to wonder if the Independent Office for Police Conduct will find that Cleveland Police over-indexed on the victim's language while ignoring the physical evidence of the vehicle striking a pedestrian.