One afternoon in December 2019, my client Amir, a man of exemplary character, was walking through a London suburb when he noticed a group of Metropolitan Police officers surrounding a Sainsbury’s security guard whom he knew.
Amir was concerned as to the unnecessarily aggressive manner in which the officers appeared to be dealing with the security guard and so decided to speak to them about their conduct.
In a country which prides itself on “Policing by consent” as being the first principle of law-enforcement, citizens should not feel reticent about challenging the behaviour of officers, provided they stay within the boundaries of the law and good manners, which was exactly what Amir did. This type of public scrutiny is an important balance on the authority of the Police and should be accepted in good spirit by them.
Unfortunately, that was not the reaction Amir got.
Amir calmly and politely asked the officers why they were ‘ganging up’ on the security guard. PC Hussain said something like “What do you mean?” Amir replied “We’re even now, what’s the problem?”
Without warning, PC Hussain then stepped forward and pushed my client in his chest forcing him back a step or two, whilst, at the same time, PC Christie took hold of Amir’s right arm.
Amir was shocked by this sudden and unnecessary use of force, and instinctively and in self-defence lightly pushed PC Hussain back with his hand, while stepping backwards to create some distance between himself and the officers and said “Don’t touch me.”
Unfortunately, the Officers’ blood was now evidently up, as PC Hussain stepped forward and pushed Amir backwards again, and then struck Amir in the face. Whilst this was occurring, PC Christie took hold of Amir’s right arm from behind.
When these types of incidents happen, it is highly common for the Officers involved to display a real ‘gang’ mentality – such that once one of them has lost self-restraint and used unnecessary force, others tend to join in as well. In this case it was PC Chowdhury, who was brandishing a baton in his right hand and who proceeded to hit Amir on his back several times with it. PC Hussain then took hold of the Amir’s neck and shoulders and tried to force him down. Finally, PC O’Neil placed a handcuff on my client’s right wrist and forced his arm behind his back.
All of the Officers then tried to pull Amir to the ground whilst shouting “Get down, get down” and “Stop resisting” amongst other things. During the struggle, Amir’s hood was pulled over his head.
“Stop resisting!” is a stock phrase that I can only describe as the battlecry of Police brutality, generally yelled at a victim of Police aggression in an attempt to paint the victim as a perpetrator somehow responsible for the officers’ attack.
Amir was in total shock at the conduct of the Officers, but tried to remain standing in order not to be taken to the ground. He correctly asserted that PC Hussain had “attacked” him first.
The officers then overpowered Amir and he fell onto the ground onto his right side. His hands were handcuffed behind his back.
PC Chowdhury informed Amir that he was under arrest “for assault Police” and at this, Amir felt a blow to the left side of his body. A bystander asked PC Chowdhury why he had hit the Claimant when he was on the ground to which PC Chowdhury replied “Shut up” and then asserted “He punched my colleague.”
Amir was aware that a group of bystanders had gathered. He explained to the crowd what had happened. PC Chowdhury looked on grinning and mockingly said: “Of course, of course” and “Keep lying, keep lying.”
Amir was brought up into a sitting position and PC Chowdhury said to him: “You’re arrested for assault on police, the grounds of arrest are you punched my colleague, you’ve confronted him and you’ve tried to hit him.”
PC Hussain then accused Amir of wanting to be arrested, and said that Amir had “Kicked off”.
To the contrary, Amir asserted that PC Hussain had caused the situation because of his “ego and pride”.
PC Hussain and PC Chowdhury then had a conversation as to whether the security guard should be arrested and suggested that the security guard had ‘caused’ Amir to assault the officers. Neither assertion was true.
PC Chowdhury again accused Amir of having ‘punched’ PC Hussain. At this time, PC Chowdhury was stood above Amir and to his left. As Amir looked up at him, PC Chowdhury jabbed Amir in his shoulder, pointed his finger at his face and then waved his hand in an ‘air slap’ gesture towards Amir’s face.
Amir was conscious of the excessive force deployed by the officers so far and asked bystanders to record events, whereupon PC Hussain accused the Claimant of “wanting to be famous”. In fact it was the Police officers who had dragged Amir into an action movie not of his own making…
The officers then spent the afternoon driving Amir around between Police stations until, on the third attempt, they found one with capacity to receive him into custody.
At the Police Station, Amir was further arrested for an alleged Section 4A Public Order Act offence.
PC Chowdhury provided the circumstances of arrest as;
“DP [Detained Person] has approached officers who were dealing with an altercation with security at Sainsburys, DP was shouting at officers, actively resisting and has slapped an officer’s hand”
In fact it was Amir who was carrying the results of the Officers’ assault upon him. The vision in his left eye was blurred and he felt pain and discomfort in his upper back and both wrists. The stop-start journey to custody had left the tight handcuffs cutting into Amir’s wrist for a prolonged time, rubbing them red-raw.
Amir was now subjected to the degrading process of being a Police prisoner: he had his DNA, fingerprints, and photograph taken, and was then placed into a cell.
He was subsequently interviewed in the presence of a duty solicitor and robustly denied the allegations made against him, explaining that it was PC Hussain who had pushed him first.
Notwithstanding the truthfulness of his account, in the early hours of the following morning Amir was charged with assaulting PC Hussain, contrary to Section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, specifically alleged as an assault on PC Hussain in the exercise of his functions as an “emergency worker”. Amir was then bailed to attend the Magistrates Court in January 2020.
PC Hussain and PC Chowdhury both signed MG11 witness statements in which they alleged that Amir was an aggressor who ‘wanted’ a confrontation with the Police and who had struck the first blow in the altercation, by slapping PC Hussain’s reasonably raised hand. The truth or falsity of these statements would be borne out by the subsequent Court proceedings, but it is worth noting here that what had begun as an allegation that Amir had thrown a ‘punch’ had now been downgraded in both officers’ statements to a ‘slap’…
Amir knew he was innocent. But he had the threat of this prosecution, a criminal record, and a possible custodial sentence, hanging over his head all throughout the first year of the Covid Pandemic. He had to endure the inconvenience and social stigma of preliminary Court appearances as a ‘criminal suspect’ until, at a hearing at Snaresbrook Crown Court on 6 January 2021, the Crown Prosecution Service, as is so often the case in these scenarios, decided to offer no evidence against my client i.e they had concluded that they were not going to get a conviction. Amir was understandably relieved, but at the same time somewhat deflated that he had been denied the opportunity of vindicating his name in open court.
When Amir sought my assistance in getting compensation from the Met, I advised him to not only sue the Police for assault and battery and wrongful arrest (false imprisonment), but also to bring a claim for malicious prosecution. It was clear to me throughout the process of bringing this claim, that the object was not primarily financial for Amir, but to, quite rightly, use the civil courts to complete that process of vindication of his name – and to shame the officers who had abused him.
If you are charged with an offence because of accusations by a third party, then the Police would almost certainly not be liable for their role in facilitating or furthering that prosecution, if they honestly believe that the allegations made against you might be true, even if the evidence supporting them is weak. The Police are not liable for a ‘negligent prosecution’ in the sense of one brought on weak and circumstantial evidence or furthered by the false allegations of another person, if they honestly suspect you of the offence. But they are liable, as an organisation, if the false allegations instrumental in the bringing and/or continuation of the prosecution come not from the mouths of members of the public, but from Police Officers themselves. That is what converts a prosecution from being ‘merely’ weak, ill-founded or ill-advised into being actively malicious.
In this case I was able to argue that several Metropolitan Police Officers had, directly and deliberately:
- presented false accounts that Amir had been the aggressor whilst outside Sainsburys on 18 December 2019.
- presented false accounts that Amir had assaulted PC Hussain outside Sainsburys on 18 December 2019.
- fabricated those accounts of Amir’s conduct in order to substantiate a prosecution and to cover up the true circumstances of the incident on 18 December 2019, namely the Officers’ excessive uses of force and unlawful arrest of my client.
Police Body Camera evidence was available. After I thoroughly reviewed it, I was satisfied that the footage verified my client’s version of events. But, notwithstanding that, he still faced an uphill struggle against the united testimony of several Police officers and their legal team, who continued to maintain that Amir was the aggressor. As witnesses, Police Officers can ‘blur’ the facts of the body camera footage with carefully calibrated ‘stock phrases’ – for example, in this case, PC Hussain stating that he was not pushing Amir but raising his hand in the air “to keep a reactionary gap” between them, and PC Chowdhury stating that he saw “what looked like a punch” from Amir. When multiple Officers are reciting mantras about how volatile/ potentially aggressive a person was – even when this is completely untrue – repetition can win over Judge and Jury. The Police are also in a position, unlike members of the public, to cash in on the social credit their profession gives them, particularly in a Court room, where the mere fact of their uniforms can seem to add extra weight to their words.
However, I am very pleased to confirm that shortly prior to it being listed for trial, Amir’s civil case settled with an agreement by the Met to pay him £22,500 damages plus his legal costs.
So, who really laid hands on whom first in this incident? There are 22,500 reasons to think we can be confident about the answer to that question, although it leaves another – why it had to come to this in the first place?
At the material time, my client was merely trying to provide assistance as a concerned citizen, speaking up against what he honestly believed was bullying behaviour. ‘Policing by consent’ requires Officers to remember they are citizens in uniform and not Robocops. They have to be prepared to answer questions and de-escalate situations, rather than putting power and ego first; that is the essence of public accountability in a democratic society.
Unfortunately, as the Sunday Times highlighted in February, incidents of Police use of force against members of the public rose from 491,984 in 2020 to 608,164 in 2022: a very distressing increase of almost 24%. This coincided with the Covid lockdowns and the ‘curfew’ powers which over-eager or ill-advised Police officers took it upon themselves to enforce against law abiding citizens during those years.
The question must be: with greater power, does greater opportunity for irresponsibility follow?
Certainly, those statistics suggest that the barometer of Police egos has continued to rise – with concerned citizens like Amir in the firing line.
And that should be of concern to all of us.
My client’s name has been changed.
Iain Gould - Actions Against the Police Solicitor 
You must be logged in to post a comment.