It’s holiday season and many will be travelling abroad and as such will need to pass through Passport Control at our ports and airports. This then is a great opportunity for the Police to arrest those identified on the Police National Computer as “wanted”, whether because they are suspected to be involved in a reported criminal offence or because there is an outstanding warrant for their arrest for failure to attend Court.
But what happens when that “wanted” marker has been erroneously added to an individual’s details so that the arrest is a mistake?
In the first instance, the arrest is probably technically lawful because the arresting officer, in relying upon the PNC marker had the necessary reasonable suspicion to arrest.
So, instead, it is necessary to bring an alternative claim in negligence, or under the Human Rights Act, or Data Protection Act. Such claims can be brought when a lawful arrest has been directly caused by an earlier breach of an individual’s rights, either as enshrined in Statute or Common Law.
Sometimes the individual arrested has, by unfortunate coincidence, the same name as the real offender, in which circumstances it seems mistakes can too easily occur.
Take for example my client David Farrington. David was at the London City Airport in September. He was booked on a British Airways flight to Amsterdam, where he was scheduled to meet his girlfriend.
As he proceeded to board the aircraft, he was stopped and detained by four Police Officers from the Metropolitan Police.
He was advised that he was under arrest as a result of an outstanding warrant issued by Lewes Crown Court in August for failing to appear in respect of breach proceedings linked to the imposition of a community order.
David immediately made it clear to the Officers that he had no knowledge of the warrant and that they had the wrong man.
Despite his protestations he was handcuffed and removed from the airport in the presence of fellow holiday makers and airport staff, a humiliating experience.
He was later transferred into custody at Barking and Dagenham Custody Centre.
Following his arrival into Police custody, David was able to notify his parents that he was under arrest.
David’s parents immediately set off on a lengthy journey to Lewes Crown Court in an attempt to understand on what basis David had been wrongly identified as the subject of the warrant.
Upon their arrival at Court, they established that the only information which had been contained on the warrant was the name, date of birth and address of the wanted man.
The real offender bore a similar, but not identical, name to David: the offender was David Farrington, whereas my client was David Charles Farrington.
David’s parents were able to demonstrate, by the production of identification, that the offender was not their son.
Following investigation, it transpired that details of the warrant had been entered onto the Police National Computer (PNC) by Sussex Police. Sadly, David’s personal details, as opposed to the actual offender, were entered onto the system.
Eventually, Sussex Police were able to furnish the Metropolitan Police with a photograph of the real offender, together with details of his fingerprints.
Neither the custody photograph, fingerprints nor the described physical features of the actual offender corresponded to David, and after 8 and a half hours, he was finally released from Police custody.
I pursued a claim on behalf of David and he recovered £6,000 in compensation plus his legal fees.
Sometimes, the arrested individual does not share the same name and his association with the real suspect is a mystery. Take Stephen Dami. In July, he was scheduled to fly with Ryanair from Stanstead Airport to Ibiza for a lad’s holiday. He proceeded through check in, security and the boarding gates and was ready to board his flight when armed police approached him.
He was requested to provide his passport. Upon production, he was advised that he was under arrest in respect of an outstanding warrant that had been issued in May.
Stephen had no knowledge of the offence referred to by the officers, but despite protesting his innocence, he was detained and escorted to Stanstead Airport Police Station.
On arrival at the Custody Centre, Stephen was advised that he was wanted for failing to answer a Summons issued at Manchester and Salford Magistrates Court on 2 June.
During his period in custody, doubts began to emerge as to whether Stephen was indeed the person wanted for arrest. These doubts were well founded. First the Summons was issued by the Juvenile Court, whereas Stephen was then 22 years. Second, the wanted man was of black ethnicity, whereas Stephen was not. Third, the wanted subject was Portuguese, whereas Stephen was British (but of Middle Eastern complexion).
After 3 and a half hours in custody, Stephen was released from custody with no further action.
Despite making enquiries as to whether he could rebook another flight, nothing was available and he had to return home, his holiday with his friends ruined.
Following his release, enquiries with Greater Manchester Police revealed that the outstanding warrant had been linked to Stephen because, they said, he had a similar name to the suspect, “Stephano Damil.”
I pursued a claim for Stephen and he recovered £3,500 in compensation as well as his legal costs.
Rashid Khan was in some ways luckier than David and Stephen. He was arrested upon his return from holiday, but detained for longer. He had been on a skiing holiday with his family and friends to Andorra. Upon landing at Stanstead Airport, his name was called out to go to the front of the plane. He went forward and was met by 2 officers of Metropolitan Police who escorted him off the plane, where 3 armed officers were waiting. He was advised that he was under arrest for trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence the previous August at a hotel on the Isle of Wight.
Rashid stated that firstly, he had never been to the Isle of Wight and secondly that at the time of the alleged offence, he had been out of the country.
By now, other passengers were leaving the plane via the steps including Rashid’s wife, young daughter and family friends.
Rashid was placed in a waiting van and taken to Braintree Police Station whilst his wife had to manage his traumatised daughter and all their luggage.
Rashid was then “booked in” to Police custody during which he made available to the Custody Sergeant his passport which proved that he had indeed been out of the country at the time of the alleged offence.
Eventually after 12 and a half hours in custody, Rashid was released.
Following investigation, I established that the real suspect shared the same name and a similar date of birth as my client. The investigating officer had asked my client’s local force to make discrete enquires to confirm if Rashid Khan had recently worked on the Isle of Wight. Only if enquiries established this, was Rashid Khan to be arrested.
Local officers spoke to my client and established that he was very unlikely to be the suspect. Notwithstanding this, 2 weeks later the interviewing officer inexplicably sent a request to the PNC Bureau to have my client circulated as “wanted” rather than placed on a “Locate/Trace” capacity only.
Once again, I pursued a claim on behalf of Mr Khan and he recovered £5,000 in compensation plus legal costs.
Everyone I think has heard of passengers’ entitlement to compensation if a flight is unreasonably delayed…I would respectfully suggest that you contact me for advice as to your further rights of compensation if the delay you experience in the airport is not at the baggage carousel…but in a Police van!
Hopefully, this won’t happen to you and I wish you and your families all the very best for the forthcoming ‘holiday season’.