It is a terrible thing for any parent to be falsely accused of harming their child but the trauma of that false accusation can only be multiplied if it is accompanied by a wrongful arrest and separation from your child in the early hours of Christmas Day itself – which is, sadly, exactly what befell my client Karen at the hands of Merseyside Police Officers on 25 December 2021.
Karen is employed as a full-time carer, working with elderly and disabled people. She is a single mother and lives with her 9-year-old son.
She had worked Christmas Eve, had Christmas Day off, and was due to return to work on Boxing Day.
The incident arose from concerns that Karen had about her son; she was worried that he was being bullied at school by another boy who always seemed to be shoving/picking on him.
She had reported the matter to the school but they had seemed disinterested, trotting out the old line of ‘boys will be boys’.
On Christmas Eve, Karen’s son had been out with friends. He had marks around his neck which Karen was concerned could have been caused by another boy (although her son denied this). Karen therefore contacted the Police.
At approximately 3.30am on 25 December two officers of Merseyside Police, including PC Percival, attended at Karen’s home and spoke to her and her son (recording their interactions on their body worn cameras).
The subsequent Complaint Investigation Report arising from this incident states that it was clear from the body camera footage that the Officers believed the marks to Karen’s son’s neck to be some sort of rash rather than as a result of an assault. Karen’s son told the officers that his neck had been itching for a number of days and had worsened. The Complaint Investigation Report goes on as follows –
He [Karen’s son] explained that his school were aware that his teacher had provided him with an ice pack and suggested that it may have been caused by washing powder. [Karen’s son] was articulate and provided credible responses to all questions asked of him. There was no indication from his responses that suggested any assault and all he displayed was frustration at the fact that his neck was sore. There was nothing to indicate that [Karen] had caused any injury and it was evident that she was concerned about the marks to her son’s neck.
Indeed, PC Percival now sought to re-assure Karen that the marks on her son’s neck were like eczema and the advice by the Officers was that Karen should take her son to a Walk-in-Centre for treatment. The Officers then left the address stating that they would seek advice from their Supervisor, having gathered all the necessary information.
However, around an hour later the two Officers returned to Karen’s house and PC Percival explained to Karen that they had spoken to their Sergeant and had concerns about her son owing to the fact that Karen appeared to be intoxicated at the time of their first visit and therefore not in a position to care for him. Karen was understandably upset by this and asked to be left alone and for the Officers to leave her home. Karen started to shout at the Officers, whereupon PC Percival handcuffed her. This action further escalated Karen’s anger and the Officers then informed Karen that she was now under arrest to prevent a breach of the peace and she was taken outside to a Police van, with the Police arranging for Karen’s son to be taken to his grandmother’s house.
Meanwhile PC Percival spoke to Karen, who was now in the rear ‘cage’ section of the van and told her that if she calmed down and cooperated, she could be de-arrested. Karen, who was traumatised at being handcuffed in her home and separated from her young son on Christmas Day, angrily replied that she would be making a complaint and demanded the Officer’s name and number.
A mere matter of minutes later, PC Percival informed Karen that she was now also under arrest on suspicion of a Section 47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm upon her son (i.e in relation to the marks upon his neck).
Karen was utterly devastated by this false accusation, which appeared to have come completely out of the blue – and quite possibly in response to her threat of a complaint against the Officers for their initial arrest of her (for breach of the peace).
As the Complaint Report later detailed –
[Karen] was angered by the presence of the Officers and the focus of her anger was directed at them and no one else. It seems that she was arrested for not engaging rather than an imminent risk of violence.
What is difficult to reconcile is why [Karen] was arrested for assault when the evidence had not changed, and the Officers believed it was a rash, judging by the BWV [Body Worn Video]…it would seem that the further arrest was a reaction to the fact that [Karen] would not accept the offer of being de-arrested.
The Complaint Investigation Report also conceded that my client’s arrest for breach of the peace was deeply flawed in that the Officers at the time clearly considered she could be more or less immediately de-arrested; her anger was directed at the Police Officers and no one else and therefore once the Officers left, the ‘breach’ would have been over. Karen should have been released at this point regardless – with any concerns for her son’s welfare because of her alleged ‘intoxication’ having been addressed by the involvement of his grandparents – but her arrest was instead not only continued but now escalated to include accusations of her having physically assaulted her own son.
The Complaint Investigation therefore quite rightly concluded that PC Percival’s conduct was unacceptable.
Because of this unacceptable conduct, Karen had to undergo the deeply traumatising experience of spending Christmas Day not only separated from her young son but in Police Custody (for almost 12 hours) and falsely accused of having harmed him, when all she had done was to reach out to the Police for help, out of concern for his welfare.
On 7 January 2022 my client was fully exonerated when she was informed that there would be no further action against her in respect of any offences arising from this matter.
It is understandable that the Police have to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting minors, but the truth of the matter here is that at the time of their initial visit the Officers appeared entirely satisfied that there was nothing sinister about the marks to Karen’s son’s neck – and indeed sought to reassure her that it was indeed only a rash. For the Officers to then twist these facts so as to justify their arrest and continued detention of my client, when she became angered at their accusation that she could not look after her son because she was intoxicated, was in my opinion a wretched and despicable abuse of power and one which risked causing deep mental scars to Karen and her young son, had the false accusation not been fairly swiftly dropped.
Karen instructed me and I pursued a claim on her behalf against Merseyside Police in respect of her wrongful arrest, in regards to which the Police admitted liability and have now paid Karen a five- figure damages settlement, plus her legal costs.
All names have been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.