Today’s blog post explains how I was able to help a young black man achieve justice against Avon and Somerset Police, despite not being instructed until over 5 years after the incident in question.
My client, whom I will identify as Edward for the purposes of this blog, had originally instructed other solicitors who abandoned his claim when it became too ‘difficult’, after Avon and Somerset denied liability.
I assessed the available evidence – including some short but crucial mobile phone footage of the incident which had been filmed by Edward and his partner Samantha – and confirmed that I was happy to pursue Edward’s case on a Conditional Fee (no win, no fee) basis, despite the fact that by the time he instructed me, we were fast approaching the 6th anniversary of the incident, which is the cut off point for bringing a civil claim in respect of wrongful arrest in England or Wales. I was able to make this apparently risky commitment to Edward’s case because of my decades of experience in assessing the evidence and merits of such claims and the confidence I have which comes from my equally long track record of success.
Had Edward waited another 6 months before instructing me then his right to pursue the claim at all would have been irrevocably lost. What follows is the story of what happened to Edward and how he and I were able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and win his claim against Avon and Somerset Police for a substantial award of damages.
Serve, Respect, Protect?
“Serve, respect, protect” is the slogan of Avon and Somerset Police, but during the encounter between two of their Officers and Edward on a day in May 2013, Edward was to be on the receiving end of treatment which was the exact opposite of those self- proclaimed virtues.
On the day in question, Edward was driving his Renault Clio motor car through Bristol. He was driving safely and within the speed limit and his pregnant partner Samantha was with him in the car.
At around 7.00pm a marked police vehicle passed Edward’s car, headed in the opposite direction. The vehicle executed a sudden u-turn and then followed Edward’s car, before turning on its emergency vehicle lights.
When Edward saw this, he pulled in on the left-hand side of the road. The police vehicle pulled up behind.
Edward turned off his lights and wound down the driver’s side window.
A uniformed officer, PC Talbot, approached and spoke to Edward.
PC Talbot asked if Edward was the owner of the car, which Edward confirmed he was. PC Talbot then asked Edward to show him the dashboard lights (which Edward had bought from Halfords). Edward complied with this request.
PC Talbot then said that he did not believe the side lights were legal. Edward believed they were, as they were already fitted to the car when he bought it (from a dealership). PC Talbot asked him to turn them back on and after a mild protest, Edward duly did so.
Whilst Edward was speaking to PC Talbot, another officer, PC Brooks, approached the car and carried out a tint check on the side windows. Upon carrying out the check, PC Brooks told Edward that the windows were below the legal limit. Again, Edward explained that the tinted windows were already fitted to the car when he bought it from a dealership and therefore he had believed them to be legal.
As far as Edward was concerned, the two officers appeared to be looking for a bureaucratic excuse to hassle him and exert their own power.
PC Talbot now asked Edward for identification; Edward explained that he had left his wallet at home, but would be willing to produce his licence at a police station within 7 days.
PC Talbot then stated – out of the blue – that he was going to “seize” Edward’s vehicle. He reached into the car and removed the keys without Edward’s permission and walked away.
Edward was understandably frustrated by PC Talbot’s overbearing actions, but he did not swear or otherwise become physically or verbally aggressive. He simply got out of the car and turned on the video recording function on his phone. What followed next was (briefly) caught on camera – until PC Brooks used force to snatch the phone from Edward and end the recording.
Standing beside his car, Edward began recording PC Brooks. He then approached PC Brooks in a non-threatening manner, speaking in a calm tone of voice and stating that he was with an officer. He first pointed at PC Brooks’s badge number and then raised his phone to capture PC Brooks’s face. He did not ram or otherwise thrust the camera towards PC Brooks in doing so.
PC Brooks said to Edward “You don’t have my permission to film me.” Such permission was not in fact required, but PC Brooks nevertheless then grabbed Edward’s arm and attempted to take the phone from him, giving no warning or explanation to Edward of what he was trying to do.
PC Brooks accused Edward of “ramming the phone” into his face, which Edward denied. Edward maintained hold of his phone and, in so doing, was moved by PC Brooks along the pavement.
At the same time, Samantha also started filming on her phone and exited the vehicle. In a state of shock, she asked what the officers were doing.
Edward attempted to hold onto his phone, quite correctly pointing out that it was his personal property and that he was not under arrest.
In response, PC Brooks stated “Well, you’re now under arrest”. Edward was forced into the nearside rear seat of the police car. PC Brooks announced that Edward was under arrest for “assaulting a police constable”.
Edward now attempted to pass his phone to Samantha; in response, PC Talbot pushed the pregnant woman away.
PC Brooks now roughly handcuffed Edward, causing two abrasions on his left wrist and a cut to his right thumb. Upon handcuffing him, PC Brooks pushed Edward back and said words to the effect of “Sit down you black cunt” and shut the door.
The officers then drove away with Edward imprisoned in their car, in a state of shock and disbelief at how he was being treated and how things had escalated.
On their arrival at the local Custody Suite, PC Brooks provided the arrest circumstances and suggested that Edward had attempted to bite him. Edward immediately disputed this. Rather, Edward pointed out to the Custody Sergeant that it was he who had been unlawfully assaulted by the officers and he rightfully complained about the disgraceful circumstances of his arrest. He showed the Custody Sergeant the injuries he had sustained to his hands. Nevertheless, and as is par for the course, the Sergeant preferred his colleagues’ account and authorised Edward’s incarceration in a cell, pending interview under caution. The Sergeant explained he would contact the duty inspector to deal with Edward’s complaint. Edward requested a duty solicitor and to see an independent medical examiner.
In due course, the duty Inspector did indeed come to hear Edward’s complaint about PC Brooks’s and PC Talbot’s conduct. Edward also showed the Inspector the video footage he had managed to capture before the officers started to manhandle him.
After several hours, Edward was seen by a Healthcare Practitioner who recorded his injuries.
Later, Edward was taken for interview under caution. He gave a full comment interview and an account of being assaulted by the officers. He denied the allegations being made by PC Talbot and PC Brooks and, indeed, offered to have his fingernails tested for PC Brooks’s DNA.
Nevertheless, in the early hours of the morning, Edward was then charged with three offences, namely that:
1. He had assaulted PC Brooks in the execution of his duty.
2. He had used a motor vehicle with windows which permitted insufficient transmission of light.
3. He had used a motor vehicle which was fitted with a device resembling a blue warning beacon.
He was then released on unconditional bail and told to attend Bristol Magistrates Court.
On his first appearance at Court in July 2013, Edward entered a not guilty plea in relation to the charge of assault, whilst pleading guilty to the minor motor vehicle offences – for which his solicitors advised him he was technically liable – and the Magistrates imposed a penalty fine of £175.
The charge of assaulting a Police Officer continued to hang over Edward’s head for a further two months however, causing him all the stress and anxiety which any of us would feel facing such a serious criminal accusation, even though we knew we were innocent.
Almost needless to say, Edward’s own complaint had by this time (after a cursory investigation, lasting less than a month) been rejected on all counts by Avon & Somerset’s “Professional Standards” Department.
In September 2013, Edward attended Bristol Magistrates Court for trial. PC Brooks had made a written statement for the prosecution in which he variously accused Edward of-
1. Having been generally aggressive, loud, shouting and abusive;
2. Of attempting but failing to bite the Officer (presumably to explain why there were no bite marks to be seen – despite the officer having apparently felt Edward’s “lips and teeth on my arm”);
3. Digging his fingernails into the officer’s thumb, causing it to bleed;
4. Of being racist because the officers were white (it was alleged that Edward had called them “white skinhead racist cunts” whereas the officers denied calling Edward a “black cunt” as he had reported)
Perhaps the most incredible part of PC Brooks’s statement, however, was his assertion that he genuinely feared that Edward was about to attack him with a ‘stun gun’ disguised as a phone; the officer first describing that object as if he were a time-traveller from the Middle Ages – “a small black box in his hand, it had an apple symbol on the back case…” – before conceding it “had the appearance of an iphone.”
During the course of the hearing, the Magistrates were played the video footage that had been captured by Edward and Samantha on their phones, and shortly afterwards concluded that there was no case for Edward to answer and dismissed the charge against him.
Victory In The Civil Proceedings
A victory in the Magistrates Court – in which the prosecution has to prove its case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – certainly does not automatically equate to victory in a civil claim, where it is far easier for the Police to persuade the Court to prefer their version of events ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ Remember that Edward’s complaint had already been comprehensively rejected and the original solicitors he had instructed had dropped his case when the Police denied civil liability.
Following my review of the evidence and the denial of liability from Avon and Somerset’s legal department, I determined that Edward did have a winnable claim in respect of not only wrongful arrest but also malicious prosecution on the basis that the Officers had falsely accused Edward of assaulting them in order to cover up their own illegal actions towards him. I also identified that Edward was out of time to bring a claim for personal injury (whether physical or psychological) because Court proceedings in respect of such a claim should have been issued within 3 years of the incident i.e. no later than May 2016, which was, sadly, long before I was instructed.
However, Edward was still ‘in time’ to bring claims for loss of liberty and the distress, anxiety and damage to his reputation caused by the false criminal charge – as such claims can be brought within 6 years of the relevant events, irrespective of injury.
My advice to Edward was therefore that we should issue Court proceedings in respect of the wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution claims without further delay, and that was exactly what was done.
I then gave Avon and Somerset Police an opportunity to settle Edward’s claim through negotiation out of Court, but unfortunately, they refused to take it – maintaining their denial of liability and standing 100% behind their Officers’ accounts of what had happened – and accordingly it was necessary to serve the Court proceedings upon the Chief Constable and proceed to full blown litigation.
Avon and Somerset filed a Defence maintaining their denial of liability and continued to fight the litigation vigorously, such that Edward’s case was placed into a trial window of April – July 2023.
However, I remained steadfast in my support of Edward’s case, whilst Edward showed great courage in being committed to taking his case all the way to Trial despite the risk of there being a substantial legal costs order made against him should he fail.
In the end, both Edward and I were vindicated when Avon and Somerset finally cracked and agreed to settle Edward’s claim for damages in the sum of £10,000. Apparently, they did not have as much confidence in the truth of their Officers’ accounts as they had repeatedly asserted in first bringing the prosecution, then ‘white-washing’ Edward’s complaint, and then filing a robust and combative Defence to the civil proceedings – all at great public expense.
I will note here that Edward actually offered to settle his claim for considerably less money than £10,000 – if the payment of damages was to be accompanied by a formal, written apology from the Force; but Avon and Somerset declined that offer, preferring instead to pay my client more money simply so that they did not have to apologise him.
Frankly, this shows how institutional Police pride seems more important to many senior Officers than the responsible management of public funds – but in any event, Edward and I both agree that the way to look at this outcome was that whether they meant it or not, Avon and Somerset Police have given Edward 10,000 apologies – and in my opinion, given the appalling treatment that he suffered at the hands of their Officers, who behaved with both mendacity, brutality and quite possibly racial prejudice towards him on the day of the incident and afterwards – no more than he deserved.
If you have suffered from misconduct at the hands of arrogant, prejudiced or unscrupulous Officers– then turn to me for expert advice and assistance; or in other words – let me serve, respect and protect your civil rights.
All names have been changed.
Iain Gould - Actions Against the Police Solicitor 