In my recent review of the year 2022, I drew together important themes from across the hundreds of Police misconduct cases which I and my colleagues John Hagan and Aidan Walley handled in that year. Many of those key issues came together in one particular claim against Merseyside Police which is the subject of today’s blog post – the pro-Police bias of the Complaint system; the Police officers’ ‘code of silence’ when it comes to supporting their colleagues; the Police’s problem with apologising; and the importance of upholding the integrity of our homes against Police violence and abuse of State power.
This is the story of how I won £50,000 damages for an innocent man whom Merseyside Police Officers first brutally assaulted and then attempted to frame for the ‘reverse crime’ of assaulting them.
It illustrates at one and the same time both the robust health of our civil justice system – in particular the role which Jurors can help to play in re- balancing the power disparity between a private citizen and an entire Police Force – and yet also that unhealthy Police culture whose reflex is not only to look the other way when Officers commit crimes but also to unrepentantly defend and uphold those Officers – no matter what the cost to either the principles of justice, or the public purse.
Police ‘Welfare’ Visit Results in Snapped Arm
The incident in question occurred in June 2017.
My client, John Kennedy is a man of entirely good character who has for many years suffered from mental health issues, principally centred around episodes of anxiety and depression which can cause him to have thoughts of suicide/self-harm.
John lives alone and on the evening in question posted a message on Facebook indicating that he intended to take an overdose of Diazepam tablets. He was distressed because of a family bereavement. As a result of the Facebook post, one of John’s friends contacted Merseyside Police at around 01.29am to report concerns for John’s welfare. Let us pause here to note the very important point that John was not being reported for committing a crime – the Police were being requested by a friend to check on John’s welfare because it was believed he might self-harm. Sadly however, the authoritarian tendencies of many Police Officers seemingly cause them to adopt the same attitude in conducting welfare visits that they would adopt when kicking down the door to arrest a suspected criminal…
John was first visited at 06.34am by two Police Officers whom he spoke to at his front door, after they had tried to force entry. John denied their request for entry and asked the Officers to leave him in peace; this pair of Officers respected John’s wishes and left him on the basis that they had seen that he was safe and well (now some five hours after the initial report).
However, at around 12.50pm on the same day (i.e. just over six hours later) John, who was asleep in bed, was roused by loud knocking on his door. As he looked from his bedroom window he saw two different, male Officers outside – now known to be PC Hughes and PC Price of Merseyside Police.
John went downstairs but did not want the Officers to come in. His account of what followed is that the front door was jammed but one of the Officers kicked it open and both Hughes and Price, entered John’s address contrary to his wishes. The officers would later say that they were relying upon their power under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 to enter the premises in order to “save life or limb” – notwithstanding the fact that John was up and about interacting with the officers and clearly not in any state of injury.
John was upset at the Officers’ intrusion into his house and made repeated requests that they leave immediately. However, despite the fact that it was clear that John was well and not in any immediate danger to life or limb the Officers refused to leave and instead remained on the premises.
When John tried to leave his living room to go to the lavatory PC Hughes physically stopped him and pushed him on a nearby settee, where John knocked against the television set.
Again, his request for the Officers to leave his house was ignored.
PC Price then set off to perform a search of the premises and John was now finally permitted to leave the living room. He used the lavatory and went into the kitchen to get water.
With John’s mental health issues severely aggravated by the conduct of the Officers towards him – John in protest brought a glass of water and some further Diazepam tablets back to the living room and consumed them in front of the Officers.
PC Hughes then, suddenly and without warning, grabbed John by both arms and tripped him up causing him to lose his balance. John was then thrown face first onto the settee and pushed down with considerable force into the cushions, which restricted his breathing.
Trapped helplessly on the couch by the Officer, John felt weight pressing down into his back (which he believes to have been PC Hughes’ knee) and then felt his left arm being twisted behind his back and being pulled upwards away from his body. At the same time John felt his arm being bent inwards at the elbow.
John then felt sudden and excruciating pain in his left arm, and simultaneously heard a loud ‘popping’ noise. John tapped on the couch with his free right arm and it was only now that PC Hughes appeared to appreciate the extent of the injury that he had just caused to the young man whose welfare was the whole purpose of the Police visit to the house.
PC Hughes now released his restraint grip on John, who slid from the couch onto the floor in a state of shock and agony to his arm.
PC Hughes, having broken John’s left arm, realised that it was now necessary to call an ambulance. John was taken for emergency treatment at the Royal Liverpool Hospital. He was assessed at the hospital, and it was established that he had suffered a fracture to the mid shaft of his left humerus, and he was discharged home on the understanding that he would have to return in a few weeks for an operation.
John was with his mother and brother when he left the hospital building at around 7pm that night, but if he thought he had had a bad day already things were sadly now about to get even more bizarre and nightmarish. For as John left the hospital, he was approached by different Officers of Merseyside Police and told that he was under arrest for assault on PC Price – and who indeed initially attempted to handcuff him despite the fact that he had a broken arm in an obvious plaster cast. The Officers desisted in this attempt following pleas from John’s mother and brother – but it is another example of how Police Officers so often default to handcuffing suspects without any thought as to whether that degrading and painful use of force is actually necessary.
John was then taken into Custody at St Anne Street Police Station – humiliated, scared and deeply traumatised. John, of course, had no prior experience of being in Police Custody, or being incarcerated in a cell and he became so distressed that he tore at the cast on his arm causing sufficient damage to it that he had at one point to be returned to the hospital under Police escort for the cast to be reapplied.
The following day John was interviewed in the presence of a Solicitor and then charged with assaulting PC Price in the execution of his duty contrary to Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. He was then released on bail with the terrifying prospect of a criminal conviction hanging over his head to compound his physical injuries and mental distress.
Once again, I will remind my readers that PCs Hughes and Price had been sent to check on John’s welfare. They had found him fit and well, if a little disgruntled, but otherwise safe at home – and had left him with a broken arm and a significant aggravation of his mental anxieties. Surely this was the twisted reverse of what the Police were supposed to be doing that day?
Magistrates Court proceedings – Exoneration
PC Hughes and PC Price then produced statements in support of the criminal prosecution of John. In their statements the officers falsely stated that John had become ‘aggressive’ and then intentionally injured PC Price by driving his shoulder into PC Price’s chest in what was described as a ‘rugby tackle’ manoeuvre.
This was simply not true. John had indeed been upset by the Officers’ entry into his house and then their refusal to leave – but he was not aggressive and had not threatened violence towards either Officer and, in particular, had not assaulted PC Price.
It was my opinion, when I reviewed the evidence, that the charge that John had assaulted PC Price had been manufactured by the Officers as a ‘smoke screen’ to deflect attention from PC Hughes’ own unjustified and unlawful assault upon John – which had resulted in the fracture of the young man’s arm in such terrifying circumstances.
On 27 November 2017, following trial at Sefton Magistrates Court, at which both PC Hughes and PC Price gave evidence, John was acquitted of assaulting PC Price.
He left the Court an innocent man – but would now face a 5-year battle to secure true justice in the face of every obstacle that Merseyside Police could throw at him.
Taking the fight to Merseyside Police
After his terrible injury, John required an operation which involved inserting a metal plate and pins into his left arm to fix the fracture. This left him with a long scar down his arm, which served as a constant reminder of what the Police had done to him, as well as persistent symptoms of stiffness and aching in his arm.
The extent of John’s injury can plainly be seen on the initial x-ray:
The extent of his scarring is shown below:
Injury caused by a Merseyside Police officer assault
With my assistance, John – in the aftermath of his not guilty verdict – raised a formal complaint with Merseyside Police Professional Standards Department.
After an internal investigation, Merseyside Professional Standards Department, in a result which starkly contrasts with that reached independently by both the Magistrates Court and later the County Court on the same questions of fact, resolved every dispute by favouring the account of PCs Hughes and Price over that of my client. In dismissing John’s complaint on all grounds the investigating officer DC Smith wrote as follows :-
- “Although the Complainant sustained a fractured shoulder, I cannot find any evidence he was assaulted unlawfully. The accounts from the Officers and the Complainant when he was interviewed by the Police all support that the Police acted lawfully in restraining the Complainant so as to prevent him from causing further harm to himself.”
- “Considering the evidence and the accounts given, Constable Price believed he had been assaulted and that the arrest was lawful, therefore not constituting false imprisonment.”
- “I can find no evidence of the charging evidence being malicious.”
Merseyside Police would later insist on this piece of self-marked homework i.e. their own investigation into themselves being included in the County Court “trial bundle” when they were fighting John’s subsequent compensation claim against them, no doubt hoping that it would help sway the opinion of the Court in their favour.
It was also notable that the Complaint Investigation failed to censure either officer for failing to activate their body cameras, despite their own account of John’s escalating aggression towards them. This is yet another example of how Police body recording should be mandatory in any conflict situation with the public – for the safety of all concerned and the capturing of criminal actions – whoever is committing them.
After the rejection of John’s complaint, I commenced County Court proceedings on his behalf against the Chief Constable, who would be deemed vicariously liable if John’s allegations against PCs Hughes and Price could be proved in court. I also obtained expert medical evidence proving that John had sustained an oblique/ spiral type fracture to his left humerus which was compatible with a twisting/ bending force being applied to his arm and that, as the fracture was ‘displaced’, this indicated that significant force had been applied.
In response, Merseyside Police argued that the fracture had been caused by John actively resisting PC Hughes’s ‘restraint technique’, as he was ‘taken down’ onto the couch.
County Court proceedings – Vindication
The Police threw all the resources which they could into fighting John’s court claim – filing a detailed Defence and requiring John to be assessed by their own Orthopaedic and Psychiatric experts – with the legal battle culminating in a five-day Trial before Judge and Jury at Liverpool County Court in the summer of 2022, during which John was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the Police barrister and PCs Hughes and Price both attended to give evidence against him.
I am pleased to confirm however, that the truth of my client’s account was recognised by the Jury whose responses to the questions which were put to them at the conclusion of the evidence and legal arguments were as follows –
Question 1
Has Mr Kennedy proved so that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes forcefully, violently and excessively extended and rotated Mr Kennedy’s arm so that it fractured?
ANSWER: Yes
Question 2
Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that that Mr Kennedy intentionally shoulder barged PC Price?
ANSWER: No
Question 3
Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes informed Mr Kennedy that he was under arrest for assaulting a police officer as soon as was practicable?
ANSWER: No
Question 4
Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes informed Mr Kennedy that he was under arrest for assaulting PC Price at 14:50 hours?
ANSWER: No
Question 5
Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes believed it was necessary to arrest Mr Kennedy for the purpose of questioning or to prevent injury to himself or others?
ANSWER: No
On the basis of the Jurors’ findings the Judge ruled in favour of John in regard to all aspects of his claim i.e. the verdict of the Court was that John had not only been unlawfully assaulted and wrongfully arrested but that PC Hughes and PC Price had, with malicious intent, attempted to get an innocent man convicted of a criminal offence.
Following the conclusion of the Trial, which was intended to address liability issues only, leaving the assessment of damages open to a later date, Merseyside Police at long last opened settlement negotiations and I am pleased to confirm that in November 2022 the claim was settled by agreement for the payment of £50,000 damages to John, plus his legal costs.
“My Constable Right OR Wrong”
I noted with interest the fact that during the Trial PC Hughes was invited by his barrister to address the Court as to what would happen if he (PC Hughes) was found to have ‘fabricated evidence’.
The officer’s response was that he would “be sacked and receive a prison sentence.”
I very much felt that this was the Officer deliberately playing up to the Judge and Jury in an attempt to elicit their sympathy – and that what he was saying did not reflect the reality of the handling of Police complaints which almost always seemed to be conducted with the aim and ethos of exonerating/excusing the Officer if at all possible.
It is this attitude of “My Constable right or wrong” – we might call it a form of twisted, internal Police Force Patriotism – which has led to very much that is wrong in the state and culture of Policing today and unfortunately my fear that it remains alive and unwell in Merseyside Police were confirmed when, after the conclusion of the Trial, I took up PC Hughes on his offer (as it were) and wrote to Merseyside Police Professional Standards urging them to re-open the complaint investigation. I pointed out that a Jury had found that PCs Hughes and Price had caused the malicious prosecution of an innocent man by means of false witness statements, compounded by their having twice endorsed those statements whilst under oath at Court.
In response, Merseyside Police remained entirely unrepentant, refusing to reopen the complaint and, indeed, proudly beating the drum for their Officers when the story about John’s case was broken by Jonathan Humphries of the Liverpool Echo with Deputy Chief Constable Ian Critchley choosing instead to praise both officers for their “incredible selfless work” in “saving someone’s life.”
I consider this yet another depressing example of a chronic problem; the wilful refusal of Police hierarchies to properly scrutinise and punish Police misconduct.
Courage and Perseverance
John’s case is an example of how courage, perseverance and hard work can culminate in the victory of one man against the resources and determination of an entire Police Force.
The officers who visited John’s house on the night of this incident were there to ensure his welfare only; he is a man of exceptional character, who had never been accused of any criminal offence. Yet the officers behaved towards him with disrespect and aggression, culminating in them shattering the sanctity and safety of John’s home by breaking his arm and then bringing false charges of assault against him.
John had to face the terrible stress of not only incarceration in a Police cell and an interview under criminal caution, for an offence for which he could have been sent to prison, but also two trials at which Merseyside Police marshalled the sworn testimony of multiple officers and the expert advocacy of lawyers in an attempt first to wrongly convict John (at the Magistrates Court) and then to strenuously delay and deny his legitimate claim for compensation (at the County Court). In between the two trials John also suffered the further slap in the face of Merseyside Police completely dismissing his complaint about these events – a decision which the verdict of the jury at Liverpool County Court last summer now reveals to have been entirely wrong.
In the face of all of this adversity however, John never gave up and justice has now been done. I hope his example will inspire others to hold the Police to account for such gross acts of abuse of power.
You must be logged in to post a comment.