A claim which I have recently concluded against Hertfordshire Constabulary has demonstrated once again the significant benefits to the administration of justice and proper accountability of the Police which arise from the fact that Officers now habitually wear body cameras during their interactions with the public. We should all be grateful that Big Brother is now watching Big Brother (as it were) but also aware of the fact that ‘old habits die hard’ and that the Police still frequently adopt the same “deny and dispute” tactics which were used when all of these events happened ‘off camera’.
The case in question concerned Hertfordshire Police Officers being called out to attend the aftermath of a party at a private dwelling in which two friends, Paul (who was the owner of the house), and Steven, had got into an argument over an item of damaged furniture which had turned ‘physical’ – there was some pushing and shoving, though neither man sustained any injury.
Paul’s female partner telephoned the Police as she was concerned that Steven was not going to leave the house.
However, by the time the Police arrived, not only had Steven exited the house, but tempers had simmered down and he and Paul simply wanted to patch things up.
The Police found Steven outside the house calm but confused about why matters had escalated so badly between him and his friend.
The Police then witnessed Paul coming out of the house and ‘making peace’ with Steven by shaking his hand.
As Paul then returned towards the house, he was aggressively pursued by one Police Officer who threatened Paul with arrest “for being drunk and disorderly” if he did not immediately return back inside his house. The officer was making reference to the offence of “Being drunk and disorderly in a public place” contrary to Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
This was despite the fact that:-
• Paul was not behaving in a “disorderly” manner and nor was Steven – multiple Officers had just witnessed the two men shaking hands and speaking in a calm and kindly manner to one another;
• Paul was clearly in the process of returning to his house in any event; and
• The location of these events was actually an area of private land upon which the cited offence could not be committed.
Conscious of that latter fact, Paul paused just as he was about to re-enter his house and queried with the Officer how he could possibly be committing the alleged offence in this location (as it was private land). Paul then turned and made to walk inside his home – only to be seized by the Officer, who grabbed hold of Paul’s arm and said in a self-satisfied manner, “You’re outside now”.
As the Officer pulled forcefully on Paul’s arm – apparently attempting to prevent him from re-entering the safety of his house – another Officer who had already entered the house, seized Paul from behind and the two Officers bundled Paul to the ground, shouting and swearing at him.
During this process the first Officer informed Paul that he was, “Under arrest for being drunk and disorderly in a public place”.
Paul was then handcuffed and kept ‘prisoner’ outside his house, before being de-arrested approximately 10 minutes later.
After viewing the body camera footage of this incident, I was strongly of the opinion that Paul had been grossly mistreated and should never have been assaulted, handcuffed or arrested – the only silver lining for him was that thankfully this abuse of power was of a relatively short duration.
Notwithstanding the clear testimony of their own body camera recordings (Four of the Officers who were present that night had their cameras ‘rolling’), Hertfordshire Police initially tried to get away with merely a ‘technical’ admission of liability and a minimal offer of damages (and no offer of legal costs) in response to the claim which I presented on Paul’s behalf.
The lawyers acting on behalf of Hertfordshire Police now argued that Paul, “Could and should have been arrested for breach of the peace which is a criminal offence in a private [or] pubic place. The behaviour of your client…should have been dealt with by way of a criminal prosecution and they are fortunate that is not the route the Police took.”
I felt that this was an outrageous position for the Police to adopt and I was deeply unimpressed by their behaviour.
The simple fact of the matter – as amply attested by the available body camera evidence – was that Paul, irrespective of whether he was in a public or private place, was simply not behaving in any kind of manner which amounted to disorder or a breach of the peace when the Officer purported to arrest him.
It was my confident view that any Judge or Jury viewing the body camera footage would conclude that when Officers laid hands upon Paul – apparently in a blatant attempt to prevent him from re-entering the ‘safety’ of his house – the only people present who were behaving in a disorderly manner were the Officers themselves.
No breach of the peace was occurring at the time of the Police arrival on the scene, nor could any such offence have been contemplated as likely to occur in the near future, given that Officers had just witnessed Paul and Steven shaking hands and Paul was leaving the scene and returning inside his house when the irate Police Officer laid hands upon him; indeed it was that perverse action by the Officer which actually kept Paul and Steven in any proximity to one another.
I am very pleased to confirm that Paul’s case for unlawful arrest has recently been successfully concluded for a sizeable award of damages plus his legal costs. But this case is a salutary reminder of the lengths to which the Police are prepared to go in order to dispute a legitimate claim – even in the face of clear and compelling body camera evidence to the contrary. It gives us significant pause for thought to reflect on the degree to which the Police were able to get away with wrongful denials of liability in the past when the objective evidence of their own body cameras was simply not there to testify against them.
I will always fight my client’s corner, but I am grateful for the extent of body camera footage now available to help make that fight fairer.
My advice, if you have suffered a wrong at the hands of the Police, is to take immediate steps, for example by registering a complaint or pursuing a Subject Access Request, to ensure that all body camera evidence is preserved. It could prove absolutely crucial.
Names have been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.