Once again, the forthright new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley has acknowledged – in the kind of no-nonsense terms which I applaud – a major problem in Policing, namely the abuse of ‘stop and search’ powers which, as the Commissioner put it “burns through [public] trust”.
Police ‘stop and search’ powers (generally exercised under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act) are rigorously governed – at least on paper – by Section 2 PACE and Code A of the Police Codes of Practice annexed to PACE. (See my blog post here about the “GOWISELY” safeguards for more information on this topic.)
However, all too often, Officers cynically or lazily ignore the safeguards dictated by legislation and carry out searches without any proper power or grounds to do so – failing to provide the necessary explanation about why and by whom search powers are being used, which are deliberately written in to the Codes of Practice so as to ensure transparency and accountability.
Without a rigorous adherence to these rules – as plainly acknowledged by Sir Mark – Police Officers can be perceived by the wider community as behaving in an abusive and/or arbitrary manner – which damages the trust that is essential between the Police and the public both to ensure the ethical legitimacy of Policing in a democratic society (Policing by consent) and to ensure that, on a practical level, the public are willing to assist and cooperate with the Police, rather than view them as antagonistic intruders in their lives.
All of these issues of community trust are all the more sharpened when people of non-white ethnicity are subjected to unlawful searches. The statistics are inescapable in this regard – people of black ethnic appearance are almost 9 times more likely to be subject to ‘stop and search’ tactics by Police Officers in England and Wales than are white people, according to a recent Spotlight report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
The case which I am going to discuss today involves my client, James Reid.
James is black British and a man of exemplary character.
In the early afternoon of 24 May 2022 James was standing outside his home when a marked police car pulled up, and two officers of West Midlands Police, one of whom is now known to be PC Cook, alighted and rapidly approached James.
PC Cook advised that a vehicle had just made off in suspicious circumstances and James was to be detained for a search.
James had done nothing wrong and calmy protested “Mate are you seriously going to do this?” PC Cook confirmed that he was intent on searching James, and immediately handcuffed my client (despite his calm demeanour) causing him pain and discomfort.
PC Cook now clarified the background circumstances, stating that: “A vehicle has just made off from officers that potentially may well be cloned. You’re walking away, there’s still two occupants in the vehicle and you’re walking from nearby. Hence the reason you’re going to be detained for the purpose of a search to see if you’ve got any items on you relating to that vehicle, if not, you’ll be on your way.”
The officer then advised his name, that he was from the Force Traffic Unit and that at the conclusion of the search, he would inform James how he could “get a copy of the search.”
PC Cook then carried out a ‘pat down’ search of my client and searched his pockets. During the search, one of James’ neighbours walked past, causing him acute embarrassment.
PC Cook asked James for his name and date of birth, which James duly provided and the officer used this information to make enquiries into my client’s background.
Whilst fully cooperating, James was nevertheless understandably frustrated that he had been detained – and handcuffed – and asserted “This ain’t right, putting me in cuffs like this, like I’m a criminal.”
The entire interaction between James and PC Cook was recorded on the officer’s body worn camera, an invaluable tool in the modern administration of justice.
Eventually, after approximately 5 – 10 minutes, James was released and told he was free to go. PC Cook did not however provide James with a “stop form” nor advise him as to how he could obtain one.
James subsequently lodged a complaint in regards to this incident. West Midlands Police Professional Standards Department adopted the ‘usual approach’ to this public complaint i.e. to act as if their primary goal was not to objectively investigate the complaint, but rather to defend the Officer. They asserted that PC Cook was responding to a report of an abandoned vehicle on cloned plates and that James had been “seen to walk from the direction of the vehicle” before he was stopped and searched. No apology was offered and his complaint was dismissed.
As a result of his handcuffing in this incident, James suffered pain and discomfort in both of his wrists for several days. He also had a history of anxiety/panic attacks which flared up badly after this incident – causing him symptoms of breathing difficulty, sweating palms and a feeling of being completely overwhelmed. This caused James to have to attend upon his GP and to be prescribed medicine; the panic attacks continued for around 3-4 months afterwards.
When James consulted me, I assessed the evidence and formed the view that the actions of the Police were arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional and had caused James totally unnecessary embarrassment and degradation.
On James’ behalf I sent a letter of claim to West Midlands Police, giving them an opportunity to settle James’ claims for assault and battery and unlawful detention without the need for Court proceedings.
West Midlands Police rejected that opportunity, maintaining the same denial of liability with which their Professional Standards Department had earlier responded to James’ complaint.
I then had no hesitation in issuing Court proceedings on behalf of James.
I was confident that James would succeed if the case went to Trial, on a number of grounds, which included the following:-
- PC Cook lacked reasonable suspicion to carry out the search because, even on his own account, he neither saw James in the ‘cloned’ vehicle nor saw him in proximity to that vehicle (which was unsurprising because James was never in the vehicle and knew nothing about it).
- Furthermore, and in any event, PC Cook had failed to comply with Section 2 PACE/Code A in that he failed to specify a legitimate object for the search (“items relating to that vehicle” is not the same as “stolen or prohibited articles”) – and if PC Cook meant the latter, he failed to say so.
- The Officer also failed to specify the legislation he was purporting to utilise and he failed to provide James with a written stop/search record or explain how he could obtain one (despite at the beginning of the search saying that he would do so).
The Defence which was filed in response to the Court proceedings contended that PC Cook had legitimately detained and searched James pursuant to S.1 of PACE 1984.
However, as I observed above, that section only allows an Officer to search a person for ‘Stolen or prohibited articles’. PC Cook in fact informed James that the object of his search was “items relating to a [potentially cloned] vehicle” which is not at all the same as ‘stolen or prohibited articles’.
It seemed to me that PC Cook either did not know the law that he was purporting to exercise, or proceeded with his search of James notwithstanding the fact that he knew he was exceeding the powers available to him.
A cloned vehicle may of course itself be a solen article – but presumably PC Cook did not think that James had the vehicle tucked away on his person…
Pertinently, James had not been seen in the vehicle, nor had he been seen in the close proximity to the vehicle – there was merely the tenuous assertion that he was seen walking from the same general direction as the location in which the vehicle had been abandoned. That could not constitute reasonable grounds of suspicion for searching James in my opinion; and the whole encounter carried with it overtones, as is often the case in this type of incident, of racial prejudice – it certainly crossed James’ mind that the reason he had been targeted by the Officer, despite his having nothing to do with the cloned vehicle, was because of the colour of his skin.
Even more poignantly, James was not on his own when he first saw the Police approaching – he was actually walking with his teenage son. Suspecting, as many black men do, that they might be on the receiving end of unwarranted Police attention, James had immediately directed his son to go inside their house because he didn’t want the young man to be subjected to the degrading and alienating process that then befell him i.e. unjustified handcuffing, detention and questioning.
This is exactly what I believe Sir Mark Rowley was referring to, when he spoke about abuse of stop and search powers as ‘burning through the trust’ of our communities. No young person’s first encounter with the Police should be being unlawfully taken prisoner, handcuffed and searched, but for all too many – particularly young black men – that tragically is the case.
Despite Sir Mark’s welcome admission, the Police Forces of England and Wales clearly still have a lot to do to improve their Officers’ standards of behaviour in this regard. They have a lot of trust to win back which has been lost as a result of generations of ethnic minority men being mistreated on our streets and that mistreatment becoming ingrained in the mindset of our communities.
I am pleased to report, however, that after I provided a strong rebuttal to their defence, West Midlands Police quickly agreed to compensate James in the sum of £2,500 and pay his legal costs.
My client may understandably lack trust in the Police after this incident – but hopefully I have shown him that he can have trust in our justice system. At the conclusion of the case, James posted the following review-
“[Iain] fought my corner every step of the way…couldn’t speak any higher of the way he took on this case for me. I would recommend [him] to anyone, the very best around.”
Now we all wait to see how long it will take for Sir Mark Rowley’s leadership to change frontline British Policing, where actions must speak louder than words.
You must be logged in to post a comment.