Today’s blog contains a trifecta of Police misbehaviour – an unjustified ‘stop and search’ of an Asian man, based on prejudiced profiling; the abuse of greater Policing power during Lockdown and the old Police habit of breaking the rules when no-one’s looking (or they think they’ll get away with it).
Abuse of Stop & Search Powers
During the second surge of the Covid pandemic, in November 2020, my client Mohammad Izhar was working as a Security Guard at a Covid Vaccination Centre in Aylesbury.
Whilst working the night shift, Mo drove to a nearby petrol station to refuel his car, an Audi A4. Having done so, he returned to the Centre. Mo is a man of entirely good character with no previous convictions, although he had previously been stopped and searched under the Misuse of Drugs Act – something for which Mo felt the Police had ‘targeted’ him because he was an Asian man driving a prestige vehicle.
On the night in question, Mo noticed a Thames Valley Police car following him closely as he neared the Vaccination Centre, and pulled over to the side of the road.
A male Officer and a female Officer, believed to be PC Clarke and PC McLaughlin, alighted from their vehicle and then approached Mo’s car. Mo remained in his seat and wound the window down; he explained to the officers that he was working and was about to shut the gates to the Centre. For his own protection, Mo wisely started recording events on his mobile phone.
The officers demanded ID. Mo confirmed his name and address and produced his security badge.
PC McLaughlin stated that because of the Covid pandemic, Officers were checking on “lots of different people.” She then told him “Due to what you’re known for, we’re going to do a Section 23 search.”
Mo was taken aback and immediately asked PC McLaughlin what she understood he was “known for”. PC McLaughlin did not respond and instead asked my client to get out of his car.
At this point, Mo and the two Police officers were joined by one of Mo’s work colleagues (whom I will identify by the name ‘Shahid’). Shahid had noticed what was going on and approached on foot.
In full view of Shahid, the male officer, PC Clarke, began to search Mo by doing a pat down search.
Mo again asserted that no reason for the stop and search had been given. PC McLaughlin replied, “We’ve already told you, due to Covid checks and at the time of day, it’s unusual to have vehicles out, so we’re doing checks.”
That was not, of course, a valid basis for a stop & search – particularly given that Mo had explained where he worked and produced ID.
PC McLaughlin then stated (in front of Shahid) “I’ve done checks on you, and you’ve come back as being known for drugs.” Mo was understandably mortified that the officer was besmirching his character like this in the presence of his work colleague.
Shahid then correctly pointed out that neither Officer had identified themselves. PC McLaughlin advised that she would give a form to Mo on completion which would confirm the Officers’ identity. He was, in fact, entitled to know who they were before the search commenced (even if the Officers had possessed a valid reason for detaining and searching him).
After a two-minute search of Mo’s person, which proved negative, PC McLaughlin advised that she would now check my client’s vehicle. That search likewise proved negative.
The Officers then provided Mo with a Stop Form. PC McLaughlin then said as follows, once again right in front of my client’s colleague;
“We’ve checked you because of Covid and the time of day and it’s the early hours of the morning and it’s come back as in trade, previous keeper details only, so we stopped you and we’ve done checks on you and it’s come back as being known for drugs so now we’ve checked you and your vehicle and there’s nothing in there so we’ve given you a word of advice that if you’re driving around at this time of day, especially in times of Covid, expect to be stopped.”
The Stop Form recorded the search grounds as;
“Male was seen driving around Aylesbury, Gatehouse Road. Due to the time of day and Covid, driver of the vehicle was stop checked, male was known for drugs.”
Having unnecessarily detained Mo, and embarrassed him in front of his work colleague, the officers then left.
Who Polices the Police?
In a constitutional democracy, the contract between the Police and the public, is that the public consent to the Police having extraordinary powers over them provided the Police respect the limits of those powers and the rules that are enshrined in law to ensure proper accountability for the use of that power and to prevent its abuse.
This incident is sadly a ‘classic’ example of the Police showing an utter disregard, we might even say disinterest, for the rules which are supposed to ring-fence their power and a reminder of how often Police used to ‘get away’ with this sort of misconduct when, in the days before everyone had a smartphone in their pocket, it all happened “off camera.”
In a blatant breach of the rules for conducting a stop/ search, as laid down by the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) –
- The Officers failed to inform Mo that he was being detained for the purpose of a search.
- The Officers did not give an explanation of the reasons for their search.
- The Officers did not at any point prior to commencement of the search advise Mo what they were looking for.
- The Officers failed to identify themselves (i.e. give their names).
- The Officers failed to identify the station at which they were based.
- The Officers failed to identify the legislation under which they were searching Mo.
The Police Officers also subsequently contended that Shahid had not arrived before Mo was searched and that they did not state that Mo was “known for drugs” within earshot of Shahid – both of which contentions were demonstrably untrue – but only by reason of the mobile phone footage. Neither officer had recorded the incident on body camera, despite the prevalence of such devices amongst the modern Police Force. I am once again left to reflect that in answer to the old Latin question : Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes? (Who Polices the Police ?) – the answer is that iPhones do a better job of this than the IOPC.
It is, in my opinion, a cynical and unjust abuse of power for officers to use previous negative stop/ search encounters as justification for targeting the same individual again. Mo’s behaviour on the night was unimpeachable and leads us both to consider that he may well have been picked out not because of anything he was doing but because of his appearance combined with the appearance of his vehicle.
The officers involved in this incident appeared frankly disinterested and unashamed by their breaking of all the rules listed above, and I am very pleased that Mo and I were ultimately able to hold them to account through a combination of his mobile phone footage, my legal expertise and our mutual determination.
After initially denying any wrongdoing by their Officers, Thames Valley Police were eventually brought to book by the Civil Court proceedings I instigated on behalf of Mo, shortly before the case was due to go to Trial. Despite the (thankfully) short duration of Mo’s unlawful detention during this search (approximately 10 minutes) I was able to secure him damages of £2,400 plus legal costs.
I reflect on the fact that this incident occurred during one of the Covid Lockdowns, when many Police Officers seemed happy for another excuse to unleash their inner authoritarian; but the truth is that this type of unjustified and possibly prejudiced stop-and-search is an age-old story on our streets.
If you believe that you have fallen victim to such an injustice, please contact me for advice and together we’ll Police the Police.
You must be logged in to post a comment.