Baroness Casey’s recent report on the Metropolitan Police highlighted a raft of systemic problems in that Force – including under-resourcing, poor training and leadership on the ‘frontlines’, the misuse of ‘Misuse of Drugs Act’ searches – particularly against people of the “over -policed and under-protected” Black and Asian communities of the city – and officers ‘closing ranks’ in the face of even the most clear-cut complaints; all of which issues intersect in today’s blog.
Therefore, let us now step from the pages of the Casey report into the real streets of London…
My client, Suleman Iqbal is of British Pakistan ethnicity and works as an engineer for British Telecom.
On the afternoon of the 30 June 2020, Suleman went to visit his cousin who lives in Walthamstow.
Suleman was driving a two door BMW motor vehicle, fitted with tinted windows.
It was a hot sunny day. Suleman was wearing a baseball cap and had both front windows down. He was playing loud music on the car stereo and was smoking a cigarette.
As my client proceeded along Shaftsbury Road, there were cars parked up on either side of the road making passage slow. As he passed Shaftsbury Primary School, he was obliged to stop because of another car travelling in the opposite direction.
Whilst he was stationary, the rear passenger side window of Suleman’s car was suddenly and without any warning smashed by a Metropolitan Police Officer now known to be PC Harrington using an extended baton.
Whilst Suleman was distracted by the glass breaking, a second officer, now known to be PS Mason reached through the open driver’s window and seized Suleman’s right wrist and then forced his hand and arm backwards causing Suleman significant pain and discomfort and causing him to drop his cigarette. He was in a state of shock and did not understand why he was being brutally attacked like this.
A third officer, now known to be PC Roberts then took hold of Suleman’s right arm and forced it backwards causing him further pain and discomfort, whilst PS Mason opened the driver’s door and seized my client’s lower right leg, before pulling him partially out of the car.
At this time, the car was still in gear and Suleman’s left foot was on the brake. So as to stop the car moving forward, and a potentially serious accident occurring, Suleman took the car out of gear and applied the handbrake before voluntarily exiting his vehicle.
My client was understandably angry and remonstrated with the officers asserting that there was no basis for their actions.
“Assisted” by the Police?
Suleman was now led away from his vehicle and handcuffed to the rear by three officers believed to be PC Roberts, PC Halabi and PC Boyle. This was witnessed by a significant number of members of the public, who were out and about on the street in the lovely weather.
Whilst Suleman was being handcuffed, PC Harrington approached with his baton still extended, menacingly brought his baton up close to Suleman’s face and then flicked Suleman’s cap off his head with his right hand.
The bully-boy tactics now worsened as PC Harrington grabbed Suleman by the neck with his right hand, whilst still holding his baton in his left hand, and forced Suleman backwards whilst he continued to be restrained and handcuffed by the three officers behind.
This attack upon Suleman, and his manhandling generally as he was led away from his car – later disingenuously described by the Police lawyers as Suleman being “assisted out of the BMW” was captured on video by a concerned passer-by, and is shown here with Suleman’s permission:
Suleman was understandably incensed by PC Harrington’s actions and immediately demanded his name.
In response, officers now accused Suleman of spitting (which was untrue) and PC Harrington and PS Mason grabbed the top of Suleman’s t-shirt and raised this up to cover his mouth and nose whilst simultaneously forcing Suleman’s head backwards. Meanwhile, the three officers at the rear continued to restrain and handcuff him. Suleman struggled to breathe and in panic cried out that the officers were ‘strangling’ him. He also informed the officers that he was asthmatic. This was a totally unjustified and brutal use of force perpetrated by a ‘gang’ of Officers upon a man who was their helpless prisoner, and could have had tragic results.
When the other officers had completed handcuffing Suleman, PC Harrington and PS Mason released their grip on his shirt, uncovering his face. Suleman was then forced up against a wall/ railings where his left leg was forcibly held against the wall and a spit hood secured over his head. Suleman again struggled to breathe. Numerous members of the public were observing Suleman’s brutal mistreatment at close hand.
Two officers continued to restrain my client by holding him against the wall notwithstanding that he was handcuffed and was not trying to escape.
Suleman continued to assert that he could not breathe and was told to “calm down”. PS Mason asserted that the spit hood would not impede his breathing “in the slightest”.
PS Mason then approached the Claimant and told him “I ran to the driver’s window. I made eye contact with you ….. I screamed, please stop the car. I saw you attempt to drive off quicker ….. you revved the engine…. You failed to stop your vehicle when requested to do so.”
Prior to the events described, my client had in fact been unaware of the presence of any officers. Suleman disputed PS Mason’s version of events and truthfully asserted that he had not made eye contact with PS Mason, that PC Harrington had smashed his window for no reason and that PC Harrington had strangled him by the neck.
PS Mason asserted that in fact PC Harrington had “put” his hand around the Claimant’s mouth/face because he was spitting. Suleman responded, “Don’t lie officer, please don’t lie to me.”
After several minutes, PC Mason removed the spit hood from Suleman’s head, but my client continued to be handcuffed and restrained against the wall.
Suleman was aware of numerous people in the street watching events, around 30 local residents having come out of their houses or paused in their journeys, which added to his sense of degradation and outrage.
He asked if the handcuffs could be removed but was ignored. He asked if he could turn around (from facing the wall) but his request was rejected because he was said to be “agitated”.
Suleman was subjected to a ‘pat down’ search and his car was extensively searched. Officers removed from Suleman’s car: his laptop; mobile phones; and wallet, which was then inspected to establish his personal details. One of the officers claimed he could smell cannabis in Suleman’s car, which was not only untrue, but evidently could not have been the initial basis for the attack upon Suleman and his vehicle.
By this stage, an officer believed to be PS Sheehan had attended. Suleman remonstrated as to the use of force and his detention. PS Sheehan advised that his complaint would be reviewed.
Suleman was asked about his car. He confirmed that he was a trader and had purchased the vehicle the day before. Further, that he had a trade insurance policy which he could show on his phone.
PS Sheehan advised that my client would still not be released. Suleman demanded to know why given that there were so many officers, he was compliant, and the officers had his wallet and keys. He was ignored and continued to be held whilst ‘insurance checks’ were made.
Several minutes passed and Suleman again asked to be released. An officer believed to be PC Halahi said, “No, because you’re still angry” and “We’re just going to see what other offences you’ve committed or if there’s anything there?”
Finally, at 17.07, evidently having failed to find any alternative justification for assaulting my client following their initial unjustified stop, PS Sheehan directed that the handcuffs be removed, and officers removed the handcuffs.
PS Sheehan subsequently provided Suleman with the details of all the officers involved. PS Sheehan reassured my client that he would speak to the officers about the incident and call Suleman thereafter. Suleman requested a copy of the stop and search form, however none was provided.
Suleman felt nauseous and was experiencing pain and discomfort in his neck and wrists. He requested that the officers call an ambulance whilst he sat down at the side of the road.
The ambulance service sent a taxi to collect Suleman and conveyed him to Newham Hospital.
At hospital it was noted that my client had bruising to his right wrist and red ligature marks to his neck in the shape of fingers. Suleman also reported a severe headache and was provided with painkillers. Upon discharge, my client’s cousin picked him and drove him home.
PS Sheehan failed to call Suleman as promised and so Suleman called him. PS Sheehan stated that he had viewed the Body Worn Video of the officers at the scene and advised that he did not believe that there was anything wrong with their conduct. PS Sheehan also claimed that prior to the car window being smashed an officer had run down the road after Suleman’s car shouting for him to stop.
This knee-jerk dismissal of his legitimate complaint only added insult to Suleman’s injury.
Suing the Police
When Suleman instructed me to make a compensation claim on his behalf against the Met, he explained how he had required a month off work owing to injuries to his neck and wrist, but that the biggest effect of the incident was not physical but psychological – he suffered very disturbed sleep and anxiety symptoms, which were particularly provoked by him seeing Police officers and vehicles – an unavoidably regular occurrence for anyone who lives and works in a bustling urban environment like London. He was subsequently diagnosed with a specific phobia/ adjustment disorder.
When I presented Suleman’s claim to the Metropolitan Police they failed to respond on the issue of liability, forcing us to issue civil Court proceedings. A Defence was then filed in which the Met alleged that their officers had followed (and violently stopped) Suleman’s vehicle because he was behaving “suspiciously” – what this amounted to was an allegation that Suleman had performed a U-turn after allegedly seeing a Police personnel carrier, although it was not suggested that the Police were otherwise looking for Suleman or his vehicle, or that he had been driving in an unlawful manner.
On the basis of this tenuous reason the Police had then set off in pursuit of Suleman, and the events described above had occurred. The Police now admitted that Suleman had been unlawfully detained and ‘technically’ assaulted “from the point of assisting the Claimant out of the BMW”, but only because officers had forgotten to comply with the requirements of Section 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (i.e identifying themselves and explaining their actions) when searching Suleman and his vehicle. It was now asserted that search was carried out under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, although none of that had been said to Suleman at the time.
Notwithstanding the Police assertion that their actions were justified and their errors mere ‘technicalities’ I continued to strongly press Suleman’s case, and I am pleased to confirm that it has recently settled with an agreement by the Met to pay Suleman £17,500 and his legal costs.
As I stressed in another recent blog post, the ‘founding constitution’ of British policing is the principle of ‘Policing by Consent’ – the idea that democratic Policing derives its legitimacy from the people, rather than the State – and that the wellspring of its authority is the “approval, respect and affection of the public” (Charles Reith, 1956) with Officers being ‘members of the public in uniform’ rather than the type of paramilitaries who would rule through fear and violence in an authoritarian State. Looking at the actions of the Officers who dealt with Suleman that day, I would seriously question whether they appear to be guided by a desire to earn the “approval, respect and affection” of the public. All too often, Police Officers seem to think primarily, not of their power coming from the people, but of the power they have over the people, and respond with anger and/or violence to any perceived infringement of their authority.
Until such attitudes are changed, the state of health of ‘Policing by Consent’ in this country will remain borderline.
You must be logged in to post a comment.