Only last week, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley could be heard playing to his gallery by claiming that Police Officers are treated differently to members of the public when the Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to charge them with criminal offences.
Sir Mark described the situation as being ‘dispiriting and unfair’. I commented at the time that it is absolutely imperative that Police Officers are seen to be held to account within the Laws of the Land and that it was frankly dangerous for our Country’s senior Police Chief to undermine this.
Indeed, what I find to be dispiriting and unfair in this context is the perennial ‘light touch’ which Police Complaint Investigators take towards their colleagues, resulting in Officers escaping both criminal and misconduct charges – when they have behaved in a way that, were they a member of the public, would probably lead to criminal prosecution.
By way of illustration, I will describe a case in which I have recently been instructed, which amply illustrates the continued pro-Police bias and leniency towards officers in the Police Complaint System.
My client, whom I will identify by the name of Ben, was, in July of this year, driving home from a craft fair in Doncaster, with his wife and daughter in the car.
Ben is almost 60 years of age and approximately 6 years ago underwent a quadruple heart bypass. He is not a heavily built man, nor of robust health.
During the family’s journey through Cheshire, Ben’s car unfortunately broke down, owing to a mechanical fault, and he had to pull over to the side of the road and put his bonnet up, so as to signal to other drivers what had happened. He then telephoned his son and made arrangements for his vehicle to be towed.
It had been a long day and Ben was understandably tired and frustrated by events.
However, whilst Ben was still waiting for his son to attend, a marked Police vehicle pulled up and two Officers of Cheshire Police alighted (whom I shall identify for the purpose of this blog as PCs A and B).
PC A informed Ben that he and his colleague had come to see if Ben and his family were “Okay after the accident”. Ben pointed out that he had not been involved in an accident, but rather that his car had broken down.
Without any justification, PC A then accused Ben of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and asked PC B to get the breathalyser.
Ben, who by reason of his health conditions had not drunk alcohol for many years, was outraged by this unfounded accusation and got out of his own car to explain this. PC A immediately shouted at Ben “Don’t come any closer to me or I’ll pepper spray you”.
Ben again stated that he could not drink alcohol by reason of his health and medication.
However, PC A was now holding a cannister of ‘pepper spray’ in his right hand (actually PAVA incapacitant spray, a standard weapon in the Police Officer’s armoury) and said, “Stand back or I’ll pepper spray you”.
Ben explained that he would get his medication from the boot of his car, to prove to the Officer that he was telling the truth, and accordingly began to move towards the rear of his car.
PC A then sprayed Ben directly in the face with PAVA spray.
Ben experienced immediate burning pain to his face and eyes but managed to open the boot of his car and retrieve his bag of medication to show the Officer.
By now, other Officers had attended at the scene of the incident and Ben explained to them what had happened. He was understandably upset and distressed.
He agreed to undergo the breathalyser test, which was of course negative.
By reason of this incident, Ben suffered chemical burns to his neck and face, including his lips and throat and his right eye became swollen. It took several days for his physical injuries to resolve.
He naturally lodged a complaint in regards to his outrageous treatment by PC A.
Complaint Appeal
My client’s complaint was investigated by Cheshire Constabulary Professional Standards Department who reviewed the Officers’ Body Camera footage and provided their complaint response in early September 2023.
Ben was informed that the Inspector who had reviewed the Police Body Camera Footage of the incident had concluded that-
“The situation could have been avoided and was due to poor communication by the Officer”.
The report went on to detail the following –
“The complainant had broken down with his family after a long journey; the vehicle also being on a fast road. The complainant stated he was awaiting the arrival of his son to recover the vehicle. [Ben] was understandably anxious and upset at that time, which should have been taken into consideration by [PC A]. Having established that the occupants of the vehicle were safe and well the incident should have come to a swift conclusion with [Officers A and B] leaving… the manner in which [PC A] reacted towards [Ben] was unprofessional and aggressive…there were two Officers present and I am not satisfied that [PC A] was in fear for his safety at the point where he sprayed the complainant.”
The report also revealed that PC A had actually considered using his taser gun against Ben, but had decided not to because “the male was too close to me for taser to be effective”. This was a very disturbing fact, even for Ben to become aware of after the event. Given his history of cardiac problems, Ben believes that he would have had a heart attack and died if a taser had been used upon him, and has been left ruminating upon this narrowly- averted tragedy.
Although Cheshire Constabulary felt it appropriate to offer an apology to Ben for the upset caused it was, shockingly in my opinion, concluded that PC A’s conduct was below the misconduct threshold and accordingly all he would face would be the ‘Reflective Practice Review Process’: learning advice and a temporary rescission of his taser licence. In other words, an administrative ‘slap on the wrist’ for his assault upon my client.
My client has a right to appeal this outcome to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) and also to invite Cheshire Constabulary to consider a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service and I have advised him to exercise those rights; as if unchallenged, this is yet another Police decision which would leave us with the feeling that there is one rule for the Police and one rule for everybody else – and not in the way that Sir Mark Rowley implies.
You must be logged in to post a comment.