Detained and searched for looking at a Police Officer the wrong way? Sadly, that was what happened to my client Allen Norman.
Police Officers live in a world of ranks, uniforms and chains of command and unfortunately often bring that mentality to the everyday world, behaving as if they ‘out-rank’ ordinary citizens.
One afternoon in June 2022, Allen was shopping in the heart of London and passed a Police carrier that was parked up, close to a Boots store.
Having completed his shopping in the store, Allen returned outside and went to retrieve his bicycle, which was locked to a nearby lamppost.
At this time, two male Police Offices – now known to be PC Laurie and PC Minnerthey of the City of London Police, approached Allen and asked if he was “Alright” and what he was up to.
Allen was immediately apprehensive, as many of us would be if stopped by the Police in such circumstances. He asserted that he was fine, but that he would not be answering any questions.
PC Minnerthey then began to accuse Allen of “Giving us evils” as he had walked past their Police carrier and then of allegedly “Fiddling around with a lot of stuff” in the Boots store (whatever that was supposed to mean).
PC Minnerthey announced that he was going to search Allen under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), produced his handcuffs and reached out to grab Allen’s arms. Allen felt threatened and sought to clarify upon what grounds the Officer wanted to search him, asserting that the Officers’ actions were unlawful. He knew his rights under the Police Codes of Practice – the ‘GOWISELY’ procedure, which Officers are supposed to adhere to, but in fact routinely abuse.
Ignoring this, the Officers now grabbed Allen’s arms and forcefully handcuffed him.
Again, Allen demanded to know on what grounds the Officers were asserting a legal power to search him. PC Minnerthey repeated his bizarre accusation: that Allen had been giving him and his colleagues “Evils”, before then going into a shop and “Fiddling around”.
PC Laurie then stated that as Allen walked down the road, he was seen “eyeballing” the Police carrier, “paying a lot of attention” to the Officers within, and had then gone into a shop where he was seen to be “fumbling around” and “potentially up to no good.”
Numerous other officers now attended, it obviously being a slow day in the city of London…
The Officers continued to hold Allen – although he was not resisting them, or attempting to leave – and searched him, including removing his wallet and mobile phone from his possession.
Apparently having polished his script a little more, PC Minnerthey now advised Allen that – “You’ve appeared to be concealing yourself in the shop while you appeared to be fiddling about with things, okay, we’ve come over to have a chat with you and straightaway you’ve been very very “anti”, not letting us get a word in edgeways. You’re extremely nervous, your breathing rate is up there, we think you’ve got something to hide. We suspect you might have been involved in something in the shop and therefore we’ve searched you under section 1 PACE for any stolen items.”
Section 1 of PACE (with irrelevant sub-clauses omitted) provides as follows-
1 Power of constable to stop and search persons, vehicles etc.
(1)A constable may exercise any power conferred by this section—
(a)in any place to which at the time when he proposes to exercise the power the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission; or
(b)in any other place to which people have ready access at the time when he proposes to exercise the power but which is not a dwelling.
(2)Subject to subsection (3) to (5) below, a constable—
(a)may search—
(i)any person or vehicle;
(ii)anything which is in or on a vehicle,
for stolen or prohibited articles; and
(b)may detain a person or vehicle for the purpose of such a search.
(3)This section does not give a constable power to search a person or vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles.
Allen correctly denied that the Officers’ had any grounds to detain and search him under this legislation; of course, this did not stop them.
It was in fact quite apparent that, no matter how they attempted to dress it up, the reason that the Officers were searching Allen was because they didn’t like the way he had looked at them as he passed their vehicle. Somewhat unsurprisingly, PACE does not in fact grant Officers the power to search someone because he is suspected of ‘giving them the evil eye’ and the Officers had no legal grounds for interfering in Allen’s business that day.
To be entirely clear, no member of the public or member of staff from the Boots store had made any accusation of shoplifting against Allen whatsoever, and at its highest all the Officers could apparently say was that they had seen Allen ‘fiddling about’ with things in the store – but just as with looking at Police Officers, ‘fiddling around with things in a store’ is not a crime; in fact it is shopping.
The search having proved negative, Allen’s handcuffs were removed after a period of about 7 minutes.
Allen was outraged by the incident and felt as if he had been mugged, although at all times he kept his temper under control and spoke respectfully to the squad of Police Officers now assembled around him.
Aware of his rights, Allen asked PC Minnerthey for a Stop Form. He was at first (wrongly) told that a Stop Form could not be provided because he had not given his personal details (which he was under no legal obligation to do). Allen asserted that he was entitled to a Stop Form whereupon the Officers told him that he would have to subsequently attend Bishopsgate Police Station, in order to collect it.
His phone was now returned to him, and he was told that he was free to go.
Throughout their conversation with Allen, as evidenced on their own body camera recordings, PCs Minnerthey and Laurie had, in effect, confessed their improper motivations to him. It is quite clear that they had detained, manhandled and searched him simply because they thought he was looking at them ‘the wrong way’ as he went past, compounded by his ‘failure’ to smile and engage with them when they approached him. Allen was in fact doing nothing wrong, and was in no way behaving in a criminally suspicious manner – but sadly the Officers’ mindset was obviously such that they immediately considered the slightest display of a ‘anti-police’ attitude tantamount to being a crime in itself.
Such, indeed, is the mindset of the very many Police Officers who fall into the trap of believing that they outrank ordinary civilians and that, accordingly, acts of insubordination from those ‘lower down’ the rungs need to be punished by some muscular exercise of Police powers. In this way, the boundaries of Police Officers’ egos very frequently exceed the boundaries of the law.
This attitude is at the heart of a huge proportion of all acts of Police misconduct and oppression.
A few days later, Allen duly attended Bishopsgate Police Station, required them to give him a copy of the Search Form and lodged a formal complaint. That complaint was summarily dismissed by Inspector Mackenzie (which is the knee-jerk Police reaction to most complaints).
Allen therefore turned to me for assistance, and when the City of London Police continued to maintain their denial of any wrongdoing, I instituted County Court proceedings on behalf of my client, suing the Police for false imprisonment and assault and battery on the basis that the Officers had grossly misused their Stop and Search powers under Section 1 PACE because they did not honestly or reasonably suspect that Allen was in possession of “Stolen or prohibited articles”.
I am pleased to confirm that through those Court proceedings I was able to win for Allen compensatory damages of £8,500, plus his legal costs and a letter of apology from the City of London Police in the following terms –
“The Commissioner admits liability for false imprisonment and assault and battery as set out in your Particulars of Claim.
On behalf of the Commissioner I accept that on 22 June 2022 you should not have been detained or searched by the Commissioner’s officers. The officers’ grounds for stopping and searching you were not objectively reasonable in the circumstances. I unreservedly apologise to you on behalf of the Commissioner and confirm that the officers involved will be notified of this decision. I trust that this apology will go some way to restoring your trust and confidence in the City of London Police.”
A healthy scepticism of Police authoritarianism is essential in any democratic society; indeed it is the first bulwark in the defence of our civil liberties. Police Officers who baselessly pull rank on ordinary citizens – in this case with only the shameless excuse of having been ‘looked at the wrong way’ – need to be taught a lesson in good manners, in respect for individuals’ privacy, dignity and integrity of person, and in the limits and purpose of their powers.
That the Police still won’t properly police themselves, is amply demonstrated by their mass rejection of legitimate complaints. Perhaps when the letter of apology I have quoted above comes as a prompt and heartfelt response to a person’s initial complaint, then we will know that things have really changed for the better.
Until they do, it is up to brave citizens such as Allen Norman to take on the system, and teach the Police how to be better.
Since the conclusion of his case, Allen has sadly passed away. His son has given me permission to publish this blog post, telling me that his father would have wanted this story told. I am proud to give Allen Norman the last word against overbearing and unconstitutional Police bullying.
Update
Rob Warner at Crimebodge has produced a video about Allen’s case. Watch it here:
You must be logged in to post a comment.