In order for a Police Officer to affect a summary arrest in accordance with Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which is to say an arrest which is not backed by the issue of a Court warrant, the Officer must have a suspicion that the arrestee is guilty, that is both honest and reasonable. Whilst the question of the Officers’ honesty is a subjective one, the question as to whether his belief in the suspect’s potential guilt is a reasonable one is objective i.e. the officer should be capable of justifying to a reasonable third party that his suspicion was one which was reasonably formed on the basis of available evidence.
Because a summary arrest usually takes place very early in a criminal investigation (indeed, its primary purpose is to facilitate such an investigation) the requirement for ‘reasonable suspicion’ does not mean that the Officer has to turn over every possible stone of evidence first; but it does mean that – absent an immediate emergency – basic enquiries which could easily rule in/rule out a person’s potential involvement in the offence must not be neglected, otherwise the Officer’s honest belief may well also be an unreasonable one, rendering the arrest unlawful and the person’s subsequent detention a form of false imprisonment.
There is no criminal accusation which carries with it a greater stigma than an allegation of child sexual abuse, such, however, was the nightmare situation to which my client Peter Miller awoke one Summer’s night in 2023. Peter had previously worked for a company which specialises in providing ‘outdoor education’ activities. One night he was at home in bed with his partner when he heard knocking/ringing at the door of their house, and, after going downstairs and answering the door, discovered two Police Officers were present.
Peter’s initial surprise at this midnight visit turned into shell-shock as one of the Officers informed him that he was under arrest for sexual assault. He was required to hand over his mobile phone and tablet, and then taken into Custody at the local Police Station.
The Custody Record records that the circumstances of arrest were –
“to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question: to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question…Detained Person has allegedly whilst working with children has grabbed three separate children by the genitalia.”
A hideous accusation like the one that Peter now faced can make even a person who knows themselves to be entirely innocent burn with shame and embarrassment as they are processed like a ‘perpetrator’ – searched, fingerprinted, photographed and obliged to provide a sample of their DNA – knowing that disgust is lurking behind every pair of eyes which looks upon him, even if it is disguised.
Peter spent the night in a cell, in the dark as to the substance of the accusations against him and, feeling as devasted and fearful as any of us would in that situation.
But he was not interviewed by the investigating Officers until the middle of the following afternoon, and during that process it became clear that the Officers were now concerned that they had the ‘wrong man’, although they nevertheless proceeded with the interview. Even though Peter was wholly innocent, he found the subject matter of the questions put to him and the interrogation process highly uncomfortable and upsetting.
Thankfully, not long after the conclusion of his interview Peter was advised that he was to be released, and that no further action would be taken against him.
But what had occurred to lead to this innocent man’s arrest on such heinous charges?
It transpired that approximately 12 hours prior to Peter’s arrest, a report had been made to the Police by a school, stating that a number of their pupils had made disclosures of sexual assault by an outdoor activities instructor whilst they were on a school trip. The suspect’s name was reported as ‘Pete, possible Pete Miller’. Furthermore, the school provided the name of the Company whom the suspect worked for, which I shall refer to as “Company A”.
The disclosures had apparently been made by the children during the previous evening, and it was confirmed that the children were now safe and the instructor was no longer present.
The investigating officer then made enquiries with Company A as to whether they knew a ‘Pete Miller’ and a Director of Company A confirmed that Peter Miller (my client) was indeed an instructor working for the Company. However, the investigating officer failed to make any further enquiry with the Director in order to establish whether Peter had been working the previous day on the school trip. The officer’s failure to ask this question was a glaring omission, which, in my opinion, thereafter rendered unreasonable his suspicion of my client as the offender – because if the officer had asked the Director of the Company that question he would have been informed that Peter had not been involved in the relevant school trip – and indeed, that Peter’s last work for Company A had been some two months previously.
It was only during the last few hours of my client’s detention in Custody, that the Police re-contacted the Director of Company A and established these facts, and furthermore that of the people from Company A who actually had worked on the school residential trip, one was a man whose first name was also “Peter”; this person’s full details were provided, and a subsequent arrest was made.
In response to the letter of claim which I sent on my client’s behalf, the Police accepted that it is ‘regrettable’ that their ‘inexperienced’ officer failed to take the simple step, during his first conversation with the Director of Company A, to establish whether Peter Miller had in fact been working on the school trip the previous day, the answer to which would have inevitably established my client’s innocence, as well as allowing the Police to much more swiftly close the net on the real suspect.
The Police went on to assert that they were satisfied that Peter’s arrest was both honest and reasonable. I would agree with the former, but for all the reasons set out above, strongly dispute the latter – and indeed it appears the Force itself acknowledges this, as they have recently agreed to pay my client compensation in the sum of £10,000, plus his legal costs.
I trust that this settlement will allow my client to begin to put this deeply traumatic experience behind him and that, because of this robust legal challenge, the Police will ensure that lessons are learned to better protect victims and innocent members of the public in the future, particularly in regard to such serious offences.
My client’s name has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.