I have written before about Police Officers who seem to put the thrill of playing ‘cops and robbers’ ahead of the risk to the public when performing unnecessary emergency response or pursuant driving manoeuvres at excessive speeds. Today’s case is about a claim which I have recently settled for my client Jamal, who also became the victim of a Police adrenaline-junkie pursuit which endangered members of the public and resulted in Jamal’s wrongful arrest and his assault at the hands of the Officers concerned – until his father came to the rescue with a cricket bat!
Dangerous (Police) Driving
Jamal is a young man of exemplary character who has high functioning autism and suffers with asthma.
One afternoon in the late Spring of 2020, Jamal, then aged in his mid-20s, was driving home having dropped his mother and sister off at a shopping centre local to their home in Coventry.
Whilst he was driving in an ordinary and unremarkable manner, Jamal became aware of a black Volkswagen Golf which performed a sudden 3-point turn in the road and began to follow him.
Unbeknownst to Jamal, the vehicle in question was an unmarked Police car being driven by PC Newman of West Midlands Police.
The Golf sped up so that it was directly behind Jamal’s vehicle – Jamal could see that there were two men inside the Golf (but neither was wearing Police uniform- they were both very casually dressed). Jamal was, therefore, greatly alarmed when the driver of the Golf began to flash his headlights and sound his horn. He was scared and thought that this might be some kind of road rage incident.
In response therefore, Jamal increased his own speed to get away – and was pursued in turn by the Golf.
There was nothing about the Golf motor car which would have made Jamal believe that it was a Police vehicle, or that its occupants were Police Officers and therefore he was in real fear of criminal aggression as this vehicle began to chase him. To be clear, the Golf did not have any lights, siren or other form of Police display – it was, quite literally, a deliberately ‘undercover’ vehicle.
At one point during the ‘chase’, the Officers later claimed, they had pulled up alongside Jamal and the passenger, PC Gill, had flashed his ‘warrant card’ out of the window – but Jamal denies that this happened, and, even if it did, it was during not before the pursuit began.
As Jamal approached a road junction where the traffic lights were on red, he felt that he had no choice but to breach the red light signal and cross the junction as he feared that if he stopped he may be attacked by the occupants of the Golf.
Fortunately, nothing untoward happened as Jamal ‘ran the red light’ – but he was followed in turn by the Golf, which continued to pursue him.
In a further attempt to evade his unknown pursuers, Jamal took a series of right and left turns, including a short cut across a car park before pulling up outside his own home, where he hoped he would be safe.
Jamal switched off the engine and exited his car, but as he did so, the Volkswagen Golf pulled up behind him.
Jamal walked fast towards the front gate of his house, shouting to his father for help, as a man in plain clothes, whom he now knows to be PC Newman, exited the Golf and ran towards Jamal. The Officer immediately grabbed Jamal and hauled him to the ground; in the process of falling, Jamal banged his right arm and hip against the garden wall.
His forehead then hit the ground and the sunglasses which he was wearing broke upon impact.
PC Newman now lay on top of Jamal with what felt to my client like his full body weight, and forced Jamal’s head down, such that he was struggling to breathe, and his asthma was aggravated.
Jamal was also aware of a second man present – now known to be PC Gill – who was also plain clothed and therefore unidentified as an Officer, and who was brandishing a baton in a threatening manner and shouting “Get down, stay down.”
Meanwhile, Jamal’s father, having heard a ‘bang’ and his son’s distressed calls for help, had grabbed a cricket bat from his garage and raced outside to investigate.
In front of the gates, Jamal’s father could see his son face down on the ground and two men pinning him down. One was kneeling on Jamal’s back.
Jamal’s dad understandably thought that his son was being brutally attacked by thugs and he therefore acted as any father would – he swung the cricket bat and cracked one of the attackers (PC Newman) on the shoulder.
It was only at this point that the two men identified themselves as Police Officers, and PC Newman’s partner, PC Gill, produced his warrant card. Jamal’s dad quite rightly challenged the pair as to their conduct, saying – “Look at how are you’re dressed, it looks like you’ve just come from holiday, your car is not marked, how is anyone to know that you’re police officers?”
PC Gill, attempting to defend their conduct, asserted that Jamal had “zoomed past” them at excessive speed in a “posh area” of town – but then went on to admit that he was only guessing Jamal’s speed, as he had no recording equipment.
Jamal then felt himself being handcuffed to the rear and he was pulled to his feet. He was aware of neighbours in the street watching, and even as fear began to recede it was replaced by a sense of shame and embarrassment, given that his neighbours were witnessing him being manhandled as if he were a criminal.
PC Newman then took Jamal to the Golf, where he was made to sit in the rear passenger seat.
PC Newman accused Jamal of “Driving like a maniac”, although everything Jamal had done had been provoked by the Officers’ unnecessary pursuit of him.
After some time had passed, PC Gill returned to the car, removed Jamal’s handcuffs and he was allowed to exit the vehicle.
Although Jamal naturally felt that he was ‘under arrest’ the fact is that he was not under any form of lawful detention at all – as neither PC Newman nor his partner had arrested Jamal on suspicion of any offence and nor had they invoked any of their stop and search powers. This was, quite literally, an unexplained, unjustified and unlawful assault and captivity of my client.
Without any further attempt at explanation the two Officers then departed the scene. In total, Jamal had been detained by them for approximately 20-25 minutes.
By reason of this incident, Jamal had suffered cuts and bruises to his face, both legs, his hips, both shoulders and his right elbow. He had also suffered cuts and bruising to both of his wrists from the unnecessary application of handcuffs.
Jamal subsequently attended Coventry Central Police Station with his mother and father to make a complaint regarding the Officers’ conduct.
The Police response to the complaint contained the standard bureaucratic wind-baggery and this particularly patronising and offensive remark (apparently alluding to Jamal’s autism)-
“You were verbally warned concerning your behaviour behind the wheel and advice was given to your father as to whether you should be behind the wheel of a two ton vehicle if you struggle to understand what to do when Police require you to stop”
As is par for the course, this ‘internal investigation’ process rejected my client’s complaint with the usual passive- aggressive jargon phrase “The service provided by the Police was acceptable”.
That response was not acceptable to me or my client however, and I was happy to pursue a claim on Jamal’s behalf against the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, instituting Court proceedings when our initial attempt to settle out of Court was rejected.
Defensive Manoeuvres
In response to the claim, West Midlands Police said that this particular ‘Crockett & Tubbs” were deployed on a pre-planned ‘undercover’ operation to apprehend drug dealers. They were said to be simply ‘on the look-out for suspicious activity’ as they did not have any “specific descriptions” of the suspects or their vehicles.
I have written only recently about how such a vague ‘mission’ as patrolling for drug- dealing with no specific targets in an urban area can lead to bored officers abusing their powers: as they say, the devil makes work for idle (Police) hands…
The Officers admitted that all they had seen my client do ‘wrong’ was drive past them at what they felt was an excessive speed – and attempted to extrapolate from this a suspicion that Jamal might be a drug dealer and therefore needed to be made the subject of a high-speed pursuit and violent detention, utilising their powers under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
PC Gill asserted that because Jamal had been ‘driving dangerously’ then he was suspected of being involved in the illegal supply and distribution of drugs. Notably, however, at no point were Jamal or his vehicle searched for any ‘drugs’, strongly suggesting, in my opinion, that this was a post-facto explanation by the Officers for what they had done almost on impulse. Often the Police will act out of an urge to exert power and only later stop and think about whether they actually had any legal powers to do so, dressing up their actions with the closest excuse they have to hand.
It was therefore claimed that the Officers had lawfully detained Jamal pursuant to Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, notwithstanding the fact that even on their own account the Officers admitted that they had failed to give my client the legal information and explanation which is required in a stop and search, and which is known by the acronym of “GOWISELY”.
To put it simply, the two Officers appear to have randomly fastened their attention on to my client – possibly because of his age/ethnicity profile – and thereafter failed to show any appreciation or regard for the fact that my client’s ‘suspicious’ attempt to evade them thereafter was almost certainly and most obviously motivated by the fact that he did not know they were Police Officers, rather than vice versa, given that they were, specifically, on an ‘undercover’ patrol.
In any event, a person’s reaction after they become aware that the Police are interested in them cannot retrospectively justify an absence of reasonable suspicion in the first place.
Yet further, I would challenge any basis on which the Officers argued that any suspicion of such an offence justified a car chase which could have endangered not only their own lives and that of my client, but also that of innocent members of the public: all for nothing.
The End of the Road
I have recently settled Jamal’s claim, not long before it was due to go to Trial, with West Midlands Police agreeing to pay my client £10,000 plus his legal costs.
The Police’s denial of liability was maintained – but I think the facts of the settlement speak for themselves.
There was simply no justification for the Police to have initiated – and then maintained a high-speed pursuit of my client in circumstances where, once they had actually laid hands upon him, they apparently didn’t know what to do with him. Jamal suffered brutal injuries at the hands of the Officers but everyone concerned, including members of the public, could have been even more seriously injured had other vehicles been caught up in the ‘chase’.
Police pursuits must be a matter of the upmost importance and last resort – and here this was never the case.
I am very pleased to give the last word in this blog to my client’s mother, who posted this kind review following our victory –
“When looking online for a solicitor to take action against the police, it was daunting enough. However, Iain stood out with his wealth of experience in achieving impressive results across different police forces. My son, who is a vulnerable adult with high-functioning autism, was involved in a car chase with West Midlands undercover police officers who thought he was “acting suspiciously.” This ended with them using excessive force, wrongly arresting, and detaining him.
From the outset, I felt that Iain showed compassion as well as professionalism in always having my son’s best interests in mind. His communication was clear, concise, and prompt, making my son feel supported and informed throughout the entire process. His attention to detail and commitment ensured that every aspect of the case was meticulously handled.
Thanks to Iain’s hard work, my son achieved a positive outcome and settlement. I would absolutely recommend Iain to anyone needing legal representation in a police case. Five stars well deserved!”
My client’s name has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.