This week’s blog post concerns another case of mistaken identity leading to a wrongful arrest – mistakes which could easily have been avoided by the Police, and hence which left them liable to compensate my client.
Late one evening in January 2024, multiple officers from Merseyside Police attended at the home of my client Andy and advised him that he was under arrest for an assault that had occurred over 4 weeks earlier in Liverpool City Centre.
Andy honestly denied any knowledge of the incident, and explained that on the alleged date/ time he had been sick and in bed.
The Officers now produced 3 blurry images of the suspect, apparently taken from CCTV footage. On looking at them, Andy correctly asserted that he bore little resemblance to the person depicted. The Officers replied that the images of the suspect had been “circulated on Social Media” (it is understood that they were also published in local newspapers) and that in response several people had identified Andy as the suspect.
Officers now began to search Andy’s house for items of clothing, said to be connected with the crime. Andy resided here with his partner and young children, and, indeed, it was his daughter’s birthday the next day. It was deeply distressing for all of them for the family home to be ‘invaded’ in this way, and especially for Andy’s children to see their father being taken into Police custody. One of the most poignant things about this was that Andy had been putting up decorations to delight his daughter the next morning – rudely awoken by the stomping of the officers, her birthday surprise was ruined and replaced with a nightmarish scene.
Andy was transported to Birkenhead Custody Unit, where the circumstances of his arrest were entered in the Custody Record as follows-
“Section 20 assault – DP [Detained Person] punched a male in the jaw causing it to break. He has been identified following CCTV media release and by a witness.”
The arrest necessity reasons were specified as to “allow the prompt and effective investigation” of the offence and to “prevent person causing physical injury.”
On arrival, Andy was processed and placed in a cell, where he spent a dark and depressing night notwithstanding the fact that he knew himself to be innocent. Waking up in Police custody wasn’t the way he was meant to be celebrating his daughter’s birthday.
The next morning, Andy was taken for interview. During the interview, the CCTV footage was played, whereupon the interviewing Officer, looking from the footage to Andy and back, immediately confirmed: “That’s not you”.
Andy was returned to his cell for a short period of time, before being brought before the Custody Sergeant and released. It was quite apparent that he was not the man in the photographs.
As well as the impact which this had on his family life, Andy, who is self- employed, also missed out on a day’s work and hence wages.
Following receipt of instructions from Andy, I carefully considered the evidence, assessed the impact which this incident had had upon his mental health, and a detailed letter of claim was prepared and presented to Merseyside Police, seeking damages for wrongful arrest.
Following investigation, Merseyside Police denied liability. They asserted that Andy had been reasonably identified as the suspect after the images had been circulated in the media, and calls had been made to “Crimestoppers” naming Andy on the basis of these images.
Notwithstanding the Police’s denial of liability, I still considered that Andy had good prospects of success. It was true that he had been named, apparently by way of honest mistakes made by members of the public who had seen the images in the media – but it was also true that the Police were in possession of an image which, when compared to Andy ‘in the flesh’ made it instantly obvious that he wasn’t the “wanted man.”
This could all have been cleared up so much more quickly – and quite probably without any need for Andy to come in to Police custody at all. Remember that all summary arrests (i.e arrests based on ‘in-house’ Police decision making, rather than the authority of a Court warrant) must be based not just on a “reasonable suspicion” that the person has committed an offence, but also a real “necessity” that requires the person be arrested, rather than the investigation being conducted in another manner. Arrest is supposed to be a tool of investigation or public protection, to be used only when essential, not an end to itself, or a form of ‘interim punishment’ for a suspected offence.
The necessity criteria are set out in Section 24 (5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and you can read one of my previous blogs on this subject here.
In this case, the alleged assault had occurred over a month earlier, and evidence of it had been captured on CCTV. Even if Andy had been the “wanted man” it would arguably have been unnecessary to arrest him, rather than invite him to attend a Police ‘voluntary interview’. There was certainly no need to arrest the suspect to ‘prevent injury’ and the length of time which had gone by hardly meets the definition of ‘prompt.’
The Police evidently had a similar mindset, conscious of the risks they would face in taking their liability denial before the civil courts, and I was shortly afterwards able to bring Andy’s claim to a successful conclusion, with the Chief Constable agreeing to pay him £8,000 damages plus his legal costs.
The power of arrest – taking away a man’s liberty – taking him away from his home and family – must not be used carelessly or disproportionately: for now, at least, it seems, Merseyside Police have got the picture.
My client’s name has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.