Ferried across the Mersey: an unlawful arrest at Liverpool Port

I have written on numerous previous occasions about the many unfortunate incidents of wrongful arrest which occur at Airports; but in this high season of holiday travel I thought it was also appropriate to shine the spotlight on a recent case of mine which involved a wrongful arrest at the second busiest nexus for international travel – our Sea Ports.

My client Gerry travelled from Belfast to the UK via the Port of Birkenhead on Merseyside.  On disembarking from the boat at Birkenhead at approximately 7am, Gerry was handcuffed and arrested by the Port of Liverpool Police for an alleged offence of theft.

The Port of Liverpool Police are a small, non- Home Office Police Force, not dissimilar to Mersey Tunnels Police, with a geographically limited jurisdiction. They have responsibility for dock estates and port areas on Merseyside and are governed by the Mersey Docks & Harbour (Police) Order 1975.

Gerry was then conveyed to Wirral Custody Suite where the circumstances of his arrest were entered in the Custody Record as follows –

THEFT – AO [Arresting Officer] IS PRTS [Port of Liverpool] POLICE OFFICER AND RECIEVES INFO DP [Detained Person] IS WANTED AND ON A STENNA LINE FERRY FROM BELFAST TO TWELVE QUAYS, BIRKENHEAD. AO DETAINS DP AT THE PORT, PNC CHECK RECEALS DP WANTED BY ESSEX POLICE SUS THEFT X 5 FROM 16/6/23 WHERE HE ALLEGEDLY HAS STOLEN NUMEROUS ITEMS TO THE VALUE OF £4,000 FROM NUMEROUS COMMERCIAL PREMISES.

Gerry was searched, had his photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken and was incarcerated in a cell all day, until, at approximately 6.40pm that evening Officers from Essex Police arrived and Gerry was transferred into their Custody and conveyed to Grays Police Station in Essex. 

There, after a long journey across the country, Gerry spent an uncomfortable night in the cell before being taken for interview, where it finally became clear to the Police that they had the right name – but the wrong man. 

The person whom the Police were actually after was a serial shoplifter who had also recently committed a ‘dine and dash’ offence at a restaurant.  As soon as the details of these offences were explained to Gerry in interview, he asserted his total innocence telling the interviewing Officer “I’m guessing you’ve loads of CCTV and we can fast forward this if you just get it up, shot of the CCTV and you look at me, I was not at any of those places.  I really wasn’t”.

Once a selection of the CCTV clips of the suspect in various locations had been played, Gerry was able to turn the tables on his interviewer by posing the simple question –  “Does that dude look like me?” – to which the answer was a resounding ‘no’.

Gerry further commented “If you look at my face and then you look at him – you tell me why I was here for the last 27 hours.  …if I don’t laugh I’ll be more angry”.

Following Gerry’s interview, the Police evidential review confirmed that the suspect in the CCTV footage and Gerry were of distinctly different builds, with different colour hair and that even if Gerry’s name matched that of the suspect, his date of birth did not. 

Shortly thereafter, Gerry was ‘refused charge’ and released from Custody. He had, in total, been deprived of his liberty for a period of approximately 30 hours.

Gerry had passed through the Custody of no less than three different Police Forces – firstly arrested by the Port of Liverpool Police Officer, who had then transported him to a Merseyside Police Station (the Port Police lacking any such facilities themselves) and thereafter being handed over to Essex Police for the continuation of his un-magical mystery tour…

As has happened all too often before, it ultimately transpired that Gerry’s details on the Police National Computer System had become confused with the details of another person by the same name – a mistake for which Essex Police accepted liability in this case.  As ever, the most common location where such ‘human errors’ cause the wrongful arrest of innocent individuals are the termini of international travel – our air and sea ports.

I am pleased to confirm that Gerry’s case has now been settled, not only for a payment of a five- figure sum of damages, plus legal costs, but also a formal apology for the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

My client’s name has been changed.