Only last month, news headlines were made by the case of the athletes Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos, proteges of former Olympic champion Linford Christie, when two of the Metropolitan Police Officers who had subjected them to a stop and search were sacked for lying about having smelt cannabis (as an apparent excuse to justify the search of this black couple).
I have blogged before about how frequently the ‘phantom smell’ of cannabis is used by Officers to justify a stop and search where other grounds are weak or absent – or the ‘ground’ is in fact a racial one which the officers can’t admit.
A very similar experience also befell my client Zac Sharif-Ali, a black man of Somalian heritage, at the hands of Metropolitan Police in 2020, as I will address in this week’s blog post.
One afternoon in May 2020, Zac drove to his local Sainsbury’s Store and parked on a nearby road.
Having visited the store, as Zac was on his way back to his car, he noticed a man and woman following and staring at him; he thought they might be ‘security guards’ from their fairly informal uniforms. Zac now knows that the pair were Metropolitan Police Officers, and that the woman was PC Rowbotham and the man was PC Ngo.
Zac opened the driver’s door of his car and got in. He turned on the car engine and wound the window down. He was then in the process of putting on his seatbelt when PC Rowbotham and PC Ngo crossed the road and approached him. Zac asked them “What are you looking at, is it because I’m a black person in a car?” PC Rowbotham said in response, “No one’s brought that up, I don’t appreciate” . Zac challenged her – “Why you looking at me then?”.
As regular readers of this blog might recall, this was not Zac’s first experience of Met Police abuse of power – far from it – and it is quite understandable that he was immediately on edge.
PC Rowbotham, still eating a mouthful of her lunchtime sandwich, asked Zac to switch off his engine and to get out of his vehicle “for a chat.”
In view of his previous experience with the Met, Zac started recording on his phone (a sensible precaution) and was reluctant to leave his vehicle, telling the Officers “I ain’t getting out of no car for you for no apparent reason.”
PC Rowbotham then cited Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act, asserting that as Zac was ‘in control’ of a motor vehicle, and his engine was on, she wanted to carry out a vehicle check and obtain the Claimant’s name to ensure that he was licenced/ insured.
In fact that was a manipulation of that power, as the relevant section of the Act relates to the power of constables to require individuals who are driving vehicles to stop and produce their documents – and Zac was not driving; the Officers had followed and watched as he got into his car, and it had not yet moved, albeit Zac had turned the engine on.
Zac then saw an unmarked Police car abruptly pull up immediately in front of him, driven by a second male Officer, now known to be PS Rees. It appeared as though ‘London’s Finest’ were gathering in force for this speculative stop and search on a black man in his car.
Zac now reluctantly decided to do as he had been asked so as to end this Police harassment, confident that all their checks would establish that he was qualified to drive, he was insured and that his vehicle was roadworthy. Accordingly, he advised that he would get out of his vehicle and turned off the engine, undid his seatbelt and wound up the driver’s window.
PC Rowbotham now opened the driver’s door and Zac stepped out of the car and shut the door behind him. He was completely obeying the Officers instructions, but nevertheless PC Rowbotham immediately took hold of Zac’s arms and advised him that he was now detained for a search under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, whilst PC Ngo also took hold of the Claimant’s left arm. Zac protested in vain, “Wait! Don’t touch me.”
PC Rowbotham had given no prior indication or warning or justification of a drugs search. She did not confirm her name, badge number or Police Station to which she was attached. All of this was a violation of CODE A of PACE and rendered the search and its accompanying use of force immediately unlawful (See my blog post on GOWISELY for more background to the rules and requirements of a street search by Police Officers – the rules they are supposed to obey, but frequently don’t).
When I later reviewed the video evidence of this incident, it seemed to me as though the Officer had cited the Road Traffic Act merely as a ‘decoy’ to get Zac to step out of his car so that the Officers could lay hands upon him, for the purposes of a ‘groundless’ search. This in itself was a gross misuse of power, and what happened next was far worse.
PC Ngo now produced his handcuffs and chained Zac’s left wrist. PC Rowbotham told Zac to put his other arm behind his back. Although Zac was not resisting or fighting back in any way, despite his moral outrage at what was being done to him, at this point, PS Rees rushed over, grabbed Zac’s upper arms, span him around and forced him up against the side of his car whilst his colleagues simultaneously forced Zac’s arms up behind his back. As this was happening, PS Rees leant on Zac’s back with his whole body weight, pressing Zac against the car, and with his left hand aggressively gripped Zac’s jacket hood, pulling it tight around his neck (and restricting Zac’s breathing). He then forced Zac’s head into contact with the roof of the car.
At this time, PC Ngo also seized Zac’s mobile phone, as Officers always like to be in control of all recording devices in the vicinity, if they can help it.
PS Rees then stated that Zac was “detained” and in a menacing tone told Zac that he better do as he was told, otherwise he would “have a problem”.
Zac was now handcuffed to the rear, in the full view of this public street. The handcuffs were applied tightly and caused him immediate pain and discomfort. Zac was still offering no resistance, but PS Rees nevertheless ordered him to “comply” and stated that if he did not ‘comply’ he would be “done for assaulting Police Officers.”
PC Rowbotham now announced –
“As I’ve explained, it’s under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. My name is PC Rowbotham and I’m attached to Larkhill Police Station. You’re entitled to a copy of the stop and search form. You get that emailed in 3 months from the Police Station. I’m going to be searching for drugs on the basis that I can smell Cannabis coming from yourself and your vehicle.”
There was in fact no smell of cannabis emanating from either Zac or his car. Zac does not smoke cannabis and no one else had access to the car.
A black man who had innocuously visited his local Sainsbury’s to purchase some salad cream for a sandwich, was now being targeted as if he were a drug-dealer.
PC Rowbotham asked Zac if he was happy with a female conducting the search. He quite honestly replied “No, I’m not happy with any of you searching me.” – to which the Officer responded, “Well, you’re getting searched aren’t you.”
Zac was now led on to the pavement, where PC Rowbotham began to search him, whilst PC Ngo restrained him by holding both the handcuffs and Zac’s arm. Zac protested about the Officers taking his phone and remonstrated as to the strange change in circumstances, i.e. that he had allegedly been stopped for a vehicle check, but was now being searched for drugs.
PC Rowbotham’s search continued which Zac found humiliating and degrading. During the course of the search, PC Rowbotham touched Zac’s genitals and buttocks, through his clothing. The Officers also searched his personal belongings.
PC Rowbotham again asserted that there was “a smell of Cannabis” coming from Zac’s car and that Zac’s demeanour when getting out of his car was not “a normal person’s demeanour” in that Zac was “confrontational”, and that as such PC Rowbotham believed Zac was going to “make off” which “is usually the response of somebody that has drugs secreted on themselves……”.
I would say that it was in fact a perfectly normal demeanour, and one Officers must regularly encounter, from an innocent person who knows he is being unfairly targeted by the Police – especially if he has prior experience of being brutalised at the hands of a Met Officer in very similar circumstances and reasons to suspect that he is being viewed as a criminal simply because of his skin colour. PC Rowbotham’s justification was therefore either hopelessly naïve or simply untrue.
PS Rees and PC Rowbotham then began to search Zac’s car and as they did so, Zac was left standing with PC Ngo, who tightened the handcuffs and gripped Zac’s arms in an unnatural position, alleging that this was due to Zac’s “aggression” – despite the fact that Zac had not raised either his voice or a finger against the Officers.
The search of both Zac’s person and his vehicle was, of course, negative.
PS Rees now approached Zac and asked whether they were “In a different place now where we can have an adult conversation?” Although Zac agreed, the Officer kept him in handcuffs whilst PC Rowbotham continued her checks.
After 20 minutes, PC Rowbotham finally removed Zac’s handcuffs; he was immediately aware of swelling and marks on both of his wrists.
Zac complained that he had been stopped because he was a young black male and that this was a common occurrence.
Sticking to her script, PC Rowbotham replied, “There was a smell of Cannabis coming from you straight away, but as soon as I approached the vehicle I could smell remnants on the floor.” Zac replied, “Would you like to show me the remnants?” PC Rowbotham agreed, and Zac and the Officers went over to the car.
PS Rees now pointed out on the driver’s seat what he said “Looked like …… tobacco with a green tinge to it, (and which) could be flakes of Cannabis.” There were no ‘flakes’ and Zac replied, “Are you talking about the dust here?”
Zac disputed that he smoked Cannabis or allowed anyone else to smoke Cannabis in his vehicle, and told the Officers, “You didn’t smell Cannabis.”
Zac was now issued with a Stop Form. The Stop Form records as follows –
“Male in a known drug dealing hotspot. He shouted “You’re not stopping me”. He was extremely aggressive his hands and voice were physically shaking. On his approach to the vehicle he continuously looked over his shoulder. The vehicle smelt VERY STRONGLY of cannabis. As he got out of the vehicle SMELL got STRONGER. He slammed door shut as he got out of the vehicle”.
When I presented Zac’s claim to them, the Met Police purported to stand by their Officers’ conduct and denied any liability. They changed their tune after Court proceedings were commenced, however, albeit still without any admission of liability or apology, and have recently agreed to settle Zac’s claim for £7,500 damages plus legal costs; an acceptable settlement for 20 minutes detention and an indication that behind the scenes the Met might not be as trusting of its Officers’ sense of smell – or should that be sense of honour? – as it implies it is.
This is only one of very many examples of the same scenario which I have seen played out on the streets of our cities over my long career – now often in the glorious technicolour of body camera and mobile phone recordings. The Police maintain they can smell cannabis, absent any other proper basis for conducting a search and also, as it turns out, absent any cannabis once the search is completed; and more often than not, the skin colour of the person targeted is not white. In response to a claim or complaint the Force will ‘robustly’ defend the integrity of its officers and the alleged legitimacy of the search, such that those officers face no consequences themselves – but will nevertheless pay out substantial damages to avoid the case coming before the scrutiny of the Court, once legal proceedings are underway, as happened here.
Reflecting on the ubiquity of this form of abuse of power by Police Officers – unlawful stop and searches whose only justification is invisible but allegedly pungent cannabis – and the rarity of any disciplinary action being taken against the Officers involved, I am inclined to think that the Officers in the Williams/ Dos Santos case were punished for their crimes against celebrity more than anything else. When the media are not watching – i.e in the vast majority of cases – neither Professional Standards Departments nor the IOPC show any real interest in interrogating Officers behaviour despite the amount of times the ‘smell’ is claimed, but the alleged cannabis is nowhere to be found.
In this respect, the Officers who stopped Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were somewhat unlucky – because they were just doing what was ‘business as usual’ for many Police Officers; however, they picked on the wrong people.
What I would like to see following on from this, is a culture change amongst the Police that benefits everyone, not just those in the public eye, who have the privilege of disproportionate media interest in their case.
The same dignity and protection from Police abuse of power should be accorded to all those who do not have the aura of celebrity to protect them, and all Officers who violate the law in cheap, lazy and cynical ways should be punished accordingly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.