Last year I blogged about the case of my client Charles, a student and promising college athlete, who had been assaulted and then wrongfully arrested by PC Holt of Greater Manchester Police. The Officer was, at the end of a protracted disciplinary process, dismissed for gross misconduct.
I am now pleased to report that Charles’ 4-year battle for justice has been completed with GMP agreeing to pay him damages in the sum of £47,500, plus his legal costs.
Charles’ story
My client is a tall, black man, and keen sportsman. He and his family settled in the UK when he was a teenager.
One evening in July 2020, Charles, then aged 19, went to a pub in Manchester with his girlfriend in order to meet some of his girlfriend’s family for the first time.
After a few hours, Charles and his girlfriend left the pub so as to have some time together. Charles and his girlfriend returned to the pub sometime later and discovered that there had been a disturbance outside. Charles saw an old school friend of his who had apparently been splattered with mud; he therefore decided to go into the pub so as to get a glass to help his friend clean herself with water.
Inside the pub, Charles picked up a glass from a table and began to make his way to the exit. However, as he reached the exit, a Police Officer whom he now knows to be PC Rosalind Holt, approached him from behind and, without warning, seized hold of his right arm.
Charles was affronted at being grabbed hold of without warning and protested about this, in his annoyance calling the Officer a ‘midget’ and told her to release her grip.
The next thing Charles knew, was a burning sensation in his eyes, across his face and down his throat and he found his vision was blurred and he was struggling to breath properly.
He now knows that PC Holt had peremptorily sprayed him with CS Gas.
However, what happened next proves the old adage about how insult can be worse than injury – because PC Holt now informed a second Officer, PC Fenton, that Charles had ‘gone at her’ with a glass. This was an entirely false accusation but, naturally, PC Fenton now sought to physically restrain Charles and Charles was CS gassed a second time in the face, causing him further pain and discomfort.
At the time that he was first sprayed, Charles had his arms down by his side; at no stage had he attempted to assault PC Holt and the glass he was holding had already been surrendered without a struggle.
Charles was now taken outside the pub by PC Fenton. It was raining heavily and Charles felt himself being slammed up against a hard surface and handcuffed to the rear.
He was then placed in the rear ‘cage’ section of a Police van where he began to experience a panic attack. The Police did at least allow Charles’ girlfriend to sit with him at this point, to provide him with some comfort.
However, matters took a further turn for the worse, when, approximately 20 minutes later, PC Holt, informed Charles that he was under arrest for the offence of affray.
In a state of shock, Charles was then transported to North Manchester Custody Suite, where it was recorded that he had been arrested because he was “alleged to have run at Officers brandishing a bottle after a disturbance in the pub”.
Charles was taken to a cell. The escorting Detention Officer referred to the fact that he ‘stank’ (presumably from the gas spray) and he was provided with replacement custody clothing which proved to be ill- fitting. This was a yet further humiliation in the degrading process of being made a ‘criminal suspect.’
It was further recorded in the Custody Record that “Officer has attended incident and DP [Detained Person] has come towards him [sic] with bottle putting Officer in immediate fear of violence”.
After spending a physically painful and emotionally tormenting night in the cell, the following morning Charles was taken for interview, and the result of that interview was summarised in the Custody Record as follows – “Denies offences; says he was holding a glass as it had water in and he was going to help a friend who was covered in mud. When a female Officer grabbed him he didn’t know it was an Officer at first. Says he handed over glass when asked and was sprayed for no reason”.
Having then being released from Custody, the following day Charles attended hospital for treatment of the injuries he had received at the hands of the Police Officers. These included injuries to his left eye and a blistering rash around his left ear and on the left side of his neck. The skin which had been ‘burned’ in this manner, later peeled off unpleasantly, and Charles suffered from eczema in this area. He also had to repeatedly attend his GP for antibiotics and eyedrops.
The social and emotional impact
The stink of a gas spray is unpleasant, but does dissipate within a matter of hours – unfortunately, the stigma of being arrested by the Police can last a lot longer. When Charles first returned home after the incident and had to tell his parents that he had been arrested, they were deeply upset, thinking he had brought shame upon himself and his family. Charles was, of course, in reality entirely innocent – but his efforts to protest his innocence caused pain to his parents, who thought he was lying to them. They had faith and respect in the Police and thought there must have been a legitimate reason why Charles had been arrested.
Indeed, within a few days of the incident, two Police Officers came to see Charles at his home, which caused further distress to his parents.
Charles experienced significant difficulties in his relationship with his parents after the incident, and frequently argued with them trying to prove his innocence. His parents, along with other family members and friends, seemed greatly disappointed in him and apparently suspected that he would not have been arrested if he had not done anything wrong.
Charles became socially withdrawn after the incident feeling, with good cause, that people were now looking at him differently.
Professional Standards?
As I reported in my previous blog, an investigation was subsequently commenced by Greater Manchester Police’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) into PC Holt’s conduct.
The investigation finally concluded over a year later, in October 2021, with PSD notifying Charles that whilst it considered PC Holt had a ‘case to answer’ for breaches of the standards of Honesty and Integrity and for Discreditable Conduct (and should face a Misconduct Hearing) there was no case for her to answer in regard to either the use of excessive force or discrimination.
My client did not agree with these findings – feeling both that he had been targeted because he was black, and that PC Holt should also face disciplinary charges over her gas-spray attack upon him – and so requested the PSD Report so that he could appeal the same. Naturally, Charles could not lodge a meaningful appeal in the absence of PSD’s evidential findings and reasoning.
Perversely PSD stated that although Charles could appeal the report’s conclusions, he would not be given a copy of it until after the conclusion of the Misconduct Hearing.
Charles was therefore obliged, with my assistance, to appeal to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) on the grounds that he could not make a meaningful or informed appeal without a copy of the very document which was being appealed. Despite the IOPC agreeing with this and recommending that GMP either release the whole report, or at least sufficient excerpts from it to allow Charles to understand their decision-making, GMP continued to refuse to do so and it was necessary for us to raise a further appeal to the IOPC.
This time, the IOPC directed that the Misconduct Hearing must consider PC Holt’s Use of Force and the issue of Discrimination, as well as her Honesty and Conduct.
The Misconduct Hearing took place in July 2023. After hearing all of the evidence, including Charles’s own testimony and viewing the body camera footage of the incident (which neither Charles nor I had been allowed to see in advance) the Legally Qualified Chair found that PC Holt’s use of CS Gas spray against Charles was “excessive, not proportionate, legal or necessary”.
In finding that PC Holt was no longer of suitable character to be a Police Officer, the Panel criticised not only her aggression but also her honesty – describing the version of events that she presented to other Officers as “Untrue, exaggerated and embellished” and in particular the false allegation PC Holt repeatedly made, that my client had attempted to attack her with a glass or bottle.
The Panel found that having viewed her own body worn video footage of the incident, and having completed her post-arrest witness statement and Use of Force Form – in which she significantly changed her account by omitting any reference to Charles trying to attack her (or threaten her with a weapon) – PC Holt was “duty bound” to ensure the Custody Officer was aware of the true circumstances of Charles’ arrest, but failed to do so, and as a result Charles had remained in Police custody for another 12 hours thereafter.
The five-day Disciplinary Hearing concluded that PC Holt’s actions had breached the professional standards of honesty and integrity at a gross misconduct level, and she was dismissed for breaches of the professional standards in regard to use of force, honesty and integrity and discreditable conduct, with her name being placed on the College of Policing Barred List.
The Electronic Stigma of Arrest
Any type of unlawful arrest is a multi-layered attack on a person’s integrity.
Firstly, there is the ‘skin deep’ level of attack – in terms of the violence used, which in Charles’ case included CS gas spray and handcuffing, leaving him with bruises and blisters, blurred vision and the ‘stink’ of the gas.
Secondly, there is the emotional/psychological damage that is caused to a person’s self esteem, mental health and their relationships with others – as typified by the difficulties which Charles experienced in getting his family to believe him. Even when you know yourself to be innocent, it can be deeply uncomfortable walking around feeling the judgment of others upon you, who not only suspect that you are guilty of violence in the first place, but that you have ‘doubled down’ on this by committing the far worse offence of lying to your loved ones about it.
Then, there is a third layer of harm, namely the damage caused to a person’s ‘electronic reputation’, which is so crucial in this modern world of online bureaucracy in which the records associated with us in the ‘datasphere’ can have very significant implications on our lives in the real world, in terms of education and employment opportunities and, in particular Charles’ case, immigration and citizenship status.
As noted above, although Charles had come to the UK as a young teenager and now considered this country his home, he had been born outside the UK and had therefore had to submit an application for leave to remain under the post-Brexit EU Settlement Scheme. In August 2020, Charles had been informed that he had been granted “limited leave” to remain the UK.
In May 2021, Charles submitted a further Application for extended leave, but in response was informed that his application could not be progressed given that he was “The subject of an ongoing Police investigation or a prosecution in relation to AFFRAY”.
This was understandably very disturbing to Charles, given that, as far as he was aware, it was by now not he but PC Holt who was under investigation for this incident. Charles made urgent contact with GMP who admitted that his Police National Computer (PNC) Record still (incorrectly) indicated that he was “under investigation” for the incident, instead of recording the correct status i.e. that Charles was facing “no further action”.
Charles was informed that an Inspector would look into how and why this data breach had occurred – but as far as Charles was concerned, the damage had already been done.
The effect of such ‘electronic branding’ of a person’s records in law enforcement databases is never one which can be taken lightly.
Aggravated Damages
The most significant features of the case from my client’s point of view were the extent to which his good character had been besmirched, the thought that PC Holt had targeted him and used force so quickly simply because of the colour of his skin, and the extent to which all of this was compounded by PC Holt’s dishonesty – and the false and misleading statements which she failed to retract all of the way to the Misconduct Hearing, which Charles himself had to attend as a key witness and where he suffered the stress of hostile cross- examination from PC Holt’s barrister.
Although the consequences of PC Holt’s dishonesty ultimately caught up with her, and she lost her job, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the accusations she had originally levelled at Charles could have led to him facing prosecution, a criminal conviction and even a custodial sentence.
Both Charles and I agree that these aggravating elements of the case are sufficiently reflected in the settlement damages of £47,500 which have now been agreed for him, and I am pleased to confirm that Charles has already started to put these events behind him and move on with his life, and in particular his sporting career. The level of the settlement achieved has also helped vindicate Charles’ innocence in the eyes of his family.
At the conclusion of the case, Charles posted this kind review about me –
“I was wrongfully arrested, CS gas sprayed and put in custody for no reasons, accused of something I haven’t done, Iain supported me in this case for more than 3 years and always kept me up to date timely, was patient in answering all my questions, and explained each process perfectly, Iain work ethic is to be praised and I highly recommend him, great lawyer and great person.”
In response, I can wholeheartedly say to Charles, that it was a pleasure to be on his team; and this is a match I am particularly proud to have played, and won, alongside him.
My client’s name has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.