The fact that the launch of a new iPhone is a major event in the news calendar, is a reflection of the ubiquitous importance of this technology in our modern lives. These personal computing devices are far from being merely phones; they are wallets, calendars, photograph albums, record collections, newspapers, letterboxes and social spaces for family and friends, as well as giving us ‘the internet in the palm of our hands’, and their loss or destruction is therefore not something which can be shrugged off lightly, particularly when that loss or destruction was as a result of a vindictive act of violence.
In September 2022 my client Mark was arrested at his home address by a pair of Hampshire Police Officers, including PC Cruden, on suspicion of drunk and disorderly behaviour. He was then placed into the back of a Police van.
Having secured our client in the van, the Officers returned to Mark’s front door, where he had left his mobile phone on the porch step.
PC Cruden picked up Mark’s phone and then, quite deliberately, smashed it whilst his colleague looked on passively. Suddenly, however, the second Officer noticed what neither of the pair had seen before; my client’s home security camera gazing down upon them like the eye of a non-too benevolent deity, inculcating in both of them a perfectly imaginable feeling which PC Cruden articulated as –
“Oh fuck…”
Mark remained in the dark about what had happened until, having been dealt with in Police Custody he was allowed to return home, where he discovered his irreparably broken phone. On then viewing his home CCTV footage he identified PC Cruden as the culprit.
My client was quite rightly outraged by what had happened, and instituted a complaint against the Officer. On this occasion, I am pleased to confirm that the wheels of justice in the Police Complaint system moved relatively rapidly in the right direction – no doubt greased, of course, by the incontrovertible ‘candid camera’ evidence. Following investigation, Hampshire Professional Standards Department (PSD) recommended that PC Cruden face a gross misconduct hearing. That hearing took place in March 2024 and PC Cruden, found guilty of gross misconduct, was dismissed without notice.
I then pursued a claim for compensation on behalf of Mark for this malicious act of trespass to goods which had been committed against him.
Because this was not a case of wrongful arrest, or of assault upon a person, it might have been expected that the damages which Hampshire Constabulary would pay, would be confined to the value of a replacement phone. However, to my mind, there were far more important points of principle at stake here, and the level of damages had to properly reflect PC Cruden’s callous abuse of power and the aggravation which it caused to Mark’s feelings. My client’s phone was of significant importance to him, not least because it contained evidence regarding homophobic abuse which he had suffered from his neighbour, photographs of his recently deceased dog and details of various passwords for bank accounts.
PC Cruden’s destruction of Mark’s phone – including all of the data which it contained, which was of legal, emotional and personal significance, for the reasons outlined above – was premeditated, vindictive and nakedly malicious. The Officer’s actions were all the more sinister given that both PC Cruden and his colleague would have surely concealed them, were it not for the fact that the pair were ‘caught on camera’. We are all left to reflect that in such circumstances, if there were no CCTV footage, then PC Cruden would probably have avoided accountability. Yet further, although PC Cruden was dismissed from the Police Service, he was not prosecuted for criminal damage – which it is likely an ordinary citizen in the same circumstances would have been.
PC Cruden’s actions did not only cause Mark inconvenience, loss of data and loss of an item of property – they constituted a gratuitous, sinister and oppressive act of vandalism against my client’s private life. As I have said, a person’s mobile phone is, in the present day, not just an expensive, portable tool for communication and computing but is an object of significant emotional value, being a repository for the storage of personal photographs, correspondence, messages and other sensitive records – as well as being the one item of a person’s property which is either on their person or within reaching distance at almost all times.
For a Police Officer, with the apparent silent support of his colleague, to deliberately destroy such an essential, almost intimate, personal belonging was a grossly unconstitutional act of violence and abuse of power.
It was on this basis that I was able to successfully negotiate a settlement for Mark of £10,000 damages, plus legal costs, solely for the destruction of his phone.
As gratifying for me as that settlement amount, however, were the kind words which Mark wrote about me afterwards –
Iain Gould is second to none! Iain kept in regular contact with me throughout and comprehensively responded to any questions or concerns I had. From first contact the claim settlement Iain was compassionate to my case and to myself. He took away the pressure and replaced it with reassurance. I would highly recommend Mr Iain Gould. First class!
When you pick up the phone – not to smash it – you know who to call.
You must be logged in to post a comment.