This week’s blog post contains two salutary warnings: the first a reminder of the risk possessed by self-styled “red-blooded” male officers to the women they encounter in the course of their duties, whose need for Police help they despicably seek to leverage to get those women into bed with them; and the second a reminder to be careful when selecting a solicitor to assist you in claims against the Police, for firms which have spent a great deal of money on establishing an internet presence to ‘capture’ such claims might not necessarily have invested as heavily in their staff training, resulting in overly cautious approaches or frankly wrong advice being given to their clients.
At the beginning of 2015 my client, whom I will call Harriet for the purposes of this blog, had been in an abusive relationship with her male partner for a number of years. Finally summoning the courage to break away from her partner, she was assisted by Women’s Aid in moving to a new address with her child. Unfortunately, Harriet’s former partner discovered her new address and turned up there and began to harass her. She called the police for help, but at the time did not have any Non- Molestation Order in place preventing her former partner from making contact with her.
Around the same time, Harriet’s former partner himself called the police and falsely alleged that she had caused criminal damage to his vehicle. In consequence of this allegation, it was not Harriet’s partner, but Harriet herself who was then arrested by officers of West Midlands Police; a sadly familiar tale.
Harriet was understandably traumatised by her arrest, further adding to her existing vulnerability. During the course of her detention, Harriet was interviewed by PC Colin Noble, a Domestic Abuse Investigation Officer who worked in the Public Protection Unit of West Midlands Police.
Harriet subsequently had to return to the police station in order to answer bail, and she was there met by PC Noble who as the officer in charge of the case (OIC) now formally charged her with criminal damage.
Having charged Harriet, PC Noble then took this highly vulnerable, single mother, victim of domestic abuse and now criminal suspect, into a side room and started to ‘chat her up’ in a grossly abusive manner.
PC Noble first belittled Harriet by telling her that the situation she was in occurred “when you go for bad boys” and then made his own sexual interest in her clear with comments such as “How can you be single with boots like that? (she was wearing knee high boots) and “Why are you looking down there?” – insinuating that Harriet was looking at his crotch (she in fact had her eyes downcast owing to her lack of confidence in the situation).
Following her release from the station, Harriet initiated the process of and was successful in obtaining a non-molestation order against her former partner.
Then, a few weeks after Harriet had been charged by PC Noble, the officer called her from a private number and asked if she could talk. During the course of their conversation, PC Noble claimed that it was not his fault that she had been charged with criminal damage and asked her to go out with him for food and drinks. Harriet was led to believe that PC Noble had run intelligence checks on her former partner and that he was going out of his way to try to help her with her problems.
Following this initial telephone call, PC Noble called Harriet regularly, several times a week and mentioned which ‘local’ pub he drank in. He also informed Harriet that it was he who had served the non-molestation order on her former partner and bragged about how he had told her former partner that he, PC Noble, would personally arrest him if the order was breached.
As the telephone conversations between Harriet and PC Noble became increasingly flirtatious, the officer disclosed to Harriet that he could get into ‘trouble’ himself for contacting her, which served to make her feel flattered and increase the connection that she thought that she had with him. It was then arranged that PC Noble would visit her at home one evening. Harriet had come to believe that the two of them were in the early stages of a romantic relationship.
Upon arriving at her home, PC Noble and Harriet initially sat on opposite sides of the sofa but the officer asked Harriet to move to sit by him, so that they could “relax”. Thankfully, the officer did not stay long that evening, and no physical, sexual encounter returned. Noble had come across as jumpy and on edge, leaving Harriet feeling confused about his motives.
The officer continued in his grooming of Harriet by using several common tactics from the police abusers ‘handbook’ – seeking to elicit her sympathy, he disclosed to Harriet that he was in an unhappy relationship and no longer slept with his partner; seeking to impress her, he talked about his work as a police officer, including how he had helped victims of domestic abuse and how he had previously worked in the “gang unit”.
In July 2015, Harriet was acquitted of the charge of criminal damage.
Harriet was now beginning to realise that something was not right with PC Noble’s conduct towards her. She began to suspect that he was seeking to exploit her, and when she questioned him about his existing relationship, he was not forthcoming with answers. Shortly thereafter, her contact with PC Noble ceased.
As it turned out, however, Harriet was not the first woman whom PC Noble had targeted in this way, and nor was she the last.
In June 2017 PC Noble was tasked to obtain evidence from a young woman who had reported a breach of a restraining order (During subsequent misconduct proceedings this woman was identified as “Ms X”). Noble visited the woman at her home on two occasions; such was his inappropriate, sexualised demeanour towards her on the first occasion, Ms X covertly recorded the officer during his second visit to her house. Those recordings included the following comments by PC Noble towards Ms X –
- “I think you’re fit, and I could see why he would want ya”
- “I’m a proper red-blooded male…I love women in all their glory”
- “I need to get focused. I need to stop watching you.”
- “You’re telling me another fit girl like you is gonna be jumping all over his dick.”
- “I’ve got to be sensible and careful, I’m not supposed to be chatting you up…”
- “I’ve never done it before, but I’ve never met anyone like you before. And asking you personal questions like have you got any naked pictures…”
- “If I did anything with you it would have to be on the down low, because we’re not supposed to…You know that teacher, pupil relationship that you’re not supposed to have, goes for us as well. We’re not supposed to have relationships with people we’re deemed to help. It’s like doctors shagging their patients…”
We have, it seems, come a long way from “Dixon of Dock Green.”
On the back of those recordings, PC Noble was charged with the criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office and appeared before Birmingham Crown Court in August 2018. Disappointingly, he was ultimately found ‘not guilty’ at trial in April 2019 but, crucially, the publicity surrounding the trial led not only Harriet, but other women to come forwards with similar stories of Noble’s predatory behaviour towards them.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) was now conducting a wider investigation into PC Noble’s conduct towards other women, under the name “Operation Goulburn” Harriet was put in contact with the investigative team.
In November 2019, PC Noble falsely asserted that his interactions with Harriet had been “professional at all times”, and furthermore he denied ever attending her home address. These lies only added to the trauma that he had already caused towards Harriet by his exploitative behaviour.
She was now determined to see justice done, and gave evidence at the misconduct hearing which took place with PC Noble in April 2021, as did two other women whom PC Noble had targeted in a similar fashion – Ms A (a domestic violence victim whom the officer had sought to exploit in 2014) and Ms B (whose daughter had been assaulted in 2017, with Noble assigned as the investigating officer). The misconduct panel found my client and the other women to be honest and truthful witnesses, found PC Noble guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice.
We already know about Ms X, of course. Sadly, there may well have been other victims of Noble’s misconduct who simply failed to come forwards.
Finding the Right Solicitor
Securing complete justice in a case like this, however, does not hinge only on the courageous decision to take action – but also on finding the right solicitor to represent you.
The firm whom Harriet initially instructed sent a letter of claim on behalf of Harriet to West Midlands Police, seeking damages for misfeasance in public office, arising out of the predatory conduct of PC Noble towards her.
In response, in early February 2022, the Police admitted liability, agreeing in principle to compensate Harriet. So far, so good. However, not only did the Police make a derisory – indeed, insulting – offer of only £500, but Harriet’s then- solicitors misadvised her as to the likely range of damages, incorrectly telling her that damages in such cases which didn’t involve “physical or sexual assault” were “generally not huge” and that she was likely to only recover something in the range of £1,200 – £1,500. Boldly, they advised her to “slightly inflate” the value of her counteroffer to a truly whopping £1,600 in order to “allow room for negotiation.”
Sometimes those with the biggest advertising budget, lack the necessary depth of experience and stomach for the fight to achieve the best results for the clients they have gathered.
Thankfully, Harriet recognised the solicitors’ timidity for what it was, totally inadequate to reflect the emotional harm which had been caused to her by having let PC Noble “into my life and into my home.” Dismayed and disappointed, she searched for an expert solicitor in actions against the Police – and she quickly found me. After reviewing the available evidence, I had no hesitation in advising Harriet to reject the offer and she decided to transfer her instructions to me.
Strikingly, when I wrote to West Midlands Police legal services to notify them that I was now acting on Harriet’s behalf, they initially tried to withdraw their admission of liability – perhaps recognising that I was not going to allow Harriet to be bought off as easily as her former solicitors almost had.
On my advice, Harriet now commenced Court proceedings against West Midlands Police, forcing them to pin their colours to the mast and to have to seek Court permission to withdraw their previous admission of liability: I strenuously contested their application, and their admission of liability was restored, this time permanently enshrined in Court documents.
The battle now would be for us to secure an appropriate level of compensation to reflect the officer’s abuse of trust and the harm that had been inflicted upon Harriet, and I commissioned expert psychiatric evidence accordingly, as well as advancing a case for aggravated and exemplary damages in addition to the basic compensatory award.
PC Noble’s behaviour towards Harriet had left her with deep feelings of shame, guilt, embarrassment and anxiety. She had had to go for counselling. She developed a lack of trust in police officers, which would put her at increased risk of harm given her history as a victim of domestic violence. She was a person who even more than others needed to know that if she turned to the Police, help could be found; and yet when she had done so that very need had been shamefully exploited by a corrupt officer, a would- be serial philanderer.
Harriet told me that she was left with lingering feelings of dread – not only that, should she need to turn to the Police in the future, another male officer might turn out to be “a wolf in sheepdog’s clothing”, but that officers generally might have animosity towards her because of the part she had played in the downfall of one of their colleagues.
I am pleased to record that I have recently settled Harriet’s claim for damages against West Midlands Police for damages in the sum of £25,000 plus legal costs : a damages sum over 16 times greater than the ‘maximum value’ of her claim according to her original solicitors.
But I must also sadly record that PC Noble’s type of behaviour remains shockingly common amongst male police officers. The Police are instituted in order to fight crime, but the power bestowed upon them for this purpose and the access which it brings into the lives of vulnerable women, is also an attractant to men who themselves harbour criminal, predatory urges.
My client’s name has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.