A common derogatory phrase that is used about the worst Police Officers is that they are “Thugs in uniform” Such a phrase leaps to mind when we see Officers behaving like bullies or unable to control their anger when the ‘red mist’ descends. As it happens, a case which I have settled this week involves a Police Officer who offered to take off his uniform – when inviting my client for a fight in an alley way.
In April 2022, my client Mr Fazal was stopped whilst driving by PC Young and PC Parmar of West Yorkshire Police for what should have been a routine insurance check.
Whilst Mr Fazal attempted to locate his insurance documents on his phone, PC Young unnecessarily criticised and argued with my client and then put his hand on Mr Fazal’s arm. When my client protested about the officer having touched him, the two officers then combined to force him onto the ground, causing him injury. Fortunately, this injury was not more than a few scuffs and scrapes but it was nevertheless outrageous – there was no suggestion that my client had committed an offence and nor indeed did the Officers purport to arrest him.
After restraining my client on the ground, the Officers released him, and he was able to stand up. His mobile phone now had damage to its screen, but Mr Fazal was able to show the Officers his insurance details and after a few further checks the Officers returned to their car.
Mr Fazal followed the Officers in order to remonstrate with PC Young about his use of force. At this, PC Young re-exited his vehicle and said to my client “If you’d like to threaten me … I’ll gladly take the uniform off and we can go down that alleyway and we can have a fight”.
At this point – with my client flabbergasted at the officer’s attitude – PC Parmar intervened, and the Officers left.
As a result of what they had already done to Mr Fazal, he was left with cuts to his finger and his leg and bruises to his torso and right elbow. These physical injuries fortunately resolved fairly quickly – but the psychological upset which this incident has caused my client has lingered to the present day.
Mr Fazal was outraged not only by the fact that the Officers had subjected him to an unprovoked assault whilst he was trying to find his insurance details, but that when he had tried to remonstrate with them, PC Young’s response had been to menace him with threats of arrest and to try to provoke a fight.
Sadly, Mr Fazal’s grievances would only be aggravated by the manner in which West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) responded to his complaint. During the course of the complaint investigation, PC Young’s body worn video recording of the incident was reviewed – however the Officer himself was not interviewed nor required to provide an account of his actions in any other way. Whilst the complaint was to some extent critical of PC Young’s actions, he was sanctioned with only the vaguest form of punishment – “To undergo learning”. We may well question what such an opaque phrase means: probably not very much – no details of any proposed ‘learning’ were provided. The whole tenor of the complaint investigation was, for myself and my client, summed up by the fact that PSD misrepresented the crucial audio from the body worn video recording in such a way as to tone down the Officer’s comments – the report misquoted Young as saying “I’ll take off this uniform and go down that alley and sort this out” rather than acknowledging that he actually said “and we can have a fight”.
My client quite rightly submitted a Request for Review to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The IOPC review determined that the outcome of the complaint was too lenient upon PC Young for several reasons –
- When force was used against him, Mr Fazal did not present a threat and use of force was not necessary;
- PC Young’s behaviour throughout the incident was not, as PSD had asserted, ‘polite and calm’ but rather, in the view of the IOPC, “frustrated and exasperated from the start” and the Officer had not made any attempt to de-escalate any tension/conflict;
- The IOPC also identified the misquotation/minimisation of what PC Young had actually said at the crucial moment.
As a result it was determined that PC Young required Reflective Practice Review Process for situation de-escalation, Officer Safety Training, Conflict Management Skills (resolving conflict without force) and consideration as to whether he required a period of increased supervision.
It is quite understandable that this drawn out and difficult process did not restore Mr Fazal’s faith in West Yorkshire Police. Mr Fazal is someone who can see the wood rather than just individual trees and what he was most incensed about was West Yorkshire Police’s institutional response – the way in which they sought to obscure their Officer’s wrongdoing and to insulate both themselves and the individual Officer from legitimate criticism.
In this respect, PC Young’s misbehaviour was compounded by the failure of PSD to impose the appropriate sanction upon the Officer, and also in the ‘victim blaming’ tone of their written response to the complaint, in which (as highlighted above) they had apparently sought to minimise PC Young’s wrongdoing and had also suggested that Mr Fazal was guilty of “provocation”. Mr Fazal felt very strongly by their mishandling of his complaint, West Yorkshire PSD risked enabling this type of violence and abuse of power not only in the person of PC Young but in the wider policing population. To Mr Fazal this incident wasn’t only about the Police mistreating him, but the deep harm that this type of pro- police bias in the complaint system causes to our society in general. In this respect, the unprofessionalism and apparent sense of impunity displayed by PC Young during this incident are indicative of the dysfunctionality of the Police complaint system, which will not be corrected until West Yorkshire – and frankly all Police PSD Units – are seen and known to be on the side of genuine complainants rather than the Officers complained about.
It was also noticeable that PC Parmar faced no sanction for failing to challenge PC Young’s behaviour himself. Presumably he would not have been so passive if he had witnessed a member of the public apparently trying to provoke my client into an alleyway punch up.
As I have observed before, real change in policing standards will not occur until front- line Officers routinely call out unacceptable behaviour from their colleagues as and when it is occurring, as well as PSD taking a more robust and objective approach towards complaints i.e. step- changes at both street patrol and management desk level.
As for whether even the “Reflective Practice Review Process” is anything more than management- speak jargon which involves the ticking of boxes, rather than any genuine soul -searching or real learning – we can only assume that it did not lead PC Young along the path of any serious self improvement as at no point did he offer any apology to Mr Fazal – strongly suggesting that this Reflective Review did not change what he saw in the mirror.
Thankfully, some remedy for the deep disappointment and dissatisfaction of the Police Complaint process can be found through a civil claim for restitution and validation in the form of damages. When I presented a claim for assault and battery on behalf of Mr Fazal against West Yorkshire Police arising out of this incident, they admitted “excessive force” – but offered no apology and denied my client’s entitlement to aggravated damages or exemplary damages – offering a frankly insulting settlement of only £500.
That offer rejected, and my client’s claim robustly advanced, I am pleased to confirm that I have this week settled Mr Fazal’s claim in the sum of £24,500 damages plus legal costs.
The primary purpose of the Police is to uphold human rights and dignity and to keep the King’s peace. PC Young’s antagonistic and aggressive behaviour towards my client during this incident was the exact opposite. In the heat of the moment, he did not behave like a Police Officer, but like a street thug. The damages which I have won for my client, if not Police attitudes and responses to his complaint, fully reflect that.
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive Google review to get the word out. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post a comment.