I have blogged before about how the criminal practice of ‘cloning’ motor vehicles can give rise to unfortunate circumstances in which innocent people are arrested. Many of those arrests are unnecessary and I have been critical of Police decision making in situations where more careful enquiries could have identified the difference between the legitimate car and its cloned counterpart.
Today’s blog, however, concerns a case in which the Police themselves were entirely the authors of my client’s misfortune – misidentifying his vehicle purely on the basis of generic make/colour factors without any ‘clone’ having been involved at all.
Early one morning, in October 2023 my client Ryan was asleep at home when he was awoken by Officers knocking at the door. Answering the door wearing only his bedclothes, Ryan was arrested by PC Griffiths of Leicestershire Police on suspicion of burglary. Ryan was totally stunned and asked for further details of this alleged offence – all he was told was that it had taken place the previous evening in Narborough and that his vehicle had been involved.
Ryan was searched and handcuffed and the Officers then searched his house (where his sister also resided), claiming authority to do so under Section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)– which is the power that allows officers to search any premises in which an arrested person was present at the time of, or immediately before his arrest. The legality of such a search is of course contingent on the arrest itself being lawful.
Still in a state of shock, Ryan was taken to a local custody suite, searched again, and had his DNA, fingerprints and photograph taken. He was obliged to remove his laces from his shoes, and was then locked in a cell.
If it wasn’t all so horribly real, my client could have been excused for thinking that he was still asleep and dreaming. He knew that he had no connection whatsoever with this alleged offence and nor did his motor vehicle – it was a complete nightmare.
After my client had been detained for over three and a half hours in Police custody, he was suddenly informed that he was going to be ‘refused charge’. He was of course relieved – but still very much in the dark about what had happened in order to cause his arrest, and why things had now changed before he had even been interviewed. A few hours after his release, Ryan was contacted by an officer called PS Moore, who informed Ryan that he was shocked by his arrest, that he would be raising an internal complaint about the matter, and he encouraged Ryan to complain as well.
Ryan was thereafter released but remained very shaken by what had happened – and was understandably apprehensive that he might be arrested again because of some suspicion attaching to his motor car. Understandably, he wondered whether a cloned vehicle was involved.
Ryan did indeed pursue a complaint to Leicestershire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) who sent him a report in February 2024 in which they upheld his complaint and offered an apology.
It transpired that what had happened was this: following a burglary at commercial premises in Narborough, a witness had reported that an orange BMW 1 Series car had been used by the suspect, but that he had been unable to get the registration number.
As there was no registration, PC Wakeham requested a search from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system for similar vehicles in the immediate area. When none were found, the area of the search was expanded to be county- wide, and Ryan’s vehicle was flagged up as possible match. Bear in mind that this was based purely on make, model and colour – not the registration plate, and the search had been stretched across a very wide- ranging geographical area.
Nevertheless, on the basis of this most tenuous of links, the decision was made to arrest my innocent client.
During the course of the complaint investigation, PS Moore provided an account in which he explained that following Ryan’s arrest, he had reviewed the ANPR data and had noted that the last ANPR ‘hit’ for Ryan’s vehicle was a considerable distance from the crime scene, and that the pattern of hits showed that it was travelling in a manner consistent with previous journeys. Furthermore, an orange BMW of a different model – with cloned plates – had been involved in several recent burglaries, and although the manufacturer had described Ryan’s vehicle as “sunset orange” it was in fact red in colour.
Indeed, in addition to PS Moore several other Officers had voiced concern regarding the legitimacy of Ryan’s arrest. PS Moore stated to the complaint investigator that when he had called the Station, the Custody Sergeant PS King had admitted that he also had misgivings regarding my client’s arrest – and had authorised his detention nonetheless.
The PSD report concluded as follows –
“Section 24 PACE states that there must be suspicion of an offence having been committed or likely to be committed before an arrest can be made; the second part of the test is that the necessity test criteria should be met also. Both elements are required to be satisfied in order for an arrest to be made. I am not minded that there was enough for part one of the test (suspicion that [Ryan] was involved) was met. Further enquiries needed to be undertaken in respect of the vehicle and indeed, when PS Moore undertook enquiries himself, he quickly established that [Ryan] lived close by to where the last ANPR camera had picked up his vehicle and that [Ryan’s] vehicle regularly undertook the same route. There was also the opportunity to speak with [Ryan] and establish some initial facts when he first [answered] the door”.
It therefore followed that both my client’s arrest/detention and the search of his home purportedly carried out under Section 32 of PACE was unlawful.
Whilst this is a case which reflects poorly on those Officers of Leicestershire Police who subjected my client to the trauma of arrest, it reflects well on the pro-active PS Moore who did his duty to begin correcting the wrong that had been done to my client and to ensure that the errors and misjudgements of his colleagues were not brushed under the carpet. Hopefully this will help prevent other innocent people suffering unnecessary arrest because of laziness and/or poor thinking on the part of Police investigators.
What it could not do, of course, was turn back time and spare my client the embarrassment, indignities and anxiety that he suffered during his unlawful arrest. Ryan’s arrest had not only caused his sister distress, but it had been witnessed by at least one of his neighbours; he had had to use the toilet whilst being observed by an Officer; he had been taken into Custody, handcuffed and dressed only in his nightclothes – and furthermore was left with real concerns about future international travel, because of visa requirements which relate to the declaration of arrests and which leave little room in their Yes/No boxes to explain the circumstances of an unlawful arrest.
All of this could have been so easily avoided had the Police done their job properly and for this Ryan deserved appropriate compensation. I am pleased to confirm that I have this month settled his claim for damages in the sum of £15,000 plus legal costs having already secured agreement from the Police to delete all records created by reason of his arrest.
But Ryan’s story is a reminder of how, to the long list of ‘risks of the road’ we must add another – the risk of Police misuse/ misunderstanding of ANPR data, leading to what can only be called a car-crash of an investigation.
My client’s name has been changed.
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.