This week’s blog post is by my colleague, and fellow actions against the police solicitor, Aidan Walley.
Last week, the European Court of Human Rights gave its judgment in the case of X v Cyprus, a deeply disturbing case in which Ms X, a British holidaymaker, made a report of rape to the Cypriot police. The police did not believe Ms X and arrested and charged her with public mischief. She was convicted but, thankfully, acquitted on appeal.
Unfortunately, such cases occur not only abroad but also in the UK. The European Court’s judgment above closely mirrors my own concerns regarding the unnecessary arrests of victims of sexual assault, and my hope that such violations of their rights end.
My client Natalia*, whose case was also previously reported by BBC News last year, was one such victim who was subject to a wholly unnecessary arrest, causing her yet more trauma.
In 2019, Natalia was a victim of rape, which was reported to Greater Manchester Police (GMP). However, despite the seriousness of the allegation, Natalia’s attacker was not arrested. Instead, officers invited him to attend a voluntary interview. The subsequent investigation by GMP was significantly botched and resulted in no further action being taken against Natalia’s attacker. After Natalia complained to GMP’s Professional Standards Branch, the Force and Andrew Burnham (in his role as the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner) eventually apologised to her.
As a result of her attack, Natalia was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which was greatly exacerbated by the handling of the investigation and the subsequent complaint process. What happened next only caused Natalia further anguish.
On the morning of 15 September 2023, two male GMP officers, including PC Dalzell, attended Natalia’s home.
Understandably, Natalia was reluctant to speak to two unknown male officers given her previous trauma and on-going complaint against GMP. She partly opened the door to talk to them. The officers stated repeatedly that they needed to speak with Natalia inside the house about an ongoing case involving Twitter posts. They refused to discuss further details while standing on the street, and insisted that Natalia let them in, but without making their real intentions clear. When her partner joined her at the front door, Natalia fully opened the door, and the officers entered the premises.
Once inside Natalia’s home, the officers revealed their true intentions and PC Dalzell arrested Natalia for sending “malicious communications”, relating to an accusation that a malicious post had been made on Twitter.
Natalia was distressed and objected to her arrest, stating that she believed it was in retaliation for her complaints. Natalia and her partner then explained to the officers that she had a hospital appointment later the same day and produced a hospital letter. Eventually, the officers backed down and agreed for Natalia to attend a voluntary interview a few days later. The officers then left.
The following morning, Natalia emailed PC Dalzell to ask if the voluntary interview could be postponed. PC Dalzell responded, “for the time being we’re going to cancel the voluntary attendance interview so don’t worry about attending”.
Natalia heard nothing for several days, she began to fear that officers would come and suddenly arrest her again. On 18 September 2023 she emailed again for an update before another officer called and told her that the case was closed because the case did not meet the public interest criteria.
At no point was Natalia made aware of who her accuser was, or what the alleged tweets were. In November 2023 Natalia received a partial response to a Subject Access Request to GMP which included a redacted copy of the relevant crime report. Through this, Natalia found that the accusations against her were linked to her report of rape and complaints to GMP and that the alleged offence had taken place on 4 January 2023 but had not been reported until 27 April 2023. However, no attempt had been made to contact Natalia nor arrange a voluntary interview prior to her arrest on 15 September 2023, despite GMP long being in possession of Natalia’s contact details.
Natalia suffered distress and upset because of the incident, which served only to further undermine her confidence and trust in the police.
Following initial instruction, I was satisfied that Natalia’s arrest was wholly unnecessary. Further, the entry into Natalia’s home, her safe space after her attack, was a disproportionate violation of her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life).
As my colleague Iain Gould has blogged about many times before, under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) a lawful arrest requires two elements: an officer must reasonably believe that the suspect was involved in the commission of a criminal offence, and it must be necessary to arrest for one of the reasons set out in section 24(5). In Natalia’s case, it appeared that the arresting officer would struggle to satisfy either criterion, but particularly that of necessity.
Paragraph 2F of Code G of PACE provides that the arresting officer must consider whether the suspect’s voluntary attendance is a practicable alternative to arrest, and it was clear that PC Dalzell failed to give any considerations to an alternative to arrest as:
- by reason of her previous reports and complaints, GMP already had Natalia’s contact details;
- prior to arrest there was no attempt to contact Natalia and interview her voluntarily;
- Natalia was suspected of a minor, non-violent, offence that took place over the internet several months prior to her arrest;
- Natalia was of good character with no previous convictions or arrests.
However, in clear defiance of the Pre-Action Protocols for civil claims, GMP’s solicitor actively failed to respond to a letter of claim. This left Natalia with no alternative but to authorise me to issue Court proceedings.
In response, GMP’s solicitor filed a robust Defence in which it was asserted that PC Dalzell had a genuine and reasonable belief that Natalia was guilty of an offence and that it was necessary to arrest her.
Surprisingly, it was claimed that the arresting officers were not aware that Natalia was a vulnerable victim of rape, notwithstanding the assertion that the officers had fully reviewed the victim’s statement and the crime log prior to arresting Natalia.
Despite my repeated challenges to their position, GMP refused to openly accept that Natalia had been unnecessarily arrested and refused to apologise to her, all the while making “without prejudice” offers to settle her claim. (“Without prejudice” offers are confidential offers made between the parties, which a Defendant can make whilst still maintaining an official denial of liability and which the Court cannot be informed about until the case has concluded.)
Despite the stress of proceedings, Natalia persevered, and ultimately accepted, an appropriate offer of compensation from GMP.
Following the conclusion of her claim, Natalia said:
“As a survivor of rape, I cannot begin to explain the excruciating journey I have faced since reporting it to the police. Not only did I endure a soul-crushing, inefficient police investigation and contemptuous treatment throughout the process, but I also became the target of an unlawful arrest, further highlighting the serious gaps in competence and attention to detail within the Greater Manchester Police. From reporting the rape to suing the police, my actions have all had a singular purpose: to ensure that real lessons are learned and that no further vulnerable victims of such heinous crimes are revictimised by police forces.”
Whilst Natalia’s case is not an isolated incident, I hope that the lessons learnt from this and other cases, will prevent other victims of rape being criminalised in the future.
*As Natalia is a victim of sexual assault, under Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 she has been granted life-long anonymity and her name has been changed.
How you can help me
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post 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 review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review 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.