Police Road Rage – followed by a cold-blooded Cover-up? How a £100K claim was Won (Part 2)

This is the second part of my blog post about Shane Price’s case. Read part one here.

Following the body-blow to my client of Lincolnshire Police’s Professional Standards Department’s rejection of his complaint – a total reversal of their original findings/ indications in the case – I assisted Shane Price in bringing a detailed appeal to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC), known as the “right of review”. 

Allegation 1 – Excessive Force

Firstly, I highlighted the vast contrast between the complaint investigator’s conclusion that Inspector Mellor’s behaviour was “acceptable” and the mobile phone footage of the incident, which showed that Mellor had used totally unnecessary and excessive force throughout the encounter. The fact that Inspector Mellor was found not guilty of the criminal charge of Section 39 Assault arising from this incident (at trial at Nottingham Magistrates court on 11 May 2022) was of no real significance, as the test applied by the single Magistrate to the question of Inspector Mellor’s actions was whether it was evident he had committed the offence “beyond reasonable doubt”, whereas for the purposes of complaint investigation findings and, indeed, misconduct proceedings, the test was whether the officer had committed misconduct “on the balance of probabilities” – a much lower hurdle to be satisfied. 

It was quite manifest that the aggression – both verbal and physical – throughout this incident was flowing in one direction: from Inspector Mellor against my client, and my client only resorted to force after exhaustively pleading with the officer to let him go. My client was not under suspicion of any criminal offence and Mellor’s aggression towards him appears to originate in ‘road rage’ because of the earlier incident when they were driving – and my client’s accusations that Mellor had been using his mobile phone whilst driving. 

I also highlighted the fact that on 21 June 2021, following the initial notification of my client’s complaint, Chief Inspector Outen of PSD wrote to my client informing him that the case had been allocated to Inspector Gilmore and that Shane would: “ be given the opportunity to expand on or add any additional allegations when the investigating officer contacts you.” However, no such contact was made, nor opportunity offered to him. 

Of particular concern was the fact that that following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, it appeared that the report had been substantially re-written to ‘support’ the opposite conclusion of PSD’s original findings, entirely undermining the integrity of the process and leaving my client with no faith in the system’s impartiality or fairness, and quite rightly so. 

Allegation 2 – Use of Mobile Phone Whilst Driving

 Once again, the contemporaneous video evidence spoke volumes in this regard, and no impartial observer of that footage could have reasonably concluded that it did not support a real suspicion that Inspector Mellor had been using his mobile phone whilst driving: that ‘everyday criminality’ on the modern roads which needs to be as strongly sanctioned and stamped down upon as the drink- driving of a previous generation was. 

Shane clearly believed that he had witnessed Inspector Mellor using his phone whilst driving – and asserted this on at least four separate occasions throughout the video, whilst his wife could also be heard making this assertion during her panicked emergency call. 

Notably, Mellor at no point at the footage denied this accusation, and, indeed, appeared to confirm it at one point when, in response to a comment by Shane he leant down and said : I was trying to …[Inaudible]”)  to which my client immediately replied: “So that gives you the right to play on your phone?” 

Despite this strong evidence indicating that Mellor had been using his phone whilst driving – and that he was fully aware that Shane and his wife had witnessed this – the Complaint Investigator purported to conclude that it was not necessary to subject the officer’s mobile phone to forensic examination. This was an evidently unreasonable and disproportionate failing in the investigation. It was suggested that Inspector Mellor had shown his phone to Inspector Gilmore of PSD on 28 May 2021  – but this ‘informal’ inspection of the phone proved nothing; all that it indicated was that Gilmore looked at Mellor’s call history and camera roll, either of which could have been edited at the press of a button (particularly photos could have been deleted with extreme ease) during the two days that had passed since the incident. I think that we all know that a member of the public suspected of using his phone whilst driving, would not have been able to get away with such a tactic, and that this was a definite case of what we can appropriately term “Blue Privilege.” 

Police Dogs v Watch Dogs?

 I am pleased to confirm that in response to my submissions on Shane’s behalf, the IOPC upheld the appeal and recommended, by way of a decision dated April 2023, that Inspector Mellor face a misconduct hearing – albeit that he was now ex- Inspector Mellor, having been allowed by Lincolnshire Police to retire on a full pension during the interim between their ‘exoneration’ of him and the IOPC’s intervention. 

The IOPC review concluded that: 

  • Mellor was “confrontational and hostile” from the outset of the incident, and “continuously displayed an intimidating and aggressive manner…despite [Shane] looking visibly shocked by the officer’s behaviour towards him.
  • Lincolnshire Police, in purporting to determine that Mellor had “no case to answer” for misconduct had inappropriately relied upon the outcome of the criminal case against the officer.
  • the mobile phone footage conflicted significantly with Inspector Mellor’s account of the incident and that there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable tribunal could conclude that the Officer had conducted acts of gross misconduct.
  • Mellor used “premeditated” force with the intention to “intimidate and physically injure” Shane.
  • using a mobile phone whilst driving is a serious allegation, which deserved “robust investigation” by Lincolnshire Police, but they had failed to do so – and a gross misconduct charge was appropriate in this regard as well.
  • Mellor’s rank of Inspector increased his culpability, as, quite rightly, Officers of that rank have a high standard to maintain as leaders, in a position of trust and responsibility.

The IOPC’s own enquiries also revealed the “highly unfortunate” fact that that there was no audio recording of Inspector Mellor’s Police interview undercaution, and the PSD investigator PS Pearson could not offer an explanation as to how this had happened. What is more, PS Pearson had deemed it unnecessary to review the audio files of the radio transmissions made between Inspector Mellor and other officers during the incident and the opportunity to have Mellor’s own mobile phone forensically examined had not been taken. Were these yet further examples of Blue Privilege?  

Civil Court and Misconduct Proceedings  

In the meantime, given Lincolnshire’s recalcitrance, I also commenced civil Court proceedings on behalf of Shane – as they had neither apologised, admitted liability nor offered any form of financial settlement for his injuries. 

In keeping with their combative stance to this matter, Lincolnshire filed a Defence entirely disputing Shane’s claim – and maintaining that Shane was the “verbal aggressor” putting Inspector Mellor in “fear for his own safety” after the Officer had helpfully tried to “guide” Shane away from the roadside for his own safety. It was asserted that all of Mellor’s actions were legitimate acts of self-defence and the brutal violence that we can see displayed in the mobile phone footage of the incident was dressed up under such disingenuous verbiage as “gaining compliance”. 

Lincolnshire Police also continued to fight against the IOPC’s recommendation – until such time as the Police Watchdog exercised their rarely used power to direct (not just “recommend”) that Mellor face misconduct proceedings, in September 2023.  This was in the face of the Police’s argument that the verdict in the Magistrates Court meant that my client now “lacked credibility” – a ridiculous assertion which to my mind could only be made by someone naïve in the ways of the legal system or who had an agenda to protect the Officer involved. Furthermore, and in any event, there was an objective witness in this matter whose credibility could, in no way, be impugned: the mobile phone and its audio/ visual record of the incident from start to finish. 

Whilst the misconduct hearing was pending, and notwithstanding their public denial of liability, Lincolnshire Police now began to put forwards settlement offers to Shane: firstly, an offer of £15,000 in September 2023; and then more than doubling this to £31,000 damages in January 2024, both of which offers Shane rapidly rejected on my advice. The offers went nowhere near the level required to reflect the seriousness of the wrongdoing in this case – including, what I consider to be, an attempted Police cover-up of Mellor’s misconduct – and the physical, but above all psychological, harm that had been caused to my client. I commissioned expert medical evidence in this regard, to help Shane recover every penny to which he was entitled.   

Whilst the misconduct proceedings were ongoing, Lincolnshire withdrew their ‘top offer’ of £31,000 in an apparent attempt to intimidate Shane, but my client showed great courage and fortitude – and faith in my advice – by not backing down, and continuing to pursue the Court proceedings. He was prepared to go all the way to trial, if necessary, no matter how stressful he knew that experience was going to be for him, having already been through the “wringer” of being a witness in the Magistrate’s Court and hearing the judicial approbation of his opponent. 

In January 2025, the Misconduct Hearing finally took place, and Mellor was, at last, found guilty of gross misconduct for his assault upon Shane. Mellor had been fighting tooth and nail against this verdict and had, notably, made an application to dismiss the misconduct proceedings against him as an “abuse of process” – on the basis, Mellor asserted, that senior officers in the Force had assured him, after the conclusion of the criminal trial, that the misconduct matter would also be put to bed, and that this was evidenced in a press release issued by Lincolnshire Police on 26 July 2022 which had stated “As a result of this finding [the Magistrates verdict] Inspector Mellor will not face any internal misconduct proceedings.” 

So it seems that in this respect, both Inspector Mellor and I agree – that there was a shameless attempt by Lincolnshire PSD/ the wider Force to ‘cover up’ his actions and ensure that he faced no misconduct charges, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary; evidence which frankly seems to have shocked the IOPC and caused them to impel the Police to do the right thing – no matter what ‘top- level’ assurances they had given Mellor to the contrary. 

Thankfully, these arguments were given short shrift by the Misconduct Panel, led by Legally Qualified Chairperson Jennifer Ferrario, who found that Lincolnshire Police had no jurisdiction to give any such assurances, which could not be binding upon the IOPC’s subsequent direction, and that there was no “unfairness” in this result. 

For once, indeed, the Independent Office of Police Conduct had lived up to its title. I wish we could see more of this kind of robust decision making on their part. 

At the conclusion of the two-day Misconduct Hearing, the Panel found that Mellor had “demonstrated inability to control himself”, or to hold himself accountable for his wrongdoing and strongly criticised his evidence as “lacking in credibility” of his evidence – an interesting reversal of fortunes from the Magistrates Court, where such an accusation had been levelled at Shane. The Officer would have been immediately dismissed from the Force, if he had not already retired, and was placed on the Police Barred List. 

Victory at the End of the Road

 Following the misconduct verdicts, Lincolnshire Police returning seriously to the negotiating table, first offering Shane a settlement of £50,000 damages, which he rejected on my advice,  then increasing this to £60,000, and then £70,000 – all of which proposals we again rejected. 

As Shane’s civil claim was prepared for trial, it was of note that Lincolnshire Police, whilst still ostensibly maintaining their denial of any wrongdoing on the Officer’s part, chose not to call him as a witness; a decision which I think speaks for itself. 

To increase the pressure upon our opponents, I made an application for further disclosure of documents from the Police, specifically relating to their ‘internal investigation’ of the complaint, and handling of the misconduct proceedings, which was granted by the judge at the Pre-Trial Review hearing.

Only now, when we were virtually at the doors of Court, did Lincolnshire Police agree terms of settlement which were acceptable to my client – payment of damages in the sum of £100,000 plus his legal costs. 

Victory was achieved, at the end of a long road, and all the more welcome for Shane because of the duration of the journey and the hazards he had faced along the way – from the “red mist” of an enraged officer to the “blue privilege” accorded to that officer by the criminal court and his Police colleagues.

Thankfully, as a combined result of my strenuous pursuit of the civil claim and the IOPC’s robust response to our appeal, justice has been done for Shane – and the wrong that began at the roadside in such a brutal fashion, has finally been put right.

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!

Unknown's avatar

Author: iaingould

Actions against the police solicitor (lawyer) and blogger.

Discover more from Iain Gould - Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading