Lies, Damned Lies, and Police Apologies

This week’s blog post is by my colleague, and fellow actions against the police solicitor, Aidan Walley.

Recently I wrote about the case of my client Natalia, a victim of rape who was unnecessarily arrested by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) for a minor offence, deeply exacerbating her existing trauma and re-enforcing her distrust of the police. 

Throughout her claim, GMP denied that Natalia had been arrested unlawfully and, despite my repeated attempts to encourage GMP to apologise to Natalia, they refused to do so before ultimately settling Natalia’s claim on a “without prejudice basis” (I.e without formally admitting wrongdoing – though the damages paid speak loudly in that silence). 

Natalia’s claim has now been reported on by the BBC as well as featuring on North-West Tonight. Most notably, the Force now apologised to Natalia, but only after being contacted by the BBC: 

A spokesperson for the force … said GMP was sorry for the impact that this interaction had on Natalia … “We have improved officer training on our revised voluntary attendance policy and are ensuring all officers are trained to recognise and respond to the trauma felt by survivors of domestic and sexual abuse.” 

Natalia also received a letter from GMP’s Professional Standards Department stating as follows: 

I have detailed the above to demonstrate that arrest was an option open to the officers once a crime was recorded and in the investigatory phase given that they thought that there was a crime to be investigated. 

I want to make it clear that I think this was the wrong decision, but I believe it was one made in good faith by the officers.

 Having detained you on the date in question the officers established that your detention was not appropriate due to a medical commitment so sought to make alternative arrangements and after advice at this stage elected to move to interview by Voluntary Attendance.

After that point, the crime was reviewed by a more experienced Detective Inspector. He took a different view to those having recorded the crime and the investigating officers who were planning to interview you as part of the investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime and directed that no further action be taken.

 I consider that this decision by the Detective Inspector was the correct one when having the full facts at his disposal, and I reiterate that I regard the operational decision to detain you by the officers to be the wrong one and apologise sincerely for this on behalf of GMP.

 The subject of getting an apology from the police – and when you do how genuine it is – is something Iain Gould has written about on a number of occasions. When first speaking to a client, they often tell me that they want an acknowledgement from the police that something went wrong. However, I am required to tell them not to get their hopes up, as the police rarely apologise. In civil claims there is no obligation for the police to apologise or even admit liability, even in the most egregious cases, and a Court cannot order them to do so. Furthermore, apologies that are given are often written to appear sincere on a first glance, but on further reading are little more than creative word play primarily designed to obfuscate Police wrongdoing, often and displaying contempt for Claimants. 

The same is true for the ‘apology’ that Natalia has now received. The spokesperson’s statement that “GMP was sorry for the impact that this interaction had” is not an apology for arresting Natalia. Moreover, the apology offered by the Professional Standards Department was first qualified by the assertion “I think this was the wrong decision, but I believe it was one made in good faith by the officers”. Rather than just simply apologising for this “wrong decision”, GMP still felt the need to justify the officers’ actions, so that the apology also becomes a commendation! 

In my view, such apologies are nothing more than a PR exercise to save face once a case becomes more widely reported. GMP had ample opportunity to admit that the arrest was wrong and offer a genuine and heartfelt apology to a rape victim throughout Natalia’s claim, but refused to do so. These later “apologies” do nothing to alleviate the distress caused to Natalia, or other wrongfully arrested individuals.

I can only hope that GMP has truly learnt from this incident, as they claim to have done, and therefore avoid the need to “apologise”, through clenched teeth, to victims of unnecessary arrest – by not arresting them in the first place.

My client’s 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!