When they first consult me, some of my clients are concerned that by pursuing a complaint or claim against the police, they will suffer reprisals.
In response, I advise that as a solicitor who has specialised in this area for more than 30 years, I have come across only one case in which clients suffered direct victimisation from an officer bent on revenge in response to a complaint – and even then it was my clients who had the last, and longest, laugh.
My clients, husband and wife Richard and Michelle Hall lived in St Helens, Merseyside with their children.
On 4 December 2015, Mr Hall was arrested and detained by Merseyside Police officers.
During the course of Mr Hall’s detention, PC Allen and other officers carried out a search of Mr Hall’s home address.
Upon Mr Hall’s release later that day, he viewed his home CCTV and was shocked by what he saw, believing that the search was conducted in a disrespectful and unprofessional way, and that PC Allen had helped himself to a packet of crisps from the Hall’s home, which he was munching as he discharged his criminal justice functions. (Watch the CCTV footage on the Liverpool Echo’s website.)
A few days later, Mr Hall understandably filed a complaint against PC Allen (“the first complaint”).
The complaint was investigated by Merseyside Police’s Professional Standards Department (“PSD”).
During the investigation, PC Allen was placed on restricted duties and was also interviewed.
On 11 February 2016, PSD informed PC Allen that he was no longer being investigated, and that the restriction on his duties had been removed. One of the investigation findings was that whilst PC Allen had been eating crisps during the search, he had not stolen them from the Halls.
The following morning, at around 7:30am, Mr Hall left the house as usual, to take his children on the ‘school run.’
Then, shortly after 8:00am, Mrs Hall, who was now alone in the house, noticed a police vehicle parked outside.
The driver of the police vehicle parked outside of the premises was none other than potato- based snack food fan, PC Allen. He was with a female officer, PC John.
Mrs Hall got dressed and went outside, surprised, alarmed and upset to see PC Allen in the van (whom she recognised from the CCTV footage of the search on the 4 December).
Mrs Hall tried to attract the attention of the officers to establish the reason for their presence. Chillingly, neither officer acknowledged Mrs Hall.
Mrs Hall returned inside and called her husband to inform him of PC Allen’s presence. She felt intimidated and was extremely upset.
PC Allen and PC John remained outside of the premises for approximately 13 minutes, before driving away before Mr Hall got home. The officers seemed to have had no legitimate business in the road.
As a consequence, on 13 February 2016, Mr Hall made a further police complaint, alleging that PC Allen’s conduct on 12 February 2016 amounted to harassment (the “second complaint”).
This was again investigated by Merseyside Police PSD.
On or around 22 February 2016, the investigation report into Mr Hall’s first complaint was sent to him, informing my client that his first complaint had not been upheld and/or that there was no case to answer, except for Mr Hall’s allegation that PC Allen had failed to leave a copy of the search record at the premises, prior to leaving, which was upheld. PC Allen was deemed to “need no more than words of advice regarding the importance of documenting all items any damage caused and the correct process regarding the completion of the PCE 10 search record”.
On 10 March 2016, PC John provided an account to Merseyside Police PSD, in which she stated that PC Allen had made the decision to park up outside the Halls’ home on 12 February 2016. PC John further stated that she did not personally have any enquiries to conduct in the area that day.
PC Allen himself provided an account to PSD in which he claimed to have gone to the area on 12 February to engage in a “high visibility patrol”. PC Allen further stated that he had parked the police vehicle outside the premises as he had “finished late the night before and thought that an opportune moment to complete [his] notebook”. PC Allen confirmed in that account that he was aware that it was Mr Hall’s home address.
On 21 June 2016, Mr Hall received the investigation report into his second complaint. He was informed that his complaint against PC Allen of oppressive conduct/harassment had been upheld and that PC Allen was deemed to require management action. In particular, it was found that PC Allen and PC John had been tasked to respond to another job whilst they were parked outside the Hall’s home but had failed to do so immediately. The following was also stated in the investigation report:
“…It is…reasonable to believe that the only logical explanation that Constable Allen has parked outside the Hall’s home address is to either cause annoyance, in response to the complaint made against him previously by Mr Hall, or because he himself was annoyed because of the serious allegations which had been made against him and, the more serious ones had not been proven…”
In the circumstances, I advised Mr and Mrs Hall to bring a claim against Merseyside Police for breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – the right to respect for private and family life, or, in other words the sanctity of the home as a ‘safe space.’
This may not have been an ‘invasion’ of an English man’s castle (as that old common law adage puts it), but it amounted in my opinion to a ‘siege’ which deserved to be firmly censured.
Merseyside Police denied liability and the case proceeded to trial in June 2018. You can read more about the legal basis for the Article 8 claim in my original blog post on this case.
When giving evidence at trial, PC Allen maintained that he had a legitimate reason for parking up outside the Hall’s home address; that he was in the vicinity carrying out high visibility patrol. He claimed that he was aware of, and had experience of, people living in the area defrosting/ demisting their cars on driveways by leaving their cars unattended with their engine running, and that such vehicles were “easy pickings” for opportunistic car thieves. As he drove around he ‘remembered’ that he had not completed his pocket notebook from the previous day. In the circumstances, he decided to pull up, “electing a safe place …… to stop”. By sheer coincidence, it was immediately outside of the Hall’s home address!
Having so parked up, and having completed his pocket notebook entry, PC Allen went on, he observed a man delivering papers. As he did so, the man left his engine running and so PC Allen advised him he was committing an offence. PC Allen obtained the man’s personal details and carried out a radio check to ensure he was insured. He was, and so PC Allen gave him some ‘words of advice’ and allowed him to continue. Thereafter, the officers were passed a job over the radio; PC John attempted to access the database via her laptop but couldn’t get a connection, and so the officers returned to the Police Station.
On review of the evidence available, it was established that, at that morning’s briefing, there had been no tasking for a ‘high visibility patrol’. Yet further, enquiries with the Police Intelligence System revealed only one theft of a motor vehicle in the area. There was simply no evidence that such thefts were an issue or ‘high priority’.
In the circumstances, it was clear to me that PC Allen had deliberately parked up outside the Hall’s home address a day after being told that Mr Hall’s first complaint had been resolved to send them a message: “I’m not going to forgive and forget.” It was an act of revenge, and one that caused an innocent family considerable upset.
Her Honour Judge Sykes agreed and in Court ruled as follows:
“In my judgment, if powers of police are used arbitrarily, without legitimate cause, that engages Article 8. The Claimants’ submit that this case is analogous to covert surveillance. I agree that this is an appropriate analogy. A duty of respect is imposed under Article 8, it calls upon the Police not to carry out acts to intimidate or cause anxiety. I am satisfied that Article 8 is engaged. I am also satisfied that the Defendant has failed to show that the interference was in accordance with law and in pursuance of legitimate and proportionate aim”.
Both of my clients received compensation awards, an order for their legal costs to be paid and a declaration by the Court that their Article 8 rights had been violated.
Here’s what Richard Hall kindly said on case conclusion…..
Had a complaint against Merseyside Police and went to see Iain. Iain was very direct and to the point but this guy knows his stuff and we won on the 26th June 2018 with a Breach of Article 8 of my human rights, so no matter how trivial your complaint or issue is with Merseyside police or any other force, always put a call in to Iain first to get the correct advice.
I can offer no absolute guarantee that the individual officer or the Force generally will not seek ‘reprisal’ for a claim or complaint, but I can say that such action is extremely rare, and even more so when the person claiming or complaining is doing so with the benefit of legal representation (remember that Mr Hall had brought his first complaint before instructing me). Most officers who are the subject of a claim or complaint just want to forget about it – not to go out and cause further trouble for themselves. In this respect, PC Allen is a salutary lesson – his petty act of revenge meant that Merseyside Police, not the Halls, were the ultimate losers in this case.
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.