This blog post argues that while suing the police can deliver justice and drive reform, the internal misconduct system remains biased and opaque, often protecting officers rather than holding them accountable. Using the case of Scott Barrett—who was violently assaulted but denied the chance to give evidence— I highlight how victims are excluded and serious wrongdoing is downplayed. This, they contend, undermines public trust and reinforces a system that serves police interests over true accountability, leaving civil courts as the only reliable route to justice.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.              

Legal Support for Victims of Police Misconduct and Wrongful Arrest

My role as a solicitor who specializes in suing the Police is to help those who have suffered Police misconduct – generally in the form of wrongful arrest and/or unlawful violence – achieve restitution in the form of monetary compensation and, where possible, admissions, apologies and accountability. 

How Civil Claims Against the Police Drive Accountability and Reform

Such legal actions also serve a very important secondary purpose, benefiting not just my clients, but wider society, in that they highlight Police wrongdoing and apply financial and moral pressure for the Police to reform their culture and improve both the leadership of their managers and the behaviour of their rank and file.

The Role of Police Misconduct Panels in Disciplinary Proceedings 

Similar pressures – to root out abuses of power and corrupt practices amongst the Police – should at the same time be coming from a different direction, namely that of the Police Misconduct Panels themselves, those disciplinary boards whose job it is to adjudicate and punish Officers who have broken their professional Codes of Conduct, and which are presided over by a senior officer (e.g the Assistant Chief Constable) of the respective Force.

Concerns Over Transparency and Fairness in Police Misconduct Hearings

 All too often, however, these Panels conduct themselves, not like fair and transparent tribunals, but Kangaroo Courts, set on achieving a pre- conceived outcome, and resentful of the principles of “open justice”. In this respect, I feel that not much has changed in the decade since 2015, when Police disciplinary hearings became “public” in order to create a “more robust, independent and transparent” system, and which I wrote about through the lens of the case of my client Alex Faragher.    

Why Victims of Police Misconduct Are Often Treated Unfairly

Time and time again, the victims of Police misconduct are made to feel like the “villains”, notwithstanding that officers have been charged with misconduct, and time and time again, Panels have a tendency to reach findings of lower level “misconduct” against the Officers (a verdict which allows them to keep their jobs) rather than “gross misconduct” (which does not).

Lack of Open Justice in Public Police Disciplinary Hearings

Although Police Misconduct hearings are now required to be held in public, many Forces have a habit of only paying lip- service to this, by giving extremely short notice (mere days ahead, rather than weeks or months) of hearings, and restricting those who can attend to names on a pre- approved list, leading to a scramble by lawyers and journalists who wish to be present to make rapid arrangements, often not receiving ‘approval’ until the day before. 

Victims Denied a Voice in Police Misconduct Proceedings

What is worse, however, is the fact that victims have no right of audience before the Misconduct Panel, no right for their voice to be heard, and I can’t think of a starker example of this than the current case of my client Scott Barrett.

Case Study: Mistaken Identity and Police Violence in Lincolnshire

Scott and I had to fight long and hard to get the Police to treat his complaint seriously, after an awful case of ‘mistaken identity’ in which an irate officer of Lincolnshire Police (PC Kirkwood) mistook my client for the bicycle thief he was pursuing, forced my client down onto his hands and knees at taser point, and then viciously broke his nose, by kicking him in the face whilst he was in this submissive/ defenceless position; the crack of bone accompanied by the officer’s shout of “Fucking bastard!”  

Criminal Proceedings and CPS Decision-Making in Police Assault Cases

 PC Kirkwood was originally (and I would say, quite correctly) prosecuted for Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) but was acquitted by a jury and a cheer-leading judge, after the Crown Prosecution Service made the bizarre decision not to call Scott as a witness, allowing PC Kirkwood, despite the fact that there was body camera evidence of what happened, to tell a one-sided story and win the sympathy of the Court, as, in the judge’s word “an exemplary [officer] of 43 years’ service, acting in good faith in his duty…who made a mistake.” 

Police Professional Standards Investigations and Burden of Proof

After the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, wherein the Prosecution had failed to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that PC Kirkwood had committed a criminal offence, Lincolnshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) still had to complete their complaint investigation, and Scott and I anticipated that at the lower standard of proof required for a misconduct finding “on the balance of probabilities” it would at least be determined that the officer had a case to answer for misconduct.

Criticism of PSD Findings in Police Misconduct Cases

 Sadly, PSD concluded that PC Kirkwood’s actions were “reasonable, proportionate and necessary”. I would call this another kick in the teeth for Scott; but of course the first had been to his nose.

Appealing to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

 Neither my client nor I were prepared to let matters rest there, however, and an appeal to the Independent Office of Police Conduct got the original complaint outcome quashed – and Lincolnshire Police have been ordered to hold a Misconduct Hearing, the IOPC having determined that PC Kirkwood did have a case to answer for gross misconduct, as I discussed with the BBC. 

Ongoing Issues: Victims Still Excluded from Giving Evidence

Once again, however, and in a direct and depressing echo of what happened with the criminal proceedings, it has now been announced that the Chair of the Misconduct Panel will not allow Scott to give evidence at the hearing. Regretfully, the rules governing such hearings do not allow either my client or myself to do anything about this, other than shining a spotlight on it, in the forum of this blog.

Official Response from Misconduct Panel Chair

“Your representations were put before the Chair (Assistant Chief Constable Mayo), who gave full consideration to the request for Mr Barratt to provide evidence. She has determined that this will not be required in order to address the allegations…”

Impact on Victims and Public Confidence in Police Accountability

Scott was deprived of his voice in the criminal proceedings, by not being called to testify about the brutal assault he suffered, and now has been deprived of his voice by the Chair of the Panel which will decide PC Kirkwood’s professional fate. To deny him the opportunity to give live evidence at the hearing, seems utterly perverse and further undermines confidence in the integrity of a Misconduct system, which all too often seems to favour the police over the public.

Reform Needed: Ending “Kangaroo Court” Practices in Police Hearings

 It is my opinion that Police Misconduct Hearings will continue to have the stench of the Kangaroo Court about them until we see the end of such practices. Their ethos must be ‘public justice for the good of society’, not ‘private justice in the interests of the Police.’

Pursuing Justice Through Civil Court Claims Against the Police

 Once this process is over, however, Scott and I have Lincolnshire Police firmly in our sights in civil court proceedings in which –  I can promise you –  my client’s voice will be heard.

How you can help

This blog exists to inform, empower, and reassure people who may otherwise feel overwhelmed when dealing with unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article helpful or informative, I would be very grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Your support helps me continue this work and, just as importantly, helps others find reliable, specialist advice when they need it most. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation