This week’s blog post discusses the case of a man who suffered a Police raid on his home despite having attended the Police Station for interview the day before. The “wanted” marker on the Police computer system had not been removed. Later, the Police sought to limit their liability by arguing that whilst the incident was a “data breach” it wasn’t a wrongful arrest (or false imprisonment). In response, I commenced civil court proceedings, and won substantial damages for my client.
Content Authenticity Statement
100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.
Arrested Despite Full Co-Operation
In December 2022, my client David was a suspect for an alleged offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On 6 December, David was circulated as ‘wanted’ on the Police National Computer system (PNC).
Police Powers of Arrest and the Necessity Test Under PACE
Suspicion of an offence does not entitle Police Officers in England & Wales to arrest you, unless there is also necessity for the arrest in accordance with Section 24 (4-5) of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and Code G of the same Act. This is designed to properly respect and protect the liberty of individuals when there is no risk of immediate harm to others and a criminal investigation can be progressed in less intrusive ways. It is an outgrowth of British traditions of personal liberty and democratic freedom. Necessity Criteria: Why Failure To Consider Alternatives to Arrest is a Police Abuse of Power – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor
In this case, PC Moss of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) correctly recognised that there was no necessity to arrest David, if he ‘came in voluntarily’ and therefore on 7 December made contact to invite him in for a voluntary interview.
David engaged with this request, and attended his local Police station the following day (8 December) for interview. He fully co-operated with the Police, gave his account (denying any wrongdoing) and left.
Police Failure to Remove “Wanted” Marker from the PNC
That should have been the end of the matter, but unfortunately it wasn’t, because of one of those ‘careless catastrophes’ that can occur when human error and great power over people’s lives intersect: PC Moss failed to remove David’s ‘wanted’ marker from the PNC.
Police Raid and Wrongful Arrest at Home
On 9 December David was asleep in bed, when he was awoken by two GMP officers drilling their way through his door; bleary-eyed and barely dressed, David at first couldn’t understand what was happening.
The officers entered David’s flat, handcuffed, and arrested him for the same harassment offence about which he had been interviewed only the day before.
David pleaded the truth to the officers who, thankfully, took the time to check what he was saying, rather than just carting him off to custody – and when it was confirmed that he had in fact been dealt with yesterday, his handcuffs were removed and he was de-arrested.
The officers departed, leaving David with a hole in his door – and, far worse, although his wrongful arrest had only last 10 minutes, a shattered sense of safety and security in his home and lack of trust in the justice system.
Compensation Claim Following Unlawful Arrest and Police Misconduct
A few weeks later, it was confirmed that David was no longer a suspect for the offence; but along with this vindication he also wanted restitution for the violation of his home and liberty.
David therefore turned to me to represent him, recognising my expertise as an actions against the Police Solicitor who has successfully represented thousands of victims of similar torts (civil wrongs) throughout England and Wales.
Apology, but Evasion?
A complaint was lodged with Greater Manchester Police and Detective Inspector Ogdon offered the following apology to my client –
“In this instance PC Moss should have known that [David] was circulated wanted on the PNC and then subsequently cancelled [David’s] PNC marker as soon as he attended at the police station and was interviewed… he should also have communicated this to the [Arrest] team to ensure they didn’t make any attempts to arrest [David].
PC Moss’s failure to do this led to the unnecessary damage to [David’s] front door and surround but more importantly caused [David’s] unnecessary arrest which resulted in him suffering a traumatic experience which has had a detrimental impact on his mental health in the longer term”.
Police Attempt to Limit Liability to a Data Protection Breach
The Police subsequently admitted liability for a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 in the form of PC Moss’s failure to remove the “Wanted” marker against David’s name from the PNC. However, they went on to argue that they were only liable for a ‘data breach’ and not for trespass to person or property, nor false imprisonment, because the two officers who attended at David’s home on 9 December had “an honest and reasonable suspicion” that he was indeed still ‘wanted’ – because of PC Moss’s failure to update them or to remove the wanted marker from the PNC.
In other words – the mistake was PC Moss’s, not theirs, and because PC Moss was not himself the arresting officer, David’s arrest was lawful.
Why This Case Was About Far More Than Just a Data Breach
The Police must not be allowed to diminish our age-old civil liberties – the right not to suffer trespass to our homes, assault and battery or false imprisonment – by hiding behind the technicalities of a data breach in the computer age.
I was determined to win for David compensation which reflected the full extent of the wrongdoing he had suffered and the effect which it had upon him.
I am often faced with this sort of superficially smart manoeuvring on the part of Police Forces, but am pleased to say that I know my way around the case law better than they do, and on behalf of my clients I will not let them get away with this.
Parker v Chief Constable of Essex Police and Wrongful Arrest Law
In the case of Parker v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2018] EWCA Civ 2788 Appeal: Parker v CC Essex police the Court of Appeal found that the Claimant, Mr Parker (aka the entertainer Michael Barrymore) had been unlawfully arrested on suspicion of murder, because the arresting officer himself, PC Cootes, did not himself have sufficient knowledge of the case to form, in his own head, the grounds of reasonable suspicion and necessity to arrest; instead PC Cootes was acting on behalf of another officer, DC Jenkins, who was “well aware of the evidence” but had been “detained in traffic”. Nevertheless, the Court decided, Mr Parker was entitled to ‘nominal’ (i.e extremely low) damages only, as he could have been lawfully arrested by the officer with the requisite knowledge.
The reverse of this point applies to cases such as David’s. If there are officers within the same Force, in this case PC Moss, with knowledge which would completely negate any necessity to arrest, then that fact renders the arrest by other officers unlawful as being objectively unreasonable, even if those other officers, innocent of the true facts subjectively believe their acts to be reasonable.
Aggravated and Exemplary Damages in Police Claims
GMP were clearly seeking to water down their liability, and minimise the payment of damages to David; their first offer to David had been a mere £2,000, however –
- Liability, as I have argued above, was not restricted to a Data breach only, but also the civil torts of trespass, battery and false imprisonment – entitling David to aggravated and/or exemplary damages # in addition to basic compensation;
- The extent of David’s injury (the psychiatric impact) went far beyond the actual 10-minute length of his detention, and I was able to prove this through the use of expert evidence.
£20,000 Compensation Settlement for Wrongful Arrest
It was on this basis that, after instituting Court proceedings on behalf of David, I was able to get GMP to settle his claim for £20,000 damages (ten times their initial offer), plus legal costs.
So, if the Police wrongly come knocking down your door, as they did David’s, do what he did in response – come knocking on mine.
You can also read here about other similar cases I have handled –
- Birmingham man recovers substantial compensation following Police failure to update the Police National Computer (PNC) – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor
- Metropolitan Police failure to update PNC leading to man being arrested twice on the same Warrant results in compensation pay out
- Police Data Error Sends Bailiffs After Wrong Person
- Lack of Necessity to Arrest .
My client’s name has been changed.
How you can help
I publish these articles regularly to demystify police powers and to help people understand when those powers have been misused. If this post has clarified your rights or reinforced the importance of police accountability, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your review helps point others towards experienced representation at a time when clear guidance really matters. 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
You must be logged in to post a comment.