I am providing an update this week on a case which I have blogged about several times – that of my client Scott Barratt – a man of the upmost good character who, in a case of inexcusable ‘mistaken identity’, was forced onto his hands and knees at taser point by PC Kirkwood of Lincolnshire Police and then, whilst he was in this utterly submissive and defenceless position, was deliberately kicked in the face by the Officer, who called him a “f*****g b*****d!”
Content Authenticity Statement
100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.
The Law of the Land, or the Law of the Streets? Police Officers and Vigilante Justice
PC Kirkwood had unreasonably mistaken my client for a bicycle thief whom he was pursuing, and had then decided to administer some vigilante ‘justice’ to his captive – breaking both the bounds of the law and Scott’s nose in the process.
Crown Court Trial and CPS Failures in Police Assault Prosecutions
Scott was first denied justice when PC Kirkwood was acquitted of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) at Nottingham Crown Court in February 2024, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), whose job was to supposedly secure the conviction of the Officer, made the bizarre decision not to call the key witness i.e. Scott himself, preferring to present their case on the basis of the Officer’s body camera footage only. Crucially, this deprived Scott, as the victim, of his voice and left PC Kirkwood as the only character ‘on stage’ – and therefore the natural magnet for the sympathies of the Judge and Jury.
Lincolnshire Police PSD Declares Officer’s Actions “Reasonable”
Be that as it may, Scott hoped that the Police’s own internal disciplinary system would give him some measure of justice, at the second time of asking – only for Lincolnshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) to declare that PC Kirkwood’s actions were “Reasonable, proportionate and necessary”, delivering a finding that the Officer had done nothing wrong.
Overturning Incorrect Police Misconduct Decisions through the IOPC
At this point, I was able to bring my experience and expertise in overturning incorrect Police misconduct decisions to bear on behalf of Scott, and I persuaded the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) to quash the PSD decision, and to order that PC Kirkwood should face a gross misconduct hearing.
Even this was not the end of the fight, however, as my client and I ran up against the type of passive-aggressive resistance to external criticism which is, frankly, part of the DNA of PSD, and Policing culture as a whole.
The Mishandling of Police Misconduct Hearings in England and Wales
I have written many times before about how dysfunctional the Police complaints and misconduct system is because of the huge extent of pro-police bias at its heart.
In the words of Baroness Louise Casey, author of the 2022-23 reports into culture and standards of behaviour in the Metropolitan Police which was part of the Profession’s post-mortem following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Police Officer –
“There are moments when I have looked at the cases with people I’ve listened to and I have wondered what exactly would constitute gross misconduct in order to get them out of the force.”
Police Misconduct Panels and the Exclusion of Victim Testimony
Just as the Crown Prosecution Service had done, the Chair of the Misconduct Panel (Assistant Chief Constable Nicole Mayo) debarred Scott himself from giving evidence at the hearing, determining that hearing from the victim himself was not required in order for her to address the allegations against the (now recently retired) PC Kirkwood.
For the second time, therefore, at a crucial point in the justice process, Scott was deprived of his voice, and his absence from the witness roster had predictable consequences. Unopposed by his victim, Kirkwood was able to tug on the heartstrings of the Misconduct Panel members and make the following false assertions which my client was unable to challenge –
- Kirkwood was allowed to claim that he did not use a “full swing” of his foot, and only cut Scott’s nose “slightly” with “the lace part of the boot”.
- He denied fracturing Scott’s nose, claiming it was “already wonky” from an old break and asserted that he had “considered calling the Complainant a liar” over the nature of his injury.
- He further went on to outrageously assert that Scott had told him “You probably did me a favour as it’s always had that wonkiness”.
Shockingly, the Panel had apparently not anticipated that Kirkwood would try and obfuscate the force he had used and the extent of the injury he had caused, which you might think surprising naivety from Police professionals whose role is to gather evidence to prove a case in the face of denial.
Not only had the Assistant Chief Constable explicitly refused Scott’s request to give evidence, no medical or expert evidence was put before the Panel either. As the Regulation 43 report issued by the Panel at the conclusion of the hearing limply acknowledged – “There was limited evidence before the Panel of the physical and emotional harm caused to the Complainant report.”
Key findings of the Police Gross Misconduct Panel
The key findings of the Panel were as follows –
- PC Kirkwood had acted out of anger
- Scott was “compliant” with the Officer’s instructions, and not resisting or threatening him in any way
- Kirkwood’s use of force – delivered to a “red” area of the body (the head) thereby risking severe harm to Scott – was disproportionate, unnecessary and unreasonable
- Kirkwood’s use of the words “f*****g b*****d” – were disrespectful and abusive.
Gross Misconduct Found – But No Meaningful Sanction Imposed
In conclusion, it was found that (former) PC Kirkwood had committed Gross Misconduct – but by way of further insult to (quite literal) injury to my client, the Panel decided that rather than declaring that Kirkwood would have been dismissed without notice had he still been a serving Officer (and thereby added to the Police Barred List, preventing him from ever returning to the profession), the appropriate sanction was just a “Final Written Warning.” This means that had Kirkwood not retired, he would still be patrolling our streets and without suffering any real penalty. It was a rap on the knuckles for a kick in the face.
Victim Response to the Police Misconduct Outcome
As my client eloquently put it, in words which it is a crying shame the Misconduct Panel could not hear, because they didn’t let him speak –
“It seems insane to me that even with his version of events been taken as truth, they’d theoretically be happy for this man to continue to work in this position and with potential power over the public.”
Potential Judicial Review and Further Action against the Misconduct Findings
I now intend to write to the IOPC and invite them to appeal this outcome by means of a Judicial Review. I would hope that they will be as disappointed as we are at the lightness of Kirkwood’s ‘sentence’, and the mishandling of the Misconduct Hearing in terms of the failure to call Scott as a witness or assemble appropriate medical evidence.
Civil Claim against Lincolnshire Police
Regardless of the IOPC response, matters won’t rest there, however. I have already instituted civil court proceedings against the Chief Constable on behalf of Scott, and firmly expect that Lincolnshire Police will soon come to the negotiating table in light of the Gross Misconduct finding, and the weight of the evidence I have gathered in my client’s favour. Thanks to the failings of the CPS and the Police themselves, Scott has now twice been denied justice and accountability – but that won’t happen for a third time.
Further Reading on Police Misconduct and Civil Claims
Further reading on this case and related subjects can be found in the links above and below –
- The Regulation 43 outcome report for PC Kirkwood’s case, published by Lincolnshire Police
- How I overturned another incorrect misconduct decision and won £100,000 from Lincolnshire Police for my client Shane Price
How you can help
Making specialist legal knowledge accessible is a core part of why I write this blog. If you believe that clear, independent information about police powers and civil liberties is important, I would greatly appreciate you taking a moment to leave a 5-star review. Each review helps ensure that those searching for answers can find this site — and the help they deserve. Thank you for your support.
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 for his clients.
You must be logged in to post a comment.