As the busy summer travel season begins, I revisit the recurring problem of innocent travellers being wrongfully arrested because of flawed police data-matching and poor use of intelligence systems. This post tells the story of “Michael”, who was mistakenly arrested twice at UK airports after being confused with a wanted suspect who shared his name but not his date of birth. Despite obvious discrepancies, police officers relied on inaccurate alerts rather than carrying out proper checks, leading to unlawful arrests, embarrassment, distress, and financial loss. After legal action, Michael has already recovered substantial damages for one of the incidents, with a second claim ongoing, highlighting the importance of holding police forces accountable when technology is used without proper judgement.
Content Authenticity Statement
100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.
Wrongful Arrests Caused by Police Data Errors
As we approach the heart, and heat, of the Summer travel season, I am revisiting in this week’s post a recurrent theme of this blog: how many times our Police Forces and other law enforcement agencies use Information Technology in an unintelligent way, data- matching without joined-up thinking, and as a consequence innocent travellers at our international airports and railways stations end up with a “passport to prison.”
Wrongfully Detained on a Plane – Michael’s Story
My client Michael, a man of good character of Nigerian heritage, flew from New York to Heathrow airport with his brother in May 2023. It was a routine Virgin Atlantic Flight, but ended in personal turbulence for Michael: after the plane had landed, an announcement was made telling all passengers to remain seated, because Police Officers were boarding the plane. A few minutes later, Cabin Crew asked Michael to come to the front of the plane; there he found several Metropolitan Police Officers waiting for him. They asked him for his passport, which he agreed to provide, entirely non-plussed about what they wanted.
Wrongful Arrest at Heathrow Airport After Mistaken Identity
The Officers then escorted Michael off the plane and into a corridor in the Terminal. There, to his absolute shock, Michael was told that he was under arrest for an offence of “aggravated burglary” – involving a stabbing – and that he would be taken to a Police Station for interview. Bewildered, Michael asked to be allowed to use his mobile phone to prove that he was not in the area of the alleged offence on the given date, but the Officers refused to allow him access to his phone, and instead placed him in handcuffs.
Michael protested that he had been in another town at the time of the alleged offence and told the officers that he had not been arrested previously. An officer explained that passport names and numbers are checked when entering Heathrow and that Michael’s details had come back as a “wanted male” and that they “look similar”.
Police Officers Realised They Had Arrested the Wrong Man
However, another of the officers now commented – “I guarantee this is the wrong male. I said that as soon as you came off the plane”. A second officer added “Yeah, we both looked at each other and said, I don’t think so”. The officers then held up a photograph of the wanted male next to Michael and noted that there were differences in their appearances. The officers then told Michael that the arrest was “just to rule it out” (which, it need hardly be added, is not a lawful basis for arrest). Michael told the officers that he did not like being in handcuffs and an officer flippantly replied that he would have a “funny story” to tell in due course.
Fingerprint Check Proved Michael Was Innocent
After several minutes, an INK fingerprint device was brought and when this was used upon Michael, it showed a non-match between him and the wanted male. My client was then de-arrested and had his handcuffs removed, having endured approximately 26 minutes of arrest in distressing and embarrassing circumstances. The Officers told Michael that they would put a “marker” on his details to say that they had spoken to him, and that he was not the wanted man.
Michael was now free to proceed to the Arrivals hall, but with a lot of unwanted emotional baggage.
Catching the Heat at Heathrow – What Had Gone Wrong?
It is rarely straightforward to get an admission of liability out of the Police in these circumstances, and they have a tendency to hide behind the “National Border Targeting Centre” (NBTC) which is a Border Force unit which co-ordinates arrest requests and passenger identity checks. In this case, the Met asserted that they had received such an alert from the NBTC, identifying Michael as the suspect in the said offence of aggravated burglary and hence dispatched a team to arrest him upon his arrival.
National Border Targeting Centre Alerts Do Not Remove the Need for Reasonable Suspicion
An NBTC alert does not permit Officers to bypass their brains, however, and the arresting Force is still required to carry out such diligent checks as are necessary to ensure there is a reasonable basis for presuming this particular traveller is indeed the wanted suspect. The Met’s lawyers asserted that they had done just that: with reference to the suspect’s Police National Computer (PNC) record, and they determined that Michael and the wanted man were “one and the same person”, on the basis that they allegedly had the same name and date of birth.
The Police Ignored a Crucial Difference in the Passenger’s Identity
However, once I had obtained unredacted disclosure of the Met’s records – which they were initially reluctant to provide, but in regards to which I knew what I was looking for – the following facts were revealed:
- Michael and the suspect did share the same first and surnames, but both are common Nigerian/ West African names, so that alone could never have formed a reasonable basis for arrest.
- The alert issued by the NBTC did state that the man on the incoming plane (Michael) was the suspect in the Aggravated Burglary offence.
- However, the alert also provided the Police National Computer reference number for the suspect’s personal profile, from which it was clear that the suspect had a different date of birth from that of Michael.
- That difference in the dates of birth of the aeroplane passenger (Michael) and the actual suspect was known to the Met, but they proceeded to intercept and arrest Michael regardless, apparently on the assumption that he was the suspect and that for some reason he was travelling under his own name but an ‘alias’ date of birth.
Why the Arrest Was Never Based on Reasonable Grounds
This assumption was a ridiculous one, and entirely undermined any argument that the Met Officers had an objectively reasonable suspicion that my client was the suspect. International air travel must be verified by a valid passport, and we all know how rigorously that identity- regime is policed, especially for travellers coming to and from America. Unless ‘spy games’ were being played, the only reasonable presumption was this: that the man on the plane was not the suspect, because of their different dates of birth, which could not have been ‘faked’ in this very particular context.
Your Liberty Is Delayed – Lightning Strikes Twice
Unfortunately, Michael was to experience a very unpleasant form of déjà vu the following Summer, June 2024, when he arrived at Gatwick Airport with his wife, to fly to Rhodes for his friend’s birthday celebration.
Wrongfully Arrested Again at Gatwick Airport
Initially all went well, Michael and his wife passed through security and passport control and then boarded the flight. However, before the plane had begun taxiing for take- off, Michael was called to the front of the plane, and with a sinking feeling in his heart, saw that there were Police Officers waiting to ‘greet’ him there. These were officers of Sussex Police, and they informed Michael that he was “wanted”.
The Same Police Intelligence Failure Happened Twice
Unbeknownst to Michael at this stage, was the fact that, notwithstanding the ‘mistaken identity’ incident of the previous year – when the Met had promised to put a marker on the PNC to stop this happening again – the National Border Targeting Centre had again ‘matched’ Michael’s passenger data with the criminal suspect who bears the same first & surname, but has a different date of birth, and who was now wanted for nothing less than conspiracy to murder.
Michael pleaded with the officers that he had been mistakenly arrested in similar circumstances in May 2023 when he returned from America, but they tried to wash their hands of the matter by saying that they were effectively merely acting as agents for the Metropolitan Police who had put out the “wanted” marker on the suspect’s details, which the NBTC had then acted upon. My client then provided the officers with a code relating to the May 2023 incident, which he had been told to provide to Police in the event of related trouble in the future. The officers relayed this code for urgent checks. One of the officers commented that “this is ridiculous and embarrassing. It makes us look like idiots”.
Police Arrested Michael Despite Earlier Proof of Mistaken Identity
Nevertheless, the Officers ultimately decided to carry out their original orders, and notwithstanding Michael’s protests, the reference code he had given for the previous incident, or the evidence of his passport, they arrested him on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder and he was taken from the plane and incarcerated at Gatwick Police Station.
Failures in Police Communication and Identity Checks
It subsequently transpired that the Sussex Police Officers had contacted the Met regarding Michael’s reference code for the previous incident, only to be told that they were unable to glean any information from it “because it was over a year old.” It also transpired that Sussex Police had not actually been issued with a photograph of the wanted man, and thus were unable to carry out a straightforward visual ID of Michael. Furthermore, the Met had erroneously informed Sussex that there was an actual Court warrant for Michael’s arrest, which was not the case. Finally, the INK machine which should have been available to check Michael’s fingerprints inside the airport was not working. None of this is the greatest advertisement for “Police Intelligence”, I am sure you will agree.
Michael Missed His Flight Before the Mistake Was Finally Corrected
At the Police Station, Michael’s fingerprints were scanned, and the penny finally dropped; Michael was clearly not the wanted man. He was de-arrested, approximately an hour and a half after he had originally been summoned to the front of the plane… but by then the flight to Rhodes, with Michael’s wife on board, had already departed, greatly adding to his anxiety and inconvenience. He had to pay for a seat on another flight the following day.
It was only after the double- whammy of this second event that Michael approached me for help and advice, and I identified that he had viable claims for wrongful arrest in respect of both incidents – including not just the duration of his loss of liberty on each occasion, but its emotional and financial consequences.
As is par for the course, both the Met and Sussex Police initially denied liability.
Ticket to Success – Michael’s Damages Award
Backed by my specialist knowledge and advice, Michael was confident in issuing proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in regards to his 2023 arrest and against both Sussex Police and the Met in regards to the 2024 incident.
Compensation Recovered for Wrongful Arrest and False Imprisonment
I am pleased to report that Michael’s second plane has recently come into land: we have recovered substantial damages from the Metropolitan Police, plus legal costs, for Michael’s wrongful arrest in May 2024.
A Further Compensation Claim Against the Metropolitan Police Continues
My client’s claim for the 2023 arrest, against the Met, is still ongoing, but I am confident that will have an equally satisfactory conclusion, and that Michael will end up with far more than just the “funny story” the officer suggested.
Can You Claim Compensation for a Wrongful Airport Arrest?
I myself have another story to tell of an innocent international traveller who enlisted my aid to win justice, this time after an arrest at a railway station, which I will return to in next week’s post.
In the meantime, I wish you all safe and happy journeys wherever you may be bound this month.
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.