Author: iaingould

This is a continuation of the story of my client Zac, a black man battered and subjected to an unlawful strip search by the Metropolitan Police, which I began last week. 

Trials and tribulations  

Zac was originally represented by another firm of solicitors who advised him, in 2014, to issue Court proceedings (so as to protect his position – as his injury claims would be subject to the three-year limitation period) but thereafter to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the complaint process.  Unbeknownst to all involved at the time, that complaint process still had almost another four years to run.

Dissatisfied with the representation he had received to that point, Zac instructed me to act on his behalf from February 2017.  I submitted a detailed letter of claim on Zac’s behalf to the Metropolitan Police but they initially ‘ducked’ out of responding to it by hiding behind the ongoing complaint process.

The Met finally responded to my letter of claim in March 2018, denying liability for Zac’s claims in their entirety. 

In response I drafted the appropriate statements of case and Court proceedings were served upon the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in May 2018.

Initially, the Met strenuously defended these legal proceedings, submitting a Defence in June 2018 and statements from the three key Officers in support of that Defence. 

Having experienced Police brutality on the day of the incident Zac, now had to undergo a ‘character assassination’ in the pleadings of the Defence, in which his honesty was attacked and he was portrayed as aggressive and hostile.

Each time the Police denied and disputed his complaint or claim, Zac understandably felt that he was being re-traumatised.  It played on his mind not only that PC Waddington and PC Munich had simply stood back and watched as he was placed in a chokehold and taken to the ground – but that they had also, ever since then, stood by their colleague and, to Zac’s mind, tried to conceal the truth.  He was haunted by thoughts that had he died that day as a result of the pressure applied to his neck and chest, there would have been no independent evidence, and his family would have been “fed lies” about what had really happened. 

Zac felt that his mental wounds from the incident had never been allowed to heal because of the Police ‘System’ fighting him tooth and nail through every step of the complaint and claim process. 

As a result, what Zac was most focused on was the Police accepting fault and properly admitting liability – proving to the world their Officer’s wrongdoing in violently attacking, detaining and then strip searching him. This was so much more important to him than anything else, that he declined a significant offer of monetary compensation that was made by the Met on a ‘without prejudice’ basis (i.e a financial settlement without an admission of liability) in October 2018.

The determination of myself and my client was seemingly rewarded when, in late September 2019, the Met Police finally admitted liability for Zac’s claim in the following terms, leaving the case to proceed to Trial on the issue of assessment of damages –

“The Commissioner admits that the Claimant’s searches, both at the scene and at the Police Station and detention for those purposes, were unlawful.  As a consequence, it is admitted that Police actions at the time would be found to be unlawful.”

In due course, however, the Met’s admission would prove to have more of the character of a tactical manoeuvre about it, than of contrition born of an honest acceptance of the justice of Zac’s case. 

It became increasingly clear that the Police had accepted liability only because of what they would argue was a ‘technicality’ – PC Bullock’s failure to comply with the procedures prescribed by Code A of PACE when conducting the stop and search – rather than any admission as to the fundamental truth of Zac’s case on the issues of PC Bullock’s motivation for conducting the search and the totally disproportionate nature of the force that he used.

In due course, with Judgment entered for my client, but these fundamental issues still in dispute between the parties, the case went to Trial at Central London County Court in January 2020.  Even now the manoeuvring and ‘game playing’ of the Metropolitan Police had not ended; on the second day of the Trial, during his cross examination of Zac, the Police barrister made an ‘apology’ to Zac on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which was limited to PC Bullock’s failure to properly introduce himself and identify his Police Station before commencing the search, and which ‘apology’ was then used in further questions put to Zac by the barrister to seek to persuade him, in open Court in front of the Jury, to drop his claim for exemplary (i.e. punitive) damages against the Police on the basis that his claim would deprive the Met of money essential for carrying out their Policing functions.

In my opinion, this was a shameless and underhanded trick.  The apology, sprung upon my client unannounced like an act from a ‘showpiece theatre’ performance, was entirely disingenuous.  It was not intended to reflect genuine remorse on the part of the Police, nor to make my client feel better – it was used as a weapon by which Zac could then be attacked in front of the Jury and made to look like a ‘money grabber’ if he then didn’t agree the Defendant’s suggestion that he drop part of his claim – and all of this was done whilst he was in the witness box, giving evidence under oath and unable to directly communicate with or take advice from me, as his solicitor.

In my opinion, it was a discreditable stunt by the Met’s legal team – but they didn’t stop there.

At the end of the second day of the Trial, following almost two hours of cross examination of Zac, the Police Barrister made an application to introduce into evidence a Custody Record relating to a separate arrest which they had not previously disclosed.

This was, plainly and simply, a pre-meditated ambush of my client, in an attempt to discredit him in front of the Jury.  It was in direct contravention of one of the most basic tenets of our Civil Court system, which is that each party must share with the other all of the documentary evidence upon which they intend to rely well in advance of the Trial, in the interest of allowing the other time to fairly consider and respond to the same, and furthermore in the interest of avoiding the time delay and costs incurred in going to Trial, by adopting what is called the ‘cards on the table’ approach.

The hypocrisy of the Police approach to Zac’s case at Trial almost beggared belief.  They used an ‘apology’ as a back door way to attack Zac for (in effect) being a drain on public funds – when, in reality, the Police could have saved vast amounts of public money, Officers’ time, Zac’s time and the Court’s time by addressing his original 2012 complaint in a fair and contrite manner, over seven years previously.

Further adding salt to Zac’s wounds, it had been put to him by the Police barrister during cross examination that he was ‘irrational’ for believing that PC Bullock’s behaviour towards him was in any way motivated by racism – notwithstanding the absence of any good reason for the Officer to have stopped and searched him that day.

Indeed, the conduct of the Police legal team, and especially the barrister up to this point, was such that one member of the Jury was provoked to pass a note to the Judge querying whether the conduct of the Police barrister in his cross examination of Zac was, in itself, ‘potentially discriminatory’.

The contents of that note led the Police barrister to apply for the Jury to be discharged on the basis (he argued) that at least one of them was now prejudiced against him, and thereby the Jury could not be relied upon to provide an impartial decision on the facts.  The Trial Judge, His Honour Judge Freeland QC approved this Application by the Defence and, effectively, declared a ‘mistrial’.

My client was therefore, once again, called upon to muster all his reserves of stoicism in the face of injustice and delay.  After waiting over five years for the complaint process to resolve, and then going through a further two years of litigation to Trial, that Trial had now collapsed as a result of game playing by the Police lawyers, which further aggravated his suffering.  What is more, shortly afterwards the first wave of the Covid pandemic hit our shores, sweeping away ‘social gatherings’ including Jury trials, and yet further prolonging Zac’s wait for justice.

The Defence mounted by the Met continued to deny the full extent of his injuries and belittle the seriousness of the force used upon him by PC Bullock – especially in terms of the chokehold.

A further statement was served on behalf of PC Bullock.  Apology and admission or not, the Met continued to muster its battle lines in the face of Zac’s claim. 

The Met’s conduct of its Defence, combined with the continued threat of Covid conjured up a ‘perfect storm’ of ongoing delay.  Re-Trials listed to commence in March 2021 and then December 2021 were each in turn adjourned, and by November 2021 it was being projected that it would not be possible for the Trial to finally be heard until the Autumn of 2022, such was the systemic backlog of Jury trials across the country at that point.

It was in this context that, when the Met finally tabled an offer of £30,000 damages, plus legal costs – almost twice as much as their previous highest offer of settlement – Zac decided to take it.   Matters were brought to a successful conclusion on the basis of a settlement order which I negotiated on Zac’s behalf in July 2022.

Thus did Zac’s long and winding battle for justice against the Met, after almost ten years, end in a notable victory.

In order to achieve this, Zac demonstrated great determination and perseverance – and a willingness to endure conduct by the Police and their lawyers which was not merely delaying and demoralising but which in itself added further scars to the wounds already inflicted; but in the end, all the more worth it for the sense of satisfaction and empowerment that he achieved.

Most paths to justice do not last anywhere near as long as Zac’s did, but this case is a salutary reminder of some of the demons which still haunt the Police and by extension, the victims of their misconduct; arrogance, hostility, pride, and prejudice.

Postscript

Although the Met may have ridiculed Zac’s suggestion that he was the victim of racial profiling in this incident – i.e an aggressive targeting for a search based not on reasonable grounds, but on the colour of his skin – I consider that the facts can be allowed to speak for themselves in terms of what has been described as the ‘institutional racism’ of the Policing profession. And I can call as a further witness to this, Zac himself who was the subject of a second baseless ‘drugs search’ and assault by yet more Metropolitan Officers, in very different circumstances in 2020 – whilst this first case was still ongoing – and as a result of which he won further damages of £7,500. You can read my blog post about that later case here. https://iaingould.co.uk/2023/11/13/you-smell-cannabis-i-smell-a-rat/

You can also read the Guardian Newspaper’s coverage of the settlement of Zac’s first case by clicking on the link.

In this week’s blog, I am presenting another case ‘from the archives’ because it highlights issues of Police misconduct which remain as relevant today as they were 10 years ago – specifically issues of ‘racial profiling’ in the exercise of Police Stop and Search powers and the resistance of the Police to Policing themselves when it comes to misconduct allegations. 

A pasty and a patsy?

“PC Bullock had excellent detection rates as he would do a lot of stop and searches.  He would frequent areas where people were known to smoke marijuana and would obtain a number of positive searches in that way.  However, I would not describe his worth ethic as being good.  He would go out at lunchtime to get a sandwich, get his sanctions and detections for the day and then he would think he wouldn’t have to do anything else for the rest of the day. 

I remember that that day, PC Bullock had gone out for his sandwich, so I knew he would bring back a Stop and Search record form, as he always conducted a stop and search when he went to get his lunch…”

PS Balchin, Chiswick Police Station.

These were the words of PC Bullock’s Sergeant as quoted in the Complaint Investigation Report subsequently completed by the IPCC (Independent Police Complaint Commission – the forerunner of the current Independent Office for Police Conduct) in relation to the Stop and Search of my client Zac on 27 December 2012 (“that day…” to which the Sergeant refers in her statement).

Zac is a black man who was born in Somalia and came to the UK when he was 6 years old.  On the day in question, he was not doing anything out of the ordinary – simply taking his dog for an afternoon walk on Chiswick Common.  As it was a mild day, he was wearing only a shirt and a pair of jeans and he was carrying with him nothing more illicit than a ‘Greg’s Bakery’ plastic bag, containing a sandwich and a bottle of soft drink. 

Zac let his dog off the lead, so it could stretch its legs whilst he ate his sandwich.

It was whilst doing this that Zac became the target of one of PC Bullock’s ‘2 for 1’ lunchtime deals, as described in the above quotation from his Sergeant – i.e. collecting a sandwich and a Stop/Search form for himself (or, we might say a ‘pasty and a patsy’).

PC Bullock approached Zac and demanded to know what he was doing in the area.  When Zac replied that he was having his sandwich whilst his dog exercised, the Officer announced “Okay, for that smart answer, I am going to search you”.  It was at this point that Zac noticed that although PC Bullock was in ‘plain clothes’, and had not identified himself to Zac as a Police Officer, he appeared to be holding a Police warrant card in one of his hands. 

As matters continued to unfold, and in contravention of the GOWISELY procedure laid down by Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) – which governs Police stop/searches upon members of the public – PC Bullock did not formally identify himself, provide his name or Police Station or explain the grounds for his search and the legal powers under which it was purportedly being carried out. 

When Zac questioned what he had done to justify being searched, PC Bullock replied “In my eyes you look suspicious – I believe that you’re concealing something”.

PC Bullock’s response made no sense to my client, who could see no reason for the Officer’s proposed search of him – other than that he was a young black man in an affluent area.

Zac then heard PC Bullock requesting “Further assistance” via his personal radio and questioned the Officer as to why he was doing this – pointing out that at no point had he refused a search.

Although Zac was unhappy as to why the Officer had targeted him, he kept these thoughts to himself and peaceably surrendered to the Officer’s search.  PC Bullock proceeded to pat him down and search his pockets – as he did so, removing Zac’s bank card and pocketing it himself.

Despite the search having proved negative, PC Bullock kept hold of Zac’s arm and now informed him that he could not leave and would have to await the arrival of other officers. 

Soon afterwards, two more plain-clothed Metropolitan Police Officers arrived – a male (PC Munich) and a female (PC Waddington). 

Armed with these ‘reinforcements’, PC Bullock now informed Zac that he was going to be taken away for a strip search.  Zac was utterly shocked and questioned how this could possibly be necessary – his concern all the greater because his dog was off the lead, wandering around the park.

When Zac protested to PC Munich about what was happening, with words to the effect of “Why do I have to be strip searched?  I have done nothing wrong.  I was just walking my dog”, he was suddenly grabbed from behind by PC Bullock in a ‘chokehold’ manoeuvre, which left him gasping for breath and struggling for balance.  Zac was taken to the ground, landing heavily on his chest under the body weight of PC Bullock.

Despite the distress that Zac was in, PC Bullock maintained the chokehold and made goading remarks including “Look at you now” and “You’re nothing”. 

In an effort to relieve the potentially deadly pressure which PC Bullock was applying to his neck, Zac frantically tapped on the ground – the wrestler’s gesture of ‘submission’.  Only then did PC Bullock loosen his grip, although he continued to taunt Zac with the words “You’re not such a tough guy after all”.

This outburst of violence from PC Bullock towards Zac had simply been watched without comment by PC Munich and PC Waddington, neither of whom made any attempt to stop or restrain their colleague (which is sadly, the default mode of Police Officers when one of their colleagues is ‘going over the top’).

Indeed, the only action that either of this pair of Officers took at this stage was to ‘warn off’ another member of the public, who came over to ask if Zac was okay and questioned what the Officer was doing to him.  This man was threatened with arrest if he did not move away, which seemed to scare him off.

Zac was in discomfort to his face, throat, neck, back, ribs and left shoulder and then suffered further pain to his shoulder as PC Bullock handcuffed his hands behind his back, before pulling him to his feet. 

Zac now believes that he was on the floor in the chokehold for only approximately 90 seconds – but this terrifying experience felt like it lasted a lot longer whilst it was happening.

Unfortunately, his ordeal was far from over.  Once Zac was on his feet, PC Bullock attempted to escort him towards some nearby bushes saying words to the effect of “I am going to teach you a lesson”.  Zac was extremely concerned for his personal safety, but PC Munich at last intervened and told PC Bullock “He’s had enough.  You’ve gone too far”. 

Zac remained the Officers’ prisoner however, and was taken to an unmarked Police car nearby – the Officers did at least allow Zac to call his dog over, who was then taken with them in the boot of the car. 

A Naked Abuse of Power

Zac was driven to Chiswick Police Station and taken into a side room by the two male Officers, PC Bullock and PC Munich.  His handcuffs were removed – but he was then ordered by PC Bullock to remove his clothing, an instruction with which Zac unwillingly complied, fearing that he would be once again attacked if he refused.

Zac was then required to, humiliatingly, squat, turn around and bend over whilst the Officers ‘inspected’ him, before he was allowed to put his clothing back on – and PC Bullock finally returned Zac’s bank card to him.  Nothing, of course, had been found on him.

My client was now issued with a Stop/Search form and told that he could leave, with PC Bullock firing what he probably thought was a last parting shot at him – “You can always try your luck and report me.”

Outraged by what had occurred, Zac, having been ushered out of the back door of the Police Station (collecting his dog along the way) immediately re-entered the Station through the front door in order to file a complaint.

Shortly after he had left the Station, Zac then received a phone call from a female Officer,  now known to be PC Bullock’s Supervising Sergeant,  PS Balchin – the Officer with whose quotation I opened this account.  Zac gave her a full account of what had occurred, and she told him that she would investigate and report back to him.  This was notwithstanding her total lack of impartiality in this matter for unbeknownst to Zac, PS Balchin was the officer who had, apparently quite casually, authorised PC Bullock’s strip search of him.

The next day, it was necessary for Zac to attend A&E in order to have his injuries checked out.  He had multiple cuts and bruises across his body, including pain and discomfort in his chest, left shoulder, neck and upper back.  X-rays were taken.  It was found that Zac had suffered a dislocation to his left shoulder, although fortunately all of his physical injuries resolved within about 8 weeks.

The incident also had an unsurprising and significant impact on Zac’s mental health.  He became depressed and withdrawn, afraid to leave his house in case he experienced a similar event, and when he did go out, he was anxious whenever he heard or saw a Police Officer or car, the sound of a Police siren being enough to trigger a panic attack.  His sleep was disturbed by regular nightmares about being strangled.   Psychologically, Zac felt that these events left him feeling a ‘shadow’ of his former self, for a long time afterwards.

Zac had ‘done the right thing’ by promptly bringing a complaint to the attention of PC Bullock’s superiors – but little did he know at the time, his attempt to secure justice for what had been done to him through the Police Complaint process would drag on for over five years before coming to a bitterly disappointing conclusion.

The Whitewash Watchdog?

Historically, one of the most common forms of institutional corruption in this country has been Police ‘laundering’ of Officers reputations; the lengths to which Professional Standards investigators are apparently prepared to go in order to dismiss legitimate complaints and exonerate their colleagues, even in the face of strong evidence of misconduct. 

This is a system with an inbuilt resentment of complaints and strong inclination to always give the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to the accused officer, which can wear down the will of even the most determined complainant.

Three times during the five years following this December 2012 incident, the Metropolitan Police produced Complaint Reports – the first by the female Sergeant who was PC Bullock’s direct supervisor, PS Balchin – all of which either completely exonerated PC Bullock, or, at best, found him guilty of minor procedural misconduct in the exercise of his powers (essentially, failing to properly provide his details to Zac).  No criticism was made in these reports of any of the substantive issues of misconduct from Zac’s point of view i.e. the Officer’s either random or racially prejudiced targeting of him and grossly excessive uses of force (which if perpetrated by a member of the public, would no doubt have been treated as criminal violence) or the degrading misuse of strip- search powers.

Zac quite rightly felt that each of these reports was nothing more than a ‘whitewash’.  I agree with him; I have seen enough of such reports in my time and they are, to be frank, the main product of the Police Complaint system, at least it has existed up to the present day – after all ‘laundries’ tend to produce crisp, white sheets.

Each time Zac appealed these internal investigations, the IPCC upheld his appeal, but each time the repetition of the process was essentially fruitless – other than that, at the third time of asking it was accepted by the Met that PS Bullock had lacked the necessary authorisation for the strip search.  Once again, however, any criticism of PC Bullock was confined to procedural errors rather than the real issues with which Zac was concerned. 

Zac was conscious that the IPCC was frequently referred to by the media as the ‘Police Watchdog’ (just as its successor body the IOPC is today). Again, he was to learn through bitter experience something which I and other Police Misconduct lawyers have been saying for a long time – that in both of its incarnations, this Watchdog often behaves more like a ‘lapdog’, timid and unwilling to show any real bite in response to pro-police bias in the Complaints system.  It has to be said that one appeals to them “more in IOPC than expectation”…

Finally, however, even the IPCC’s patience with the Police seemed to be exhausted and after Zac appealed the third iteration of the Complaint Investigation Report, they (the IPCC) finally took over conduct of the investigation themselves and went on to produce a report in May 2017 which concluded that PC Bullock did have a case to answer for misconduct. 

However, in January 2018, PC Bullock appeared at a Misconduct Meeting chaired by Inspector Edwards of the Metropolitan Police, at which all of the allegations against the Officer were dismissed. 

Zac – who had been allowed to attend the Misconduct Meeting, but only as a silent observer and not to give any evidence or speak for himself – was devastated.  He was left feeling that the Complaint system was designed only to offer an illusion of accountability to the public, disguising its true purpose of protecting Police Officers and that the IPCC, despite all its pious words, was toothless and useless.

Nevertheless, despite all these emotional ‘knockdowns’, Zac still retained faith that there was justice to be found somewhere in the system, and ultimately turned to me for assistance in bringing a civil claim against the Metropolitan Police for false imprisonment and assault and battery. 

Find out what happened when Zac’s case went to Court, when I continue his story in next week’s blog post.

I have written on numerous previous occasions about the many unfortunate incidents of wrongful arrest which occur at Airports; but in this high season of holiday travel I thought it was also appropriate to shine the spotlight on a recent case of mine which involved a wrongful arrest at the second busiest nexus for international travel – our Sea Ports.

My client Gerry travelled from Belfast to the UK via the Port of Birkenhead on Merseyside.  On disembarking from the boat at Birkenhead at approximately 7am, Gerry was handcuffed and arrested by the Port of Liverpool Police for an alleged offence of theft.

The Port of Liverpool Police are a small, non- Home Office Police Force, not dissimilar to Mersey Tunnels Police, with a geographically limited jurisdiction. They have responsibility for dock estates and port areas on Merseyside and are governed by the Mersey Docks & Harbour (Police) Order 1975.

Gerry was then conveyed to Wirral Custody Suite where the circumstances of his arrest were entered in the Custody Record as follows –

THEFT – AO [Arresting Officer] IS PRTS [Port of Liverpool] POLICE OFFICER AND RECIEVES INFO DP [Detained Person] IS WANTED AND ON A STENNA LINE FERRY FROM BELFAST TO TWELVE QUAYS, BIRKENHEAD. AO DETAINS DP AT THE PORT, PNC CHECK RECEALS DP WANTED BY ESSEX POLICE SUS THEFT X 5 FROM 16/6/23 WHERE HE ALLEGEDLY HAS STOLEN NUMEROUS ITEMS TO THE VALUE OF £4,000 FROM NUMEROUS COMMERCIAL PREMISES.

Gerry was searched, had his photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken and was incarcerated in a cell all day, until, at approximately 6.40pm that evening Officers from Essex Police arrived and Gerry was transferred into their Custody and conveyed to Grays Police Station in Essex. 

There, after a long journey across the country, Gerry spent an uncomfortable night in the cell before being taken for interview, where it finally became clear to the Police that they had the right name – but the wrong man. 

The person whom the Police were actually after was a serial shoplifter who had also recently committed a ‘dine and dash’ offence at a restaurant.  As soon as the details of these offences were explained to Gerry in interview, he asserted his total innocence telling the interviewing Officer “I’m guessing you’ve loads of CCTV and we can fast forward this if you just get it up, shot of the CCTV and you look at me, I was not at any of those places.  I really wasn’t”.

Once a selection of the CCTV clips of the suspect in various locations had been played, Gerry was able to turn the tables on his interviewer by posing the simple question –  “Does that dude look like me?” – to which the answer was a resounding ‘no’.

Gerry further commented “If you look at my face and then you look at him – you tell me why I was here for the last 27 hours.  …if I don’t laugh I’ll be more angry”.

Following Gerry’s interview, the Police evidential review confirmed that the suspect in the CCTV footage and Gerry were of distinctly different builds, with different colour hair and that even if Gerry’s name matched that of the suspect, his date of birth did not. 

Shortly thereafter, Gerry was ‘refused charge’ and released from Custody. He had, in total, been deprived of his liberty for a period of approximately 30 hours.

Gerry had passed through the Custody of no less than three different Police Forces – firstly arrested by the Port of Liverpool Police Officer, who had then transported him to a Merseyside Police Station (the Port Police lacking any such facilities themselves) and thereafter being handed over to Essex Police for the continuation of his un-magical mystery tour…

As has happened all too often before, it ultimately transpired that Gerry’s details on the Police National Computer System had become confused with the details of another person by the same name – a mistake for which Essex Police accepted liability in this case.  As ever, the most common location where such ‘human errors’ cause the wrongful arrest of innocent individuals are the termini of international travel – our air and sea ports.

I am pleased to confirm that Gerry’s case has now been settled, not only for a payment of a five- figure sum of damages, plus legal costs, but also a formal apology for the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

My client’s name has been changed.

In September 2023, my client Edward was staying at a friend’s house in Grimsby.  One evening he went out socialising in Grimsby Town, met a woman and the two of them returned to Edward’s friend’s house in the early hours of the morning, only to discover officers of Humberside Police in attendance.

The officers told Edward that they were looking for his brother, Liam.  Indeed, they had just conducted a search of the house looking for Liam – but he was not there.  My client, who had not seen Liam recently, but who knew the Police were after him commented playfully (perhaps a little ‘cheekily’)  “Enjoy lads…you know what, it’s a game of hide and seek innit”.

Thinking nothing further of this, Edward then went into his friend’s house.  The Police officers present now had a discussion between themselves, however, and decided on the basis of my client’s comment that he might in fact know the location of Liam – and that because he wasn’t volunteering this information to the officers, despite knowing that his brother was wanted, then he was thereby himself committing the criminal offence of ‘assisting an offender’.

This is an offence contrary to Section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which, under the heading ‘Penalties for assisting offenders’ provides as follows –

Where a person has committed a relevant offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other relevant offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehensional prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.

PC Healey now knocked on the door of the house, asked Edward to step outside “for a chat” and once he did so, the officer arrested my client “On suspicion of assisting an offender”. 

Shocked and confused, Edward truthfully asserted that all he knew was that Liam had told him that he was staying with his current girlfriend – but he (Edward) did not know this girl’s address.

All Edward knew – in his own words to the officers – was that his brother was at “Some bird’s” but the officers, unphased, proceeded with his arrest.

Edward was handcuffed, searched and locked in a caged section of a nearby Police van, despite his continued protests that he was being arrested for no reason other than being Liam’s brother.

He was particularly distressed because he had been arrested in front of the girl he had met that night and his other friends in the house, and he now also feared he was not going to be able to attend work in the morning, risking his employment at a job he had only recently started.  He protested that his brother’s misdemeanours were nothing to do with him.

As is very common in such situations, Edward was not only experiencing the emotional distress and disorientation of a wrongful arrest, he was also suffering significant pain and discomfort from the tight and uncomfortable handcuffs with which he had been ‘manacled’.

Edward was then driven to a nearby custody centre where he was processed and incarcerated in a cell.

According to the Custody Record, the circumstances of Edward’s arrest were as follows –

“Officer had been conducting arrest attempts for a wanted male, suspect has disclosed to officers he has recently seen the wanted male but would not assist officers.”

After around five long and unpleasant hours in the cell Edward was brought out – and then released with no further action.

By now however, it was too late for him to go into work and he lost a day’s wages as a result, although fortunately he kept his job – albeit, by the skin of his teeth (as he later told me).

After receiving Edward’s instructions I considered this to be a shocking abuse of Police power and pursued a claim for damages for Edward’s wrongful arrest from the Chief Constable of Humberside Police.

Following investigation, the Police admitted full liability but made an offer of settlement of only £1,700. 

I obtained disclosure of all the Police evidence relating to this case – including, crucially, the body camera footage of the arresting officer and his colleagues, which now revealed that, unbeknownst to Edward, the officers had also carried out a search of his bedroom.  I advised Edward that this revelation gave rise to an additional claim for Breach of Privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

When Humberside Police continued to fail to make any satisfactory offer of compensation, I commenced court proceedings on behalf of Edward.

A Defence was filed in which the Police stated that the officers at the scene had initially believed that Edward had said that he did know the whereabouts of his brother, and was choosing not to give the address to the officers – but that on review of the body camera footage they now accepted that was not what Edward had said and accordingly the officers had ‘misheard’ my client.

However, the fact of the matter here is that even if Edward had known the precise address where his brother was staying at the time, he was under no obligation to volunteer that information to the Police and nor would his refusing to tell them in response to direct questioning have constituted a criminal offence.  The wording of Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act, quoted above, is quite clear – the ‘assistance’ of an offender must be a positive act intended to impede the suspect’s apprehension; this law was never intended to criminalise a failure to disclose information to the Police in such circumstances.  It is an offence that is designed to sanction those who assist offenders not those who don’t assist the Police, yet, even on their own interpretation of what Edward had done that night, it was that latter (non- existent) offence for which PC Healey and his colleagues were actually arresting Edward, not the actual offence.

This was actually reflected in the Police Incident Log the day after Edward’s arrest, in the following entry made by the arresting officer’s supervisor.

The S [suspect] was detained for assisting an offender…I asked the officer what evidence was there that the S did some positive act to assist the S.  The arresting officer could not give me any evidence.  I have watched the BWV [body worn video] the S actually states to officers “I don’t know where my brother is” officers can be heard discussing there is no evidence for arrest because they were told to.  In the officer’s statement, the S states that his brother is playing hide and seek.  At no point does he state he is helping his brother and I have been provided no evidence to understand why he is IC [in Custody].

As the Police supervisor correctly and succinctly concludes – “There may be a moral duty to tell Police, but this is not a criminal offence”. 

That is of course quite correct – if the law were otherwise it would effectively criminalise all family members and friends of a criminal suspect who did not, in the parlance of the street, turn themselves into ‘grasses’.

Personally, I am very grateful that we live in a country in which brothers, mothers, friends, and neighbours are not required by law to inform on one another – questions of morality/ethics being quite another matter, but quite rightly one which rests in the individual’s free conscience. You can read my previous blogs on this subject, covering unlawful arrests for “obstruction through silence” here and here.

I am pleased to confirm that the claim has now been recently settled for a payment of £5,000 damages, plus Edward’s legal costs.

The name of my client and his brother has been changed.

This week’s blog post concerns another case of mistaken identity leading to a wrongful arrest – mistakes which could easily have been avoided by the Police, and hence which left them liable to compensate my client.

Late one evening in January 2024, multiple officers from Merseyside Police attended at the home of my client Andy and advised him that he was under arrest for an assault that had occurred over 4 weeks earlier in Liverpool City Centre.

Andy honestly denied any knowledge of the incident, and explained that on the alleged date/ time he had been sick and in bed.

The Officers now produced 3 blurry images of the suspect, apparently taken from CCTV footage.  On looking at them, Andy correctly asserted that he bore little resemblance to the person depicted.  The Officers replied that the images of the suspect had been “circulated on Social Media” (it is understood that they were also published in local newspapers) and that in response several people had identified Andy as the suspect.

Officers now began to search Andy’s house for items of clothing, said to be connected with the crime. Andy resided here with his partner and young children, and, indeed, it was his daughter’s birthday the next day. It was deeply distressing for all of them for the family home to be ‘invaded’ in this way, and especially for Andy’s children to see their father being taken into Police custody. One of the most poignant things about this was that Andy had been putting up decorations to delight his daughter the next morning – rudely awoken by the stomping of the officers, her birthday surprise was ruined and replaced with a nightmarish scene.

Andy was transported to Birkenhead Custody Unit, where the circumstances of his arrest were entered in the Custody Record as follows-

“Section 20 assault – DP [Detained Person] punched a male in the jaw causing it to break.  He has been identified following CCTV media release and by a witness.”

The arrest necessity reasons were specified as to “allow the prompt and effective investigation” of the offence and to “prevent person causing physical injury.”

On arrival, Andy was processed and placed in a cell, where he spent a dark and depressing night notwithstanding the fact that he knew himself to be innocent. Waking up in Police custody wasn’t the way he was meant to be celebrating his daughter’s birthday.

The next morning, Andy was taken for interview.  During the interview,  the CCTV footage was played, whereupon the interviewing Officer, looking from the footage to Andy and back, immediately confirmed: “That’s not you”.

Andy was returned to his cell for a short period of time, before being brought before the Custody Sergeant and released. It was quite apparent that he was not the man in the photographs.

As well as the impact which this had on his family life, Andy, who is self- employed, also missed out on a day’s work and hence wages.

Following receipt of instructions from Andy, I carefully considered the evidence, assessed the impact which this incident had had upon his mental health, and a detailed letter of claim was prepared and presented to Merseyside Police, seeking damages for wrongful arrest.

Following investigation, Merseyside Police denied liability. They asserted that Andy had been reasonably identified as the suspect after the images had been circulated in the media, and calls had been made to “Crimestoppers” naming Andy on the basis of these images.

Notwithstanding the Police’s denial of liability, I still considered that Andy had good prospects of success. It was true that he had been named, apparently by way of honest mistakes made by members of the public who had seen the images in the media – but it was also true that the Police were in possession of an image which, when compared to Andy ‘in the flesh’ made it instantly obvious that he wasn’t the “wanted man.”

This could all have been cleared up so much more quickly – and quite probably without any need for Andy to come in to Police custody at all. Remember that all summary arrests (i.e arrests based on ‘in-house’ Police decision making, rather than the authority of a Court warrant) must be based not just on a “reasonable suspicion” that the person has committed an offence, but also a real “necessity” that requires the person be arrested, rather than the investigation being conducted in another manner. Arrest is supposed to be a tool of investigation or public protection, to be used only when essential, not an end to itself, or a form of ‘interim punishment’ for a suspected offence.

The necessity criteria are set out in Section 24 (5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and you can read one of my previous blogs on this subject here.

In this case, the alleged assault had occurred over a month earlier, and evidence of it had been captured on CCTV. Even if Andy had been the “wanted man” it would arguably have been unnecessary to arrest him, rather than invite him to attend a Police ‘voluntary interview’. There was certainly no need to arrest the suspect to ‘prevent injury’ and the length of time which had gone by hardly meets the definition of ‘prompt.’

The Police evidently had a similar mindset, conscious of the risks they would face in taking their liability denial before the civil courts, and I was shortly afterwards able to bring Andy’s claim to a successful conclusion, with the Chief Constable agreeing to pay him £8,000 damages plus his legal costs.

The power of arrest – taking away a man’s liberty – taking him away from his home and family – must not be used carelessly or disproportionately: for now, at least, it seems, Merseyside Police have got the picture.

My client’s name has been changed.

In this week’s blog I am presenting a case report ‘from the archives’, as although it goes back to events that occurred a decade ago, I think it is a timely reminder of an age- old problem that also remains a very modern threat: the utterly shameless and, indeed, deeply sinister, exploitation of ‘opportunity’ and abuse of power by predatory Police Officers – in this case, an officer who was apparently willing to step over a man’s grave in an attempt to get a grieving widow into bed with him.

As demonstrated here, these types of officers will use a variety of methods to attempt to ‘snare’ their victims, including grooming by flattery and attempting to overawe and impress with their ‘power’, as well as exploiting their access to sensitive personal data about the person and access to Police computer systems. It is hard to imagine a more despicable breach of trust, one which deliberately or recklessly widens wounds caused by crime or tragedy, in the process of emotional exploitation, and continued vigilance against such predatory officers is absolutely required.

In the Summer of 2014, my client Collette’s husband tragically killed himself, widowing her and depriving their young son of a father.

In the aftermath of these events, PC Smith of Collette’s local Police Force, was allocated to act as Collette’s Family Liaison Officer (FLO).

PC Smith attended at Collette’s home where he met with my client and various family members, and thereafter began to communicate with Collette by way of phone and text, as well as visiting her home again on a number of occasions. 

These communications were initially entirely professional, concerning the return of Collette’s late husband’s body, as well as the funeral arrangements.

Despicably, PC Smith then attempted to use the tragedy for his own sexual gratification.  Just a few weeks after having first met her, PC Smith again visited Collette’s home address and as he was leaving, the Officer removed his body armour vest and hugged Collette – a hug to which she did not consent. 

Thereafter, each further time that he visited Collette, ostensibly for Policing duties, PC Smith would give Collette a hug and a kiss on the cheek – actions which she had not encouraged and to which she likewise did not consent. 

In a further disturbing escalation of events, later that month PC Smith attended at my client’s house and took her for a drive in his Police vehicle, purportedly to help her overcome an anxiety about driving which she had developed following her husband’s death.

The drive lasted for approximately 45 minutes.  During the drive, whilst on a dual carriageway, PC Smith drove at approximately 100mph for 6 minutes with Police sirens blaring and blue lights flashing, for no Policing purpose. Collette believed that PC Smith was ‘showing off’ to her and was deeply traumatised and upset, believing that the Officer had deliberately put her life at risk in doing this.

Unfortunately, my client could not escape from PC Smith’ attentions, as he remained her designated Family Liaison Officer and therefore had legitimate excuses to continue contacting her, including taking a statement about events leading up to her husband’s tragic death.

As is often the case in incidents of grooming/exploitation by Police Officers, PC Smith then started to use his own personal mobile phone to contact Collette as well as his official work phone.

The manner in which he communicated with Collette now became more personal in content and nature and started to include messages which were not merely ‘friendly’ but overtly ‘flirty’ and included the following –

• “…how’s my star pupil this morning?…”

• “….I’m looking forward to seeing your smiley face :)…”

• “…remember when I first saw you in make-up and commented, you went rosy red with a big smile…”

• In response to a message from Collette that she could handle unwanted admirers, PC Smith replied “I’ll watch myself then ;)”.

• “…looking forward to seeing tomoz trouble is my time flies with you, I could spend hours chatting…. ;)”

Yet further, PC Smith attempted to ‘friend’ Collette on Facebook. 

The level of communications from PC Smith were now as high as 30 messages a day, leading Collette to feel increasingly alarmed and ‘suffocated’ by him.

PC Smith continued to attempt to insinuate himself into Collette’s life and his behaviour became increasingly like that of a stalker – but in this case, a stalker in Police uniform. 

On one occasion, PC Smith drove Collette and her young son to a local fishing spot and when it began to rain and PC Smith and Collette sheltered under an umbrella, he attempted to kiss Collette, from which she pulled away.

Whilst most stalkers do not have access to the Police’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system (ANPR), allowing them to track the location of individual motor vehicles, PC Smith did and apparently exploited it in his pursuit of Collette.

On another occasion, Collette was driving along the motorway with her son when she became aware of a marked Police vehicle following her which then overtook her, activating its lights and forcing her to pull over onto the hard shoulder. 

The Officer behind the wheel of the ‘emergency’ vehicle was none other than PC Smith himself, who then approached Collette with the almost unbelievable comment “Good morning, I just wanted to say hello”.

PC Smith directed Collette to follow him to the next services for a coffee, which Collette did as she felt she had no alternative, although she was feeling deeply shocked and embarrassed.

Such is the power differential between Police Officers and members of the public – particularly those made vulnerable by crime or bereavement – which predatory Officers, such as PC Smith, show no hesitation in seeking to exploit.

PC Smith then repeated his outrageous behaviour on a further occasion when Collette was travelling on the motorway.  A marked Police vehicle appeared in front of her illuminating a ‘Follow me’ sign. Understandably, Collette felt obliged to do so, whilst also feeling scared and intimidated.

She followed the Police vehicle to a nearby McDonalds Restaurant and, inevitably, discovered that once more PC Smith was behind the wheel of that vehicle.

PC Smith suggested that Collette had been speeding, but my client strongly believed that this was no more than an excuse for him to stop her for a ‘chat’.  PC Smith purchased food for himself and a drink for Collette and the friend with whom she had been travelling in the car and even ignored initial radio request for assistance, telling his HQ that he was on his ‘tea break’.

Further disturbing incidents occurred over the weeks that followed. The first was when Collette was attending a local Festival with friends and family. Whilst there, Collette received a text message from PC Smith saying that she looked nice and describing the clothes she was wearing, specifically a stripy scarf. My client could not see PC Smith but realised that he must be present in the crowd, observing her.  She felt scared and left early.

The second such incident, happened a few weeks later, when Collette attended a Vintage Car show, only to be unexpectedly approached by PC Smith who was also ‘coincidentally’ attending.

This is the way in which a stalker can render the ordinary world into a frightening trap, leaving the person who is his target with no safe refuge, constantly fearing that he is going to appear, and therefore unable to ever fully relax. The stalker, insidiously, becomes a lurking lodger in the person’s home, there in her fears even when she can’t see him, and each time she goes out or hears a knock on the door it is in apprehension of his return. Pleasure drains from the world as a result; and how much more terrible that this be inflicted on a recently widowed woman, and by a person deliberately, almost methodically, exploiting powers and privileges of a Police Officer.

Matters finally came to a head in the Autumn of 2014, when PC Smith messaged Collette whilst he was away on holiday with his wife. His message stated that his hotel and room views were nice, and it was signed off with no fewer than 22 ‘x’ symbols, to indicate ‘kisses’. Collette was now even more frightened by PC Smith’s behaviour – he seemed to believe that he was in a romantic/ sexual relationship with her.

Accordingly, Collette reported PC Smith’s conduct to a Police Sergeant who had been a friend of her late husband.  The Sergeant agreed that PC  Smith’s conduct was wholly unprofessional and inappropriate, and that he would report matters to their Professional Standards Department (PSD).

Such was Collette’s fear of PC Smith that she now felt compelled to move house and as PSD began their investigation into the rogue officer’s conduct, they arranged for extra security measures to Collette’s home (including a padlock on the side gate and alarms on every window) as well as placing a ‘marker’ on her home address to ensure priority response in the event of any incident.

Within a few days, PC Smith was issued with a Police Information Notice (PIN) for harassment of Collette, and shortly afterwards was suspended from duty.

Subsequently, misconduct proceedings were brought against PC Smith, and he was dismissed from the Police service.

That was far from the end of the matter for Collette, of course. She was left with considerable mental anxiety by reason of the Officer’s predatory behaviour towards her. She found herself feeling nervous around men in the workplace, particularly those in a position of authority over her. Even a welcomed hug could bring back flashbacks of PC Smith pressing himself upon her. Merely seeing the Police on a TV screen was uncomfortable for her, and if she heard emergency sirens ‘in the real world’ she would become heightened and find herself trying to figure out if they were from an ambulance or a Police car. She feared being  ‘followed’. Collette came to feel that PC Smith had prevented her from properly grieving and coming to terms with her husband’s death – precisely the opposite of what his role as her Family Liaison Officer was supposed to achieve.

I brought civil proceedings on behalf of Collette, against the Force, and secured their admission of liability for PC Smith’s acts of harassment against my client, including his abuse of Police data systems in order to facilitate that abuse. I was able to arrange psychotherapy for Collette to try to help her better cope with the impact of what the disgraced Officer had done to her, and ultimately a financial settlement of £30,000 plus legal costs.

All names have been changed.

As we approach again the time of the year at which more people take flights abroad than any other, I thought it was worthwhile revisiting, by reference to one of my recent cases, the issue of wrongful arrests at the airport, and what can be done about them.

In March 2019 my client Jamie travelled to Gatwick airport, intending to fly to Vietnam. 

However, as he attempted to board his flight, he was stopped by Officers of Surrey Police who informed him that he had been circulated as ‘wanted’ for an offence of criminal damage, on the Police National Computer (PNC).  Jamie’s protests that he knew nothing about this were ignored and instead of his holiday to Asia, he was dragged off into the nightmarish ‘long haul’ of Police Custody.

After several hours in the custody of Surrey Police, Jamie was informed that he was to be transferred into the hands of the Metropolitan Police, as it was they who had circulated his ‘wanted’ notice on the PNC. 

In the early hours of the following day, therefore, Jamie was brought to Bethnal Green Police Station in London where he was searched, processed and placed into a cell; and there he spent the night, in an understandably miserable condition. 

Jamie was entirely innocent of the offence for which he had been arrested.  At 10.49am the following morning, his Custody Record was updated with the following entry –

Disposal

Criminal damage to property valued under £5000 – Disposal at 10:43 04/03/2019 – No Further Action NFA – Detective Constable has established that DP [DETAINED PERSON]  is not responsible for the criminal damage, it was his cousin [NAME REDACTED – BUT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TO MY CLIENTS]  (Photo shown to victim who confirmed this) , DP created this problem by giving his cousin’s details … when he was last arrested, this led to him being arrested on this occasion. NFA authorised by Detective Sergeant …

A subsequent entry made a few minutes later on the Custody Record stated “Police Sergeant has checked PNC…DP no longer shown as wanted on PNC for this matter”.

Jamie was then released from Custody, feeling relieved but also aggrieved.  Having missed his original flight, he then had to make alternative arrangements; fortunately, he was able to travel to Vietnam without further incident the following day, albeit at considerably increased expense.

The reference to Jamie having previously given his cousin’s details as his own was a very old one – dating back to an incident almost twenty years earlier, in 2002. This fact alone could never have justified Jamie’s arrest; had elementary investigative steps been taken it would have been easy for the Police to establish that Jamie was not the same person as his cousin, prior to the draconian step of an ‘airport ambush’ arrest being carried out. Identity checks at airports are amongst the most stringent in the world; no one is able to board an international flight on the basis of an ‘alias’, unless we are straying into the realms of international espionage…

You Only Fly Twice

Sadly, this was not the end of the matter for my client.  A lot of people who have experienced an unlawful arrest at the hands of the Police develop a natural fear that it will happen again – in most cases, thankfully, that does not transpire; but when a ‘ghost in the system’ i.e. a mistaken identity or wrongful linking of an innocent person’s records with those of a criminal suspect /recurrent offender has occurred – then the same problem can return to haunt the innocent party again, usually as a result of negligent Police record keeping.

Conscious of this, Jamie did everything that was realistically possible to help both himself and the Police avoid the same trap on a future occasion when he was due to travel abroad – regretfully, all to no avail. Sometimes, common sense just can’t penetrate the sclerotic bureaucracy that surrounds and the school-boy sloppiness which permeates Policing practices, even in this electronic age.

In November 2021, two officers from the Met attended Jamie’s address, looking for his cousin. Jamie explained who he was, and that his cousin did not live here – and the officers accepted this and left. This further incident was weighing on Jamie’s mind, however, as the date of his next flight abroad approached, in January 2022. The day before his flight, therefore, Jamie attended Bethnal Green Police station, produced his driving licence to verify his identity and spoke to an officer who established that there had been a ‘wanted’ marker placed against Jamie’s name, which would have led to his being arrested at the departure gate the next day – but who assured him that this had now been removed from the PNC.

The following day, Jamie attended Heathrow airport with several members of his family where, lo and behold, he was intercepted by no fewer than four Metropolitan Officers and arrested – once again owing to the assumption that he was his cousin, despite Jamie having done all he could the previous day to correct that mistake (and having been reassured that it was corrected). Jamie was bitterly upset by reason of this, and all the more distressed and embarrassed because on this occasion, his arrest took place in front of his teenage son and young nephew and niece.

Jamie even managed to get his uncle on the phone – who confirmed to the officers that Jamie was not his son (the man they were actually looking for), but all to no avail.

Jamie was then transported back to Bethnal Green Police Station – where of course he had been only 24 hours previously, precisely to try and prevent this disaster occurring. On being produced before the custody desk, he made the same representations to the Sergeant, who stated that they and the arresting officers would “make enquiries”. Regardless of this, Jamie was processed, searched, obliged to provide his fingerprints and DNA, and then locked in a cell.

After some time, officers entered the Jamie’s cell and informed him that they had corroborated his account. My client was then released and transported back to Heathrow airport, but due to the arrest he had long- missed his flight. In all, the incident caused Jamie significant anxiety and psychological distress.

Having received instructions from Jamie to act on his behalf in relation to this matter, I advised him to pursue claims against the Metropolitan Police for both of these incidents, seeking separate damages for his wrongful arrest in 2019 and in 2022.

It was established that the first incident (in 2019) had occurred as a result of a Police Constable ‘confusing’ the two PNC profiles, not realising that my client and his cousin were not ‘the same person’, and then circulating an arrest request which used Jamie’s cousin’s name with Jamie’s PNC ID number. The Met accepted that the officer was at fault for not carrying out a “more thorough check” and would receive management intervention, known as “reflective practice” in order to “to learn from this incident”.

In regards to the second incident (2022), it transpired that following the Police attendance at Jamie’s home in November 2021, one of the Officers involved had committed exactly the same error as his colleague two years previously – circulating my client’s PNC ID rather than his cousins, and not conducting thorough- enough enquiries to ensure the details were correct. To compound matters, although the ‘wanted marker’ had been removed from Jamie’s PNC profile after his attendance at the station the day before his January 2022 flight, the officers who came to arrest him had not re-checked the PNC before doing so, and furthermore failed to conduct a new check at the scene, despite the urgent appeals that they do so from Jamie and his family.

In my opinion, it was particularly egregious that following the identification of the correct suspect and Jamie’s release from Custody in March 2019, the Metropolitan Police had failed to appropriately mark both Jamie’s and his cousin’s PNC profiles to ensure that a similar incident did not occur in the future – which of course it did in January 2022 – causing my client stress, disruption and loss of liberty and wasting the Police’s own time and resources.

Following an extended investigation period, the Met made an offer of £4,500 in total settlement of both claims brought by my client i.e. his arrest in March 2019 and his arrest in January 2022.

I considered this to be a significant undervaluation of one of those claims alone, let alone both and had no hesitation in advising Jamie to reject the same and to proceed with his claim. 

I was subsequently able to negotiate settlement of Jamie’s first claim for damages in the sum of £7,500and £11,000 in settlement of the second claim, i.e a total of £18,500 damages, plus legal costs.

That will pay for a lot of air miles; but I am sure my client will settle for this miscarriage of justice never happening to him again. Let us hope that the level of damages that has been achieved has caused the Met to “reflect” all the more deeply on how well their officers are trained in what should be routine tasks of research and identification, using the vast resources of the PNC, and given the very serious consequences of simple mistakes.

My client’s name has been changed.

In order for a Police Officer to affect a summary arrest in accordance with Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which is to say an arrest which is not backed by the issue of a Court warrant, the Officer must have a suspicion that the arrestee is guilty, that is both honest and reasonable.  Whilst the question of the Officers’ honesty is a subjective one, the question as to whether his belief in the suspect’s potential guilt is a reasonable one is objective i.e. the officer should be capable of justifying to a reasonable third party that his suspicion was one which was reasonably formed on the basis of available evidence. 

Because a summary arrest usually takes place very early in a criminal investigation (indeed, its primary purpose is to facilitate such an investigation)  the requirement for ‘reasonable suspicion’ does not mean that the Officer has to turn over every possible stone of evidence first; but it does mean that – absent an immediate emergency –  basic enquiries which could easily rule in/rule out a person’s potential involvement in the offence must not be neglected, otherwise the Officer’s honest belief may well also be an unreasonable one, rendering the arrest unlawful and the person’s subsequent detention a form of false imprisonment.

There is no criminal accusation which carries with it a greater stigma than an allegation of child sexual abuse, such, however, was the nightmare situation to which my client Peter Miller awoke one Summer’s night in 2023. Peter had previously worked for a company which specialises in providing ‘outdoor education’ activities. One night he was at home in bed with his partner when he heard knocking/ringing at the door of their house, and, after going downstairs and answering the door, discovered two Police Officers were present. 

Peter’s initial surprise at this midnight visit turned into shell-shock as one of the Officers informed him that he was under arrest for sexual assault. He was required to hand over his mobile phone and tablet, and then taken into Custody at the local Police Station.

The Custody Record records that the circumstances of arrest were –

“to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question: to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question…Detained Person has allegedly whilst working with children has grabbed three separate children by the genitalia.”

A hideous accusation like the one that Peter now faced can make even a person who knows themselves to be entirely innocent burn with shame and embarrassment as they are processed like a ‘perpetrator’ – searched, fingerprinted, photographed and obliged to provide a sample of their DNA – knowing that disgust is lurking behind every pair of eyes which looks upon him, even if it is disguised.

Peter spent the night in a cell, in the dark as to the substance of the accusations against him and, feeling as devasted and fearful as any of us would in that situation.

But he was not interviewed by the investigating Officers until the middle of the following afternoon, and during that process it became clear that the Officers were now concerned that they had the ‘wrong man’, although they nevertheless proceeded with the interview.  Even though Peter was wholly innocent, he found the subject matter of the questions put to him and the interrogation process highly uncomfortable and upsetting.

Thankfully, not long after the conclusion of his interview Peter was advised that he was to be released, and that no further action would be taken against him. 

But what had occurred to lead to this innocent man’s arrest on such heinous charges?

It transpired that approximately 12 hours prior to Peter’s arrest, a report had been made to the Police by a school, stating that a number of their pupils had made disclosures of sexual assault by an outdoor activities instructor whilst they were on a school trip. The suspect’s name was reported as ‘Pete, possible Pete Miller’.  Furthermore, the school provided the name of the Company whom the suspect worked for, which I shall refer to as “Company A”. 

The disclosures had apparently been made by the children during the previous evening, and it was confirmed that the children were now safe and the instructor was no longer present.

The investigating officer then made enquiries with Company A as to whether they knew a ‘Pete Miller’ and a Director of Company A confirmed that Peter Miller (my client) was indeed an instructor working for the Company. However, the investigating officer failed to make any further enquiry with the Director in order to establish whether Peter had been working the previous day on the school trip. The officer’s failure to ask this question was a glaring omission, which, in my opinion, thereafter rendered unreasonable his suspicion of my client as the offender – because if the officer had asked the Director of the Company that question he would have been informed that Peter had not been involved in the relevant school trip – and indeed, that Peter’s last work for Company A had been some two months previously.

It was only during the last few hours of my client’s detention in Custody, that the Police re-contacted the Director of Company A and established these facts, and furthermore that of the people from Company A who actually had worked on the school residential trip, one was a man whose first name was also “Peter”; this person’s full details were provided, and a subsequent arrest was made. 

In response to the letter of claim which I sent on my client’s behalf, the Police accepted that it is ‘regrettable’ that their ‘inexperienced’ officer failed to take the simple step, during his first conversation with the Director of Company A, to establish whether Peter Miller had in fact been working on the school trip the previous day, the answer to which would have inevitably established my client’s innocence, as well as allowing the Police to much more swiftly close the net on the real suspect.

The Police went on to assert that they were satisfied that Peter’s arrest was both honest and reasonable.  I would agree with the former, but for all the reasons set out above, strongly dispute the latter – and indeed it appears the Force itself acknowledges this, as they have recently agreed to pay my client compensation in the sum of £10,000, plus his legal costs. 

I trust that this settlement will allow my client to begin to put this deeply traumatic experience behind him and that, because of this robust legal challenge, the Police will ensure that lessons are learned to better protect victims and innocent members of the public in the future, particularly in regard to such serious offences.

My client’s name has been changed.

One evening in March 2022, my client Edward was driving through London in an ordinary and law-abiding manner, when he was pulled over by a Metropolitan Police Carrier displaying its blue lights.

What was the reason that Police were ‘interested’ in my client’s vehicle?  One of the Officers in the 7- man squad who stopped my client’s car, PC Williams, subsequently made a statement in which he said that his attention was drawn to Philip’s vehicle “because it had 2 occupants and the driver and passenger appeared to be giving us a good long look before driving off”.

This, in other words, is another variant of the woefully ropy “You were giving us evils” justification which two City of London Police Officers relied upon to unlawfully stop and search my client Allen Norman, whose story I blogged about recently and whose case was recently featured by Rob Warner on his always excellent Crimebodge YouTube channel. 

The initial difference between these two incidents, however, was that Edward was in control of a motor car when Police attention fastened on to him, whereas Allen was not.  Therefore, the Police did initially have a legal power to require Edward to stop (and thereafter provide his driving licence) in accordance with Section 163 and 164 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a power which can be exercised ‘at random’. 

However, it quickly became clear that the Police Officers involved wanted to indulge their ‘Spidey- Sense’ (all apparently based on an initial hunch of ‘we don’t like the look of you/the way you are looking at us’) far beyond the limits of the Road Traffic Act.

Stop & Search Excuses

After Edward had exited his car, he was immediately told by PC Marenco that he was going to be detained for the purposes of searches for “stolen property” under Section 1 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984  and for “drug dealing” under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Both of those search powers, however, require the Officers exercising them to have ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ i.e that they will find stolen articles or controlled drugs on the person – they cannot be speculative searches, performed at random or on the officer’s whim. They require objective grounds for suspicion – at least in theory. Officers ‘on the beat’ frequently exceed their powers in scenarios like this.

Edward was handcuffed, despite his totally compliant demeanour, and whilst he had his person searched, other officers went through his car and, indeed, called in a police dog trained to sniff out “drugs and weapons.” When he innocuously asked the assembled officers to get on with things, mildly commenting “Just go through the process” an officer immediately snapped at him “You don’t tell us what’s happening – we tell you what’s going to happen”, betraying the power-play dynamic that clearly governed the officers’ mindsets.

Various vague reasons were given by the Police at the scene and in their subsequent written accounts to attempt to justify Edward’s detention and search, as follows-

• That he was driving in an area of “robberies, gang violence and drug dealing” (i.e London, or any other major urban conurbation – an excuse so laughable it has an exact parallel in a classic joke in The Simpsons in which two corrupt cops arrest a man who has just told them he is from New York City “I heard some guy got killed in New York and they never solved the case. But you wouldn’t know anything about that, now would you Steve?”)

• “Intel showed [Edward’s] car was registered in Hertfordshire.” (And therefore had no legitimate business being in London?)

• “Possession of multiple phones” (i.e two – Edward’s work phone and his personal phone)

• “There was a slight smell of alcohol [on Edward]”

Edward did voluntarily admit to the Officers that he had had a single beer approximately an hour earlier.   The Officers then performed both a drugs swab, which was negative, and a breathalyser test which demonstrated the truth of what Edward had said, i.e. he was within the legal alcohol limit. Throughout this process, Edward remained polite and cooperative with the increasingly onerous instructions he was given.

The ‘Field Impairment Test’

Despite Edward having passed the breathalyser test, the Officers then insisted that my client perform ‘Field Impairment Tests’ so-called ‘psycho-physical’ tasks designed to further probe his sobriety. This procedure is as laid down in the Code of Practice for Preliminary Impairment Tests, issued under S.6B(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 

• The first test was “pupillary examination”, an assessment of the size of the subject’s pupils – Edward’s left and right pupils were measured as 8.5mm wide, which was stated to be higher than the average of 6mm.

• The second test was the “modified Romberg balance test” – an indicator of a person’s internal clock and ability to balance.  For this, Edward was instructed “Stand up straight with your heels together and arms by your sides…maintain that position while I give you the remaining instructions….when I tell you, tilt your head back slightly and close your eyes.  When you think that 30 seconds have passed bring your head forward and say stop”.   …After 27.48 seconds Edward brought his eyes forward and said stop.  The supervising officer went on to record this as evidence of a “delayed body clock”, despite the fact that the normal range for this test is between 25-35 seconds for a person not under influence of any drug. 

• The third test was the “Walk and Turn test” which is an exercise that assess whether a person is able to divide attention between walking, balancing and processing instructions. Edward was instructed to take 9 heel to toe steps along a line made by paving flags, before turning around and taking another 9 heel to toe steps back in the opposite direction, all the time looking at his feet and counting each step out loud.  Edward perfectly performed the correct formation of steps and balance, but was criticised for not counting the steps out loud.

• The fourth test is the “One Leg Stand test”, in which Edward was instructed toraise his right foot 6-8 inches off the ground, keeping his leg straight and toe pointing forward, and his arms by his side, and looking at his raised foot whilst counting out loud…1001, 1002,  1003 and so on, until told to stop; with the same test then repeated with his left foot raised instead. I have reviewed the body camera footage of this test, and am personally satisfied that Edward performed it in the correct manner, but the Officer supervising the test nevertheless claimed that at one stage Edward “appeared unbalanced.”  

• The fifth and final test was the “Finger to Nose test” which is a test of depth, perception and balance. Edward was instructed to tilt his head back and close his eyes…and then follow the officer’s called instructions to lift each of his hands in a designated sequence and touch the tip of his nose with the tip of the appropriate index finger. Once again, the supervising officer would claim that, despite Edward following the vast majority of the instructions with no difficulty, minor anomalies in performance were detected.

The supervising Officer then alleged that Edward’s “dilated pupils, inability to follow instructions and delayed body clock” were evidence of a person “impaired through drugs” and PC Marenco promptly arrested my client on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs, contrary to Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 

This entire process had taken over an hour, with the 7 Officers in the squad, and delegates from the dog section, apparently having nothing better to do than stand round watching each other exhaust all of their stop and search and road policing powers on an innocent motorist, until they finally found a flimsy excuse to arrest him. Good job there weren’t any “robberies, gang violence and drug dealing” matters that needed attending to in the Metropolis that night!  

Edward was taken to Brixton Custody Suite where he was searched, his detention was authorised for the purposes of a medical assessment, and he was placed into a cell.

Thereafter, Edward was seen by a Custody Health Care Professional (a nurse) who noted the following –

“DP [Detained Person] consented for drug drive procedure.  He is alert, conscious and orientated to time, place and person and breathing normally.  His sober and clinical observations stable.  He is calm, cooperative and polite”

Edward was released from Custody in the early hours of the morning, with no further action being taken against him, and then had to travel back to the location where his car had been abandoned, which, if you’ll recall was, in the words of the Police, a haven of “gang violence and drug dealing”. Fortunately, both he and the car survived unscathed.  

In response to a letter of claim which I sent on behalf of Edward, alleging wrongful arrest and assault and battery, the Metropolitan Police initially, and without making any admission of liability, attempted to buy Edward’s claim off cheaply for the sum of £2,500 damages.  In seeking a quick settlement in this manner, the Met were also seeking to withhold their documentary and video records of the incident.

I advised Edward to reject their offer and instead pressed the Met to confirm their liability position and provide disclosure of all relevant documents.  I was able to obtain from them the Officers’ statements, written records and body camera videos.

With this material in my possession – which confirmed my belief in Edward’s strong prospects of success should the matter be pursued to Court – negotiations were resumed, and the claim was ultimately settled for damages in the sum of £7,000, plus legal costs.

A Litany of Abuse: Police Misuse of ‘Street Powers’

This is an incident which show-cases a litany of day-to-day, very typical and indeed almost casual Police abuses of power and demonstrates how Police Officers can seek to cloak abuse of power beneath a variety of legal excuses, including Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act.  Merely having the ‘wrong look’  –  absent any other factors –  simply cannot be a justification for body search, car search, handcuffing and arrest but sadly this is what happened here, with the Officers involved using what was, in my opinion, one flimsy excuse after another to exert their power over an innocent man who could not reasonably have been suspected of any offence. 

There was absolutely no basis for a reasonable suspicion that my client or his vehicle were in possession of/contained stolen goods – that appears to have been an entirely speculative ‘fishing expedition’ carried out by the Police on a whim, without any objective justification whatsoever.  If possession of more than one mobile phone is tantamount to suspicion of drug- dealing then it would appear that the vast majority of the professional classes of this country are all closet Walter Whites or Tony Sopranos…

Finally, we had the outrageous decision of the Officers to ignore the negative results rendered by the carefully calibrated breathalyser machine and drug swabbing procedures and instead to overrule those objective measures with entirely subjective assessments of subtle details connected with a person’s ability to balance and count seconds – whilst in the stressful situation of a roadside Police interrogation – and/or millimetres of difference in pupil dilation, in what I can only describe as a combination between the handbook of the Ministry of Silly Walks and those ‘tests’ administered by 17^th Century “Witchfinders” i.e. tests which the subject cannot pass because the interrogator has  already decided that they are a Witch (albeit one, here, in charge of a Ford Focus rather than a broomstick). 

The prejudicial nature of this ‘Field Impairment’ assessment is, in my opinion, amply demonstrated by the much more objective assessment carried out by the independent Health Care Professional upon Edward when he was in Custody a short time later.  This naturally concluded that there was no evidence that Edward was under the influence of intoxicating substances/drugs. 

Somewhere it seems, between the breathalyser machine test, the chemical drug swab and the qualified medical professional’s opinion the truth had become distorted by the frustration of Officers whose eagerness to detain my client/exert power over him had apparently increased with each blank card they drew from their deck – no stolen goods; no drugs on his possession; negative breathalyser and drugs test; but he had looked at them the wrong way, or looked ‘wrong’ to them,  and so they were determined, one way or another, to ‘get him.’  

This type of ego- driven, authoritarian policing causes harm to the person who is its target, harm to the reputation of the Police, is a massive waste of Police time and resources and should have no place on the streets of Britain.

My client’s name has been changed.

During the course of my career, I have successfully sued every single one of the 43 territorial Police Forces of England and Wales, plus the British Transport Police. 

The publicly funded territorial forces, which between them comprise the vast majority of the UK’s approximately 171,000 Police Officers, are based on the geographical counties of England and Wales (e.g Merseyside, Kent, Greater Manchester, Norfolk), with some areas of wider amalgamation e.g South Wales Police. Each Police Officer who serves with a territorial force therefore has a natural and primary ‘base of operations’ but their policing powers are not geographically limited i.e an Officer of West Midlands Police can still exercise powers of arrest, search and entry in Northumbria if required.

Although each Force does try to confine its operations to its own county boundaries, and would generally request local Police to carry out the arrest of a suspect in another region, they are not obliged to do so and their powers and privileges do not ‘fall away’ when they cross the county line.

However, as well as the territorial forces, there also exist a wide variety of “Special Police Forces” whose officers are not full Crown Constables, answerable to the Home Office, but a different species of law enforcement officer, whose typical police uniforms belie the fact that their powers are geographically limited to a specific location or type of infrastructure and cannot generally be exercised outside the boundaries of the same. Such “Special Police Forces” include the following –

• British Transport Police (formerly, the Railway Police)
• Ministry of Defence Police
• Civil Nuclear Constabulary
• Ports Police (e.g the Port of Dover Police)
• Parks Police (e.g Kensington & Chelsea Parks Police)
• Cathedral Constables (e.g York Minster Police)
• Cambridge University Police (Clearly Cambridge students need closer control than any others!)
• Mersey Tunnels Police.

The Port of Dover Police, as with many other regional port forces, are funded by the owners of the Port and are maintained under powers originating from the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 which limits their jurisdiction to land actually owned by the Harbour Board, and extending in a one mile radius beyond.

An embarrassing situation therefore arose when, in 2011, the custody suite operated by Kent Police in Dover itself closed, meaning that any people arrested by the Port Police would need to be transported to the next nearest custody centre in Canterbury – as this would have meant going further than a mile from the Port, the arrest would have become unlawful once the boundary was passed. A temporary solution was put in place, whereby Kent Police had to come to the port to arrest and transport suspects, until the Marine Navigation Act 2013 was introduced, extending the jurisdiction of all regional Port Police to the Police area in which they were located (e.g Kent) but for the purposes of Port Policing matters only.

A recent example of this type of jurisdictional issue is provided by a case which I am currently fighting for one of my clients against Mersey Tunnels Police, who are responsible for the policing of the two road tunnels (Kingsway and Queensway) connecting Liverpool to the Wirral.

Mersey Tunnels Police derive their powers from Section 105 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980 and can only act in the capacity of an ordinary citizen when outside of their jurisdiction, which is defined as that land forming “the Tunnels, approaches or marshalling areas”. If an on- duty Mersey Tunnels officer comes across an arrestable offence when he is outside of that jurisdiction, he is required to notify the local territorial Force i.e Merseyside Police, who will allocate an officer to deal with the matter.

In the matter with which I am dealing, three officers from Mersey Tunnels Police handcuffed and purported to arrest my client for ‘causing a danger to public health’ by being out and about during one of the Covid lockdowns during 2020. The location of the arrest was not, however,  in one of the Mersey Tunnels, or their approaches/ marshalling areas, but rather a public road bridge (consisting of vehicle carriageway and pedestrian pavement) which overlooked the tunnel entrance but did not directly lead to it i.e outside the geographical jurisdiction of the Tunnels Police.

The fact that Mersey Tunnels police chose to hassle, assault and arrest my client in such a location (when he was doing nothing more sinister than standing alone on the pavement of the bridge, looking at his mobile phone) is indicative of the tendency of all Police Forces, big or small, to overreach the boundaries of their powers, in what is sometime referred to as ‘mission creep.’ It is perhaps not surprising that in a time when many officers were indulging their authoritarian impulses by over-policing the Covid ‘curfew laws’, Mersey Tunnels officers were tempted to join in, even if that meant leaving behind their lawful jurisdiction.

I am here to help push back against all such Police over- reach of powers, and my purpose in this brief overview of the status of the Special Police Forces of our country is to flag up some of the lesser-known limitations on Police authority and to urge you to contact me for advice if you believe you have fallen prey to Officers playing “out of bounds” in this way.

I have written before about how the incompetence of Capita Plc, the private company responsible for operating the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) which supervises criminal convicts/ suspects who have been released with a condition to wear an electronic tag, has led to many cases of unlawful arrest.

The role of EMS employees is to monitor the person’s whereabouts, using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology linked to electronic devices worn on the ankle (tags), to ensure they do not breach any curfew or geographical boundaries which have been imposed upon them by the Court. When they get it wrong, a person’s liberty is unfairly put at risk, as happened recently to my client Mark.  

In late 2023, Mark, who lives in south-east London,  was facing criminal charges and had been granted conditional bail with an obligation to wear a GPS tag and a condition not to go north of the River Thames.

In early January 2024, Mark’s bail condition was varied such that he could go north of the Thames, as long as he stayed within the confines of London’s outer ring road, the M25 motorway. Having no desire to spend time in prison on remand, Mark scrupulously obeyed these Court- mandated boundaries and so it was with great shock that, a month later, he received notification that he was “wanted on warrant” i.e that the Police were actively seeking to arrest him and that he needed to attend his nearest Police Station so that matters could be dealt with.

That same day, Mark duly attended his local Police Station; he explained that he had received a letter requiring his attendance, but that he had not in fact breached his bail conditions.

Notwithstanding this, Mark was then arrested for alleged breach of those conditions. He was kept in custody overnight before being transported in handcuffs to the Magistrates’ Court the next morning.

At approximately 1p.m., Mark was produced before the Court whereupon it was evident that his bail conditions had now been properly checked, and the allegation of breach of bail was summarily dismissed.

Although Mark was now told he was free, Court staff then insisted that he had to return to his cell whilst the ‘necessary paperwork’ was completed, this added further to his understandable distress, but he was told that the longer he objected, the longer the process would take.

Mark had pre- existing depression and was already under a lot of stress given the prosecution he was facing; sadly his inexplicable arrest in these circumstances significantly exacerbated his mental health conditions.

When I learned what had happened to Mark, I was more than happy to represent him in bringing a claim on a “no win, no fee” basis against Capita/ EMS, who from their past form I fully suspected were to blame for what had happened to him – as indeed proved to be the case. Capita had reported Mark to the Police as being in breach of his bail for entering the “exclusion zone” north of the Thames – notwithstanding the fact that, owing to variation of his bail conditions, Mark was free to come and go within the M25 limits.

I am pleased to confirm that I have this week settled Mark’s claim for £7,300 damages, plus his legal costs.

It seems to me that the Capita staff tasked with monitoring the tag system are in need of special monitoring themselves. Until Capita improve their staff training and levels of service, critical errors like this are going to continue to occur.

My client’s name has been changed.

In the 2002 film ‘Minority Report’ an interesting science fiction premise is explored – what if it was possible to apprehend criminals before they had committed their crimes by use of the ‘precognitive’ talents of a team of psychics?  At the start of the film, Tom Cruise is the Police Chief of what is known as the ‘Precrime’ Department.

Appreciating that this is not a film review blog, why am I telling you this tale?  It is because I have just settled a claim on behalf of an individual who suffered what I can only describe as a ‘Precrime’ arrest at the hands of Merseyside Police.  Whether Mr Cruise will agree to play him in the dramatisation of this blog post remains to be seen…

I have written before about many unlawful arrests which have occurred at airport boarding gates or Passport Control, airport terminals being the nexus where private lives show up most frequently on the radar of law enforcement and therefore where people can often fall prey to mistaken identity arrests arising from errors on the Police database or be ‘caught’ by an arrest warrant which should never have been issued.

Never before, however, have I had a client suffer an airport arrest for failing to attend a Court hearing which had not yet taken place,as I will unfold below.

In December 2022 my client Philip was arrested and released from Custody on bail. He subsequently booked a holiday to Turkey, due to depart on 28 June and return on 8 July 2023.

My client was subsequently charged with the original offence, and a Postal Summons was sent to him requiring his attendance at the Magistrates Court on 3 July 2023.  In the meantime, my client had been released from his bail conditions.

Due to the holiday which he had booked before receiving the Postal Summons, Philip instructed his criminal defence solicitors to liaise with the Court to re-arrange his attendance.  Assuming that in the circumstances, this fairly reasonable/routine request would be agreed, my client proceeded with his holiday plans and he and his family attended Manchester Airport for their outbound flight as arranged on 28 June 2023.

Had it not proved possible for the Court date to be re-arranged by his solicitors in the intervening time, there was of course nothing to stop my client returning to the UK in time for the Court date on 3 July – however, he was not given the opportunity for either of those events to unfold.  Instead, he was approached at the departure gate by Officers of Merseyside Police who had been dispatched to arrest Philip if he was unable to show a return flight to the UK prior to his Court Hearing.

The Officers took Philip to one side, queried his travel arrangements and then purported to arrest him for ‘breach of bail’ on the basis that he would not be “surrendering to the Court on the scheduled day.” He was handcuffed and led out of the terminal.

Philip was then taken to Wirral Custody Suite, and where the circumstances of his arrest were recorded as follows –

BREACH OF COURT BAIL – AO ATTENDS MANCHESTER AIRPORT AS AO IS MADE AWARE THE DP IS BOOKED ON A FLIGHT HEADING TO TURKEY WHEN HE HAS A COURT DATE ON 03/07/2023… DP DETAINED AT THE BOARDING GATE AND ENQUIRIES REVEAL THE DP WOULD NO RETURN TO THE UK UNTIL 08/07/2023 THERFORE MISSING HIS COURT DATE.

My client had, of course, already and long since been released from bail in this matter.  He was not subject to any bail conditions and the Custody Record entry made it clear that he was, in effect, being arrested for failure to attend Court some 5 days prior to the Court Hearing – or, in other words, for a ‘Precrime’.

My client was placed into a cell, whilst his criminal solicitor made urgent representations as to this ridiculous state of affairs. 

However, by the time Philip was NFA’d (told he would face no further action) and released, the flight with the rest of his family on had long since departed and he was obliged to book a further flight to join them at considerable cost. 

At the Hearing itself on 3 July, representations were made to the Court by Philip’s legal representative that he was on holiday so was unable to attend and that the holiday had been booked before the Notice of Charge was sent to him.  As a result, and as one could have expected without psychic powers, the Hearing was adjourned. 

I am pleased to confirm that in response to the detailed letter of claim which I sent to Merseyside Police, they promptly admitted liability for the wrongful arrest of Philip and I was able to negotiate a very satisfactory settlement of £6,000 damages plus legal costs for him.  This more than covered his additional flight expenses…

Whilst I am pleased to have resolved this particular case so swiftly I am afraid to say that I don’t need pre-cognitive abilities to know that law enforcement ‘mistakes’ will continue to regularly occur at our country’s airports, and if you have been the victim of similar type of wrongful arrest, please don’t hesitate to contact me for advice and representation.

My client’s name has been changed.

In the Summer of 2022, my client Matilda was driving her car along the A3 northbound in Surrey; also in the car were her 20-year-old son and two of his friends. It was a routine journey on an ordinary day; and little did Matilda and her passengers know that a Police ambush was being prepared ahead – and they would become its target.

Matilda exited the A3 at junction 10 and approached the roundabout at the end of the slip road, intending to traverse the roundabout and join the M25 motorway. As the vehicle approached the traffic light-controlled junction with the roundabout, my client noted a bus had broken down in the fourth lane on the slip road, blocking it, and accordingly she stayed in the third lane.

As Matilda continued driving past the bus, a “stinger” device was suddenly and without warning thrown across the road in front of the vehicle by PC Downs of Surrey Police.

Stingers, also known as road spikes, are a form of device used by Police and military organisations worldwide to enable them to intercept/ incapacitate target vehicles. They are a belt of spikes capable of being quickly whipped out across the road and which then rip and puncture the tyres of the moving target, slamming it into an immediate and violent halt.

Matilda’s car ran over the “stinger”, which punctured all four tyres, stopping it dead and throwing all its occupants about. As this occurred, Police Sergeant Ayrton pulled his police car in front, blocking the road and causing a line of traffic to form behind my client’s now-disabled vehicle.

PC Downs approached Matilda’s car and reached in through the open driver’s side window to take the keys from the ignition, whilst shouting at her in an aggressive manner, his hand hovering near his taser gun. At this point, however, PS Ayrton shouted at his colleague that this was ‘the wrong car!’ PC Downs acknowledged his gross mistake with breathtaking brevity – shouting “my bad” to Matilda –  before running away from her car and further down the line of vehicles that had formed behind, followed shortly afterwards by PS Ayrton.

The officer’s attitude, summed up by his flippant remark, is almost incredible: he had deployed a dangerous weapon, specifically designed to engineer a car accident, which could have resulted in even more serious injuries than it did – and he attempted to brush it off as if he had accidentally bumped shoulders with someone, or fumbled on a computer-game controller.  

The officers then approached another car several vehicles behind my clients’, and apprehended the driver of that car, who had evidently been their actual target. PC Downs had hugely ‘jumped the gun’ in his deployment of the stinger. During this time, no officers remained with my clients or offered them any further apology or explanation. Matilda was extremely distressed and began to experience a panic attack.

After some time, PS Ayrton returned to the vehicle and spoke to my clients. He informed them that the officers had been intending to stop a car further behind them, which was suspected to be stolen (it had triggered ANPR –  Automatic Number Plate Recognition –  cameras as possibly bearing ‘cloned’ plates) but that unfortunately there had “been some confusion about which car it is we needed to stop.”  

Sadly, it transpired that the Police had not just stopped one vehicle wrongly – the driver immediately behind Matilda, also entirely innocent, had likewise found his vehicle becoming ‘collateral damage’ as it also hit the stinger.

Initially, PS Ayrton informed Matilda that the officers would not assist in recovering or repairing the vehicle, despite their acknowledged “bad”, and she would be obliged to make her own arrangements for alternative transport and repairs. However, after Matilda called her husband, who is in fact a Police Sergeant in a neighbouring Force, it was agreed that the officers would make the necessary arrangements for the recovery of the vehicle.

After several hours at the roadside, Matilda’s vehicle was recovered and taken to a garage where its tyres were replaced.

My client subsequently submitted a complaint to the Surrey Police’s Professional Standards Department (PSD), who in response admitted that PC Downs had made a “visual misidentification” of her vehicle and that accordingly his “service was unacceptable”- one of those tortuous pieces of Police jargon in which empathy is buried in bureaucracy.

Matilda suffered nasty seat belt ‘burn’ injuries across her stomach, hips, shoulder, and chest; but the incident had also left marks in her mind. At first, she had feared that they were being ‘carjacked’ by criminals; even when she realised that the people outside her car were Police Officers, she feared being tasered by them – particularly given PC Downs’ initial aggression. For a long time afterwards she suffered from anxiety and sleep disturbance, as well as a fear of driving which was compounded whenever Police vehicles were around.

I have considerable experience in representing people who have suffered exactly this form of Police stinger ambush. I gathered expert medical evidence to establish the extent of the impact upon Matilda and her son and am pleased to confirm that shortly after I issued Court proceedings against Surrey Police, I was able to settle their claims for significant damages plus legal costs.

The message my client and I wish to send to Surrey Police at the end of this, is that stingers are potentially highly dangerous weapons, which must only be used with the utmost due care and caution – not treated like toys in one of those games of cops and robbers which, sadly and all too often, real life officers like to play.

My client’s name has been changed.