Author: iaingould

An Englishman’s home is still  his Castle, even if you climb in through the window! As regular readers of this blog will know, the integrity of the home is a fundamental principle of the law of England and Wales which I am proud to uphold on behalf of those many clients of mine who have faced a Police ‘invasion’ of their property and privacy. The latest such client I have assisted is Mr Peter Murphy.

Peter is a 53 year-old man and former Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games Senior Spokesman, who at the time of these events resided in a ground- floor flat in the Wiltshire town of Marlborough.

In the early evening of 31 July 2020, PC Miller of Wiltshire Police attended at my client’s property.  PC Miller spoke with Peter’s neighbour, who alleged that Peter had approached him with what appeared to be a knife in his pocket and had threatened people.  On further questioning, however, Peter’s neighbour stated that it ‘could have been’ simply my client’s hand in his pocket, rather than a knife. For the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murphy did not threaten his neighbour or anyone else with a knife and nor was he is possession of such a weapon. It was a false accusation.  

PC Miller approached Peter’s ground-floor flat and opened a window; through that window he spoke to my client, who was inside the flat, and who stated that he did not wish to discuss the matter. PC Miller then informed Peter that he was under arrest for an unspecified “Public Order Offence”, because he was refusing to provide his account of the incident.

PC Miller then took a leaf out of the burglar’s book and climbed into Peter’s property through the window, completely uninvited. Peter was shocked but remained polite/ calm. Nevertheless, the energetic PC Miller now grabbed Peter and placed his right wrist into handcuffs, before forcing him face down onto a couch, knocking his glasses off in the process, and cuffing his left wrist with the assistance of another officer who also leant in through the window.  Again, Peter remained impeccably calm and did not resist, notwithstanding this gross violation of his home space and the totally unnecessary force being used to ‘shackle’ him in that home. 

PC Miller now stated that he had arrested Peter for an alleged breach of Section 4 of the Public Order Act.

Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 provides as follows-

Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

…

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

PC Miller then proceeded to search Peter and found a vape – not a knife – in his pocket. Peter fully co-operated with this search. Nevertheless, the Officers continued to treat him roughly; he was escorted outside and forcibly bundled into the rear of a police car, without his glasses and with only one shoe. 

PC Miller spoke to a female officer and confirmed to her that no ‘knife’ had actually been seen, even on the complainant’s own account.

Peter was then transported to Melksham Custody Suite (I will pause here to observe that the word ‘Suite’ is a gross euphemism for what is, in reality, a Police Prison complex – this is not a ‘suite’ any of us would want to check into…)  

PC Miller stated to the Custody Sergeant that he had arrested Peter on suspicion of a Public Order offence due to Peter’s refusal to “engage” with him, but notably did not address the question of the necessity of arrest. See my previous blog here about the ‘necessity criteria’ for arrest and why Officers must always consider less intrusive means of investigating an alleged offence than arrest.

Necessity Criteria: Why Failure To Consider Alternatives to Arrest is a Police Abuse of Power

The Custody Sergeant advised my client that she was authorising his detention so that the Police could “secure and preserve evidence” and “obtain evidence by question” i.e conduct an interview of Peter, under caution. Peter was taken to a cell, where he was further searched.

After Peter had been escorted to his cell, but now known to us because of the Custody Desk CCTV recording, PC Miller informed the Custody Sergeant that “if he [Peter Murphy] had spoken to me, I would have given him a ticket there and then and been done with it, instead I squeezed my athletic figure through a window…”.

Throughout his detention, Peter politely asked to be released and was repeatedly told that he would be released after he was interviewed.  This was also recorded in the Custody Record.  At 19:38, Officer Hunnisett recorded that “…DPA stated he wanted to go home, to which I stated he needs to be interviewed about the allegation”.   At 19:40, Officer Griffiths recorded that “DP has buzzed up to the desk asking if he can be released, I have tried to explain that he needs to be interviewed first…”

At 20:58, it was recorded on the custody record that the duty solicitor had been contacted and was awaiting a call for an interview.

At 04.30, Peter was brought out of his cell.  He complained of bruises to both of his wrists from the (unnecessary) application of handcuffs.

In the end, Peter was charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and released from custody at around 05:00 on 1 August 2020 without being interviewed.  No explanation was provided to him, or recorded in the Custody Record as to why he had not been interviewed, despite the fact that throughout the night this had been the only apparent ‘justification’ for Peter’s continued incarceration.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 provides as follows-

Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

...

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

It need hardly be added that the subsequent prosecution of Peter failed at trial, and he was completely exonerated from any wrongdoing.

Defending the Castle

After hearing about what had happened to Peter, I was keen to help him, and curious to examine the evidence. At the outset, my focus was on the Police’s failure to interview Peter notwithstanding that this appeared to be the justification to arrest and detain him. Accordingly, I insisted that all available Body Worn Camera and Custody CCTV footage be preserved. In due course, that evidence was disclosed to me by Wiltshire Police, along with a blanket denial of liability.

However, on review of the footage I immediately noticed the disjunct between the purported arrest of Peter under the more serious Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, and PC Miller’s remark that he would have issued Peter with a “ticket” if  Peter had spoken with him about the allegations. The implication of PC Miller’s remark was that he was intending to issue my client with a Penalty Notice (or “ticket”) for an offence committed under the less serious Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 (see above), rather than Section 4, because contravening the latter did not permit PC Miller to issue a Penalty Notice.

Whereas the more minor offence (Section 5) did allow the issuing of a Penalty Notice, it did not allow an Officer to enter uninvited into a person’s home to effect an arrest for that offence. Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) extends the power of entry, without a warrant, to a Constable intending to arrest a person for a Section 4 offence, but not a Section 5 offence.

This strongly suggested that PC Miller had improperly claimed to have a reasonable suspicion that Peter had committed a Section 4 Public Order Act offence (when in reality the Officer only suspected a lesser offence under Section 5) so as to justify his entering the flat to arrest Peter. If that was correct then the Officer, lacking honest suspicion of the Section 4 offence, was a trespasser when he entered the flat, was committing assault and battery when he laid hands on Peter, and the arrest itself, and consequent deprivation of my client’s liberty, was unlawful from the outset.

Furthermore, there was no evidence from the complainant, Peter’s neighbour, that he had actually seen Peter holding or threatening to use a ‘knife’. The case against my client, even at its highest, was weak and insubstantial. PC Miller and his colleagues appear to have completely overlooked the possibility of dealing with this matter, if it had to be further investigated at all, by inviting my client to attend the Police Station for a voluntary interview, which would have saved him the shame, stress, humiliation and deprivation of liberty that an arrest entails. No knife, but the Police certainly found “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.

To compound Police culpability in this matter yet further, was the fact that Peter’s detention in custody, in excess of 10 hours, was supposedly so that he could be interviewed under caution, but no such interview ever took place, despite the Police having ample opportunity to do so. Even if Peter’s initial arrest had been justified, the continuance of his detention for no proper purpose – holding him for an interview that never came – would have given him grounds to sue for false imprisonment. But my considered assessment was now that there never was a basis to arrest, and the Police reluctance to conduct an interview just bore that out; after all, what do you interview a suspect about, when you have no real reason to suspect him of anything?

Peter initially went to the Police Complaints system for redress, only to have his complaint rejected by Wiltshire Police Professional Standards, who in their response  deployed that robotic- sounding,  passive-aggressive mantra :  “The service provided was acceptable.”

Peter himself certainly did not ‘accept’ that opinion, however, neither did I.

He also contacted Philip Wilkinson, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Swindon and Wiltshire, and sought an investigation into his arrest and prosecution.

In the circumstances, on my advice, Peter issued Court proceedings against the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police, who in light of the evidence now agreed to settle, agreeing to pay Peter £8,000 compensation, plus his legal costs.

My firm view of this case is that Peter Murphy’s arrest was entirely unlawful. All he was actually doing was maintaining the borders of his home against unwarranted intrusion by an agent of the State, who should have respected his refusal not to submit to questioning.

Now Peter has – metaphorically – thrown the invaders from his castle and reaffirmed its integrity, and his own, with this excellent settlement, achieved with my expert assistance and his own courageous pursuit of justice.

On many occasions, the perpetrators of a ‘wrongful arrest’ whom I am called upon to sue for compensation are not the Police, but those self- appointed sheriffs of the high street: Supermarket staff and security guards, who often jump the gun with rabid and rough-handed accusations of shoplifting against innocent shoppers.

One afternoon in April 2023 my client Simon, a man of entirely good character, went into a Tesco Store wearing a backpack. He was hoping to buy a sandwich. Simon briefly browsed the shelves; however, he was unable to find anything that he fancied and therefore went to leave the store empty handed.

Simon was listening to music via headphones, and as he left the store was aware that a security guard said something, however he was unable to make out what was said and had no reason to believe it was directed at him. On that basis, he kept walking.

However, to Simon’s shock, the security guard then grabbed hold of the handle of Simon’s backpack from behind and struck him to the right side of his face. Also, Simon’s mobile phone was dislodged from his pocket onto the ground.

Simon remonstrated with the security guard, who accused my client of shoplifting. Indignant and smarting from the injury to his face, Simon nevertheless willingly emptied his backpack onto the ground to show that he had not taken anything. Simon was aware that the security guard was wearing a Body Worn Video camera that appeared to be recording the incident.

A member of Tesco staff then approached, picked up Simon’s mobile phone and stated words to the effect that he would now be unable to ‘get away’ as they had his phone.

By this point several members of the public had gathered and began recording the incident on their mobile phones. Some of these members of the public remonstrated with the security guard for assaulting my client and asked for the store manager. The Tesco staff member then identified themselves as the acting store manager and asserted that Simon deserved to be assaulted for shoplifting.

Officers from the Metropolitan Police now attended, and Simon’s mobile phone was returned to him. The police officers gathered statements from Simon, the security guard, and the staff member, in order to investigate the incident. Simon, who was of course entirely innocent, was then allowed to go about his business.

The security guard had attacked and detained an innocent man. Simon’s face, where he had been struck by the guard, stung for about 48 hours afterwards; but the psychological impact of that blow and the false accusation against him would sadly linger a lot longer.

Simon subsequently submitted a complaint about the incident to Tesco head office. Further, he made a Subject Access Request for the store CCTV and the security guard’s body worn video footage of the incident, which was disclosed.

After Simon consulted me about the matter, I presented a claim on his behalf to Tesco, seeking damages for false imprisonment, assault and battery and trespass to goods (the latter part of his claim relating to the temporary ‘confiscation’ of his phone).  

When Tesco’s lawyers attempted to buy off Simon’s claim with an offer of only £1,500 I advised him to reject the same and obtained medical evidence for him in relation to the extent of the psychological impact of this disturbing incident.

The evidence of the expert psychologist whom I appointed confirmed that Simon had suffered sleep disturbance and loss of appetite which caused him to feel vulnerable and exhausted.  Simon had also developed an anxiety about security guards and was now hyper-vigilant of any security guard who was similar in appearance to the man who had assaulted him.  Simon also suffered anxiety which caused him to avoid returning to the area of London where the incident had occurred, or indeed entering any Tesco store elsewhere, the sight of which brought back horrible memories for him of this incident in which he had been physically victimised and at the same time publicly labelled as a ‘criminal.’ This was a heavy burden for Simon to bear, given the ubiquitous presence of Tesco stores the length and breadth of the land. He was referred for counselling to address these issues.

I am pleased to confirm that I have recently settled Simon’s claim against Tesco Plc for £6,500 plus legal costs.

If you have been the victim of a false accusation of shoplifting by store employees/ security staff, particularly one involving any use of force against you or a ‘citizen’s arrest’, please contact me for help and advice and I will do my utmost to get you the compensation, accountability and apology you deserve.

Every little helps; but a lot helps a lot more.

I am sure that many of us have had occasion at the beginning of this new year to reflect upon the fact that the beginning of the Covid pandemic was no less than four years ago – although I am sure your memories of that time remain as vivid as mine.

During that first half of 2020, we all had to get use to ‘social distancing’ and lockdowns designed to keep people out of each other’s houses and confined to their own for significant swathes of time – in the middle of all of that, however, my clients the Bennet family suffered the trauma not of isolation in their home, but an invasion of it – by a gang of men whom at first they had no way of knowing were Officers of Cheshire Constabulary.

My client Emily Bennet lived at an address in Northwich, Cheshire with her young son and daughter, then aged 5 & 6 respectively. One morning, the family were all upstairs in their house when Emily saw a man downstairs and froze in fear, believing him to be a burglar. Her fear multiplied as she realised that the man was not alone, and two other members of this ‘gang’ of intruders started to come up the stairs towards her and her children.

Although one of the men now began to shout  “Police, Police, stay where you are, don’t move your hands“ they were not wearing Police uniforms, and had produced no warrant cards or other form of identification. Emily was terrified and her young children hysterical. One of the men now stood by the Bennets, whilst others began to search the rooms around them.

The man ‘guarding’ Emily shouted at her  “Don’t move your hands” and then “Who else is in the property?”. From their behaviour, Emily now began to guess that the men were indeed Police Officers, although this was hardly reassuring for her. She was told that the officers had a warrant to search for ‘drugs’ and was repeatedly asked where was ‘the male’. Emily informed the officers that no man lived in the premises, it was just her and her children.

Emily was now instructed to come downstairs “to do the admin.” She accompanied the Officers into the living room. She noticed that none of these men were wearing masks or gloves notwithstanding the ongoing Covid pandemic. Emily asked if she could take her son and daughter outside because they were traumatised enough and she did not want them to witness the search; the officer replied they were not allowed to leave the premises.

Emily and her children sat on one sofa and one of the Officers sat on the other sofa. Emily could see a second Policeman  in the kitchen on his phone and a third walking around the house. This third Policeman then asked Emily what number she lived at i.e what house they were in, and when she told him, the Officer pronounced “It’s the wrong  house!”. Throughout this time, both Emily and the children were crying and upset. It now became clear that the Officers had actually intended to search the house next door to Emily’s.

Nevertheless, the officers remained in Emily’s house for approximately 20 minutes, and as they were leaving they instructed Emily to wait inside whilst they went to the neighbouring property. Emily then heard her neighbours’ door being smashed in and the Officers shouting “Police, Police“.

Emily had to wait in her house, as instructed, for the officers to return from their search of the target premises, and she and her children thus remained prisoners, nervous and on edge in their own home for around a further 2 hours – a ‘lockdown’ indeed.

One of the Police Officers did then return and ‘apologised’ to Emily for their mistake, but in a flippant and half-hearted manner, that was more of an excuse than an apology, stating that what happened was ‘one of those things’ and that ‘it happens’.

To Emily, the officers appeared to have no understanding or empathy as to what they had done and the harm caused.  She lost faith and confidence in Cheshire Police and would think twice about contacting the Force for help/assistance in the future. To compound matters, Emily subsequently heard from the Officers’ supervisor by telephone and found him too to be dismissive of what had happened, trying to dissuade her from pursuing a ‘pointless’ complaint and flippantly commenting “If it makes any difference, I was on my way round with a box of maltesers”. 

Emily and her children were left in a state of shock and the psychological ramifications of this Police intrusion into their lives would take a lot of hard work and heartache to resolve. Their sense of safety and security in their own home had been grossly violated and Emily’s own trauma was multiplied by her awareness of her children’s upset and her desperate wish to protect them. The Covid years were stressful enough on young families without having your home itself become a place haunted by such a distressing memory, and Emily had to support her children emotionally as they both became very clingy to her, reluctant to sleep alone and fearful of strangers and sudden knocks at the door.

Matters were not finally brought under control for the family psychologically until late November 2022 when they moved out of the house to a new property; like leaving a haunted house and its ghosts behind, Emily and her children found a great psychological burden being lifted from them.

In response to letters of claim which I sent to Cheshire Constabulary on behalf of the family, the Police quickly admitted liability for their mistake – but failed to make any meaningful offers of settlement, resulting in me having to commence Court proceedings and drag the Police almost to the doors of Court, before my clients’ claims were finally settled in December 2023, only a week before the scheduled trial.

I pursued claims for Emily and her children not only for trespass to land and breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Right to Family and Private Life) but also for false imprisonment.  The tort of false imprisonment is committed when a person is unlawfully prevented from leaving a defined area, by means of physical barriers or threats/ commands. It does not require physical restraint and a person can be falsely imprisoned in their own home if, as in this case, the Police are issuing commands so as to restrict a person’s liberty, with an implied threat of force or legal punishment if those commands are breached. Most people whose houses are unlawfully searched will therefore also have, over and above a claim for the trespass itself, a claim for false imprisonment in their own home for the duration of the search, by reason of the Police having told them they can’t leave until the search is finished.

Of course ‘Keystone Cops’ errors such as this can occur no matter how meticulous the planning of a drugs operation is, and I have seen enough similar cases in my time to know that this type of ‘human error’ will always be with us – but when they do happen it is absolutely beholden on the Police to treat the matter with seriousness and not a sneer, and move heaven and earth to put things right for the innocent victims of their gross mistake, both financially and emotionally, especially when children are involved. Instead, Cheshire Constabulary approached this case in the usual truculent way the Police as an institution do to even clearly meritorious claims, offering excuses instead of real apologies, displaying enmity rather than empathy, and adding to the family’s stress by forcing them into the combative arena of litigation.

Fortunately, Emily was more than strong enough to face that challenge and with my support and guidance was able to finally achieve an excellent settlement for her and her young children; a damages award totalling £41,210 for the family, plus their legal costs.

I will let Emily have the last word, in the form of the poignant victim impact statement which she read out to Cheshire Constabulary’s legal team, including a senior Police Officer, at the final settlement meeting-

“Have any of you ever stood and watched three men enter your house without permission? Have any of you ever been so scared that your body is frozen to the spot and not even a sound or breath could leave your body? Have you ever had to listen to the terrified screams of your children whilst you’re told not to move and keep your hands where they can be seen whilst three men go into every room of your house without any explanation, leaving you unable to comfort or explain what was happening to your distraught,terrified children?! The answer I imagine is probably no and if the answer is yes then I’m certain that the perpetrators would have been arrested and charged with a crime. Unfortunately for myself and my children our justice was going to be a box of Maltesers as a way of a pathetic apology.

Another thing I’m certain of is that [the Police Officers] went home that night, had a good nights sleep and probably haven’t thought much about that day since or had a single repercussion. After all it was just another day in the office and it was ‘just one of those things, it happens’

Unfortunately, this is not the same reality for my children and I. Living with my own and more importantly my children’s PTSD has been the hardest few years of my life. Lack of sleep, being scared to live in your own home, Watching my children drop to the floor and crawl on all fours because of the sound of someone moving a wheelie bin for example, Having to try and live my life with two children who were until very recently unable to be in a separate room to myself at any time. There hasn’t been many areas of our lives this hasn’t affected!

I feel insulted, angry , shocked and ultimately disappointed with the way this whole ordeal has been dealt with. From the day it happened to this present day I’ve felt that it has in no way been taken seriously. I don’t feel I’ve had a sincere apology from anyone. I also don’t feel that the severity of what happened that day and the way it has affected our lives, mental health and my physical health since then has been taken seriously. Instead I’ve had several lies told by [the Police Officers] to try and justify what happened that day and told my complaints wouldn’t make any difference.

So what will make a difference? What will stop this happening to another family? Three TRAINED professionals entered my house after what I know will have been a result of weeks if not months of planning every detail of the operation, So how could something as simple as getting the right door number go so horribly wrong?! What happened to my family should never have happened and for it to be disregarded as ‘just one of those things’ because it was police officers that entered my house is disgraceful.

Unfortunately as a result of all of this my families faith in the police is diminished.”

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help me

I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

I have blogged before about the Police misuse of Mental Health Act powers and the distressing approach taken by all too many officers, which is that mental health issues are to be treated as if they are some sort of crime in and of themselves.

I have likewise previously highlighted the unedifying habit of the Metropolitan Police which is seemingly to encourage its officers to exercise a non-existent power of “detention” short of arrest, in the cynical knowledge that most people will assume that they need to ‘stay put’ simply because a Police Officer is telling them to do so.

Sadly, both of these Police vices came together in the Met’s grossly abusive treatment of my client Jervon a black Caribbean man who is vulnerable by reason of several mental health issues and was, to all intents and purposes, criminalised by the Met Police solely because of that vulnerability.

 

One afternoon in April 2019 Jervon made a routine visit to his local Building Society and was minding his own business in the queue, listening to music through his headphones, when he was startled by someone tapping him on the shoulder.

 

Jervon turned and saw that a woman had made physical contact with him; she apologised, stating that she thought Jervon was someone else.

 

Jervon acknowledged the apology but pointed out to the woman that her actions, in laying herhand on him, actually constituted an assault. The woman took offence at this.

 

The Building Society Manager then intervened and asked Jervon if he wanted him to call the Police, to which Jervon indicated that he did.  Jervon’s mental health issues were now causing him distress, in light of the woman’s unwanted physical contact with him, but at no point was Jervon himself aggressive or threatening to anyone present in the Building Society, and nor did anyone allege otherwise.

 

The Manager took Jervon to a partitioned area at the side of the room, offered him a glass of water and directed another member of staff to call the Police, so as to give reassurance to Jervon.

 

However, a second female member of the public now began to make comments about Jervon.  Jervon told the woman to mind her own business.  A man, believed to be this woman’s son, then entered the building society and stood next to her and began to stare at Jervon,  before removing his belt and wrapping it around his fist in a clearly intimidatory manner. 

 

Jervon felt threatened and told the man that he would defend himself if the man hit him.  The Branch Manager then ushered the second woman and the man out of the building.

 

Unbeknownst to Jervon at this time, the first woman who had touched him had called the Police – primarily because Jervon had suggested her actions were an assault and she wanted to explain what had happened.  Several minutes later six Metropolitan Police Officers arrived at the Building Society.

 

These officers spoke to some of the people at the scene, including the woman who had first touched Jervon.  This woman told the officers that Jervon had not done anything wrong and that she believed he was a vulnerable person.  

 

None of the witnesses spoken to by the officers suggested that they wanted Jervon arrested or prosecuted for any offence, which was quite correct because he had of course committed no offence whatsoever.

 

PC Little and PC Hillier then approached Jervon where he was sitting down, still in the partitioned area, and clearly not posing a threat to anyone or anything.

 

Seeing the officers approach, Jervon took out his Driving Licence from his wallet (so as to identify himself) and showed this to the officers.  The officers indicated that it was not required.  Jervon queried if he was under arrest and PC Little said that he was not.  Jervon then said that he did not want to talk to the officers unless he was under arrest and referred to wanting a solicitor.  

 

Jervon began to perceive that the officers were behaving in a hostile manner towards him, with PC Little commenting that his behaviour was “silly” and therefore Jervon took out his mobile phone and began recording the interaction for his own protection.

 

This was a sensible move and in my opinion was entirely within the range of reasonable behaviour by any person confronted by Police Officers who has a mobile phone to hand.

 

The officers seemed unhappy that Jervon was not talking to them, despite also acknowledging that he was not under any obligation to talk to them.

 

As Jervon, now standing up, continued to video record the officers, PC Doyle approached and, despite the absence of any power to lawfully detain Jervon, told him “At the moment you’re detained, while we investigate…”.

 

As I have alluded to above, “You are detained” is the stock phrase which Metropolitan Police Officers, in particular, use when they know that they haven’t got sufficient grounds to justify an arrest (or stop- search) and yet still want to assert power/control over an individual, often while they satisfy their curiosity as to what he has been up to or simply because they are unhappy that he is not ‘engaging’ with them.  In reality, the Police simply do not have a stand alone power of detention short of arrest in such circumstances but the Met’s unwritten playbook clearly includes this as a tactic for their officers to use against unsuspecting members of the public. 

 

Jervon, (who did not fully appreciate this, and nor should he have) – asked what the ‘charge’ against him was.  PC Doyle asserted “A Public Order offence at the moment … Public Order Section 4.”

 

Section 4(1) of the Public Order Act provides as follows-

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

 

As will be clear from my narrative of events above, Jervon could not reasonably be suspected of having committed a public order offence towards anyone; if anything, he had been the victim of such an offence (from the second women’s son). 

 

When Jervon then asked if he was actually under arrest PC Doyle repeatedly reiterated that Jervon was “detained”, as if this were some lawful alternative to arrest.  In reality, it is a trick or a bluff – an Officer relying on the pseudo-authority of his uniform and Police ‘persona’ to try and make someone obey him, when he lacks the legal authority to do so. 

 

Only now did PC Doyle ask the other officers present if there was “enough for a section 4 Public Order”.  None of them appeared to provide a verbal response and certainly none of them stated anything approaching grounds for such an arrest.

 

PC Doyle then pushed Jervon backwards, apparently in order to try to force him to sit down.  Jervon asked why PC Doyle was touching him and again asked if he was under arrest.  PC Doyle repeated his mantra that Jervon was ‘detained’ and instructed him to sit down.

 

PC Doyle then asked the other officers “136?” – which was presumably a reference to Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.  PC Little replied “Happy with that”. In my opinion, the officer, having put the cart before the horse i.e detention without a lawful reason to detain, was now casting about to try and find such a reason. It was a perverse inversion of the way the Police are supposed to operate. 

 

Section 136 (1) of the Mental Health Act provides-

If a person appears to a constable to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons—

(a)remove the person to a place of safety within the meaning of section 135, or

(b)if the person is already at a place of safety within the meaning of that section, keep the person at that place or remove the person to another place of safety.

 

Once again, I trust it will be clear from the description above, that Jervon was not in the grip of any ‘mental disorder’ requiring ‘immediate control’ and the only danger to him in these circumstances was the officers themselves. 

 

Feeling confused and threatened, and having previously been told by PC Doyle that he would only get a solicitor if he went to Custody, Jervon now said that he would cooperate if under arrest and PC Doyle – despite apparently having ruled out any basis for arresting Jervon (because of course, none existed) and having, just moments before, being apparently contemplating the use of Mental Health Act powers – now told Jervon that he was indeed under arrest. Notably however, he did not provide any grounds for this alleged ‘arrest’.

 

Instead, PC Doyle now again asked his colleagues if they had enough for a “136” and PC Little, despite having earlier said that she was “happy” with this approach now admitted “I don’t know, because he won’t talk to us.”

 

Jervon was now asking the officers for their badge numbers, and while he was doing so PC Doyle apparently noticed the driving licence which Jervon had earlier produced and which he had placed on a table.  

 

Without having any lawful power to do so – Jervon not being under arrest or being subject to any stop and search powers – PC Doyle reached down and picked up Jervon’s driving licence and then referred to my client by his first name, having evidently read it off the licence. 

 

When Jervon noticed what PC Doyle was doing, he asserted that the driving licence was his and told PC Doyle that he was stealing.

 

Jervon again asked if he was under arrest and tried to ask for his driving licence back, but PC Doyle kept hold of it and refused to return it. 

 

Jervon therefore tried to take his driving licence from PC Doyle, but the officer pushed him and tried to prevent him from taking it.

 

A struggle then ensued and the officers took Jervon to the ground and handcuffed him.  PC Doyle then radioed for a van stating “One male arrested, assault police, public order”.

 

In fact, none of the officers had received any information suggesting that Jervon had had at any point committed a Public Order offence and Jervon had not been legitimately told that he was under arrest at any point,  and nor had any grounds for any arrest been given.

 

Jervon’s actions in attempting to recover his driving licence from PC Doyle had been entirely lawful given that he was not under arrest at the time, and therefore the officer was committing an act of trespass to Jervon’s property. The Police would then escalate that situation by committing trespass to Jervon’s person, in the manner described above.

 

Despite Jervon not resisting, the officers continued to restrain him in a prone position on the floor of the Building Society, with his hands handcuffed behind his back.

 

PC Doyle then used his radio again stating “There’s a male been arrested for assault police, punching out at officers…….”

 

This time, PC Doyle did not mention the alleged arrest of Jervon for a ‘Public Order’ offence nor did he give any details of his own conduct which had led up to Jervon’s arrest.

 

The officers then lifted Jervon into a sitting position, whilst the Branch Manager explained to PC Doyle how the incident had started when a woman had touched Jervon and that other customers had then become involved “for no bloody reason” and that “the son’s taken his belt off” which had ‘wound’ Jervon up.

 

Whilst Jervon remained detained by the officers he became extremely distressed, and began to shake and cry out in pain.  He told the officers they were hurting his arm, referring to the handcuffs.

 

Jervon was eventually lifted up by the officers and escorted to a waiting Police van outside.

 

Whilst Jervon was being searched prior to being placed into the van, he again asked what he had been arrested for.  PC Hawton seemed unsure but eventually said “Assault on Police”.  PC Hawton said that Jervon was accused of assaulting PC Doyle and that at the moment that was the only thing he was arrested for.

 

Jervon was then locked into the rear of the van and a short while later was spoken to by PC Hillier who now asserted that he was under arrest “For assaulting Police and section 4 Public Order…” but failed to provide any information about what Jervon was said to have done amounting to either an Assault on a Police officer or a Public Order offence.

 

Jervon was then driven to a local Police Station and taken into custody.  Rather than being given the normal booking in procedure in person at the custody desk – in front of a Custody Sergeant – Jervon was taken from the van and placed straight into a cell. Once again, the officers were riding roughshod over Jervon’s rights and perhaps they thought they could get away with it because of his perceived mental health difficulties. 

 

In the meantime, in Jervon’s absence, the circumstances of his arrest were recorded on the Custody Record as follows – 

 

“Police called to the location to a male being disruptive and abusive.  Upon arrival the PD was spoken to during which  he has punched one officer.”

 

There was no mention in the Custody Record of the account given by the woman who had touched Jervon in the first place, nor that of the Branch Manager, as to what had actually occurred in the Building Society.  There was also no mention made of the officers’s own conduct, and in particular PC Doyle’s conduct in confiscating and refusing to return Jervon’s driving licence, which had directly led up to his arrest. 

 

While in the cell, due to the shock and distress he was experiencing at the treatment he had received, Jervon experienced thoughts of self-harm, to such a degree that he tied items of clothing around his neck. Multiple officers entered the cell, forcibly restrained Jervon upon the ground and stripped him of all of his clothing leaving him naked in the cell.

 

Jervon suffered neck pain, back pain and bruises to his knees by means of his rough handling by the officers and was left feeling utterly degraded. His requests for anxiety medication to alleviate his ongoing mental distress were denied.  It will be noted that all of this was in the context of the Police having chosen to ‘skip’ the proper booking in procedure for Jervon, thereby denying him the protections for detained persons which are laid down by PACE (the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) and which are supposed to include a thorough risk assessment before a person is placed alone in a cell. This disregard for PACE in Custody mirrored the disregard for the proper laws of arrest which Jervon had suffered in the Building Society. In my opinion the officers involved in this incident were disgracefully treating a mentally vulnerable individual like a second-class citizen, denied the full respect and protection of the law. 

 

Jervon was detained overnight at the station and interviewed the following morning in the presence of an Appropriate Adult. 

 

Several hours later a charging decision made by the Metropolitan Police themselves rather than the Crown Prosecution Service led to Jervon being charged with a Section 4 Public Order Act offence against the Manager of the Building Society (despite there having been no altercation between them) and an Assault on an Emergency Worker offence against PC Doyle. 

 

Jervon was then further charged with a similar offence of Assault on an Emergency Worker in respect of PC Little.

 

Jervon remained in detention overnight (now his second night in custody) before being taken to Ealing Magistrates’ Court where he was refused bail and remanded into prison custody at HMP Wormwood Scrubs.  

 

Jervon was to remain detained in the prison for almost three weeks, before finally being released when the Crown Prosecution Service, who were now involved, discontinued all of the charges against him stating that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

 

Whilst in Police custody Jervon had made multiple complaints about his treatment which were in my opinion entirely justified but – unsurprisingly – when in December 2019 the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Unit wrote to Jervon to confirm the outcome of his complaint, it was that none of these complaints were upheld. 

 

My shorthand for understanding the likelihood of any member of the public having their complaint upheld by Professional Standards is to imagine that the Professional Standards Departments are all branches of the Police Officers’ Union, the Police Federation.  Professional Standards investigators simply do not approach complaints in a fair and open mind; they seemed dedicated to finding reasons to dismiss complaints, not uphold them.  Curious behaviour for a profession whose purpose is to uphold the law, and bring malefactors to account… 

Fortunately, there are other ways to uphold the law – because we don’t just have criminal justice, we have civil justice as well.

When Jervon turned to me for help, I was proud to fight his corner and bring Court proceedings against the Metropolitan Police.  As a vulnerable individual who has to cope with mental health issues, and who has a heightened sensitivity to unwanted physical contact from strangers, Jervon should have been treated by others – and especially by the Police – with compassion, but instead he was treated with contempt, which then turned into an attempted to criminalise him. 

 

However, Jervon begins this New Year substantially better off than the last one, as I have just settled his claim against the Met for a five-figure sum of damages, but, more importantly, I have helped him to make his voice heard, to achieve accountability from those in power and a sense of justice being done; because despite the way the Police treated him, he is, like all of us, a first-class citizen.

As we draw ever nearer to the Christmas holiday season, many people in this country will be looking forward to travelling to spend time with their families or enjoying a short break abroad.  Many of those travel plans will inevitably involve airport transit, and I wrote recently about the considerable number of wrongful arrests that occur at airports owing to the Police and/or Court record- keeping errors; the simplest mistake in such a system can so easily result in the traumatic experience of an innocent person being arrested at the Departure Gate or at Border Control in front of their friends/ family.

Sadly, such an experience – yet another wrongful arrest at an airport – befell my client Imran, a Safety Inspector and man of unblemished character, in the circumstances which I will explain below.

In December 2020 my client Imran’s ex-wife applied to the Family Court at Birmingham for a “Forced Marriage Protection Order” in relation to their daughter (who was then 15 years old).

This application was initially dealt with “ex parte” i.e. without Imran being present or able to make representations to the Court.  ‘Ex parte’ orders of this nature are designed to ensure a short-term preservation of the ‘status quo’, until the Court has the chance to consider all the evidence at a full hearing attended by all of the parties.

The ex parte order forbade Imran from removing his daughter from the jurisdiction of the Court (i.e.  England and Wales) or for applying for a new passport or any other travel documents for her and it further forbade Imran entering into any matrimonial arrangements for his daughter whether in the UK or abroad.

The order ended with a “Note to Arresting Officer” that stated –

“Under section 63CA of Family Law Act 1996 breach of a Forced Marriage Protection Order is a criminal offence punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.  It is an arrestable offence and it is not necessary to obtain a warrant.

A person who without reasonable excuse does anything that he is prohibited from doing by a Forced Marriage Protection Order is guilty of an offence.”

The matter then came back before the Family Court for a full hearing in February 2021 at which the Court, notably, amended the Order so as to allow Imran to apply for travel documents for his daughter and to take her abroad – subject to Imran notifying his ex wife of any such travel plans at least four weeks in advance of any trip; Imran providing his ex wife with details of where their daughter would be staying abroad (and copies of her travel tickets) and a stipulation that Imran could not take his daughter abroad for a period of more than two weeks at a time.

The order concluded with the same note to any arresting officer in relation to breach of the order, as cited above.

In the circumstances, although the Forced Marriage Protection Order was to continue until February 2024, my client was now entitled to take his daughter out of the country, subject to satisfying the three conditions referred to above.

Arrested at the Airport

In the summer of 2022, Imran made arrangements to travel to Pakistan with his second wife, their infant son and his now 17-year-old daughter (the subject of the Forced Marriage Protection Order).

The family were to travel from Gatwick Airport on the morning of the 25 September 2022.

My client’s second wife is a Pakistani citizen who speaks very little English.  His infant son was just 4 months old.

In making arrangements to travel, Imran had fully complied with the terms of the Forced Marriage Protection Order in that-

i)                   He had informed his ex wife of his plans to travel abroad with their daughter at least 4 weeks in advance;

ii)                 He had provided to his ex wife details of where they would be staying whilst abroad, together with copies of her travel tickets including her return ticket; and

iii)               The trip was to last for 14 days only.

At approximately 7.45am, my client and his family were at the airport gate ready to board their plane.

Imran was then approached by two officers of Sussex Police. Imran was told that he would not be boarding any plane and that he was under arrest.  He was handcuffed to the front and then led away from his family.

Imran was understandably distraught, as was his family.

Imran was now taken to Crawley Police Station, where he arrived at approximately 9.20am. 

Despite requesting to speak to a solicitor, no such access was provided, and my client was kept in custody throughout the day and overnight, worrying about his family from whom he had been so abruptly and forcibly removed.

On the morning of the 26 September, Imran was informed that he was going to be taken to Crawley Magistrates’ Court.

Imran was then led in handcuffs to a police van, whereupon he was told that he was in fact going to be taken all the way to the Family Court in Birmingham.

Upon arrival, Imran was again handcuffed and brought out of the van and into the Court. Enquiries were made.  It was now suggested that my client should be taken to the Crown Court.

Imran was then returned to the van, his handcuffs were removed, and he was driven to Birmingham Crown Court.

Upon arrival, Imran was, once again, subjected to the shameful experience of being handcuffed and brought out of the van and taken into the Court building. Once again, Court staff were unable to assist, and the transport staff were now directed to take my client to the Magistrates’ Court.

Imran was then transported to Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.

Outside the Court, the van driver apparently made enquiries with his Operations Manager and it was now decided that my client had ‘no case to answer’ and should be immediately released. This twisted ‘magical mystery tour’ had finally come to an end, and not a moment too soon…Imran’s unlawful detention from 7.45am on 25 September 2022 to approximately 7.00pm on 26 September 2022 had been a period of over 35 hours.

By this stage, Imran felt sick and was distressed not only as regards his own predicament, but also that of his family.

Imran’s property was returned to him, and he was finally able to call his wife. He established that his wife and children had stayed the night before at an airport hotel. He was able to make arrangements for a friend, who was a taxi driver, to drive to Gatwick Airport, pick up his family and bring them home. Imran returned home and later that evening, was reunited with his wife and children. The family had incurred considerable expense in terms of wasted flights, hotel and taxi charges, but the emotional toll upon them all was far worse. 

My client is a man of entirely good character and the whole experience was very alien to him and has left him with huge feelings of anxiety when he is at the Airport and an understandable degree of ‘paranoia’ about the Police.  Although this has settled to some extent, his anxiety around going to the Airport and travelling by air is still present. He told me: “It felt horrible being lifted like a criminal at the gate of the Airport.”

After conducting investigations on behalf of Imran, I established that Sussex Police – the Force whose officers actually arrested Imran at the Airport and thereafter arranged for his transportation to Court – were almost certainly not liable themselves for his wrongful arrest, because it transpired that the Police National Computer system (PNC) had not been updated to reflect the significant change in the conditions of the Forced Marriage Protection Order following the hearing in February 2021.  In other words, according to the PNC it was still a ‘crime’ for Imran to be taking his daughter abroad at all, in any circumstances.

I established that the failure to correctly update the PNC lay at the door of the local Force in Birmingham i.e. West Midlands Police.

Accordingly, I pursued a claim on Imran’s behalf against West Midlands Police for breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), negligence and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.

It was the failure of West Midlands Police to ensure that the PNC details were accurate which had caused Sussex Police to wrongly believe that Imran was breaching the Court Order.

I am pleased to confirm that I have this month successfully concluded Imran’s claim, with West Midlands Police agreeing to pay him damages of £17,250 plus his legal costs.

Until the Police significantly sharpen up their data recording practices and staff training, however, I can only see this type of absurd and abusive airport departure – into unlawful custody- continuing time and time again.

My client’s name has been changed.

“Clare’s Law” is the poignant, public- facing name of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) – not a piece of legislation as such, but an ‘information sharing’ policy implemented by the Home Office in England and Wales on International Women’s Day 2014; it commemorates Clare Wood, a woman who was murdered by her former partner. DVDS provides key guidance to the Police in how to exercise their data control powers to warn members of the public about potential criminal threats, specifically in the context of domestic abuse. The publicity surrounding this scheme rightfully encourages people – most commonly women, of course – to exercise their ‘right to ask’ the Police for information about a partner, or the partner of a relative, so they can protect themselves/ their family from a potential abuser.

As with all aspects of the law, however, it is a system which is only as good as the persons administering it, and if inaccurately used it can cause harm rather than prevent it, either in the form of a ‘false negative’ result – wherein the Police fail to disclose details of relevant complaints – or, as befell my client Andrew, a ‘false positive’ – wherein an innocent man is wrongly accused by reason of a Police data error.

As of early 2023, my client Andrew (a man of exemplary character), entered into a new relationship with a woman called Rebecca. In May 2023, Rebecca contacted her local Force, the Metropolitan Police, to seek information regarding Andrew under “Clare’s Law”. Rebecca had no personal concerns about Andrew, but having met Andrew through a dating agency and having previously experienced coercive and controlling behaviour from a former partner, she quite understandably felt it was far better to be safe than sorry.

In response to her enquiry, Rebecca was invited to a Teams Call with PC “A” of the Metropolitan Police who, to her shock, informed Rebecca that Andrew had in February 2023 been arrested by Thames Valley Police and charged with rape.

This chilling information was, in fact, completely untrue, but Rebecca, distressed and confused, confronted Andrew about it. He honestly told her that he had no knowledge of this heinous crime; but what was Rebecca to make of his denial, for would a predator not say exactly the same thing? 

Rebecca then contacted PC “A” again and queried whether the ‘intelligence’ provided could be wrong. She received an unsympathetic response, with PC “A” not only urging Rebecca to immediately cease contact with Andrew – but in fact threatening Rebecca with action for having herself disclosed the information to Andrew. 

Andrew was outraged that that he had been ‘slandered’ in this way, and that his relationship with his partner had been damaged, and submitted a complaint to the Professional Standards Department of Thames Valley Police (the Force from which the erroneous information was said to have originated).  Several months later, Andrew received a response stating:

“I can confirm that a potential crime had been reported to Thames Valley Police. It was recorded correctly in accordance with National Crime Recording Standards. An investigation took place but it was concluded at an early stage that there was no evidence of a crime being committed. Thames Valley Police records correctly reflect this and correctly reflect that you were not arrested or charged. 

The incorrect data displayed on the Police National Database (PND) was obtained electronically from the Thames Valley Police crime recording database. This is an automatic process that would have taken place sometime after the crime report was updated, I cannot determine the exact date but I am satisfied it would have been within a short period of time. It has been identified that there was an error in the mapping of the data relating to you and the PND, which resulted in a digital error with your data. Your data has been corrected. 

The PND record made available to me at the time of your complaint does not show that you were arrested, I believe there was sufficient information in the PND record to contradict the incorrect outcome that was displayed, and therefore would have expected further enquiries and clarification to have been sought by the Metropolitan Police. 

Once again, on behalf of Thames Valley Police I offer my unreserved apology, I recognise the upset, stress and uncertainty this matter has brought you.”

When Andrew told me what had happened to him, I was more than happy to accept his instructions to pursue a claim for compensation for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 against Thames Valley Police. 

Following investigation, the Police responded to the claim confirming that in February 2023, a complaint was made against Andrew that he had ‘spiked’ a woman’s drink in a bar.  Officers checked the details of the complaint and ascertained that my client had not committed any crime.  It was so straightforward that they were even able to close the investigation without the necessity of involving Andrew himself. He had been neither arrested nor charged for any offence. 

The fact of the investigation and its outcome – “no crime” –  were then transmitted by Thames Valley Police to the Police National Database (PND); unfortunately when the record was transmitted to the Database an error was made, such that the PND erroneously showed that a charge of rape had been laid or summons issued against Andrew.  That grossly incorrect information had then been passed on by the Met to Rebecca. 

It is also worthy of note here that the incorrect PND entry did not say that Andrew had been arrested – that was something which the Met had evidently ‘surmised’ themselves and then told to Rebecca, on the back of the incorrect recording of the rape charge. Thus did one error lead to another, playing havoc with innocent lives. 

Andrew was deeply traumatised by these events, as would be any innocent person stigmatised by an accusation of rape – an accusation apparently ‘officially’ endorsed by the Police; he found the incident playing on his mind all the time and suffered sleep disturbance to such an extent that his GP had to prescribe him with medication. His appetite and concentration were affected. Andrew also, naturally, began to feel uncomfortable about being around other people; he did not know who else had been told about the allegations, and did not want to see any of Rebecca’s friends because of this. His trust in the Police was deeply, and understandably, shaken by these events.

Thankfully, Andrew’s relationship with Rebecca survived, and Thames Valley Police, having admitted their error, have rectified the Police National Database to ensure Andrew’s name is no longer besmirched and, following my intervention, have recently agreed to pay him £10,000 compensation plus his legal costs. 

The intentions behind the “Clare’s Law” system are certainly admirable – but those who have the “right to ask” should also have the right to expect that the answers they receive are completely accurate, whilst those whose personal data is in the hands of the Police, must have the right to know that it is not being corrupted by egregious mistakes. 

The names of my client and his partner have been changed.

How you can help me

I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

There is an old, half jocular saying which goes “No good deed goes unpunished” and this was a lesson which my client Taha Ashour and his brother learned all too well one December night not very long ago, when their attempt to be good citizens and perform a seasonal act of kindness was met by a gang of Metropolitan Police officers with distrust, violence, assault and arrest.

On Christmas Day 2021, Taha’s brother found a Police Warrant Card belonging to PC Digby, a female officer. He contacted the Metropolitan Police that day to confirm that he had found the card and was advised that someone would make contact so as to facilitate return.

At approximately 1.00am on 26 December 2021, uniformed officers now known to be PC Hague, PC Langford and PC Digby attended Taha’s home address, asking for his brother.

My client’s brother was out at the time and Taha agreed to and did then call him and ask that he return.  Mr Ashour’s brother advised him that he would return home shortly.

Taha relayed this information to the officers and courteously asked if he could get them a drink whilst they waited. The officers declined and instead asserted that unless his brother attended within the next 5 minutes, he would be in trouble. The officers then left and sat in a parked car on the opposite side of the road, effectively ‘staking out’ the address of these two good Samaritans. 

Anxious for his brother, given the officers’ strangely hostile attitude, Taha called him again. His brother advised that he was on his way home (via taxi) and that he would be back shortly. Mr Ashour went over to the officers and updated them.

At approximately 1.30am, my client’s brother arrived. He had recently fractured a bone in his foot and was wearing a foot fracture brace. The officers immediately alighted their car and marched aggressively towards the house, shouting at my client’s brother and demanding that he get the Warrant Card (notwithstanding the fact that they had only just witnessed him return).

Taha’s brother went into the house to retrieve the Warrant Card and as he did so PC Langford completely unnecessarily threatened Mr Ashour, who had remained outside, with the words “If he goes in and locks the door we are going to have to force entry and make it very difficult for you mate.”

However, within a couple of minutes, Taha’s brother was outside again, with the Warrant Card, which he showed to the Officers. Having shown them the card, Mr Ashour’s brother hesitated – momentarily – in handing it back to them, asking which of the officers it was he had spoken to earlier and questioning why the officers were shouting and making threats. “Do you think this is correct?” He asked the officers, referring to their bad attitude. 

Rather than responding with an apology, courtesy or (Heaven forbid) gratitude, PC Hague now grabbed my client’s brother and announced that he was being detained for a search under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) i.e. a search for “Stolen or prohibited articles”

In a state of shock, Taha immediately remonstrated, whereupon PC Langford seized Taha from behind, in a head lock manoeuvre, and took him to the ground. 

All of this had happened within 30 seconds of Taha’s brother coming out of the house with the Warrant Card in his hand, clearly intending on returning it to the assembled Officers. 

Mr Ashour was pinned to the ground by PC Langford and his arms were brought behind his back. Taha felt pressure on his neck and body and repeatedly advised that he could not breathe properly. He called out desperately and truthfully that he was not resisting, and asked PC Langford what was wrong with him. 

Ignoring his complaints, PC Langford now handcuffed Mr Ashour to the rear and kept him in this position, upon the ground, for approximately 10 minutes. Taha told the officer that the handcuffs were too tight and were hurting him, but PC Langford displayed no concern or compassion and merely shouted at Taha not to move.

Mr Ashour was left lying in the rain, on the wet grass of his front garden, in this humiliating, painful and contorted position as the officers stood over him and shone torches at him. Across the garden, his brother was being similarly detained by other officers. 

Eventually, Taha was brought to his feet and told to sit on a nearby garden wall. PC Langford now accused Mr Ashour of obstructing PC Hague’s search of his brother, but advised that he was to be released and the handcuffs removed.  

PC Langford then removed Taha’s handcuffs but insisted on taking his personal details, which he in fact had no right to demand.

PC Langford then instructed Mr Ashour to go back inside his house, but before letting him go, delivered this lecture- 

              “In future, you’ve got to be quicker with us. When we ask you to do something, you’ve got to do it.” 

This, in my opinion, was the root cause of the problem that night. The officers were unhappy that they had had to wait 30 minutes for Taha’s brother to return home – and then another 30 seconds before he returned the card to them – and had decided to punish the brothers for this infringement of their self-perceived importance. It was a gross abuse of power. 

Sadly, the Officers had not even yet finished abusing that power. Although Taha was free from their clutches, they now informed his brother that he was under arrest and was going to be taken into Custody on suspicion of “theft by finding” and obstructing an Officer. He was, of course, ultimately released without charge, but a more perverse inversion of the true state of affairs it would be hard to imagine – in what topsy-turvy world does helping the Police get twisted into obstructing them? The lesson apparently, was that Mr Ashour’s brother should have just left the Warrant Card where he found it and the Police none the wiser. 

Taha was humiliated, distressed, cold and wet and suffered physical and psychological injuries as a result of this incident. He was also left naturally extremely concerned for his brother’s welfare in custody, especially in view of his pre- existing injury. 

Mr Ashour later told me that he had feared for his life whilst being restrained by PC Langford and that his opinion about the Met had been shattered, commenting “You just don’t feel safe”.  Taha suffered flashbacks when leaving his house or looking at the lawn, recalling the Officers grabbing and shouting at him, his wet clothes, and an Officer kneeling on his back.  He thought “I have lost trust in the Police, this is hidden racism, being good gets you into bad places”.  

PC Langford, it transpired, was at the time a Probationary Officer, and in an attempt to explain the inexplicable, Taha came to believe that the situation that he and his brother found themselves in was exploited by the Met Officers accompanying PC Langford as an opportunity for a ‘training exercise’ – allowing the junior Officer to flex his muscles in terms of search and arrest powers and not because of any proper, lawful justification reason.

All in all, around half a dozen officers and multiple vehicles (including the van called to transport Mr Ashour’s brother to custody) were involved in this Boxing Day incident; how could that, on any analysis, be a legitimate or reasonable use of Police resources? 

Further insult was added to my client’s injury by the fact that although his complaint against PC Langford was upheld in quite striking terms, the officer was let off with little more than a disciplinary ‘slap on the wrist’ for what he had done, an outcome which put me in mind of a recent report in the Guardian, highlighting how the Police complaint system’s light touch was enabling dangerous officers.

The Complaint investigation reached the following conclusions-

1. The force used upon Taha by PC Langford was “not reasonable or necessary”;
2. There was no justification for handcuffing Mr Ashour;
3. Furthermore, PC Langford failed to check and double lock the handcuffs to prevent them tightening and causing pain to Taha’s wrists;
4. PC Langford displayed a “total lack of care and respect” towards Mr Ashour;
5. PC Langford suggested that in response to Taha’s evident distress he was “monitoring” his breathing, but this is not supported by the footage and the officer failed to act to alleviate Mr Ashour’s discomfort;
6. The amount of time PC Langford kept Taha on the ground was “unnecessary and excessive”;
7. There was no explanation given to Mr Ashour as to why he was being so detained.

Notwithstanding these findings about PC Langford’s behaviour – behaviour which if perpetrated by a member of the public against an officer in uniform, rather than vice versa, might very well have resulted in criminal charges if not a custodial sentence – the Met’s Professional Standards Unit determined that PC Langford should only face a charge of misconduct and not gross misconduct – i.e he would in any event be allowed to keep his job. What message does this send to that young officer and to others? 

Taha exercised his right to appeal the complaint outcome to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), but once again the vaunted IOPC proved to be a ‘paper tiger’ – and signed off on the Met’s marking of their own home work. 

I am pleased to report, however, that this Christmas season brings a much happier outcome for Mr Ashour, as I have recently been able to use the force of the civil justice system to win a compensation award of £15,180 for him from the Met, plus his legal costs. 

Invoking the spirit of Christmas, we might observe that the Metropolitan Police’s behaviour towards Taha that day was that of a gang of Scrooges. Thankfully, I was able to hit them deeply in the pocket on behalf of Mr Ashour. 

That, after all, is a lesson every Scrooge understands, all year round.

N.B. My client’s name has been changed.

As an expert in civil claims against the Police, a question which I am frequently asked is: “Can the Police arrest me because I won’t give them my name?”  A question which I am not frequently asked is: “Can sitting politely on a bench constitute a breach of the peace?”

This blog will, for reasons which will become clear, answer both of those questions; although you may already know the answer to one of them.

As we live in a democracy, and not a “papers please” Police State, an Englishman’s (or Welshman’s) mind is as much his castle as his home, and the only circumstances, practically speaking, in which a Police Officer can arrest you simply for failing to give your name/ details (i.e. without otherwise having a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a criminal offence or been involved in a motor accident) is if you are the driver of a vehicle, under sections 164 – 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or if, in these modern times, you are the operator of a ‘drone’ that requires evidence of competency to operate, under the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, schedule 9, section 2.

On all other occasions, a person can refuse to give a Police Officer their name (including when they are being stopped and searched) unless the Officer’s demand for your name is tied to a reasonable suspicion on the part of the Officer that you are committing (or have committed) a criminal offence, for example Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 which allows the Police to require you to give your name and address, but only if they believe you are or have been engaging in anti-social behaviour (as defined by section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014).

Unfortunately, all too many Police Officers behave as if they do have the right to ‘take names’ from whomsoever they like, and resort to misrepresenting their powers,  bluffing, threatening or even using force against people who fail to comply.

A particular egregious example of this sort of behaviour can be found in the case of my client Dean Pennington.

The background to this matter, which occurred one evening in January 2023, was that Dean had gone to meet a friend at Manchester Airport.

PC Healey and PC Hissy  of Greater Manchester Police were on foot patrol in the public areas of the airport having been notified of a black male causing a disturbance.

PC Healey approached my client (who is white, not black), and who was sitting peacefully on an airport bench. There were few other people around in this area of the airport, owing to the relatively late hour. My client smiled at the Officer and spoke to him in an entirely mild-mannered way, and there was certainly no disturbance occurring, whether involving my client or anybody else. Dean had had a modest amount to drink, but was in no way behaving in a disorderly manner.

That however did not stop the following conversation from taking place –

PC:      “What’s your name mate?  Have you got any ID on you?”

Dean:  “If I’m honest, I’m not gonna tell you.”

PC:      “I’ll just lock you up then mate. It’s easier isn’t it?”

Dean, whilst correctly stating that he had nothing to hide, maintained his right not to have to give his name to the Officer, to which PC Healey responded: “It’s entirely up to you mate, you can either tell me your details, or I’ll just arrest you and then we’ll find them out at the Police Station.”

When Dean still refused to give his name in the face of this threat, PC Healey then immediately began applying handcuffs to him and when Dean asked why he was being ‘nicked’, the Officer replied, “Breach of the Peace”.

All of the above interaction had taken place in the space of approximately 45 seconds from ‘first contact’ to ‘arrest.’

I have to pause here and say that in all my years as an Actions against the Police lawyer, I have never seen a more shameless misuse of Breach of the Peace powers by an Officer.  Often, I have seen situations in which there may be a grey area as to whether Breach of the Peace is occurring, or whether a Breach of the Peace might imminently occur if an Officer does not intervene, but that was not the case here. The situation was entirely peaceful.

Nevertheless, PC Healey proceeded with his arrest of my client.

“Legal Action ?  I couldn’t give a toss”

Arrest for “Breach of the Peace” is a Common Law power that differs from the general powers of arrest granted by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). It is not a criminal offence and you cannot be charged for it;  Police Officers exercising this power can only detain you until the threat of breach of the peace has gone, at the most taking you before a Court to be “bound over” to keep the peace, but you cannot be prosecuted for ‘breaching the peace.’ (A prosecution for contempt of court might occur if you broke a ‘bind over’ order, but that is a further step removed).

Breach of the Peace is commonly defined, following the case of R v Howell [1982] QB 416 as follows –

“whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.”

On no-one’s honest analysis, can refusing to give your name to a nosey Police Constable amount to an “assault, affray or riot”.

As PC Healey and his colleague began to march the handcuffed Dean out of the airport terminal – under the pretences of this ‘phantom’ breach of the peace – Dean did not resist them, but warned the Officers that he was going to take “legal action” over this, to which PC Healey replied in a bored and disinterested tone –

“Take legal action, mate. I couldn’t give a toss.”

The two officers then stood Dean up against their patrol car, and commenced searching him.

When Dean again attempted to explain the law to PC Healey, saying “You can’t tell me ‘Give me your name’,” the Officer completely incorrectly asserted “I can.”

PC Healey then went on to explain his reasoning, like this – “Refusing to give details mate, you could be a murderer, couldn’t you, that’s on the run?” PC Hissy then chipped in “You could be wanted”, to which Dean quite fairly responded “I could be anything, but when I’m not, you need to answer.”

It is really quite disturbing that both of these GMP officers either genuinely misunderstood their powers to such a massive extent that they thought they could detain and search anyone who refused to identify themselves to them; or even worse, were prepared to deliberately break the law to get what they wanted. Perhaps, in the words of PC Healey, they really just “couldn’t give a toss.”

PC Hissy now tried again with Dean, telling him “Give us your name…that’s all you’ve got to do” – really giving the lie to any suggestion that this was about a ‘breach of the peace’. Rather, it was about ‘justifying’ an entirely speculative interrogation of Dean as to his identity.

These two Police officers, like many others no doubt, may have wished they did have a power to require people to identify themselves on demand, but the country in which such a power exists is not one whose laws these officers have sworn to uphold.

PC Healey, after confiscating Dean’s wallet and rifling through it, then established his name from one of his bank cards. However, the officers had not yet finished their impromptu interrogation. They asked Dean what area he lived in and then PC Healey issued the following further threat-

“You going to tell me your date of birth or are you going to make us do it the hard way?”

The officers continued to maintain their captivity of Dean, telling him they had now called for a van to transport him to custody. PC Hissy then reiterated the officers’ entirely unlawful plan of action – “Once you get to the Police Station…your ID will be verified, and we’ll establish whether you’re wanted for any offences… If you are wanted, you’ll be dealt with for the offences, if you’re not then you’ll be released.”

Seeking to end this ridiculous situation, and save everybody’s time, and given the fact that it was clear that these officers either didn’t understand or had no regard for the law, Dean now informed them of his date of birth.

When a Police National Computer (PNC) check on Dean’s details revealed that he was currently under bail conditions to reside at a specified address in Widnes, the officers now informed Dean that he was being further arrested for “breach of bail conditions”  – to which he correctly pointed out that despite the late hour, he was not breaching those conditions as he was manifestly neither ‘living nor sleeping’ at the airport terminal. The bail conditions did not amount to a curfew, but the officers chose to interpret them as if they did – presumably pleased that they now had some other justification, no matter how ropey, with which to ‘dress up’ their initial unlawful arrest of Dean.

But all they were actually doing was compounding the Chief Constable’s liability to Dean in damages.

Dean was then taken into custody and further detained, during which time he was interviewed under caution, before being released without charge.

The Custody Sergeant who authorised Dean’s release wrote the following detailed analysis of the whole incident –

“I have reviewed the available evidence in this case and have seen the statement provided by [PC Healey]…

The brief circumstances are that the officer has attended reports of a male acting oddly, sniffing gas, drinking and causing concern to passengers. PC… has spoken to a male matching the description when the DP [Dean] has come and sat close the officer and the male, DP was intoxicated.

PC … has asked to provide his details but the DP has refused. Due to this the officer believed that he may be wanted or another reason. The officer also believed that he may have been involved in the incident that he was called to in the first place, however it was only noted that a black male was involved in this.

PC … states that as he suspected of him committing a public order offence, namely causing or likely to cause a breach of the peace by his behaviour resulting in members of the public calling the Police (no full explanation of what part breach of the peace this was). DP has refused again to provide his details and stated ‘GO ON THEN ARREST ME, I’M NOT TELLING YOU’. He was arrested for breach of the peace. This however is not further explained in the statement as there was no evidence to state that he was involved in this original matter so a breach of the peace is not made out so no further actions as insufficient evidence. The interviewing officer has also informed me that he was arrested for breaching his Court bail conditions, this information has also been passed from early shift custody Sgts so in regards this as he would not be presented before the Court within 24 hours he will be subject to NFA in respect of this.”

It is in my opinion outrageous that these officers abused the ancient Common Law power to prevent breach of the peace as an excuse to run PNC checks on a British citizen. The allegation of ‘breach of the peace’ was frankly nothing more than a ‘place-holder’ to cover the officers’ illegal detention and interrogation of Dean, and sadly (given GMP’s refusal to apologise for their behaviour) I suspect that they are far from the only Police officers who will resort to this or similar tactics either from ignorance, malice, egotism or some unworthy hybrid of all three of those vices.

Dean had warned PC Healey and PC Hissy at an early stage, however, that he had previously successfully sued Cheshire Police for £2,000 (I did not act for him in regards to that claim).  

I am pleased to announce that in regards to this most recent incident, I have now recovered for Dean from Greater Manchester Police the sum of £8,500 damages, plus his legal costs.

Legal action? Perhaps they should give a toss…

Even in today’s world of widespread CCTV and ANPR cameras and mobile phone data, the place in which most of us appear most clearly on the State’s radar is the airport, when transiting between countries, and hence it has been the location of many wrongful arrests which I have been called upon to assist in rectifying, as this is the place where a data error or identity mix-up on the Police National Computer can all too easily go from being a glitch in the system managed by faceless Police bureaucrats, into the terrifying arrest of an innocent person in front of their bewildered friends, family or colleagues, leaving deep psychological scars.

In November 2022, my client Ross was interviewed by Sussex Police in respect of an allegation of Common Assault. He provided his home address, in East Sussex. Following interview under caution, Ross was released and advised that any decision or further action would be communicated to him in due course.

He heard nothing further and thought no more about it. Then, in May 2023, returning from a holiday to Spain, Ross flew into Gatwick Airport.

As he exited the plane, Ross was obliged to show his passport, whereupon he was arrested by Police Officers for ‘failing to attend’ Hastings Magistrates’ Court in April 2023.  This took place in front of Ross’s wife and numerous other passengers. Ross was shocked and honestly asserted that he had not been aware of any Court summons.

The arresting Officers advised that he had been summonsed, but the address which they gave him, as to where the postal requisition had been sent, was a completely different address in another area of East Sussex; nevertheless, it was an address Ross recognised – it was his old home, where he had not lived for 8 years.   

The Officers stated that given a Court Warrant had been issued, they had no alternative but to continue with Ross’s arrest. He was led away, feeling degraded and humiliated, whilst his wife was obliged to collect and carry all of their luggage and make arrangements to be picked up, causing my client further anxiety and distress.

Ross was taken first to Gatwick Police Station and then to Crawley Police Station where he was ‘processed’ and searched.

Following the booking in procedure, Ross was incarcerated in a cell overnight. The next morning, he was transferred to prison escort services and taken to Crawley Magistrates Court to await his fate.

Upon my client’s production before the Magistrates, it was confirmed by the Court that the address details endorsed on the Postal Summons (prepared by Sussex Police) were incorrect, and that the Postal Summons had indeed been sent to Ross’s old property.

Ross was then immediately released and the underlying proceedings against him adjourned to a later date. He had been wrongly deprived of his liberty for almost 24 hours in harrowing circumstances, and felt physically and emotionally exhausted.

“Jet Lag” doesn’t even begin to get close to describing such an experience, but it is one which I intimately understand, having advised so many clients who have been unlawfully detained at the border in just this or similar circumstances, turning the ‘happy holidays’ venue of an airport into a place of bad memories and future fears.

I advised Ross that although he could not sue Sussex Police for false imprisonment, because they had the ‘constable’s protection’ of acting under a Court warrant (albeit a warrant only issued because of a constable’s incompetence in the recording of his address), he would be able to achieve effectively the same remedy in damages by pursuing the  Police for the inaccurate processing of his data, leading to his wrongful arrest at the airport, and hence deprivation of his liberty in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (as enabled into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998).

When Sussex Police failed to admit liability in response to the letter of claim which I sent – hiding behind the ongoing criminal prosecution for the original assault – I promptly issued civil court proceedings on behalf of Ross, arguing that his compensation claim, arising from an administrative error, was clearly distinct from the criminal matter, and I am pleased to confirm that the Police have recently agreed to pay Ross £9,000 damages, plus his legal costs for this whole unfortunate episode.  

I am very pleased to have achieved this result for Ross, but for the reasons I outlined at the beginning of this blog, I know that he will be far from the last person to find his journey to baggage claim wrongfully turned into a trip to Police custody.

When such post- holiday nightmares occur, I am here to help.

My client’s name has been changed.

Aidan Walley, solicitor

This is a guest post by my colleague and fellow solicitor, Aidan Walley.

In 2014 the College of Policing released The Policing Code of Ethics, which included a clear set of policing principles that all police officers are expected to abide by:

Accountability – You are answerable for your decisions, actions and omissions.

Fairness – You treat people fairly.

Honesty – You are truthful and trustworthy.

Integrity – You always do the right thing.

Leadership – You lead by good example.

Objectivity – You make choices on evidence and your best professional judgement.

Openness – You are open and transparent in your actions and decisions.

Respect – You treat everyone with respect.

Selflessness – You act in the public interest.

These principles not only apply when an officer is on-duty; they are also “expected to use the Code to guide your behaviour at all times – whether at work or away from work, online or offline”. But what happens when a police officer decides to entirely forgo these professional and moral principles and lie? In the case of my client Adam, it had devastating consequences for his mental health.

Adam is a vulnerable individual with a history of mental health problems, including Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following an unlawful arrest by the Metropolitan Police in 2011. After an arrest for a minor domestic matter in September 2022, Adam found himself homeless and was staying with a friend.

In order to get back on his feet, on 5 November 2022 Adam, in the company of his friend, viewed a room in a house of multiple occupancy in Yorkshire, owned by the landlord Mr Clasp. When viewing the room Mr Clasp informed Adam that a police officer, PC Roose of West Yorkshire Police, also resided in the house, however Adam did not actually meet PC Roose. When asked about any previous convictions, Adam was upfront and honestly informed Mr Clasp of his sole previous conviction for drink driving. Mr Clasp then offered the room to Adam. Adam accepted and after paying Mr Clasp a £1,200 deposit, intended to move in the next day.

However, PC Roose learnt that Adam was moving into the house, and later the same day, whilst on duty, PC Roose accessed information about Adam on the Police National Computer (PNC) at 21:42. Thereafter, at 21:45 PC Roose texted Mr Clasp falsely asserting that “UNFORTUNATELY WORK HAVE SAID THAT I CAN’T LIVE WITH HIM DUE TO HIS OFFENDING HISTORY AND HOW RECENT IT IS. SO, I’M GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE OUT”.

This was in fact a lie. PC Roose had not actually spoken to anyone in West Yorkshire Police about this matter, and no one had told him that he could not live with Adam, nor did PC Roose have any legitimate policing reason to access the information about Adam on the PNC.  PC Roose had decided entirely on his own account to unlawfully snoop on police systems about his new neighbour, and declare Adam persona non grata, mendaciously presenting this as a Police leadership decision. By his actions PC Roose had thus violated almost every “policing principle”.

Indeed, after his initial illegal foray into Adam’s records, PC Roose then repeated the data breach by unlawfully accessing Adam’s PNC file for a second time in the early hours of the following morning.

After receiving PC Roose’s text, Mr Clasp contacted Adam and informed him that due to the information provided by PC Roose he would not allow Adam to live at the house. Further, on learning of the alleged reasons for Mr Clasp refusing him accommodation, Adam’s friend refused to allow him to return to their home. Therefore, as a direct result of PC Roose’s actions, Adam was immediately made homeless.

Mr Clasp did not return Adam’s deposit and as Adam was unable to afford a hotel he was forced to sleep rough that night. The following day Adam, was able to get a place in a homeless shelter where he then resided for several months. During that period, Adam was subject to assaults and thefts by other residents but was eventually provided with a council house. However, the damage had been done, and the actions of PC Roose caused Adam to suffer from severe anxiety, paranoia, sleeplessness, and suicidal thoughts as a consequence.

Adam submitted a complaint to West Yorkshire Police as regards PC Roose’s conduct. Through no fault of his own, Adam had once again found himself the victim of Police misconduct, heightening his distrust of the police. Although he had legitimate reason to complain about PC Roose, Adam also feared that he might be subjected to future reprisals from the Police because of his complaint.

Adam’s complaint was investigated by the Force’s Counter Corruption Unit, who were able to check the audit log on the Police National Computer and establish that PC Roose had indeed accessed Adam’s information without lawful justification. When asked, Mr Clasp provided the text from PC Roose to the Counter Corruption Unit, but claimed that he had not told PC Roose about Adam.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence against him, PC Roose was forced to admit the truth that he had accessed Adam’s information contrary to Force policy and entirely unlawfully. However, despite accepting his wrongdoing, PC Roose attempted to mitigate his actions by claiming that the possibility of living with our client caused him “concern for his own safety”.

The Counter Corruption Unit ultimately determined that PC Roose had cases to answer for misconduct as follows:

It is alleged that PC Roose has looked at police systems and informed his prospective landlord of [Adam’s] offending history resulting in the tenancy offer being withdrawn. As a result of audits, it has been established that on 05/11/2022 at 21:42hrs and 06/11/2022 at 04:12hrs, whilst on duty, you checked the nominal record of [Adam]. It is believed that you did not have a policing purpose to conduct the checks.

As outlined within Regulation 27(3) Police (Complaints & Misconduct) Regulations 2020 it is my opinion that: There is a case to answer in respect of Misconduct

It is further alleged that PC Roose has passed the details obtained from the police systems to his landlord.

As outlined within Regulation 27(3) Police (Complaints & Misconduct) Regulations 2020 it is my opinion that: There is a case to answer in respect of Misconduct

However, despite the clear findings of the Counter Corruption Unit, the Professional Standards Department instead, and entirely incorrectly in my opinion, determined that PC Roose did not have a case to answer for misconduct.  Their decision maker wrote:

Taking the above into account, I consider that whilst the officer has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, his conduct is not deemed so serious that it would meet the threshold for misconduct (conduct so serious that at least a written warning would be justified). This is because the conduct alleged is limited to a single incident and appears to have been conducted in good faith (albeit inappropriately). Furthermore, the disclosure made to Mr [Clasp] is limited in nature and there is no evidence the disclosure was made maliciously. It is my view that this matter would be more appropriately dealt with as a performance matter with the officer being subject of Practice Requiring Improvement under the Reflective Practice Review Process framework.

(I would here observe that Professional Standards Department investigators commonly behave in this manner, as if they are the advocates of the Officers complained about and opponents of the complainants).  

Despite the Professional Standards Department’s claims that PC Roose’s actions had been “in good faith”, it should not be forgotten that he had directly lied to Mr Clasp, who took PC Roose’s word as a Police officer on trust.  PC Roose had tried to shirk personal responsibility by pretending that it was his ‘bosses’ who had made the decision.

Furthermore, by framing his message in the way that he did, PC Roose clearly ‘chilled’ both Mr Clasp and Adam’s friend with fear about the supposed seriousness of an “offending history” which would cause senior officers to allegedly react in this way.

Ultimately, a Detective Superintendent apologised to Adam for the incident and PC Roose, via the Professional Standards Department, also sent a letter of apology to Adam in what can only be described as the style of a ‘naughty schoolboy’:

I would like to apologise to [Adam] for my actions, regarding stopping him from moving into a property I was a resident of. I know now that my actions were wrong and sincerely apologise for any distress or problems, that my actions caused [Adam].

I feel ashamed of my actions and would like to say I am sorry for what I have done. I will never do this again and I hope that [Adam] is able to fully recover from this incident.

Sincerest apologies,

PC Roose

As rare as it is to see an officer personally apologise to his victim for his actions, this in no way mitigated the harm caused to Adam. To try and rebuild his life and sense of justice, Adam instructed me to bring a claim for compensation against West Yorkshire Police.

I recognised that the actions of PC Roose were not only a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, but also represented a gross violation of Adam’s right to a personal and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, PC Roose’s conduct was far worse than merely “snooping” on the Police National Computer, given that he then deliberately lied in order to manipulate Mr Clasp into rejecting Adam’s tenancy. I had no doubt that a Court would accept that this was a malicious act of deliberate dishonesty by a serving Police officer and that he was not acting “in good faith” as asserted by the Professional Standards Department. Therefore, I also believed that PC Roose had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office, which requires proof that a public officer has abused their power or position with the intent to cause deliberate harm.

I am pleased to say that in response to the claim, West Yorkshire Police’s legal services quickly admitted liability and, after vigorous negotiations, a significant financial settlement has recently been reached.  

PC Roose should regard himself to be very lucky to have come away from this incident with no more than a slap on the wrist and would do well to remember the Policing principles in the future. If he or any other officer forgets, then my colleagues and I will swiftly remind them.

(The name of my client and the landlord have been changed.)

Only last month, news headlines were made by the case of the athletes Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos, proteges of former Olympic champion Linford Christie, when two of the Metropolitan Police Officers who had subjected them to a stop and search were sacked for lying about having smelt cannabis (as an apparent excuse to justify the search of this black couple).

I have blogged before about how frequently the ‘phantom smell’ of cannabis is used by Officers to justify a stop and search where other grounds are weak or absent – or the ‘ground’ is in fact a racial one which the officers can’t admit.

A very similar experience also befell my client Zac Sharif-Ali, a black man of Somalian heritage, at the hands of Metropolitan Police in 2020, as I will address in this week’s blog post.

One afternoon in May 2020, Zac drove to his local Sainsbury’s Store and parked on a nearby road.

Having visited the store, as Zac was on his way back to his car, he noticed a man and woman following and staring at him; he thought they might be ‘security guards’ from their fairly informal uniforms.  Zac now knows that the pair were Metropolitan Police Officers, and that the woman was PC Rowbotham and the man was PC Ngo.

Zac opened the driver’s door of his car and got in.  He turned on the car engine and wound the window down.  He was then in the process of putting on his seatbelt when PC Rowbotham and PC Ngo crossed the road and approached him.  Zac asked them “What are you looking at, is it because I’m a black person in a car?”  PC Rowbotham said in response, “No one’s brought that up, I don’t appreciate” . Zac challenged her –  “Why you looking at me then?”.

As regular readers of this blog might recall, this was not Zac’s first experience of Met Police abuse of power  – far from it – and it is quite understandable that he was immediately on edge.

PC Rowbotham, still eating a mouthful of her lunchtime sandwich, asked Zac to switch off his engine and to get out of his vehicle “for a chat.”

In view of his previous experience with the Met, Zac started recording on his phone (a sensible precaution) and was reluctant to leave his vehicle, telling the Officers “I ain’t getting out of no car for you for no apparent reason.”

PC Rowbotham then cited Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act, asserting that as Zac was ‘in control’ of a motor vehicle,  and his engine was on, she wanted to carry out a vehicle check and obtain the Claimant’s name to ensure that he was licenced/ insured.

In fact that was a manipulation of that power, as the relevant section of the Act relates to the power of constables to require individuals who are driving vehicles to stop and produce their documents – and Zac was not driving; the Officers had followed and watched as he got into his car, and it had not yet moved, albeit Zac had turned the engine on.

Zac then saw an unmarked Police car abruptly pull up immediately in front of him, driven by a second male Officer, now known to be PS Rees. It appeared as though ‘London’s Finest’ were gathering in force for this speculative stop and search on a black man in his car.

Zac now reluctantly decided to do as he had been asked so as to end this Police harassment, confident that all their checks would establish that he was qualified to drive, he was insured and that his vehicle was roadworthy.  Accordingly, he advised that he would get out of his vehicle and turned off the engine, undid his seatbelt and wound up the driver’s window.

PC Rowbotham now opened the driver’s door and Zac stepped out of the car and shut the door behind him. He was completely obeying the Officers instructions, but nevertheless PC Rowbotham immediately took hold of Zac’s arms and advised him that he was now detained for a search under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, whilst PC Ngo also took hold of the Claimant’s left arm. Zac protested in vain, “Wait!  Don’t touch me.”

PC Rowbotham had given no prior indication or warning or justification of a drugs search.  She did not confirm her name, badge number or Police Station to which she was attached.  All of this was a violation of CODE A of PACE and rendered the search and its accompanying use of force immediately unlawful (See my blog post on GOWISELY for more background to the rules and requirements of a street search by Police Officers – the rules they are supposed to obey, but frequently don’t).

When I later reviewed the video evidence of this incident, it seemed to me as though the Officer had cited the Road Traffic Act merely as a ‘decoy’ to get Zac to step out of his car so that the Officers could lay hands upon him, for the purposes of a ‘groundless’ search. This in itself was a gross misuse of power, and what happened next was far worse.  

PC Ngo now produced his handcuffs and chained Zac’s left wrist. PC Rowbotham told Zac to put his other arm behind his back. Although Zac was not resisting or fighting back in any way, despite his moral outrage at what was being done to him, at this point, PS Rees rushed over, grabbed Zac’s upper arms, span him around and forced him up against the side of his car whilst his colleagues simultaneously forced Zac’s arms up behind his back. As this was happening, PS Rees leant on Zac’s back with his whole body weight, pressing Zac against the car, and with his left hand aggressively gripped Zac’s jacket hood, pulling it tight around his neck (and restricting Zac’s breathing). He then forced Zac’s head into contact with the roof of the car. 

At this time, PC Ngo also seized Zac’s mobile phone, as Officers always like to be in control of all recording devices in the vicinity, if they can help it.  

PS Rees then stated that Zac was “detained” and in a menacing tone told Zac that he better do as he was told, otherwise he would “have a problem”. 

Zac was now handcuffed to the rear, in the full view of this public street.  The handcuffs were applied tightly and caused him immediate pain and discomfort. Zac was still offering no resistance, but PS Rees nevertheless ordered him to “comply” and stated that if he did not ‘comply’ he would be “done for assaulting Police Officers.”

PC Rowbotham now announced –  

“As I’ve explained, it’s under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.  My name is PC Rowbotham and I’m attached to Larkhill Police Station.  You’re entitled to a copy of the stop and search form.  You get that emailed in 3 months from the Police Station.  I’m going to be searching for drugs on the basis that I can smell Cannabis coming from yourself and your vehicle.”

There was in fact no smell of cannabis emanating from either Zac or his car. Zac does not smoke cannabis and no one else had access to the car.

A black man who had innocuously visited his local Sainsbury’s to purchase some salad cream for a sandwich, was now being targeted as if he were a drug-dealer.

PC Rowbotham asked Zac if he was happy with a female conducting the search. He quite honestly replied “No, I’m not happy with any of you searching me.” – to which the Officer responded, “Well, you’re getting searched aren’t you.”

Zac was now led on to the pavement, where PC Rowbotham began to search him, whilst PC Ngo restrained him by holding both the handcuffs and Zac’s arm. Zac protested about the Officers taking his phone and remonstrated as to the strange change in circumstances, i.e. that he had allegedly been stopped for a vehicle check, but was now being searched for drugs.

PC Rowbotham’s search continued which Zac found humiliating and degrading. During the course of the search, PC Rowbotham touched Zac’s genitals and buttocks, through his clothing.  The Officers also searched his personal belongings.

PC Rowbotham again asserted that there was “a smell of Cannabis” coming from Zac’s car and that Zac’s demeanour when getting out of his car was not “a normal person’s demeanour” in that Zac was “confrontational”, and that as such PC Rowbotham believed Zac was going to “make off” which “is usually the response of somebody that has drugs secreted on themselves……”. 

I would say that it was in fact a perfectly normal demeanour, and one Officers must regularly encounter, from an innocent person who knows he is being unfairly targeted by the Police – especially if he has prior experience of being brutalised at the hands of a Met Officer in very similar circumstances and reasons to suspect that he is being viewed as a criminal simply because of his skin colour. PC Rowbotham’s justification was therefore either hopelessly naïve or simply untrue.

PS Rees and PC Rowbotham then began to search Zac’s car and as they did so, Zac was left standing with PC Ngo, who tightened the handcuffs and gripped Zac’s arms in an unnatural position, alleging that this was due to Zac’s “aggression” – despite the fact that Zac had not raised either his voice or a finger against the Officers.

The search of both Zac’s person and his vehicle was, of course, negative.

PS Rees now approached Zac and asked whether they were “In a different place now where we can have an adult conversation?” Although Zac agreed, the Officer kept him in handcuffs whilst PC Rowbotham continued her checks.

After 20 minutes, PC Rowbotham finally removed Zac’s handcuffs; he was immediately aware of swelling and marks on both of his wrists.

Zac complained that he had been stopped because he was a young black male and that this was a common occurrence.

Sticking to her script, PC Rowbotham replied, “There was a smell of Cannabis coming from you straight away, but as soon as I approached the vehicle I could smell remnants on the floor.” Zac replied, “Would you like to show me the remnants?”  PC Rowbotham agreed, and Zac and the Officers went over to the car.

PS Rees now pointed out on the driver’s seat what he said “Looked like …… tobacco with a green tinge to it, (and which) could be flakes of Cannabis.”  There were no ‘flakes’ and Zac replied, “Are you talking about the dust here?”

Zac disputed that he smoked Cannabis or allowed anyone else to smoke Cannabis in his vehicle, and told the Officers, “You didn’t smell Cannabis.”

Zac was now issued with a Stop Form. The Stop Form records as follows –

“Male in a known drug dealing hotspot.  He shouted “You’re not stopping me”.  He was extremely aggressive his hands and voice were physically shaking.  On his approach to the vehicle he continuously looked over his shoulder.  The vehicle smelt VERY STRONGLY of cannabis.  As he got out of the vehicle SMELL got STRONGER.  He slammed door shut as he got out of the vehicle”.

When I presented Zac’s claim to them, the Met Police purported to stand by their Officers’ conduct and denied any liability. They changed their tune after Court proceedings were commenced, however, albeit still without any admission of liability or apology, and have recently agreed to settle Zac’s claim for £7,500 damages plus legal costs; an acceptable settlement for 20 minutes detention and an indication that behind the scenes the Met might not be as trusting of its Officers’ sense of smell – or should that be sense of honour? –  as it implies it is.

This is only one of very many examples of the same scenario which I have seen played out on the streets of our cities over my long career – now often in the glorious technicolour of body camera and mobile phone recordings. The Police maintain they can smell cannabis, absent any other proper basis for conducting a search and also, as it turns out, absent any cannabis once the search is completed; and more often than not, the skin colour of the person targeted is not white. In response to a claim or complaint the Force will ‘robustly’ defend the integrity of its officers and the alleged legitimacy of the search, such that those officers face no consequences themselves – but will nevertheless pay out substantial damages to avoid the case coming before the scrutiny of the Court, once legal proceedings are underway, as happened here.

Reflecting on the ubiquity of this form of abuse of power by Police Officers – unlawful stop and searches whose only justification is invisible but allegedly pungent cannabis – and the rarity of any disciplinary action being taken against the Officers involved, I am inclined to think that the Officers in the Williams/ Dos Santos case were punished for their crimes against celebrity more than anything else. When the media are not watching – i.e in the vast majority of cases – neither Professional Standards Departments nor the IOPC show any real interest in interrogating Officers behaviour despite the amount of times the ‘smell’ is claimed, but the alleged cannabis is nowhere to be found.

In this respect, the Officers who stopped Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were somewhat unlucky – because they were just doing what was ‘business as usual’ for many Police Officers; however, they picked on the wrong people.

What I would like to see following on from this, is a culture change amongst the Police that benefits everyone, not just those in the public eye, who have the privilege of disproportionate media interest in their case.

The same dignity and protection from Police abuse of power should be accorded to all those who do not have the aura of celebrity to protect them, and all Officers who violate the law in cheap, lazy and cynical ways should be punished accordingly.

Police Officers are given special powers and privileges in order to keep the peace and enforce the law; with such power in many individuals, comes a natural increase in ego which can then turn into a very vicious circle – the exploitation of power by a Police Officer who thinks that his ego is being infringed or disrespected. This model of Police Officers abusing their power in order to satisfy their own ego is a common one in the cases I handle, and a perfect example of it is the case of my client Richard Perry, whose claim has just been settled by Essex Police. 

One evening in May 2022 Richard and his friend (whom I will identify for the purposes of this blog as “Alan”) attended Alan’s flat in Chelmsford.

As Richard and Alan approached the communal entrance of the property, they saw four Essex Police Officers.  Alan opened the door of the communal entrance and allowed the Officers to enter the building.

One of the Officers said that they were seeking entry into a top floor flat.  Alan informed the Officers that there were two top floor flats and that he rented one (Flat 5) whilst a Surgeon and his wife rented the other one (Flat 4).  In fact, Alan pointed out this couple (his neighbours) as they were also just arriving at the property. The Officer explained that they were responding to reports of a disturbance. 

The Officers proceeded to the top floor hallway and began to knock on the door of Flat 4.  Alan again pointed out to the Police that the tenants of Flat 4 – the Surgeon and his wife – were coming up the stairs behind them.  The Surgeon arrived and asked what was going on.  An Officer asked if the Surgeon lived in Flat 4, which he confirmed he did.  The Surgeon opened his flat door and walked into the flat, at which PC Norfolk asked “Do you mind if we come in?” but then stepped into the property without waiting for an answer.

Richard, who had witnessed all of this, immediately challenged PC Norfolk for entering the flat without invitation.  PC Norfolk asserted that the Surgeon had given permission, and that Richard should “Back off”.

As it was transparent that nothing untoward had occurred in the Surgeon’s flat, the Officers then began to query amongst themselves whether they were on the wrong floor and to make their way downstairs.

As they did so Richard commented “You’re dismissed, your dismissed, feel free to let yourself out.”

Richard then began to advise the Surgeon about his rights against Police intrusion into his property, which caused PC Norfolk to start to argue that they had a power to enter under Section 17 of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). It was completely unnecessary for the Officer to engage in this debate, as he and his colleagues had apparently satisfied themselves that they no longer needed to enter the flat and were about to leave.

PC Norfolk then started to follow his colleagues down the stairs and Richard shouted after him “You guys aren’t above the law!”.

PC Norfolk was now halfway down the stairs, but hearing Richard he turned around and said, “Go inside because you’re really starting to agitate me.” 

Richard moved to the top of the stairs as they were talking, to which PC Norfolk said “Don’t approach me like that otherwise you’ll get nicked.”

PC Norfolk then began to advance back up the stairs towards Richard, with PC Galloway following behind him.  Richard queried what he could possibly get ‘nicked’ for, to which PC Norfolk replied, “For obstructing a Constable” and PC Galloway then pushed Richard in the chest.

Richard protested that he was not obstructing anything and asked the Officers to stop assaulting him.

However, PC Galloway continued to push Richard back with both hands across the landing and then attempted to grip Richard to pull him towards the front door of Flat 5, but in the process caused Richard to lose his balance and fall backwards.

One of the Officers said to Richard “You’re obstructing a Constable, move back”.  PC Norfolk now said “We’ve had enough.” Richard responded, “You were going downstairs” and PC Norfolk replied, “Yeah, and you’re being an issue aren’t you?” 

PC Galloway now dragged Richard up from the floor and pushed him against a wall shouting, “Get in your address and piss off.”  Richard again protested “Stop assaulting me, no get off me” to which PC Galloway responded “You’ve had your warning, get in.”

When Richard asked what he meant both Officers replied, “Last chance” to which PC Norfolk added, “Do we need to count?”

Richard correctly pointed out that the Officers had no power to demand that he went into the flat to which PC Norfolk replied, “Right, you’re nicked.”  When Richard asked what the reason for his arrest was, PC Norfolk replied, “Obstructing a Constable.”

The Officers now spun Richard around so that he was facing the wall;  in the process Richard’s head hit the frame of a notice on the wall causing an injury to the left-hand side of his head. Even as Richard protested that he was not obstructing anyone and hadn’t done anything wrong he was handcuffed to the rear.

Richard’s friend Alan pointed out to the Officers that, as a result of their manhandling of Richard, Richard now had a laceration to his head which was bleeding. 

Richard again asked why he was being arrested and was again told that it was for obstruction of a Police Constable, to which he quite rightly challenged PC Norfolk, pointing out, “But you were walking down the stairs, you came up to me.”

It was quite clear to me when I reviewed the evidence that Richard was not arrested for obstructing but rather for ‘disrespecting’ a Police Constable; the fact that the latter is not an offence sadly does not stop Officers arresting people for it, and that was exactly what was happening here.

The Officers then marched Richard down the stairs and Richard was aware that the cut to his forehead was bleeding heavily.

PC Norfolk asked his colleagues “Have you sorted out the other drama yet?” Richard was then taken outside, and again questioned as to why he had been arrested.  To which PC Norfolk farcically maintained, “Obstructing a Constable in the lawful execution of his duty.”  He then forced Richard up against the side of a Police car and held him there.

PC Norfolk then asserted that he and his colleagues had attended to an emergency call and that whilst doing so, Richard and Alan had been “Gobbing off and pulling us back and drawing our attention.”

Again, Richard disputed PC Norfolk’s version of events and said, “You approached me, you squared up to me.”  PC Norfolk replied that as it was an emergency situation, Richard had been told to “Get back into your flat.”   Again, Richard (correctly) asserted that PC Norfolk had no power to make such an order. 

Richard asked the officer if he would release his grip and allow him to straighten up, rather than pressing him against the car.  PC Norfolk agreed – but unnecessarily added “I just don’t want you headbutting me that’s all.” It is true that one of their heads was indeed bleeding at this point – but it wasn’t the officers.

PC Norfolk now put Richard into the rear of the police car and told him that either he could take him down to Chelmsford Police Station where “we can hold you up to 24 hours” or he could de-arrest him and do this “nice and amicably.” 

Richard was adamant that he had done nothing wrong, but that if the officer wanted to take him into custody, “cool” and that in fact it was PC Norfolk who had a difficult decision to make not Richard.

His temper now having apparently simmered down, PC Norfolk announced that he had “better things to be doing”, that Richard was “no longer a threat” and accordingly, he was content to de-arrest Richard. Indeed, the officer did have better things to be doing, and he should have been doing them in the first place.

Richard was allowed out of his temporary prison in the Police car, and his handcuffs were removed. He now insisted on getting the collar numbers of all of the Officers present, so that he could lodge a complaint (and ensure the preservation of body camera footage, of course, which has a limited shelf- life in such circumstances).

After providing these details, PC Norfolk tried to turn on the charm by asking Richard if it was now “happy days” between them and offering him a “trip to the hospital – free of charge.”

Understandably, Richard declined this ‘kind’ offer and later attended hospital under his own steam to get his injuries checked out.

He subsequently instructed me to pursue a claim on his behalf against Essex Police, and after reviewing his instructions I swiftly presented a letter of claim to the Chief Constable.

The initial response of Essex Police was to insist that the claim be placed on hold pending the outcome of Richard’s complaint.

Whilst it was necessary to do so, I did not hold my breath as to the outcome of the complaint and advised Richard in these terms. Indeed, following investigation, DI Scrivener of the Defendant’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) prepared a report in which it was found that Richard and Alan had made it “more difficult” for Police to complete their duties such that the officers’ use of force was justified and proportionate and that as such the officers’ actions were “lawful, reasonable and justified”.

This was just the type of Police ‘whitewash’ response to a legitimate complaint which I had been expecting, and I had no hesitation in advising Richard not to worry about it and we would instead concentrate on pursuing his compensation claim all the way to Court if necessary. The ultimate facts of the settlement that would be achieved would resoundingly give the lie to any assertion that PC Norfolk and PC Galloway’s treatment of Richard was “lawful, reasonable and justified.”

Without admitting liability, Essex Police made an offer of settlement of £1,250 which I also had no hesitation in advising Richard to reject. His period of detention was no longer than 15 minutes, and thankfully his head injury had cleared up within a few weeks (albeit leaving a small scar above his eyebrow), but I felt there were significant aggravating factors here in terms of the Officers’ violent behaviour and mendacious manipulation of the law to arrest a person who, in the words of his friend, had merely “offended the wrong person.”

Richard had in fact committed no crime other than infringing the officer’s ego and PC Norfolk’s behaviour towards him had evidently been governed not by the laws of PACE but by the pulse of his own anger. The only people who were obstructing the proper exercise of Constables’ duties that day were PC Norfolk and his colleague, who, through their intemperate response had wasted their own time in assaulting, detaining – and injuring an innocent man.

After commencing Court proceedings on behalf of Richard, I eventually brought Essex Police to book with a settlement of £7,500 damages plus legal costs.

You can’t trust the Police complaint system, but you can trust me.

What duty of care is owed to the close family members of a Police informant?  At least one major Police Force in this country apparently thinks it should be “none” – even when it is the Police themselves who have exposed the identity of that informant to a dangerous drugs gang, by an act of gross stupidity. 

This week’s blog is a follow-up to last week’s story of “David”, the Police informant whose details were contained within a document which the Police ‘left behind’ after searching an address linked to the OCG (Organised Crime Group) nominal whom David had given them information about.

The consequences of this Police negligence naturally did not stop with David.  At the time when he supplied the information David was living at his mother’s house (as also was David’s younger brother).

Indeed, David’s mother, whom I will identify for the purposes of this blog as “Alison”, had not only known her son was going to supply information about criminal activities to the Police, she had actively encouraged him to do so and had accompanied him to the Police Station for moral support when he went to disclose the information to Detectives.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Alison found the Police Officer’s attitude towards her son’s future safety and wellbeing lackadaisical, with the Detective Constable who had conducted the interview somewhat sarcastically offering to “look up and down the road” for them when they left the Police Station – but what she certainly didn’t expect was for the Police to deliberately take her son’s details to the criminal’s address and then leave them behind.

By the time the Police data breach occurred, David was himself in prison, but Alison was still living with David’s brother at the family address and understandably became extremely concerned for her own personal safety. A Summary of Threat and Risk in regard to the Organised Crime Group identified their members as having been involved in “possession and storing firearms” and “the shooting of two males.”  The gang was involved in the bulk supply of Class A drugs in the area.  They were clearly extremely dangerous individuals who were unlikely to take being crossed lightly.

As David’s mother, and still living in the address which they had until recently shared together, Alison knew that whether she was deliberately targeted, or was ‘collateral damage’,  she could very literally end up in the firing line if these dangerous criminals came looking for revenge. 

Alison’s mental health deteriorated badly, and she was not at all reassured when she turned to the Police for help. Despite the fact that it was Police negligence which had dropped the family into this dire situation, the local officers did not seem particularly interested in protecting Alison and her sons.  A Crime Prevention Officer attended at Alison’s home and provided some cursory recommendations about fitting window locks, an external light and a CCTV camera. When the Crime Prevention Officer returned on the subsequent occasion to install the CCTV at Alison’s house, she noted that he had brought with him two uniformed officers for his own protection – but there was no suggestion that she was to receive any protection or assistance from the Police over and above the fairly routine security gadgets which were being fitted to her home.  There was certainly no suggestion that the Police would assist Alison in moving address. It seemed that they were only interested in doing the bare minimum.

When I presented a claim to the Police on behalf of Alison and her younger son, this was met with defensive hostility. The Police had agreed to compensate David – after leaving the document with his details in it at the gang members address – but now sought to argue that they did not owe any duty of care or confidence to Alison or David’s brother, as they were not referred to in that document.

Referring to the Court of Appeal decision in An Informer v A Chief Constable (which I discussed in my previous blog) the Police argued that whilst there was a duty to ensure a “safety and wellbeing” of informers – whether authorised ‘Covert Human Intelligence Sources’ (CHIS) or informal ‘ad hoc’ informers like David – there was no basis for extending that duty of care to family member of an informer.

The Police brazenly sought to argue that nothing in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200 (RIPA) or the CHIS Code of Practice required a public authority to take into account the safety and welfare of the family of informers – at least not unless the Police gave the informer overt assurances that they would protect his family as well.

Therefore, unlike David’s case, which settled without the need to issue Court proceedings – it was necessary for me to commence action in the Civil Courts on behalf of Alison and the Police fought the case tooth and nail almost all the way to trial.

In the case of An Informer a duty was found to be owed to both the informer and members of his family and the CHIS Code of Practice does require a public authority (i.e. the Police) to “take into account…..  the foreseeable consequences to others of [an informants] tasking.”

It was clear to me that the Police did owe Alison a duty of care, given her presence at the Police Station when David provided the information, and hence the officer’s direct knowledge of her and also the clear and present danger flowing from the fact that she lived in David’s home address as a close relative and could very foreseeably become a target for reprisal, whether inadvertently as a resident at that address or deliberately because of her relationship with David.

Furthermore the failure to keep safe the information David had provided, and the leaving of the document in the place and circumstances where it was left, in my view amounted to an infringement of both Alison’s and her younger son’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

All of these arguments I raised and maintained in the face of the Police position which was that the only duty of care and confidence that they owed in these particular circumstances was to David and that the human rights of his family had not been infringed by their actions.

I am pleased to report that ultimately the Police’s fine points and legal evasions could not, even on their own analysis, stand up to the moral force of my client’s argument and they have recently agreed to a healthy compensation package for Alison and David’s younger brother.

Alison had encouraged her son to do the right thing in very difficult circumstances and the whole family had had their lives put at risk as a result of Police negligence.

Thankfully, all members of the family have subsequently remained safe, although the psychological torments that they suffered after this act of gross carelessness on the part of the Police must not be underestimated and the message to the Police must be loud and clear: let this never happen again.

“Our democracy depends on people being able to trust the Police,” said former PM, and Home Secretary, Theresa May, during her recent interview on popular politics podcast “The Rest is Politics”. 

Breaches of the public’s trust by the Police take many forms – some absolutely deliberately abuses of power whilst others arise from callousness, recklessness, stupidity or some combination of the three.

This week’s blog post concerns a shocking example of the latter – not an intentional abuse of power by the Police, but a grossly negligent one which cast a dark shadow over the life of one of my clients. 

My client – (whom I shall identify by the pseudonym of ‘David’) – was what, in colloquial terms, is known as a ‘grass’ i.e a criminal who provided information to the Police about other criminals, in this case information about Organised Crime Group (OCG) nominals i.e. gang members, involved in class A drug supply in the region.

The Police subsequently attended at an address linked to the gang in order to execute a search warrant. During the search, Officers had with them a file containing a ‘subject profile’ which contained sensitive information provided by David.

Unfortunately, upon leaving the address the Officers realised that the ‘subject profile’ document was no longer in the file and had, in fact, been left behind at the premises. Whereas the object of Police searches is to locate evidence of crime, here the Officers had instead given the criminals evidence which potentially compromised David’s safety as an informant. ‘Bungling’ is a word scarcely commensurate with the risk this now created to David’s life and limb.

The Police reported the loss of the subject profile to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).  The Constabulary’s Head of Information Rights and Disclosure and the ICO determined that David had to be notified about what had occurred, as he now faced what in bureaucratic jargon is delicately described as a “high likelihood of detrimental impact”.

High Risk of Harm

At that time, David was a prisoner serving a sentence, but was soon to be released.  As prison walls are often no barrier to the reach of organised crime gangs, it was recognised that there could well be implications for David’s safety within the prison. In the circumstances, prison security staff were briefed via police liaison officers and David was notified of the data breach.

Following notification, David contacted his family, to warn them of the data breach and the significant risk arising both to himself and them.

Shortly afterwards, David was released from prison, but, shockingly, was placed in temporary accommodation which was not very far from the area where the Organised Crime Group were based. David felt very vulnerable staying in the area, and feared that the gang would locate and seriously injure, if not kill, him. Indeed, David felt so desperate at this time that he actually considered committing an offence and then immediately handing himself in so that he would be sent back to prison again.

In light of the data breach, David was of the view that he should be placed in the witness protection system, but he was told by the Police that this was not an option.  The Police were showing a very lackadaisical concern for David’s plight, notwithstanding that it was their gross error which had put him in this situation.  On his release from prison David had initially been told that the Police would assist with his short and long term housing requirement but it now became clear that this was not the case.  Feeling abandoned by the Police, David began self-harming and his family had to intervene to arrange medical treatment.

With no permanent accommodation being made available for him, David was housed in cheap hotels for several nights, during which time he became increasingly paranoid that he was being followed.  Indeed, his mental health condition deteriorated to such an extent that he was detained by the Police under the Mental Health Act and ‘sectioned’ in mental health hospitals for a period of time.

It was only following his discharge from mental health care that David was finally able to secure relocation to permanent accommodation in an entirely different area of the country.  Nevertheless, he naturally continued to be fearful of reprisals and remained hypervigilant and wary. 

Duty of Care

Even with all my long experience of cases of Police negligence and misconduct, I was shocked by the facts of David’s case when he first approached me.  The Police Officers’ blundering stupidity had put at risk a man’s life and, indeed, potentially compromised the chances of other individuals being willing to share with the Police information about Organised Crime in that area, in the future.  It was entirely unnecessary for the “subject profile” document to have been printed off and brought to the premises – in other words, there was no need for the Officers to be carrying their homework around with them whilst they executed the search warrant at the premises, and certainly no excuse for leaving that homework behind. 

I pursued a claim for compensation on David’s behalf against the Police, seeking damages for negligence, breach of the Data Protection Act and breach of the Human Rights Act.

The law in this area was well-defined by the 2012 case of An Informer v A Chief Constable in which it was established that the Police owe informants such as David a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect them from physical harm, as well as a duty of confidence.  It was admitted by the Police that the circumstances of the loss of the subject profile did amount to a breach of those duties, although they put David to proof as to the nature and extent of his loss.

As was stated by Lord Justice Toulson in the Informer case (paragraph 62 of the judgment) –

“The relationship between the police and a CHIS [“Covert Human Intelligence Source”] is a confidential relationship. The confidentiality serves two main purposes. The first is the safety and peace of mind of the CHIS. Acting as a CHIS may be risky and stressful. If the person’s identity became known, he or his family might in some cases be exposed to serious injury or death and in less extreme cases to other disturbing forms of harassment. The second purpose is the encouragement of the supply of information to the police by people who are unlikely to come forward unless they can be confident that their confidentiality will be protected.”

After negotiations, I was able to get the Police to agree to pay David a significant amount of money, plus legal costs.

No doubt he would trade every penny of it to be able to undo that breach of trust, whereby the Police exposed him to such clear and present danger; and the Police themselves must be mindful that every such breach of trust chips away at the sense of confidence which society at large needs to be able to have in them, in the over-arching fight against the blight of organised crime.

This week’s blog post concerns the unlawful arrest of one of my clients for what can only be described as a non-crime; and the action I took to win compensation for him. My client’s ordeal was recently reported upon by the Daily Mail, and I can here provide some further detail and commentary.

One afternoon in November 2022, my client (who goes by the YouTube name “Eye Spy Audit”- ESA in this blog post) filled up his car with £20.10 worth of diesel at a BP Fuel Petrol Station in Stockton-on-Tees and offered payment by way of a £20 coin and 10 pence coin to the cashier.

A £20 coin is legal tender in accordance with the Coinage Act 1971.

ESA was wearing a face mask, as had become common during the Covid pandemic. The manager of the petrol station refused to accept the £20 coin as payment unless (-this was a bizarre stipulation-) ESA removed his facial mask. This was despite the fact that there was no notice or advertisement on the fuel pumps warning potential customers that certain denominations of otherwise legal tender would not be accepted in payment of the goods being offered for sale (in this case, diesel).

ESA refused to remove his mask, rightly considering this to be irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the petrol station should accept his method of payment.

The manager of the petrol station then telephoned Cleveland Police and two officers, PC Gates and PC Rose, attended at the scene and spoke to Isaac, who was waiting patiently in the station shop. 

ESA politely explained the situation to both Officers.  The manager passed to PC Gates the £20 coin and ESA explained that the coin was legal tender (although being under no obligation to explain the law to a Police Officer).

PC Gates refused to accept that Isaac’s £20 coin was legal tender and threatened him with arrest for “bilking” i.e. making off without payment – unless he agreed to provide his name and contact number.  Isaac refused this unlawful demand.

Nevertheless, PC Gates in fact did then establish ESA’s name, by carrying out a vehicle check on ESA’s car.  PC Rose then read ESA’s name out loud in front of the petrol station manager and other customers.

Shortly thereafter, PC Gates placed ESA under arrest on suspicion of “making off without payment”, despite the fact that ESA was continuing to offer payment in entirely legal tender and was very much ‘remaining put’.

The Officers escorted ESA outside the shop.  He was obliged to remove his hat, face mask and jacket and was then searched.  His car keys were also confiscated.

ESA was then required to get into the rear of a Police van and was transported to Middlesborough Police Station by PC Gates.

Upon arrival at the station, ESA was advised that there was a queue of people to be processed.  ESA was obliged to wait in the van, where he noticed blood smears in all the seating locations on both sides and on the ceiling. When ESA made reference to these blood smears, PC Gates was dismissive of his concerns.

As the delay continued, ESA began to experience neck and back problems. He suffered uncomfortable stabbing pains in his legs, back and neck and arms.  However, PC Gates refused his reasonable request to be allowed to get out of the van and stretch his limbs.

In the circumstances, ESA then asked to see the nurse. PC Gates briefly left the van and then, on her return, derisorily informed Isaac that the nurse had apparently refused to see him unless he “wasn’t breathing” or was “dying”.

After what felt like an hour, ESA was finally allowed to exit the van and was taken into the police station where he was then held in a holding area for approximately 40 minutes.

Eventually, ESA was produced before the Custody Sergeant.

The Custody Record gives the circumstances of ESA’s arrest as follows;

“Police have been called to a PFS whereby the DP has fuelled his vehicle and attempted to pay with coins which have been confirmed to be non-legal tender. The Garage as such would not accept them.  The DP would not provide officers with details at the scene.”

The assertion that Isaac’s £20 coin (presumably the Officer wasn’t referring to his 10 pence piece, although who knows…) was ‘non legal tender’ was highly misleading.  The coin certainly was legal tender and nobody had ‘confirmed’ otherwise. 

Indeed, having been told of the arrest circumstances, the Custody Sergeant pulled PC Gates to one side, and when he returned, advised ESA that his detention was not authorised and he was to be released.

The Custody Record states that –

“Detention (was) not authorised – the DP was presented as a make off without payment. The DP has not made off from the scene and has awaited police attendance.  As such this offence was not made out. The DP has also made no attempt to leave, so the offence of attempt make off is not made out either. The officer advised she arrested the DP because she was advised to by her supervisor, but she advised me she agreed there were no grounds to detain the DP, other than to identify his name/address.  The DP provided me with those details in any event.  I explained to the officer that in order to arrest to establish a name/address, there also needs to be a substantive offence to investigate – as per earlier there is no offence made out. The officer was satisfied that there were no further grounds to detain the DP, and intends to deal with the issue as a civil matter.”

Having been detained for the best part of 3 hours, ESA was now de-arrested and driven back to the petrol station where his car was parked.  All of his possessions were returned except for the £20 coin which was retained by the Police for a further 2 weeks, for inexplicable reasons. 

Regular readers of this blog may recall a very similar incident to this which occurred to my client Brett Chamberlain at the hands of Devon and Cornwall Police.

This latest incident is sadly further evidence that Police failure to understand basic concepts of law concerning payment for goods and services remains widespread, resulting in civil liberties violations and a massive waste of time and resources by Officers who show far too much deference to the agents of big business rather than the rights of private citizens behaving in a perfectly lawful manner. 

In many respects this was the opposite of a shop lifting incident – a store manager refusing to accept legitimate payment for goods and calling the Police who responded with an “arrest first, think later” approach.

In response to the claim which I advanced on ESA’s behalf, Cleveland Police adopted an equally typical “deny first, think about it later” approach. Refusing the opportunity to admit liability or apologise to ESA, they gave us no choice but to commence civil court proceedings.

The Police then filed a full-blown Defence, disputing ESA’s claim on the grounds that the BP petrol station was entitled to refuse ESA’s chosen method of payment; this is simply not the case if the proffered method of payment is legal tender and customers have not been given prior notice by the business (in this case the petrol station) that there were forms of legal tender they would not accept, before irrevocably taking the goods (in this case by filling their vehicle from a self-service fuel pump).

I ultimately settled ESA’s court claim against Cleveland Police for damages in the sum of £3,999 (plus his legal costs).

A £20 coin is a legal tender of the realm, but here the Police Officers involved seem to forget their oath to uphold the laws of the land and instead acted as if they were bouncers for BP Fuel Stations.

Hopefully my client’s action will remind the Police where their true duty lies. 

Watch ESA’s YouTube video about this here and his t.v. interview here.

The names of my client and the officers involved have been changed.

Today’s blog post addresses following the question: can you be arrested for Obstruction of a Police Officer, simply for failing to answer their questions? Or perhaps I should say – can you be lawfully arrested for this?

My client, Anthony Rippingale, is the 72-year-old proprietor of a vehicle repair garage and MOT centre in Cambridgeshire and lives on the same premises as the garage.

As at January 2023, he was the registered keeper of a BMW motor car, one of approximately ten vehicles he owned for his business.

One Monday morning, Anthony received a visit at his premises from two Cambridgeshire Police Officers who wanted to know who had been driving the BMW two days previously.

Anthony answered truthfully that he did not know who had been driving that particular car, as he had been away from home over the weekend and it was one of several “garage” cars, which might be used by a lot of different people, including his customers.  All Anthony knew for certain at that time was that he himself had not been driving the BMW on the evening in question.

Anthony questioned the Officers as to whether the vehicle had been reported as involved in an accident or a crime; in response they confirmed it had not, but that there had simply been a report of an unknown man and woman in the car “having an argument.” At this point Anthony legitimately questioned whether the Officers had nothing better to do with their time, as he wasn’t going to waste his own looking into the answer to a question which he felt the Police had no right to be asking, in the absence of an accident or allegation of crime.

The Officers persisted in demanding that Anthony find out who was driving the car over the weekend and then, when he failed to immediately agree to do so one of the pair threatened Anthony as follows: “I’ll arrest [you] under Obstruct Police until you tell me.”

Not willing to submit to such crass bullying, Anthony replied “You do that then”, whereupon the Officer announced: “Ok, you’re under arrest on suspicion of obstructing Police, let’s go”.

The Officer now stepped into the porch of Anthony’s house, seized hold of his right arm and handcuffed him whilst the second Officer also stepped into the porch and took hold of Anthony’s left wrist.

Anthony was then led outside whilst his wife and son remonstrated about the Officers’ actions.

Anthony was taken to the Officers’ car, searched and placed into the back seat.

Anthony couldn’t quite believe what was happening to him but remained stoical in the face of the Officers’ intimidation.  Do we live in a country in which ordinary citizens can be taken from their homes by force for failing to answer a Police Officer’s question, absent any evidence that they have committed a criminal offence?

The answer of course, is that we do not, and the Police Officers who had abducted Anthony from his house should have known this as well, but they nevertheless undertook a strange charade in an apparent attempt to ‘crack’ Anthony’s perceived uncooperativeness. 

Shortly after Anthony had been placed in the Police car the arresting Officer approached him and stated as follows –

“So, you are under arrest.  You don’t have to talk to me, I explained that in the caution, and anything you do say I can use against you in Court.  But the option is, the van is still not here.  You tell us who was using the vehicle over the weekend, and we check on the female, then it’s all hunky dory.  Potentially.  That is another option.  If that option works and checks out, I will take the cuffs off, de-arrest you and get back to work for the rest of day.  How does that sound?”

It sounded to Anthony like a threat from an Officer who was breaking the law and he quite rightly replied only with his silence.

Anthony was held prisoner in the car for about 20 minutes, until a Police van arrived and he was transferred, still in handcuffs, into the caged section at the rear of the van – the ‘loading up’ manoeuvre performed before an arrested person is driven off to Custody.  Anthony has arthritis in his knees, and struggled to climb up into the van, experiencing discomfort as he did so. Furthermore, it being January, the cage section of the van was, in colloquial terms, “freezing cold”.

Anthony was then detained for a further period of approximately 50 minutes during which time the Police Officers searched his home and garage premises, claiming the right to do so under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

They did not in fact have any such right in the circumstances. Section 17 gives Officers the right to enter and search premises for the purposes of finding a person who they want to arrest for an indictable offence i.e an offence sufficiently serious to be tried in the Crown Court (Obstruction is in fact a summary only offence – triable only in the Magistrates Court – and, of course, Anthony was already under arrest) OR for the purposes of ‘saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property.’

It is one of the most commonly abused powers in PACE, misused by Officers who either don’t know or don’t care where the limit of their authority lies.

Whilst on the premises, the Officers encountered Antony’s wife, his two adult sons and young granddaughter. The Officers questioned the family as to the whether they knew anything about the whereabouts of the woman who had been seen ‘having an argument’ two nights previously, in alleged connection with the BMW. When these enquiries also drew blanks, the following immortal words were captured on the Officers’ Body Worn Video recorders  –

Officer 1: “He [Anthony] could tell us who was driving it, but won’t.”

Officer 2: “Yeah, but I also think they [the rest of the Rippingale family] could tell us as well.”

Officer 1: “But they’re not. So why aren’t we arresting everybody then?”

This exchange was rounded off by the first Officer coming to the regretful conclusion that: “We can’t nick them all, because of the 2 year old, someone has to look after her...”

It was already a farcical situation, but frankly could have escalated to utterly ridiculous levels had the Officers not, barely, been able to restrain their impulse to arrest the entire family.

All of this was unbeknownst to Anthony in his captivity in the Police van. Eventually, Anthony heard the engine of the vehicle starting up and he was driven away – but after travelling for approximately 2 miles, the van turned around and returned to Anthony’s house where he was allowed to exit the van and was de-arrested, the Officers telling him that they had had a “change of heart.”

That was all very well; but Policing is something that always needs to be done with the head, not the heart. No competent Officer could have thought that Anthony was committing a criminal offence – so either the Officers concerned need to go back to training school, or they were acting out a deliberate charade – a bluff which they then escalated by ‘pretending’ to be driving Anthony into Custody before turning around.

Anthony showed great determination in stoically standing his ground, in such trying circumstances, and calling their bluff.

It subsequently transpired that the reason for the Police interest in the BMW was an incident which had been reported occurring 2 days previously when a member of the public had seen a man and woman arguing and the man then getting into the BMW motor car in an apparently drunken state with the woman not wanting him to drive in that state.  There was no suggestion that the man in question (who was not Anthony) had been involved in any physical altercation with the woman, nor that he had actually driven the car whilst under the influence.

Although it felt like much longer for Anthony, when we obtained the Police records for this incident it was established that his total length of detention was for 1 hour 21 minutes. Thankfully, Anthony did not sustain any long-term psychological impact nor any injury other than transitory discomfort to his knees whilst he was held captive in the van.

Under guidelines laid down in the landmark 1997 Court of Appeal decision Thompson & Hsu v The Commission of Police of the Metropolis, the general range of damages for a wrongful arrest runs (on a reducing scale) from £1,000 for a detention of one hour to £6,000 for a detention of 24 hours (once the figures have been updated for inflation).  However, although Anthony’s detention was for not much more than a single hour, I was successful in recovering no less than £7,000 damages for him, plus his legal costs, which I think is correctly reflective of the aggravating circumstances of this incident and the seriousness of the Police abuse of power.

Silence is not Obstruction

The Cambridgeshire Police log in regard to Anthony’s arrest attempts to justify it as follows: “The male was purposely obstructive to Officers by not supplying the information”.

Silence is not obstruction, nor is refusal to supply information.

The offence of obstructing a Police Officer is defined by Section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996 as wilful obstruction of a Constable in the execution of his duty.  It is a summary only offence (i.e. triable only in the Magistrates Court, not the Crown Court.)  It carries a maximum penalty of 1 month imprisonment or a level 3 fine.

Whilst many examples of this offence involve actual physical obstruction of an Officer there are of course several verbal and non-violent ways in which the offence can potentially be committed – generally circumstances in which a person ‘tips off’ potential offenders that the Police are coming (including giving warning to other motorists of a Police speed ‘trap up’ ahead) and instances in which a person is actively giving misleading information such as a false name or address.

There is no legal duty at common law to provide the Police with information or actively assist them with their enquiries.  This principle – effectively the right to remain silent prior to arrest, as well as after it, was clearly defined by Lord Parker CJ in the 1966 case of Rice v Connelly  –

“The sole question here is whether the Defendant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him.  In my judgement he had.  It seems to be quite clear that although every citizen has a moral duty, or, if you like, a social duty to assist the Police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and to refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place; short, of course, of arrest…in my judgement there is all the difference in the world between deliberately telling a false story – something which on no view a citizen has a right to do – and preserving silence, or refusing to answer, something which he has every right to do”.

Such a principle is of course one of the defining hallmarks of a free and democratic state as opposed to an authoritarian Police state. How ludicrous it is for a person to be arrested for failing to answer a question (or even deliberately refusing to answer it) when one of the inalienable rights of an arrested person is the very right to remain silent that the arresting Officer must immediately inform him that he has.

Anthony’s arrest was a sham; a gross abuse of power which on no interpretation of the facts could ever have had a legal basis.  It is shameful that Cambridgeshire Police have failed to take the opportunity to admit this or to offer Anthony an apology.

Perhaps they are maintaining their right to silence; but in this case the damages they have paid speak louder than words.

The actual last word in this blog post, however, I will leave to Anthony, who wrote this very kind review of his case-

Knowing that the actions of the Police that day were unquestionably a breech of their authority I contacted 10 different law firms to air my concerns. Iain Gould was THE ONLY legal representative to get back to me and confirmed what had happened to be outrageous. Mr Gould began work building a case straight away and I’m pleased to report negotiated a very good settlement on my behalf as compensation for what I was subjected to by bully mentality police officers that day.

Iain and his colleagues are a friendly, no nonsense team who get the job done and stand up to the police abusing their powers. I asked Iain Gould to give them a bloody nose which he delivered 100%, if you have a problem with injustice he is your man.

It was only two years ago that four Merseyside Police Officers were convicted and sentenced to jail for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice,  after one of them (PC McIntyre) had launched an unprovoked attack upon my client Mark Bamber, a conspiracy that centred around officers turning off their body worn video (BWV) cameras and then failing to upload the earlier footage which they had filmed. This is an example of a new spin on a very old story, one of the oldest forms of Police corruption – Officers beating up a civilian, or witnessing a Police colleague beat up a civilian, and then lying in their subsequent statements in order to cover up the act of aggression and attempt to place the blame on the innocent victim.

Thankfully all four Officers were exposed and have been justly punished for what they did – but only because they were caught out by their own body cameras, and their ham- fisted attempt to hide/ destroy that incriminating evidence.

Indeed, it is now increasingly common for Officers to be convicted of misconduct and/or criminal offences on the basis of their own video footage, as highlighted in a shocking BBC expose published this week which includes the case not only of Mark Bamber, but of another of my clients, assaulted by an officer who then asked the only one of his five colleagues who had turned his body camera on, to not upload his footage on their return to the station. The guilty Officer hoped that thereby the footage would be deleted; instead, it was preserved and led directly to his conviction.

You might think that in light of this wake-up call, Merseyside Police, in particular, would take a strict and rigorous approach to the issue of Officers switching on (or failing to switch on) their cameras in potential conflict situations for the safety of everybody concerned and to best uphold the course of justice.  Sadly, as a very recent case in which I am acting illustrates, this is not what has occurred and instead Merseyside Police seem content to allow their Officers to operate a laissez-faire approach to whether they turn their cameras on or not.

This case concerns a 13-year-old boy, whom I will identify for the purposes of this blog as ‘Joseph’, who has ADHD and learning difficulties, and who was walking home from school, when he was stopped by two Merseyside Police Officers in a patrol car. 

Even on the Officers’ account, there was no suggestion that my young client was doing anything wrong other than “staring at the Police vehicle” as they passed him by.

Nevertheless, the Officers performed a u-turn and approached Joseph; a potentially intimidating event for any adult, let alone a young teen.  

One of the Officers began to ask Joseph whether he was “distressed”; Joseph honestly told the Officer that he didn’t understand what he meant.

The Officer then exited the car, and confiscated a ‘vape’ cigarette from Joe, before searching his trouser pockets and school bag – without complying with any of the Code A PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act) requirements for a lawful search (see my blog post on GOWISELY for an explanation of the public’s rights and Police responsibilities in this regard). 

I will add that the Police account is that they did not carry out a ‘stop and search’ on Joe – although they accept that they confiscated his e-cigarette and looked in his bag after he opened it for them.

Unfortunately, the Officers failed to leave this encounter there.  Joe’s account is that the Officers continued to follow him in their car, and when he took out another e-cigarette from his jacket, the officers also confiscated that, causing Joe to become upset and shout at the Officers.

At this point, one of the Officers again exited the vehicle, and now arrested this 13-year-old boy under Section 5 of the Public Order Act (also confiscating Joe’s mobile phone in the process, which Joe had taken out in an attempt to record what was happening to him). This offence is defined as using threatening or abusive words or behaviour in the presence of a person likely be caused harassment, alarm or distress. 

Both Officers involved were equipped with body worn video cameras, but failed to activate them even when they were evidently contemplating arrest and then actually arresting this child. 

Notably, Joe states that the arresting Officer immediately, and unnecessarily, handcuffed him, before forcing him into the Police car, with a threat to take him “to the cells”, whereas the Officers maintain that although they took Joe into their car, they did not handcuff him, until Joseph began “bouncing up and down in the rear of the vehicle” and “making verbal threats”.

Joe also maintains that one of the officers was pulling on the handcuffs in the car, causing him pain, which the Police deny.

In an apparent attempt to justify the Officers’ use of handcuffs, Merseyside Police PSD asserted that-

“Constable S_____  recalls your client to be the most abusive and possibly the most aggressive person [he has] encountered in the 14 years of his front line service in the Police…”

I will pause here to observe that this description of “the most aggressive person I’ve ever encountered…” is something of a stock-phrase in Police Officer statements – leaving the impression that the Officer has only just been redeployed from Camberwick Green to the inner-city in each case – but I have never before seen it applied to such a young child.

The officers then called Joe’s Mum – I presume by having accessed her number from the phone they had confiscated from Joe – and drove him back home, where Joe’s Mum was understandably shocked and upset to see her young son in handcuffs.

As stated above, neither Officer had activated their body worn camera when-

• first approaching Joe;
• nor during the period when they alleged that he was committing a criminal “Public Order” offence;
• nor when they were arresting him;
• nor when they were handcuffing him. 

However, one of the Officers did choose to activate his BWV when Joe’s mother became ‘agitated’ on seeing her son being held captive in handcuffs by the Officers.

Joe now began to suffer an asthma attack and had to be provided with his inhaler by his step-father, whilst he was still detained in the rear of the Police vehicle in handcuffs, and only after this were those handcuffs removed and Joe was returned to his mother’s care. 

In rejecting the complaint which I subsequently raised on behalf of Joseph in regards to this incident, Merseyside Police PSD seemed very happy to have the deliberately limited footage which the Officers had recorded as (in their words) it “captured both your client and mother’s abusive behaviour and it has captured events that occurred outside your client’s property”.  At the same time, they are completely blasé to the absence of any earlier video record of this incident.

Needless to say, I do not intend to let matters rest there, and I am currently advising Joe and his Mum about a complaint appeal and claim for damages.

Who Watches The Watchmen?

Merseyside Force Policy in regards to activation of body worn video cameras states as follows:-

Body worn video (BWV) is a body camera worn by Police Officers and deployed by Officers at their own discretion.  However, policy stipulates BWV must be deployed in the following circumstances;

• Domestic and hate crime incidents.

• In private dwellings.

• Stop search.

• Crime and traffic scene.

• Public Order.

• Police pursuit.

• Using Police search powers.

• Method of entry.

Frankly, this policy does not appear to be worth the paper it is written upon. For a start – this was (allegedly) a ‘public order’ incident and, arguably, a stop and search, and yet PSD have offered no criticism of their Officers’ failure to record anything other than the very end of the incident (when it suited their purposes to do so).

A great deal, if not all, of the factual disputes between Joseph and the Police – whether or not he was searched in breach of PACE, whether or not his behaviour justified arrest, and at what point he was handcuffed – would not be open for debate if only the Officers had turned on their cameras, and it beggars belief that Merseyside Police seem content to allow their Officers ‘discretion’ on this issue, in situations where the Officers are interrogating and then forcefully arresting a child.

At this juncture, I am caused to also think of the case of my client John Kennedy – not a child, but certainly a vulnerable individual who was experiencing a mental health crisis – and who had to go through a five year legal battle, culminating in a victory at Court in the Summer of 2022 and damages of £50,000 – to prove that a Police Officer who had come to his house to perform a welfare check upon him, had in fact assaulted him and viciously broken his arm. The Officers attending at John’s house that night had also exercised their ‘discretion’ not to activate their cameras, and we might well wonder what the result would have been if they had been compelled to switch their cameras on: a much shorter legal case, or even, perhaps, no injury caused at all – for no doubt some Officers think twice about their use of force when that little box with its red light, is switched on upon their chests, like an electronic conscience?

The cynical – or perhaps merely the experienced – amongst us might comment that the absence of a video record of ‘conflict encounters’ between the Police and the public all too often leaves Officers with the temptation to ‘massage’ the facts of what happened in their own favour; or indeed, for the most unscrupulous Officers, a blank canvass on which to paint a totally false version of events, in an attempt to frame an innocent party.

My firm view is that it is well beyond time for the Police to mandate that their Officers activate their cameras in all situations in which they are exercising Police powers, and especially as soon as they start to contemplate use of force or arrest. To do so, would clearly be in the interests of transparency, accountability and safety for all – as well as restraining Police abuse of power and helping to root out abusive Officers. Any wilful failure to activate cameras in such circumstances should, in my opinion, constitute a punishable act of misconduct in itself, regardless of whether any other misdemeanours are proved to have occurred.

And the reason for this, is that we have ample evidence that the Police cannot be trusted to turn their cameras on when they should. In answer to the age-old question of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – who watches the watchmen – we have an answer which the Romans did not: their own body cameras.

But only when they turn them on, is Policing conducted in the full light of day.

Only last week, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley could be heard playing to his gallery by claiming that Police Officers are treated differently to members of the public when the Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to charge them with criminal offences.

Sir Mark described the situation as being ‘dispiriting and unfair’.  I commented at the time that it is absolutely imperative that Police Officers are seen to be held to account within the Laws of the Land and that it was frankly dangerous for our Country’s senior Police Chief to undermine this. 

Indeed, what I find to be dispiriting and unfair in this context is the perennial ‘light touch’ which Police Complaint Investigators take towards their colleagues, resulting in Officers escaping both criminal and misconduct charges – when they have behaved in a way that, were they a member of the public, would probably lead to criminal prosecution.

By way of illustration, I will describe a case in which I have recently been instructed, which amply illustrates the continued pro-Police bias and leniency towards officers in the Police Complaint System.

My client, whom I will identify by the name of Ben, was, in July of this year, driving home from a craft fair in Doncaster, with his wife and daughter in the car.

Ben is almost 60 years of age and approximately 6 years ago underwent a quadruple heart bypass. He is not a heavily built man, nor of robust health.

During the family’s journey through Cheshire, Ben’s car unfortunately broke down, owing to a mechanical fault, and he had to pull over to the side of the road and put his bonnet up, so as to signal to other drivers what had happened.   He then telephoned his son and made arrangements for his vehicle to be towed.

It had been a long day and Ben was understandably tired and frustrated by events.

However, whilst Ben was still waiting for his son to attend, a marked Police vehicle pulled up and two Officers of Cheshire Police alighted (whom I shall identify for the purpose of this blog as PCs A and B). 

PC A informed Ben that he and his colleague had come to see if Ben and his family were “Okay after the accident”.  Ben pointed out that he had not been involved in an accident, but rather that his car had broken down. 

Without any justification, PC A then accused Ben of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and asked PC B to get the breathalyser.

Ben, who by reason of his health conditions had not drunk alcohol for many years, was outraged by this unfounded accusation and got out of his own car to explain this.  PC A immediately shouted at Ben “Don’t come any closer to me or I’ll pepper spray you”.

Ben again stated that he could not drink alcohol by reason of his health and medication. 

However, PC A was now holding a cannister of ‘pepper spray’ in his right hand (actually PAVA incapacitant spray, a standard weapon in the Police Officer’s armoury) and said, “Stand back or I’ll pepper spray you”. 

Ben explained that he would get his medication from the boot of his car, to prove to the Officer that he was telling the truth, and accordingly began to move towards the rear of his car. 

PC A then sprayed Ben directly in the face with PAVA spray.

Ben experienced immediate burning pain to his face and eyes but managed to open the boot of his car and retrieve his bag of medication to show the Officer.

By now, other Officers had attended at the scene of the incident and Ben explained to them what had happened.  He was understandably upset and distressed. 

He agreed to undergo the breathalyser test, which was of course negative.

By reason of this incident, Ben suffered chemical burns to his neck and face, including his lips and throat and his right eye became swollen.  It took several days for his physical injuries to resolve.

He naturally lodged a complaint in regards to his outrageous treatment by PC A.

Complaint Appeal

My client’s complaint was investigated by Cheshire Constabulary Professional Standards Department who reviewed the Officers’ Body Camera footage and  provided their complaint response in early September 2023.

Ben was informed that the Inspector who had reviewed the Police Body Camera Footage of the incident had concluded that-

“The situation could have been avoided and was due to poor communication by the Officer”.

The report went on to detail the following –

“The complainant had broken down with his family after a long journey; the vehicle also being on a fast road. The complainant stated he was awaiting the arrival of his son to recover the vehicle. [Ben] was understandably anxious and upset at that time, which should have been taken into consideration by [PC A]. Having established that the occupants of the vehicle were safe and well the incident should have come to a swift conclusion with [Officers A and B] leaving… the manner in which [PC A] reacted towards [Ben] was unprofessional and aggressive…there were two Officers present and I am not satisfied that [PC A] was in fear for his safety at the point where he sprayed the complainant.”

The report also revealed that PC A had actually considered using his taser gun against Ben, but had decided not to because “the male was too close to me for taser to be effective”. This was a very disturbing fact, even for Ben to become aware of after the event. Given his history of cardiac problems, Ben believes that he would have had a heart attack and died if a taser had been used upon him, and has been left ruminating upon this narrowly- averted tragedy.

Although Cheshire Constabulary felt it appropriate to offer an apology to Ben for the upset caused it was, shockingly in my opinion, concluded that PC A’s conduct was below the misconduct threshold and accordingly all he would face would be the ‘Reflective Practice Review Process’: learning advice and a temporary rescission of his taser licence. In other words, an administrative ‘slap on the wrist’ for his assault upon my client.  

My client has a right to appeal this outcome to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) and also to invite Cheshire Constabulary to consider a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service and I have advised him to exercise those rights;  as if unchallenged, this is yet another Police decision which would leave us with the feeling that there is one rule for the Police and one rule for everybody else – and not in the way that Sir Mark Rowley implies.

This week’s blog concerns an incident in which the Police overstepped the boundaries of their powers quite literally – by trespassing in a man’s house before assaulting and unlawfully arresting him.

My client Richard, who was at the time of this incident aged in his 60s, lives in Humberside with his wife and family.  He suffers from a number of adverse health conditions including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Angina, and Diabetes.

One afternoon, on a day in November 2020, several officers of Humberside Police knocked on Richard’s front door, which was answered by one of Richard’s adult sons.

Without being invited inside, one of the officers entered Richard’s home and dragged his son out into the front garden.

Richard had been asleep but was awoken by the noise of this commotion and he came downstairs – in his pyjamas – to the shock of seeing his son being violently arrested by the officers.

Richard moved towards his front door and said to the officers “What do you think you’re doing?”

Four Police Officers were present in total (three male and one female) and one of the male officers now stepped into Richard’s house (again without any invitation) and raised his arm against the door frame, blocking the exit.  This, it seemed, was to be the officer’s only response to Richard’s legitimate question.

Richard protested “Excuse me!” and tried to get past him, but the officer prevented Richard from exiting his home by grabbing Richard by his throat and arm and shouting “Get back in there”.

As Richard protested “Get off, get out of my house” another officer now intervened, pushing Richard backwards whilst a further officer announced, “You’re coming for assault Police as well”.

Richard was now dragged out of his house and forced to sit down on the pathway outside.

By reason of the force used upon him, Richard was breathless and conscious of his blood pressure increasing, and he immediately and repeatedly advised the officers that he needed his medication.

Instead, the officers instructed Richard to put his arms behind his back, and when he refused to do so, they forced his head forwards whilst seeking to manoeuvre his arms behind his back.

At this point, a female officer sprayed Richard in his face with her PAVA spray at point-blank range.

The effects of the spray naturally made Richard’s eyes begin to sting and significantly aggravated his breathing difficulties.

Richard was eventually permitted to get to his feet, but the officers then forced him against a side wall and again continued to apply force to his head and to his arms (in a continued attempt to handcuff him to the rear), ignoring Richard’s requests for medication and his (correct) assertion that he had done nothing wrong.

Finally, the officers succeeded in handcuffing Richard to the front, although during this process Richard’s pyjama bottoms had fallen, exposing his buttocks in view of the street, which was extremely embarrassing for him.

More officers now attended the scene of the incident, and one of the original officers stated that Richard had “come flying out to assault” them and, furthermore, that Richard had deliberately punched one of the officers.

This was a gross exaggeration of events, apparently made in an attempt to justify the officers’ assault upon Richard because the opposite was in fact true; rather than Richard coming out of his house to attack the officers, it was they who had gone into his house, attacked and dragged him outside.

After hearing what was being said Richard immediately stated that he wished to make a complaint about the officer who was speaking these untruths.

Remaining under arrest, Richard was then ‘frog marched’ down the street to a nearby police van, his buttocks still exposed.  Richard’s complaint of chest pains and further requests for his medication were again ignored.

Richard was then transported to a local Police Station where he was detained in a cell until an examination by a Police Medical Examiner determined that he required urgent medical treatment, and he was transported to hospital by ambulance.

Humiliatingly, Richard was ‘escorted’ by Police Officers throughout most of his time in A&E, whilst he was examined and underwent various tests, and it was not until late that night that the officers finally left the hospital and after Richard’s tests were completed, he was able to be discharged and returned home.

Sadly, this was not the end of Richard’s ordeal.  In December 2020 he received notification of prosecution for the alleged offence of assaulting two of the Police Officers who had come to arrest his son, in the execution of their duty.

Richard duly attended Court, pleaded not guilty and had to wait a further ten months with these serious charges hanging over his head, until, in October 2021 he was found not guilty at trial. The only silver lining to this process was that Richard did not himself have to give evidence at the trial – after the Court had heard the evidence of the two Police Officers who alleged Richard had assaulted them, it was determined that in fact there was no case for Richard to answer.

However, just because Richard had successfully cleared that first hurdle in the criminal court, did not necessarily mean that he would succeed in a claim for compensation against Humberside Police. The question which the criminal court was addressing was whether it was “beyond reasonable doubt” that Richard had committed a criminal offence; a finding that he had not did not equate to a finding that the Police had themselves behaved unlawfully, and the burden was now on Richard to prove this in the civil court, unless Humberside Police admitted liability – which they did not.

Richard was referred to me by his criminal defence solicitor, who was aware of my expertise in claims against the Police. I carefully reviewed the evidence, including the Police body worn camera footage and concluded that Richard had meritorious claims for damages for trespass, wrongful arrest and assault and battery.

The Police Officers had wrongfully entered Richard’s home without lawful justification, thereby becoming trespassers on his property.

This had begun when the female officer first stepped inside Richard’s home, without permission, to purportedly arrest Richard’s son for the alleged offence of common assault – this being a ‘summary only’ offence (i.e. a minor offence triable only in the Magistrates’ Court) which did not confer a legal power of entry to Richard’s property upon the Police in the absence of any consent from the homeowner/occupiers.

Thereafter one of the male officers had also stepped into Richards’ home, without permission to unlawfully block his exit and had assaulted Richard there, by first grabbing Richard’s throat.

By forcibly blocking Richard from leaving his own home, the officer was committing an act of false imprisonment upon Richard, and Richard’s subsequent arrest was unlawful as it was he who was the victim of an assault by the officers present, not vice versa.

Richard was very roughly treated by the officers present – especially in view of his age and health conditions – but it is unfortunately common in my experience for this type of ‘Police mob’ assault upon a single individual to unfold in this way.  After one officer has started to use force against a person, then rather than assessing the situation objectively, or seeking to de-escalate the conflict, many officers will simply ‘pile in’ upon the first officer’s victim, including ‘spray painting’ the victim with PAVA.

I advised Richard that to the extent that he had resisted the officers’ attempts to handcuff him thereafter, he was, in my opinion, entitled to do so, as there would have been no lawful basis for the officers’ entry into his home or their purported arrest of him.  Richard’s use of force in response was, in my opinion, reasonable self-defence.

Thereafter I obtained expert medical evidence in support of Richard’s claim for physical and psychological injury and issued Court proceedings to hold the Chief Constable of Humberside to account for his officers’ gross abuse of their powers.

The officers had behaved in a disrespectful and demeaning way to Richard throughout the incident, had shown only a callous disregard in response to his repeated pleas for medication, and Richard had further been subjected to a criminal prosecution which, in my opinion, lacked any credible basis and had been designed as a ‘smokescreen’ to hide the officers own unlawful actions.

The Custody Record had inaccurately asserted that Richard “charged towards the arresting officers”.  Such exaggeration is another hallmark of these type of cases in which, once officers have gone ‘over the top’, they will resort to flamboyant and exaggerated language in an attempt to paint their victim as the aggressor.

As I have said before, an Englishman’s home is his castle and in the circumstances of this incident Richard should have been inviolate whilst he stood within the threshold of his home, his lawful property which the statutory and common law of England respects as a place of safety and security for the private citizen.

The officers in this case sought to trample over those rights, but thanks to Richard’s determination and my expertise in such matters they have now been held to account, and I am pleased to confirm that after we rejected an initial derisory offer of £4,000, Richard’s case has recently been concluded for payment of damages in the sum of £17,500 plus his legal costs.

As ever, it is my pleasure to keep fighting the good fight on behalf of all of those who have had their rights unlawfully infringed by Police abuse of power.

(My client’s name has been changed.)

I have recently concluded another successful claim, which once again sadly demonstrates why the public of England and Wales cannot have the faith which they deserve in the Police complaints system.

On this occasion, the offending Police Force was Cleveland Police, and the incident about which I was instructed took place in 2019.

My client Edward was pulled over whilst driving and arrested on suspicion of motoring offences.

Edward was transported to a local Police Station and ‘booked in’ before the Custody Sergeant.

Edward was wearing trainers.  The Custody Sergeant informed him that he could keep his trainers on whilst in the cell if he removed the laces.  It was cold and Edward had no socks on; not wanting to have to go barefoot in the cell, he compliantly removed his laces and handed them over.

Edward was then escorted to a cell by two Detention Officers.  When they reached the cell door, one of the Detention Officers told Edward to remove his trainers. Edward declined to do so, on the basis that he had no socks on and that the Custody Sergeant had been content with him removing his laces. 

However, the Detention Officers continued to demand that Edward remove his shoes, without making any effort to explain why.  Edward requested a pair of custody slippers as an alternative, but this was also refused by the Detention Officers, as was his request to speak to a senior officer about the issue.

The officers then resorted to force. They took hold of Edward’s arms and pushed him against the corridor wall before twisting his right arm up behind his back.  While Edward was restrained in this painful position, one of the officers forcibly removed his trainers and he was then pushed barefoot into the cell. 

There was absolutely no need for this violence or indeed the whole degrading act of removing Edward’s footwear.  Edward felt upset, hurt, and humiliated.

Edward was released from custody the following day.

Prior to his release he made a complaint to the Duty Inspector regarding the assault that he had suffered from the Detention Officers and was informed that his complaint was to be forwarded to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Cleveland Police for investigation.

PSD duly investigated and after reviewing relevant Custody CCTV footage and considering the accounts of the two Detention Officers involved, dismissed Edward’s complaint in its entirety.

Long experience has taught me to be cynical about the methods and agenda of the Police complaint process.  In Edward’s case, the PSD report (which was barely four pages long) sought to justify the confiscation of his trainers on the alleged basis that he could have used them as weapons or that they could have been picked apart to create material for use in self-harm.  However, the report singularly failed to address the fact that the Custody Sergeant had directed that Edward could keep his trainers (if he removed the laces, which he did) and the report failed to provide any justification as to why it was suspected by the Detention Officers that Edward might use his pair of trainers to self-harm or to attempt to harm others.

Edward had not been resistant or violent to the officers and nor did he have any mental health issues.

Having had his complaint rejected, Edward was left, as so many others in the past have been, with no way of achieving justice other than suing the Police and he duly sought my specialist assistance in doing so.

The author of the Complaint report had approached his task as if he were a student addressing a theoretical question as to possible justifications for the removal of a detainee’s footwear – but then utterly failed to consider the reality of what happened and whether the Detention Officers had such justification in the circumstances. This demonstrates either naivety or cynicism on the part of the PSD investigator, and I strongly suspected the latter.

In my opinion, PSD had wilfully failed to consider whether the Detention Officers had any reasonable justification for their actions – no matter what hypothetical justifications there might have been, applicable in other scenarios – or whether those officers were, in fact, just giving vent to ‘bully-boy’ impulses.

As a result of the use of force upon him Edward had sustained injuries, in particular to his right shoulder, which caused him to have to attend hospital several weeks later because of persisting pain and he was there diagnosed with a rotary cuff injury.

Upon receiving Edward’s instructions, I took steps to obtain his Custody Record and all available CCTV footage before presenting a letter of claim to Cleveland Police.

As per the standard Police playbook, liability was denied.

There was no dispute that force had been used to remove Edward’s shoes, but the Chief Constable’s lawyers contended that force from the Detention Officers was proportionate, necessary, and reasonable.

On review of the documentary evidence which Cleveland Police had provided with their letter of denial, I noted that several important pieces of evidence were missing and thereafter took steps to obtain the same including the notes of the Inspector to whom Edward’s complaint had first been reported, Edward’s Custody medical assessment, and the PSD complaint investigation file.

Notwithstanding Cleveland Police’s robust denial of liability, I counselled Edward that his prospects of success were good and advised him to continue with the claim and thereafter commenced County Court Proceedings against the Chief Constable.

The Police instructed senior Counsel and filed a Defence maintaining their denial of liability, and directions were set to prepare the case for trial.

I am pleased to confirm that Cleveland Police caved in prior to trial and have recently settled Edward’s claim for a significant sum of damages plus legal costs.

Suffice it to say that the money recovered is sufficient to keep Edward in comfortable footwear for the foreseeable future…

In my opinion this is not a matter which the Police should ever have allowed to get to the point that it did.  If PSD had adopted an open-minded and fair approach to Edward’s complaint and upheld that complaint, then it is likely that his claim for damages could have been settled through negotiation at an early stage and Court proceedings avoided.

Instead, as is so often the case, I have had to use the tools of the Civil Justice System to rectify another injustice stemming from the biased and dysfunctional Police complaints system.

The standards set by PSD strike me as being most frequently standards of delay, denial, and obfuscation – and those standards then permeate the rest of the Police response to legitimate claims.

The name of my client has been changed.