I recently secured £15,000 compensation for Chloe Cannon after serious police investigative failures led to her wrongful arrest for GBH in a case of mistaken identity. Despite clear differences between Chloe and the real suspect, she was arrested at her nursery workplace, handcuffed, detained and transported to custody.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human. 

£15,000 Damages for “Mistaken Identity” arrest arising from Police investigative failures 

This week’s blog post concerns yet another “mistaken identity” arrest apparently arising from slip-shod Policing, compounded by their failure to uphold my client’s subsequent complaint, and deserves to be highlighted for both of those reasons. When most individuals are lazy or below-par in their job, the consequences for others are fairly limited; in the case of Police officers the consequences for others can potentially be catastrophic, as my client Chloe Cannon found out to her horror in July last year – because she was put at risk of losing her career. The stain and stigma of a Police arrest is not something that can be easily shrugged off, particularly not if you work in a position of trust with young children.

Wrongful Arrest for GBH After a Police Mistaken Identity Error 

Chloe, who was an apprentice “nursery nurse” was at her place of work, a nursery school in Essex, preparing to sit a vocational exam when she got the worst possible interruption – a visit from the Police. Chloe was asked to step outside by the officers, one of whom, PC Brockman, then informed her that she was under arrest on suspicion of conspiracy to commit “GBH”. In her shock, Chloe had to ask what GBH was. The officer explained the offence – Grievous Bodily Harm – and then went on to state that my client had been seen to “attend an address where a male has had his head stamped on and left himself in critical condition”. 

Handcuffed and Arrested at Work in Front of Colleagues and Parents 

Chloe was then handcuffed and searched – in view not only of her work colleagues but also parents attending the nursery. Chloe knew nothing about this unsettling accusation and said as much, to which PC Brockman told her to keep quiet and to keep her “thoughts and opinions” to herself. 

Chloe became as distressed as any person of good character, to whom adverse Police interaction is an alien experience, would be, especially when they genuinely know nothing of the subject matter of the accusation.

Detained at Southend Police Station Following the Wrongful Arrest 

She was then transported to Southend Police Station, still in handcuffs, and brought before the Custody Sergeant, “processed”, asked intrusive personal/ medical questions and “mug- shotted.” Her fingerprints, a urine sample and her DNA were taken; thus do the Police “medicalise” and data-mine the custody process, stripping detainees of their dignity as well as their autonomy in an environment which can be described as a hybrid between a prison and a hospital. This causes particular anguish if you know that you are innocent, but are totally in the dark as to why this is being done to you, or what the final outcome will be.

CCTV Evidence Raised Clear Questions About the Police’s Identification

After several hours, Chloe was formally interviewed and asked about her whereabouts on a given day, earlier that week. During the interview, she was shown CCTV footage of a car which officers said was similar to her own; in fact, it lacked a “spoiler” – a clear identifying feature of her own vehicle.

A Simple Tattoo Check Exposed the Mistaken Identity

Chloe was then returned to her cell, where she spent a miserable few hours, before she was visited by a Sergeant who, a little late in the day, asked if she had been spoken to about whether she had any tattoos. Chloe confirmed that she did, and described their locations. Shortly thereafter, she was taken from the cell and photographs were taken of the tattoo on her left thigh.

After more intolerable waiting, now into the evening, Chloe was interviewed for a second time and shown CCTV footage of a woman who was apparently the real suspect. When it was put to Chloe that she was the woman in the video, Chloe pointed out that this woman had a clearly visible tattoo on her right leg – which Chloe did not.

 The Serious Consequences of a Wrongful Arrest and Police Record

Shortly thereafter, she was released from Custody on conditional bail. As with many people, however, she found that her physical ‘escape’ was far from the end of her arrest ordeal. Events weighed heavily on her mentally, and she struggled to sleep, all the more so when the next day she had to explain to her employer what had happened – and as a consequence was suspended without pay. She had also missed her examination, delaying her qualification as a nursery practitioner. Chloe’s mind was racing with bad thoughts of what was going to happen next, particularly the effect that an arrest for “GBH” would have upon her career, as an Enhanced DBS check (Disclosure & Barring Service) can reveal arrests even if those arrests did not result in a conviction.

Essex Police Confirmed Chloe Had No Involvement in the Offence

Things seemed to be going from bad to worse but, thankfully, the penny had finally dropped at the Police station and later that day Chloe received a call from DC Portbury to inform her that no further action would be taken against her. Furthermore, DC Portbury contacted my client’s employer by email and confirmed that she had  ‘no involvement in this offence and was in the wrong place at the wrong time’. 

Essex Police Reject Chloe’s Complaint About Her Mistaken Identity Arrest 

In a classic example of how useless the Police Complaints system is, when it comes to achieving answers, redress and accountability, my client’s prompt complaint about this matter was summarily rejected with the following “plastic smile” response from Essex Police –

“I hope this message finds you well. I am sorry to hear of your current dissatisfaction with Essex Police and distress being arrested has caused you.  Whilst I appreciate the inconvenience this situation may have caused you, it was unfortunately necessary to proceed with your arrest at the time, as you were a suspect in an ongoing investigation. I hope you have since been able to return to work and are now feeling in a clearer and more settled state of mind.” 

The Failure of the Police Complaints System to Provide Accountability

In other words: no explanation and no apology. Time and time again, the Police block-headedly fail to see complaints as opportunities, rather than obstacles; the opportunity to give an open and honest response to the complaint, and thereby to serve the public better, to improve their own reputation, and potentially reduce the number of compensation claims brought against them. Instead, they tend to treat every complaint as a challenge, obfuscate and argue, and use the word “sorry” as the first brick in a barricade between themselves and the public, rather than a bridge.

Essex Police Admit Liability for False Imprisonment and Human Rights Breaches 

As I have also written on this blog, time and time again, the fact that the Police themselves did not really believe their own denial was borne out by the fact that once I was instructed to send a formal letter of claim to Essex Police on Chloe’s behalf, liability was rapidly conceded – for False Imprisonment, Assault and Battery, Trespass to Goods and Breach of Chloe’s Article 5 right to liberty and Article 8 right to private and family life, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

How Basic Police Investigative Failures Led to an Unnecessary Arrest 

Quite clearly, Chloe’s arrest had never been “necessary” – and, if the Police had taken basic investigative steps to identify the correct suspect, could have been entirely avoided. Essex Police, it seems, were prepared to admit this when threatened with Court action – but not when they “merely” had the complaint of a distressed and innocent member of the public to deal with.

£15,000 Compensation for Wrongful Arrest and Mistaken Identity 

I have now secured for Chloe £15,000 damages from Essex Police for her wrongful arrest, and all the tribulation it caused her, as well as her legal costs. I am also assisting her with an application to ACRO Criminal Records Office, in order to have the record of this misbegotten arrest deleted.

Taking Legal Action Against the Police After a Wrongful Arrest

As there seems to be little chance of the Police changing their approach to complaints and claims any time soon, I’m pleased to confirm that I won’t be changing mine, either. 

The last word goes to my client, Chloe Cannon, who left this review on Trustpilot:

I was falsely arrested for GBH at my place of work. I was 22 at the time with no previous criminal record and was arrested by 5 police officers. I was held in a cell for 10 hours for a crime I had no involvement in. I was released on bail, for the next day, to be no further actioned and told that “there was nothing they could do as I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
The person I worked for at the time got me in contact with Iain.
From the start, Iain was a great help explaining to me what I could and couldn’t do as this was something I had no knowledge of. Iain pulled apart their practice from that day to every minute detail. It took 14 months for the case to be solved and it was worth every day. Due to Iain’s unwillingness to back down in my defence, I was awarded £15000 for something that still affects me to this day.
I will forever be thankful for Iain.
Anyone who needs support and someone in their corner, should definitely get in contact with Iain.
Thank you Iain ☺️

How you can help

This blog exists to inform, empower, and reassure people who may otherwise feel overwhelmed when dealing with unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article helpful or informative, I would be very grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Your support helps me continue this work and, just as importantly, helps others find reliable, specialist advice when they need it most. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

This week’s blog post addresses that headline question: and the answer is “probably not”.

Read on to find out more, in the circumstances of a case involving Humberside Police and a couple who maintain that they were the victims of malicious allegations of drug-dealing.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Humberside Police Execute a Drugs Search Warrant

My clients’ Claire and David reside in East Yorkshire and unbeknownst to them, Humberside Police applied for, and obtained, a warrant to search their home pursuant to Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, after allegations of drug- dealing from the premises were received.

One afternoon a few days later, the Police arrived at my clients’ house to execute the warrant. Claire was out shopping; David was in the back garden, in the middle of a telephone call with his daughter.

To David’s shock, a number of officers suddenly entered the garden and asked him to confirm his identity and the address, which he did. The officers then immediately handcuffed and detained him, with his hands to his rear.

A number of officers, including PC Calvert (a female officer), then entered the premises, while other officers kept David detained in handcuffs in the back garden.

PC Calvert then returned outside and informed David that there was a warrant for the address to search for drugs and asked:

“To save us the time, are we going to find anything in there, and if so, where will we find it?”

At this point David ‘confessed’ that he did indeed have a single joint of cannabis (nothing more) for his personal use, in a tub by his bedside.

The Police went upstairs and retrieved this and, for the avoidance of doubt, after a thorough search of the premises found no other illicit material whatsoever – no evidence of drug-dealing or drug-paraphernalia.

From a Search of the House to a Police Strip Search

However, it was not only the property which the Police searched: David was led inside, and his handcuffs were removed – but only, it transpired, so that he could comply with the officers’ subsequent instructions, which were for him to strip naked (or else force would be used against him).

David, in fear that force would be used if he did not comply, removed his t-shirt, trousers, shoes and socks and boxer shorts. When he was naked, the officers told him to squat; David complied. The officers then inspected the area of his genitals.

It does not take much imagination to understand how embarrassed, humiliated and degraded David felt by this.

Claire Is Also Subjected to an Intimate Strip Search

Unfortunately, the family’s degradation did not stop there, because at this point, David’s partner Claire returned home.

Claire was initially detained by the officers in the front garden, whilst they concluded their search of the house, but was then ‘invited’ inside by PC Calvert and also required to submit to a strip-search.

Claire had to remove her outer clothing, ‘flip’ her bra up for the officer to inspect her breasts, and then to also remove her shoes and underwear and to squat down so that the officer could inspect her genitals.

As with David, Claire was not physically touched during this process, but it was nevertheless a gross and intimate invasion of her privacy and hugely distressing, although she strove to remain calm and to preserve what shreds of dignity had been left to her by these occupiers of her home.

It was only after these two negative strip searches of my clients that the assembled Police Officers finally left the premises – and set about distributing notices to neighbouring properties boasting of their execution of the “drugs” warrant, without admitting that they had found nothing but a “spliff.”

The only action subsequently taken by the Police against either of my clients was a “cannabis warning” issued to David, which he signed.

Can the Police Strip Search You When Executing a Search Warrant?

The action which Claire and David then wanted to take against Humberside Police was, however, an entirely different matter.

What Powers Do the Police Have Under a Misuse of Drugs Act Search Warrant?

When the couple approached me for expert legal advice on this matter, I was able to confirm that the Police had no power under the Warrant to search them – the warrant was specifically in relation to property, not people.

Section 23(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides as follows –

“If a justice of the peace (or in Scotland a justice of the peace, a magistrate or a sheriff) is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting—

(a)that any controlled drugs are, in contravention of this Act or of any regulations [or orders] made thereunder, in the possession of a person on any premises; or

(b)that a document directly or indirectly relating to, or connected with, a transaction or dealing which was, or an intended transaction or dealing which would if carried out be, an offence under this Act, or in the case of a transaction or dealing carried out or intended to be carried out in a place outside the United Kingdom, an offence against the provisions of a corresponding law in force in that place, is in the possession of a person on any premises,

he may grant a warrant authorising any constable … at any time or times within one month from the date of the warrant, to enter, if need be by force, the premises named in the warrant, and to search the premises and any persons found therein and, if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act has been committed in relation to any controlled drugs found on the premises or in the possession of any such persons, or that a document so found is such a document as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, to seize and detain those drugs or that document, as the case may be.”

PACE Code A and the Police Power to Search People on the Premises

This legislation has to then be considered through the lens of the Police Codes of Practice, set down as ancillary laws to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, specifically Code A para 2.27 (b)  which specifically states that –

“The following powers to search premises also authorise the search of a person, not under arrest, who is found on the premises during the course of the search.. under a warrant issued under section 23 (3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to search premises for drugs or documents but only if the warrant specifically authorises the search of persons found on the premises”. 

When Can the Police Lawfully Carry Out a Strip Search?

Yet further, para 3.7 of Code A provides that –

“Searches involving exposure of intimate parts of the body must not be conducted as a routine extension of a less thorough search, simply because nothing is found in the course of the initial search…”

In other words, the severe degree of personal intrusion that a strip search entails must be justified by a reasonable suspicion of “intimately concealed items” – which no officer here ever articulated any grounds or basis for believing my clients had upon them. Objectively considered, the suggestion that the couple were hiding drugs on their bodies seems ridiculous – David had been surprised whilst standing in his garden on the phone, and immediately handcuffed, whilst Claire had just returned from a shopping trip. Any such suspicion could not be based merely on the fact that the search warrant had been issued for the house: there had to be something more, in the actual facts of the encounter to base it upon – and here there simply wasn’t.

Why These Police Strip Searches Were Unlawful

Applying these strict rules of Code A to the circumstances of Claire and David’s case, it was clear to me that the Humberside Police Officers had, even if not committing trespass to land, had certainly committed trespass to my clients’ persons, by subjecting them to the strip- searches, and false imprisonment by detaining them whilst they did so.  The court warrant which the Police were acting under did not authorise the search of persons on the premises – and even if it had, a “strip search” is never something which can be undertaken on a speculative basis and the officers involved had no new information or grounds to justify them taking this draconian step.

Strip Searches, Trespass to the Person and False Imprisonment

A “strip search” is extremely adjacent to a sexual assault, and should never be used as crassly and casually as it was by the officers in this case.

Over £12,000 Compensation for Unlawful Police Strip Searches

Even more so than their homes, Englishmen’s (and women’s) bodies are their castles, and I was happy to take Claire and David’s cases on a “no win, no fee” basis and to sue the Chief Constable of Humberside, after he maintained that his officers had done nothing wrong. As the court proceedings progressed, the Police increased their offers of settlement from initial amounts of only £500 for each of my clients, until eventually total damages of over £12,000 were agreed, plus legal costs, shortly before trial.

Claims Against the Police for Unlawful Searches and Search Warrants

Read here examples of my considerable expertise in this area, and the significant awards of damages I have won for my clients in vindication of their “home rights”, even when the Police come armed with a Court Warrant –

• Family Win Compensation for Unlawful Detention and Trespass After Wiltshire Police Fail to Execute Search Warrant Properly
• Merseyside Police Search Warrant: failure to carry out enquiries leads to unlawful forced entry and subsequent out of Court settlement
• Greater Manchester Police Failure To Produce Search Warrant Entitles Woman to Compensation for Trespass
• Police Search Warrant: failure to carry out enquiries leads to unlawful forced entry and subsequent out of Court settlement
• Police search warrant, unlawful entry- Part 1
• Police search warrant, unlawful entry- Part 2
• Police Search Warrant – Unlawful Entry Part 3

My clients’ names have been changed. 

How you can help

Every post on this blog is grounded in real cases, real experience, and a commitment to holding abuses of power to account. If you’ve taken something useful from this article, or if you wish to support that broader aim, I would be grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Each review strengthens this work and helps others in need of straightforward, specialist expertise find their way here. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

This week’s post highlights how even the courts can get the law wrong when it comes to the fundamental right to liberty. After a Magistrates’ Court unlawfully detained my client during an adjourned bail hearing, and then wrongly treated his subsequent compensation claim as a mere complaint, my specialist team pursued proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, ultimately securing a substantial four-figure settlement plus legal costs.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Back to School: Suing the Court for Damages 

As we start a new “school year” I thought I would offer this reminder of how even the Judiciary and Court Managers, the supposed ultimate authorities of law and rules, sometimes needs to be taken back to school themselves.

When Can a Magistrates’ Court Detain Someone Under the Bail Act 1976?

My client Peter appeared before the Magistrates’ Court for a bail hearing pursuant to S.7(4) of the Bail Act 1976, which commenced at or around 15:45hrs.

At or around 16:50hrs, the Court adjourned the hearing to the following day, and Peter was removed from the courtroom and escorted to the cells.

The Magistrates intention was that Peter should spend the night in custody, pending resumption of the bail hearing in the morning – but I have written many times before about how jealously the law guards the fundamental principle of personal liberty, through both the tradition of the Common Law and the modern legislation of the Statute book, and how the powers-that-be, including the judiciary, can only take that liberty away from us in clearly prescribed and defined circumstances under the law. 

When an Adjourned Bail Hearing Becomes Unlawful Detention

The fact was, that this Magistrates Court had no power to detain Peter during an “adjournment” – this mistake was belatedly recognised by the Court, and Peter was then brought back before the Magistrates at 18.05hrs and the hearing resumed and continued until around 19.40, when Peter was released, subject to varied bail conditions.

Section 7(5) of the Bail Act provides as follows –

A justice of the peace before whom a person is brought under subsection (4) above may, subject to [subsections (5A) and (6)] below, if of the opinion that that person—

(a)is not likely to surrender to custody, or

(b)has broken or is likely to break any condition of his bail,

remand him in custody or commit him to custody, as the case may require, or alternatively, grant him bail subject to the same or to different conditions, but if not of that opinion shall grant him bail subject to the same conditions (if any) as were originally imposed.

Section 7 of the Bail Act: The Limits of the Court’s Power to Remand

In other words, the Court could only remand Peter in custody if it was conclusively of opinion “a” or “b” – and as it had as yet reached no opinion, it lacked any power to order my client’s detention other than for the duration of the hearing – and certainly not during a purported adjournment, when the hearing was explicitly not taking place. The Court either had to continue the hearing until it formed its opinion; or else order Peter’s release.

As neither of those things had happened between 16.50 – 18.05, the Court was liable for my client’s false imprisonment.

False Imprisonment by the Courts: When Judicial Errors Breach the Right to Liberty

The failure of the Magistrates themselves to understand the proper implementation of the Bail Act and the limitations of their own power, was then compounded by another ‘schoolboy error’ (and one which I see very commonly in my dealings with the Court Service). When Peter initially sent a letter of claim to the Court, alleging false imprisonment and a breach of his right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court’s Legal Team Manager acknowledged receipt of the letter, but stated that it would be treated as a “complaint” i.e not a formal claim.

This error by the Court – which occurs so often that I actually consider it may be a deliberate tactic – is particularly galling as it is the very Court Procedure Rules themselves which lay down the strict “pre-action protocols” governing how parties must present and respond to compensation claims. By treating the letter as a mere complaint, the Court could avoid the strict rules requiring a detailed response and pre-action disclosure of documents, and potentially ‘buy off’ the claim much more cheaply.

Taking Legal Action Against the Court for False Imprisonment

Thankfully, Peter knew his rights, and soon enlisted the representation of Elliot Smallshaw, another of the expert actions against the Police solicitors in my specialist team. 

Acting by way of a “no win, no fee” agreement, Elliot challenged the Court’s failure to properly address Peter’s claim, and when they denied liability, had no hesitation in advising him to bring civil proceedings.

Ministry of Justice Agrees to Pay Compensation for Unlawful Detention

I am pleased to confirm that this claim was swiftly settled, with the Ministry of Justice (who are ultimately responsible for the errors of the Magistrates Court) agreeing to pay Peter substantial damages, plus his legal costs.

Why the Right to Liberty Must Be Protected – Even for Short Periods of Detention

That this matter was about much more than a ‘technicality’ is reflected in the fact that this was a four-figure settlement; scrupulous respect for personal liberty and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is the hallmark of a democratic society. False imprisonment by executive or judicial authorities should never have to be shrugged off in any circumstances, not even when it is ‘accidental’ and relatively short-lived; otherwise, we are at the thin end of a wedge of erosion against those liberties we hold so dear.

Peter was quite right to stand up for his rights in this situation, and I am proud that my team was here to help him teach the Court some valuable lessons – about how to follow its own rules. 

My client’s name has been changed

How you can help

This blog has grown through the trust of readers and clients rather than through aggressive marketing or paid promotion. If you feel this article offers genuine insight or practical value, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your feedback plays a meaningful role in helping others identify experienced, specialist advice when it counts. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

Animal rights activist Gemma Barnes was unlawfully arrested by Sussex Police after she was assaulted during an anti-fox hunting protest in Lewes, despite officers initially treating her as the victim and arresting her attackers. This case highlights an important principle of police powers: officers cannot detain someone without lawful authority, and any arrest must comply with the strict requirements of Section 24 and Section 28 of PACE. 

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

The case of Gemma Barnes, an animal rights activist, recently attracted considerable media attention after videos were published online showing Police officers being rude and derogatory about Gemma and another activist, after Gemma had been arrested at a protest in Norwich in January 2023. The officers thought that they were talking “behind closed doors” – but they were in fact accidentally recording their conversation on Gemma’s confiscated body camera, which they subsequently handed back to her.  

The Police attitude showcased in these recordings does not make a pretty picture, and I think backs up the point I made in a previous blog post regarding Police behaviour towards protestors.

By way of a further illustration of that point, I can now talk about the circumstances of another unlawful arrest which Gemma suffered, at the hands of Sussex Police, and which is also a very useful reminder of a fundamental pillar of our civil rights: that the Police do not ‘out rank’ civilians and cannot detain us against our will without using a specific power such as stop-and-search or criminal arrest; and if they are purporting to arrest us, they have to explain themselves and provide key information in accordance with Section 28 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984.

Unlawful Arrest at an Anti-Fox Hunting Protest in Lewes

In this particular instance, which occurred in December 2024, Gemma attended an anti-fox hunting protest on Lewes High Street. A rival “pro-hunt” group was in attendance.

The two protest groups were situated on either side of Lewes High Street and were separated by a line of Sussex Police Officers.

My client alleges that the pro-hunt group made threats of violence towards her group, and also racist insults, including calling a black member of the anti-hunt group a “monkey”, “big lips”, and imitating monkey noises in their direction.

Is It a Criminal Offence to Film the Police Making an Arrest?

At one point, one of the pro-hunt group was arrested by Officers. Gemma, who had been filming matters generally,  filmed this from a reasonable distance, but was nevertheless grabbed by the arm by an officer and threatened with arrest for “obstructing a Police Officer.”

To reiterate a point which has regularly been made on this blog: merely filming an arrest is not an act of “obstruction” and nor is filming a Police Officer a criminal offence.

After the protest had concluded, the anti-hunt group decided they would leave the area because they were concerned by the escalating bad behaviour from the pro-hunt group, and commenced walking back to their cars.

As the group were walking back to their cars, a large number of the pro-hunt group followed them. The pro-hunt group continued to shout insults and threats.

Police officers were still in attendance, and clearly identifying the threat, escorted the anti-hunt group back to their cars, which was the right thing to do.

From Police Protection to an Assault on a Protestor

Two female members of the pro-hunt group started to goad Gemma, including by asking her to stroke the fur coat which one of them was wearing.  When this failed to get a rise out of my client, the two women then physically attacked her – one by grabbing Gemma’s wrist and lashing out at her face, the other grabbing Gemma’s head, knocking her cap off in the process and pulling her hair. Gemma then pushed the women away from her, in an act of self- defence.

These events were witnessed, at close- range, by Police officers, who intervened to protect Gemma from the aggressors: both of the women who had attacked Gemma were arrested for affray.

Meanwhile, my client was escorted by Officers into a nearby bus shelter. She initially believed that this was simply for her protection, and when the officers asked if she would be willing to provide a statement, she confirmed that she would, and provided her personal details, naturally believing that she was being treated as the victim of the incident.

Can the Police Detain You Without Arresting You?

However, when Gemma then attempted to leave the bus shelter, she was stopped from doing so by PC Holmes. He informed Gemma that she was not allowed to leave, but did not give a reason; when my client challenged this, PC Holmes told her she was being detained under the “common law”. In this particular context, those words were meaningless, and certainly did not give rise to a lawful arrest.

Gemma, understandably, continued to protest that she was the victim, and that any detention was unlawful. In response, PC Williams now told her that she was being detained under “Section 24 of PACE” while they investigated “allegations that had been made”. This equally did not constitute a proper arrest: if you are being detained under Section 24 of PACE, which is the statutory power of arrest – the central tool in the Police’s crime-fighting arsenal – you have to be told what allegations have been made against you and what offence you are being arrested for, or the detention will be unlawful and will amount to false imprisonment.

When Is an Arrest Under Section 24 PACE Lawful?

Furthermore, any arrest will be unlawful unless it is based on reasonable suspicion of an offence, and a necessity to arrest you (as opposed to investigating the allegation by other means) and neither of those criteria were close to being satisfied here, in my opinion.

Gemma reiterated that she was the victim, and other witnesses confirmed her account; she pointed out that several of the Officers present had clearly seen the attack and that it would also have been captured on their bodyworn video cameras, i.e those officers who had immediately intervened to arrest the actual offenders.

Unfortunately, all of her representations fell on deaf ears, including her offer to attend a voluntary interview so as to negate any alleged necessity to arrest, and the bus shelter continued to be used as a temporary prison cell.

From Unlawful Detention to Arrest for Affray

Finally, at the end of approximately 10 minutes of this “non-specific detention” my client was informed by PC Williams that she was under arrest for affray (in relation to the incident in which she had actually been attacked) and she was taken hold of and conveyed to Eastbourne Custody centre, where the circumstances of her arrest were very inaccurately recorded as follows –

“DP [Detained Person] was a participant in a hunt taking place in Lewes and officers found her in a fight with another protestor in Tesco’s car park”

Gemma was there detained for approximately three hours, during which she was incarcerated in an actual cell, and interviewed under caution, before being released – no surprise – with a decision that “no further action” was going to be taken against her.

Why Was the Victim of the Assault Arrested?

It was notable that even the arresting Officer, in his written statement, confirmed that he, “initially thought the female with me was a victim”.  

No substance was ever provided in terms of exactly who changed PC William’s mind about this, or how they did it. Even if the women who had attacked Gemma had made “counter- allegations” against her, the fact remained that the incident had been fully witnessed by several officers who knew exactly what had happened.  

Police Counter-Allegations, Protestors and Unlawful Arrest

Reflecting on the totality of this incident, we can observe that the Police initially did do the right thing – swiftly intervening to arrest the women committing the assault, and protect Gemma. But matters took a turn for the worst from that point with Gemma rapidly moving from the status of being protected, to being imprisoned; surprising to say the least, given that the Police do not tend to reactively arrest victims simply because the original suspect has made a “counter- allegation” and all the more so in a situation in which the assault was witnessed at close hand by officers.

I suspect that this was a result of institutional antagonism towards activists, especially those seen as “anti- Police”, combined with the common Police tactic of unlawfully detaining people whilst “finding out what has happened”, as I addressed in detail in this previous blog post.

Compensation for Unlawful Arrest and False Imprisonment

This incident was sadly not Gemma’s first experience of unlawful arrest and mistreatment at the hands of the Police; but I’m pleased to report that, also not for the first time, she has with the help of our team, won a significant legal victory in response.

Ably represented by my colleague, actions against the Police specialist solicitor Alex Nelmes, Gemma brought civil court proceedings against Sussex Police who have, without admission of liability, now agreed to pay her substantial damages, plus legal costs.

As ever, I know that it is the sense of justice being achieved, and those who misuse power being held accountable, which is the bottom line for my client.

How you can help

Making specialist legal knowledge accessible is a core part of why I write this blog. If you believe that clear, independent information about police powers and civil liberties is important, I would greatly appreciate you taking a moment to leave a 5-star review. Each review helps ensure that those searching for answers can find this site — and the help they deserve. Thank you for your support.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

This blog post warns of the growing dangers of relying on AI for legal advice. Drawing on recent examples from my own practice, I explain how AI can wildly overvalue claims, misrepresent genuine case law, and confidently provide authorities which do not support the propositions for which they are cited. Although AI can be a valuable tool and offer significant productivity benefits, it cannot replace the judgment, experience and specialist knowledge of a solicitor. 

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

AI Legal Advice: Why Artificial Intelligence Is Creating Problems

The Economist magazine recently reported (“How AI is breaking the British State”, 6 August 2026) how the tide of AI generated content is beginning to cause problems for legal and governmental systems built for the “age of the post office and the telephone box”. The backlog in Employment Tribunal claims has risen by 55% in a year, as a result of “AI- fuelled claims”. There is a warning here for us all, as many of those claims will unfortunately have no merit, but the AI programme which a person has turned to for “advice”, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Co-Pilot, probably won’t tell them that, as it quite literally has no “skin in the game” and has a tendency to flatter and encourage its users – promising them that what they want is achievable, even when it isn’t.

When AI Gets Compensation Claims Wrong

By way of illustration of this, I can share some very recent experiences of my own. The first concerned a client who has a good claim against the Police for a wrongful “stop and search” incident – but who was led by AI research to wildly over-value his claim.

After medical evidence had been obtained in order to assess the psychological impact of the incident, my client informed me that his realistic estimation for total compensation was in the region of £150,000. Unfortunately, this was out of all proportion to his actual injuries and losses, and was clearly the result of his making an enquiry with an AI programme.

I, and two of my colleagues, who between us have around 100 years of litigation experience in the fields of personal injury and actions against the Police, in fact valued this client’s claim as being worth in the region of £10,000 – £15,000 i.e an entire order of magnitude less than the AI advice.

AI Cannot Replace an Experienced Actions Against the Police Solicitor

“Large Language Models” (AI) are not a substitute for the experience and depth of knowledge of a solicitor such as myself who has practiced in this field of law for over 30 years.  AI programs are notorious for misunderstanding, misquoting or indeed completely hallucinating the law and are designed to ‘please’ their users by telling them what they want to hear – even if what they are saying has no basis in reality.

AI Hallucinations, Fake Case Law and the Risks of AI Legal Research

Indeed, there have been well- reported cases of AI programmes feeding their users entirely made-up case reports, and advocates who don’t know better getting themselves into a great deal of trouble by seeking to rely upon these “Frankenstein” cases before a human (– well, probably-) Judge.

When AI Misinterprets Genuine Case Law: AXX v Zajac

Another of my clients referred me recently to two cases which AI had told him supported his contention that a vulnerable Claimant with psychiatric problems should be able to refuse examination by the Defendant’s medical expert on grounds of “re- traumatisation”, and could instead have the Court only rely upon the Claimant’s own, already obtained report, contrary to the age-old “equality of arms” presumption in litigation which is that both parties should be allowed to call upon equal amounts of expert evidence.

As it happened, these cases really did exist – but they really did not support the argument which AI was telling my client they did. One in particular was the case of AXX v Zajac [2022] EWHC 2463. Whilst AXX was indeed a vulnerable Claimant, who at one stage had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act, whose identity was anonymised for the purposes of the litigation, and who was suspected to have suffered a traumatic brain injury, the Judge in the case highlighted the importance of Claimants “cooperating with and speaking to medical experts for the purpose of expert reports for the Court” and went on to make an order that AXX had to make himself available for interview and assessment by the Defendant’s experts, and that if he did not and instead continued to refuse to engage with the Defendant’s medics then a “Stay or De-barring Order” could be imposed, effectively preventing the claim from proceeding.

So, the conclusion of that case was really the complete opposite of what the ‘cheerleading’ AI bot had led my client to believe it was.

The Danger of AI Telling Legal Clients What They Want to Hear

The root cause of this problem is the AI’s desire to please its user by providing them with material to support their argument, even when, in reality, that material simply does not exist. AI programmes are not people and have no sense of shame or morality; point out to them their error and they are simply likely to respond with an electronic shrug and Cheshire- Cat smile-  

“Good catch! You’re right to question that, I made it up – my apologies.”

Cold comfort for those who have thereby been misled in high-stakes civil or criminal litigation cases.

AI Is a Useful Legal Tool – But It’s Not a Lawyer

AI is a very useful tool, and can have real productivity benefits – but we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that it is a tool; effectively, it is a very sophisticated search-engine, it is not a true author or adviser as it does not understand, or indeed care about, the highly polished articles it produces and presents to you. Human intelligence in any field of expertise must remain the real deal and the last resort. I hope that this warning will help to prevent people with good cases self- sabotaging them by reliance upon swift, smooth, polished, but ultimately unreliable AI.

Also remember that you can generally spot an AI article, essay or letter by its almost invariable habit of adopting the following structure for its arguments: “[Something] is not X. It is Y” e.g “The future of legal isn’t fewer lawyers. It’s fewer decisions requiring lawyers.”

Watch out for such language, and superficially persuasive information which won’t stand the stress- test of reality. If you don’t, you may be in danger of TerminAIting your case, or as AI-Arnie might say:

“I don’t need your clothes, your boots, or your motorcycle.

I need all three of them.”

How you can help

I publish these articles regularly to demystify police powers and to help people understand when those powers have been misused. If this post has clarified your rights or reinforced the importance of police accountability, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your review helps point others towards experienced representation at a time when clear guidance really matters. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

This week’s blog post is an illustration both of how often the Police “arrest first and think later” when they believe their authority is being infringed, and the critical importance which the law of England and Wales places upon the liberty of the individual, such that even a mistaken arrest lasting for less than 5 minutes can attract significant damages.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Police Arrest the Wrong Person: Child Mistaken for His Older Brother

My client Lewis is a young black man who suffers from a receptive and expressive language disorder.  In the early hours of the morning, one day in March 2024, a large squad of Metropolitan Police Officers arrived at Lewis’ home address, intending to arrest Lewis’ older brother. 

There was a significant difference in appearance between the two brothers: Lewis was 16 years old, approximately 5ft 4in tall, had dreadlocks and was of chubby build and darker skin than his brother.

Lewis’ brother was 28 years old, approximately 6ft tall, had a receding hairline, was of slender build and of lighter complexion.

A Mistaken Identity Arrest at Home

Lewis answered the door to the Police Officers upon their arrival, his mother and elder brother being asleep upstairs.

The Officers demanded Lewis’ name; he was shocked and confused and asked what was going on.

Officers Ignored Clear Differences in Age and Appearance

Without attempting to explain themselves, or to properly consider whether this child was really the man they were looking for, two of the Officers then entered the house, grabbed hold of Lewis, pushed him against the wall and handcuffed his hands behind his back.

One of the Officers now informed Lewis that he was under arrest on suspicion of breaching a Restraining Order and making threats to kill. 

Lewis pleaded with the Officers that he was a minor and that they had the wrong person.  He told them his name.

Only now did the Officers start to make proper enquiries.  Some of them went upstairs and discovered Lewis’ older brother asleep in bed, arrested him and de-arrested Lewis.

Lewis’ older brother was then taken into custody.

Why the Arrest Was Unlawful

When Lewis’s Mum subsequently asked me to represent him I reviewed the evidence and was more than satisfied that the Officers had completely ‘jumped the gun’. 

They should have been aware from the outset that Lewis was not the person they were looking for, given the very clear disparity in the brothers age and appearance.  Sadly, they used their authority to bulldoze over Lewis’ personal freedom, traumatising and injuring him in the process, simply because he had not immediately answered their question.  This is a question which Lewis was not obliged to answer in any event; it should have been the Officers who were explaining to him their proper purpose at the house, not simply barking orders at a frightened child and expecting them to be immediately obeyed.

The Lasting Physical and Psychological Impact of a Wrongful Arrest

I investigated the impact that this incident had had upon Lewis, as I will never leave a stone unturned when ensuring that my clients receive full and proper compensation, and established the following –

• Lewis was a person of the utmost good character and had no previous experience of being detained or arrested by the Police;

• When Lewis had to sit school exams the following week, owing to the injury caused to his wrist by the Police handcuffs, he had to have a teacher write (or “scribe”) his answers for him, which intensified his unpleasant memories of this event;

• That although his physical injury cleared up quickly, the psychological impact was much more long lasting, and a medical report from an independent psychologist whom I instructed on Lewis’s behalf established that he was now suffering from a phobia and depression (although his prognosis for a complete recovery was good).

Compensation for False Imprisonment: Why Even a Five-Minute Arrest Matters

The principles behind the calculation of damages for loss of liberty in our civil courts were set down in the famous case of Thompson & Hsu v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis , now almost thirty years ago. In that case the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the initial shock of an arrest, of being made a prisoner, having your liberty stripped from you was such a violation of your personal rights and integrity that even a very short period of detention should be compensated by a significant award, with every hour of detention thereafter worth progressively less and less (though never nil) as the reality of detention sank in and the infringement of your liberty became less painful. I have written about the rationale behind this case at length in a previous blog post, which you can read here. 

The Thompson Guidelines and Damages for Loss of Liberty

In the hands of a skilled, specialist lawyer such as myself, this enables a case to be built that even such a transitory period of detention as was suffered by my client in this case, should give rise to substantial damages. No loss of liberty should be shrugged off lightly, particularly if it also involves a violation of the safety and security of your home.

£5,000 Settlement Secured Against the Metropolitan Police

In light of this, I am pleased to confirm that after commencing Court proceedings on behalf of Lewis, I have recently agreed a settlement of £5,000 damages, plus legal costs, with the Metropolitan Police for his ordeal.

You can also read here, the details of another case of mine involving a man wrongfully arrested when his brother was wanted – and one in which we were successful despite there being a great deal more similarity between the brothers. 

Wrongfully Arrested? Specialist Legal Advice for Victims of Mistaken Identity

If you have been the victim of a mistaken arrest, even for only a short period of time, please contact me for expert assessment and advice in relation to your case.

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

This blog exists to inform, empower, and reassure people who may otherwise feel overwhelmed when dealing with unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article helpful or informative, I would be very grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Your support helps me continue this work and, just as importantly, helps others find reliable, specialist advice when they need it most. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

This week’s blog post provides a short update on the case of my client Scott Barrett, and another example of why the Police complaints system just isn’t working and fails the public time and time again.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Police Brutality Against an Innocent Good Samaritan

Scott Barrett was a “good Samaritan” trying to help the Police when PC Kirkwood of Lincolnshire Police mistook him for a criminal suspect and then administered his own “old school” vigilante justice on this innocent man, by forcing him to the ground at taser point and then breaking Scott’s nose with a deliberate kick to his face.

How the IOPC Overturned Lincolnshire Police’s Initial Decision

After the Professional Standards Department of Lincolnshire Police determined that PC Kirkwood’s actions were “reasonable” and declined to sanction him in any way, I launched an appeal to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) on behalf of Scott, and got them to direct that PC Kirkwood should in fact face a Gross Misconduct hearing. I had previously had to intervene in a similar fashion in the equally egregious case of my client Shane Price (which also involved Lincolnshire Police). 

Gross Misconduct Found – But No Meaningful Consequences

Notwithstanding this, however, both Scott and I were left disappointed, as I reported in my previous post, by the fact that the Misconduct Panel refused to hear evidence from Scott himself at the hearing and, despite finding that the officer had committed gross misconduct, penalised the officer with only a “final written warning”. As it happened, by the time the Misconduct hearing finally took place, PC Kirkwood had chosen to retire from the Police – but had he remained in service, this sanction would have meant he was not dismissed and could have continued to patrol our streets and exercise Police power over civilians.

Indeed, should the officer decide to re- apply to the Police service in the future, he would not be barred from doing so.

Why I Asked the IOPC to Consider Judicial Review

As stated in my previous post, I wrote to the IOPC in the aftermath of the hearing and urged them to consider appealing the outcome by means of a Judicial Review. The response I have received is instructive as to the structural problems with the current Police complaints and misconduct system and so I will repeat it here in full –

“We have considered your suggestion and thank you for your patience in this matter.  After consideration, the IOPC Director of Oversight & Casework, David Ford, has decided it is not appropriate for the IOPC to seek permission to judicially review for a number of reasons. A summary of his rationale is set out below:

In this case, the IOPC directed the hearing, but it was not a party to the proceedings which were presented by the Appropriate Authority, and it was the role of Assistant Chief Constable Mayo supported by panel members and a Legally Qualified Advisor to decide the sanction. Having reviewed the material,  my view is that the hearing was wrong,  having found that the former officer would not have been dismissed had they still been serving. However,  in  any judicial review proceedings my disagreement with the sanction is irrelevant, and the court would only quash the decision if no reasonable decision-maker could make the same decision or it was procedurally or legally flawed.  Although I am concerned the former officer is not on the barred list and there is a possibility they could  seek employment back in policing or in a similar area, I feel that given the former officer’s age, this is highly unlikely, and additionally the information about the finding of gross misconduct should  be available to police vetting procedures (see below).

Whilst I do not for one second seek to minimise the severity of this case and the impact the former officer’s actions are likely to have had on the complainant, for the reasons given above, I have decided this is not a case where it is appropriate for the IOPC to seek to have the decision quashed. I do not however feel it would be appropriate to simply close this matter without further action.  I therefore plan to ensure the IOPC writes to the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Constabulary, setting out the concerns about this case. We will seek confirmation that information about the case will be available in any vetting procedures should the former officer re-apply for a policing role. We will also inform the Chief Constable that I considered whether the IOPC should seek permission for Judicial Review, and that our oversight function monitor the outcomes of future IOPC directed misconduct proceedings.”

The IOPC Agreed the Outcome Was Wrong – But Could Not Change It

In summary: the IOPC agree with me – and are “concerned” by this outcome – but lack the real, direct powers needed to do anything about it. Judicial review is so often an inadequate tool to address problems in the complaint process as it is an indirect mechanism of last resort and sets that very high bar of asking whether “any reasonable decision maker” could have come to this conclusion before it can be overturned.

The Fundamental Problem with the Police Complaints System

As I have written about time and time again, the inherent problem with the Police complaints system is the fact that in even the most serious cases, the Police themselves are not only “judge, jury and (probably not) executioner” but also the investigators. The self-interest, self- conceit and tribalism of the Police will bias them towards favouring officers who are complained about over the public who are complaining and even when the IOPC acts in a truly independent manner and overturns key decisions such as the initial PSD outcome in this case (by which they attempted to completely exonerate PC Kirkwood), the matter then returns to the Police for the final decision. 

Why the IOPC Needs Greater Powers Over Police Misconduct Cases

Here, the IOPC was able to force them to produce the right finding of gross misconduct against Kirkwood, but not to force them to follow through with the correct verdict of placing him on the Police Barred List.

Or in other words, the IOPC has the power to lead the Police horse to water, but not to make it drink.

Reforming the Police Complaints Process: An Independent System Is Needed

Ultimately, I can sympathise with the IOPC decision not to pursue a judicial review, which would have uncertain prospects of success because it is a general legal mechanism of last recourse and not an efficient or dedicated solution for fixing the Police complaints system. The solution, as I have previously suggested, is to take the complaints investigation and prosecution process out of the hands of the Police and empower a truly independent and necessarily greatly expanded IOPC to deal with it themselves. Rather than the IOPC having to convince a judge that the Police decision maker acted entirely unreasonably, the decision should be being made by the IOPC in the first place. All too often at the moment, the IOPC lacks the way to do this, even when it doesn’t lack the will.

When the Police Complaints System Fails, Civil Claims Can Still Deliver Justice

Until change comes, however, victims of Police misconduct such as Scott can still rely on expert Police claims solicitors such as myself to secure justice for them through the civil claims process; because time and time again, when the complaint process fails – I succeed. 

How you can help

Every post on this blog is grounded in real cases, real experience, and a commitment to holding abuses of power to account. If you’ve taken something useful from this article, or if you wish to support that broader aim, I would be grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Each review strengthens this work and helps others in need of straightforward, specialist expertise find their way here. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

The Police Leadership Commission’s latest report confirms what many victims of police misconduct have experienced for years: poor leadership allows toxic cultures to flourish. From flawed promotion systems and inadequate leadership training to a culture that discourages officers from speaking out, the report exposes systemic failings that undermine public confidence. Meaningful reform requires stronger accountability, better leadership development and senior officers who remember that the police exist to serve the public—not stand apart from it.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

This week, I want to draw attention to the report published earlier this month by the Police Leadership Commission, which I would urge everyone with an interest in the structural causes of Police misconduct to read. 

Whilst the report praises “outstanding examples of leadership” within the profession it also admits that there are “systemic causes for concern about the consistency, capability and culture of leadership across the service…leadership in policing is not consistently of a high enough standard to provide confidence and trust in the attainment of the service which the public deserves”

Almost every page of this blog is a record and indictment of those leadership failures – for “bad apples” proliferate in an orchard which is not well tended, but in which misconduct is too often obscured or excused, and toxic characteristics are enabled by poor or complicit leaders. 

Police Misconduct Starts with Poor Leadership at the Top

The IOPC has received 107 referrals involving chief officers since it was founded in 2018, leading to 78 investigations of officers of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or higher, frequently for such grievous matters as cronyism, nepotism, abuse of position for a sexual purpose and corruption.

Broken Promotion Systems Are Undermining Police Leadership

“Promotion processes to sergeant and inspector are broken…They rely on an out-of-date exam that only half of prospective sergeants and just over a third of prospective inspectors pass…More than a fifth of new sergeants and inspectors responding to our survey said they received no formal leadership training more than two years into their role.”

The Gemma Barnes Case Shows How Poor Police Supervision Enables Misconduct

A ‘perfect’ example of the lack of good leadership at lower levels of the Police Force can be provided by the case of my client Gemma Barnes, about which I wrote earlier this month and which is now attracting significant media attention. In that shocking case of “candid camera” the officers involved in toxic behaviour and abhorrent comments are being presided over by their sergeant like the King of Misrule; it is an atmosphere totally lacking in internal discipline or respect for the public. 

Police Whistleblowers Still Fear Speaking Out

The Report also draws attention to the ways in which Police leadership enables bad behaviour by failing to set the right examples and by failing to protect those who do speak out. All too often, keeping your mouth shut and looking the other way when colleagues misconduct themselves seems like the only sensible thing an officer can do. 

“We have encountered overwhelming evidence that police personnel at all levels, even people in senior positions, do not feel able to speak up against failures and misconduct for fear of negative repercussions.”

This is a depressingly familiar echo of Baroness Casey’s findings in her 2023 report on the culture of the Metropolitan Police, where she highlighted that those who speak up “learn the hard way that there are adverse consequences for themselves, their careers and for their teams.”

The Casey Review Reached the Same Conclusions About Police Culture

My own review of the Casey report can be found here. 

Police Leadership Training Falls Far Behind the British Army

One striking statistic which the current report highlights is that 15 years after leaving Sandhurst, a Colonel in the British Army will have undertaken 72 weeks of leadership development, compared with “2 or 3 weeks” for a Chief Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police.

Mandatory Leadership Training Should Be Required for Chief Officers

A key recommendation of the report which attempts to address that issue, though it may come as a surprise to many that this is not already an essential requirement, is that all chief officers, including chief constables, should be expected to complete an annual performance review and continuing professional development training (CPD), as is the norm in the legal and medical professions. 

As one Police contributor to the Report commented – 

“As an accredited strategic firearms commander or public gold commander… I’ve got very, very strict and set accreditation CPD that I need to do every single year. If I don’t do it, I do not maintain my operational accreditation. We do not take the same approach for leadership and whilst there are good courses offered by the College [of Policing], they are not mandated. There’s no check and balance.”

Should Senior Police Officers Be Recruited from Outside Policing?

Another key recommendation for change is “a targeted direct entry scheme” to bring in “proven leaders” from other professions, such as local government and community safety, into senior and executive police officer roles. 

Why External Leadership Could Improve Police Accountability

I wholeheartedly endorse this idea, as I believe it could be a significant antidote to the huge problem of pro-Police bias within the profession and lack of empathy for and understanding of the public, borne of senior officers being for decades ‘soldiers’ on the inside of the Police ‘castle’, looking out. 

The report essentially endorses this sentiment, although its authors express themselves in rather more bureaucratic terms – 

“Senior police leaders can too often share a narrow set of experiences and values, partly as a product of a traditional and restrictive career pathway. They are not always open to challenge and new ideas, or prepared to take considered risks that could improve services.” 

Police Must Remember the Public Is Not the Enemy

I will conclude my thoughts by referring back to that comparison between the training of Army officers and senior Police officers. It is quite right that the model of Army leadership be looked at for good examples of building best practice; but my own ‘key recommendation’ for the Policing profession would be that they bear at all times, front and centre in their thinking, the truth that they are not an army and the public is not the enemy. 

Rebuilding Public Trust Requires Stronger Police Accountability

If the first thing that Police leaders did in response to this report was to open their ears fully and honestly to public complaints and make examples of, rather than try to protect, officers who abuse their powers or treat people with disrespect – then they would be at once strengthening the efficacy and moral fibre of their profession and restoring its reputation in the eyes of the citizenry of which it is supposed to be a part, not a foreign body. 

How you can help

This blog has grown through the trust of readers and clients rather than through aggressive marketing or paid promotion. If you feel this article offers genuine insight or practical value, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your feedback plays a meaningful role in helping others identify experienced, specialist advice when it counts. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

This blog post tells the story of “Sam White” (a pseudonym), a businessman who was wrongfully arrested at St Pancras International after police relied on a Police National Computer alert matching only his name to that of a wanted suspect. Despite carrying a passport that clearly confirmed a different date of birth and identity, Sam was publicly arrested, detained for around 18 hours, and subjected to fingerprinting, DNA sampling and an overnight stay in custody before officers finally accepted they had the wrong person. The case highlights the dangers of over-reliance on incomplete data matching and argues that police must exercise greater scrutiny and common sense, particularly at international travel hubs where biometric passports provide reliable identity verification. Following legal action, Sam received an apology, deletion of his biometric data, substantial damages and recovery of his legal costs.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Wrongful Arrests Caused by Police Data Errors 

This is the second of two posts intended, as we enter the ‘holiday season’ to shed light on the recurrent problem of people innocently engaging in international travel being mistaken for wanted criminals – in a data rich but often common-sense poor environment. 

Wrongfully Arrested at St Pancras Before Boarding the Eurostar – Sam’s Story

 In this case, my client was Sam White, a middle-aged businessman of good character.

 In May 2024, PC Bright of the Metropolitan Police submitted a “Wanted Suspect Circulation Form” onto the Police National Computer system (PNC).  It was recorded that the suspect had “Made threats to kill his brother whilst holding a knife”, contrary to Section 16 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. Although the suspect was also called Sam White, my client had a different date of birth and address, and was in no way connected with this other individual.

 A week later, my client arrived at St Pancreas International Station, intending to catch the Eurostar train to Paris for a business meeting; he went through the inspection gate, bag security check and passport check-in desk without incident, and made his way onto the busy departure concourse. However, there he was approached by PC Fletcher of the British Transport Police and asked to confirm his name, date of birth and address, which he duly did.

Public Arrest, Overnight Detention and the Human Cost of Police Error

 PC Fletcher then informed Sam that he was under arrest for “threats to kill”.  This came as such a shock to Sam that initially he thought it was some kind of prank.  However, reality tragically dawned, as Sam was escorted to the side of the concourse and PC Fletcher and his colleagues began to search his person and belongings in full view of Eurostar staff, Passport Control officers and members of the public.

Sam was told that his passport had triggered an “arrest flag”.  He was told he was going to be taken to a Police Custody unit, and after a short delay was transported to Islington Police Station, where he was handed over to the Metropolitan Police. 

Brought before the Custody Sergeant, Sam again provided his name, address and date of birth. 

 Sam explained that there had been some kind of gross mistake, but his representations were ignored.  In a very difficult situation, Sam chose not to contact his wife for fear of causing her unnecessary distress, hoping that things would surely be cleared up quickly. 

 Regrettably, they were not. Sam was forced to jump through all of the ‘criminal suspect’ hoops – having his fingerprints and ‘mug shot’ taken, as well as a DNA swab – the medical procedure which marks you out as a Police prisoner and is much more psychologically invasive than it is physically.

 Sam was then taken to a cell where he spent a sleepless night, hearing distressing noises from other cells and wondering how he could possibly be in this predicament. Sam felt that he now had no choice but to ask to speak to the duty solicitor and to call his wife to let her know where he was; however the custody staff expressed concern about Sam being allowed to call his wife given that – according to their records  – the suspect’s wife appeared to be the person who had reported the crime to the Police.  When Sam was finally allowed to speak to his wife, she was naturally devastated to learn what had happened to him.

An 18-Hour Detention Despite Clear Evidence of Mistaken Identity

At approximately 11am, some 18 hours after his arrest at the train station, Sam was finally taken for formal interview – during which time it quickly became apparent that he was not, of course, the suspect having a different date of birth and different home address (and, indeed, different middle name), and no knowledge of or connection with the alleged offence.

 Police Sergeant Berkley then made the following entry in the custody record –

 “OIC [Office in Case] has interviewed the DP [Detained Person] and its suspected but cannot be ruled out at this stage that the DP is not the SUS[PECT] circulated due to a discrepancy with the DOB. I have instructed the OIC to…get a photo of the SUS and rule this out as the DP ‘s DOB does not correlate with that of the circulated male and any other enquiries to eliminate DP I have asked for this to be done ASAP and a decision made and if so for the DP to be released without further delay”.

 Approximately an hour after his interview Sam was released and told that no further action would be taken against him; he was finally free to return to St Pancreas and catch the next train to Paris – during which journey he had to contemplate how he was going to explain to his business partners/ work colleagues what had happened to him.  

 As PS Berkley noted in a further entry in the custody record later that day –  “OIC on instruction made quick enquiries and P233886 established this was not the SUS.  DP was released at 11.59 based on the clarification from DC…which could have been conducted a lot sooner”.

Why a Biometric Passport Should Have Prevented the Wrongful Arrest

 This was something of an understatement, to say the very least.  At the time when he was first challenged on the platform at St Pancreas my client was, and was known to be, in possession of his passport as he was about to board an international train.  Given the difference in the suspect’s date of birth and Sam’s date of birth, he was, in effect, carrying a “get out of jail free” card on him had the British Transport Police at the station, or the custody staff on Sam’s arrival at Islington taken the merest step of examining that passport and comparing it to the suspect’s details on the PNC. 

 That should have been enough to secure Sam’s immediate release, as it would be unreasonable to assume that the passport was anything other than genuine; yet time and time again, this is the mistake which Police Officers make at such gateways of international travel as airports, seaports and train terminals – focusing on the matching data of a person’s name alone, whilst overlooking the fact that international travel requires full verification of date of birth in the form of a legitimate, biometric passport. This is not, therefore, a ‘variable’ data point which could be faked, in an international travel nexus, in the way that it could be faked (by the giving of an ‘alias’) in ordinary public places in which entry is not contingent on rigorous data analysis and documentary proof.  

Information Technology Without Common Sense: A Recurring Problem

 Once again, therefore, I can only describe the type of Policing that Sam was subjected to in this incident as being based on a use of “Information Technology” which largely bypasses the brain. 

 See It, Sue It, Sorted  

 Understanding my expertise in matters of this nature, Sam instructed me to act on a no win, no fee basis and I am pleased to confirm that after bringing Court proceedings on Sam’s behalf I was able to secure a substantial settlement for him from the Metropolitan Police.

 Nothing can entirely make up for the lost hours which Sam spent in that Police cell, or the memory of his public arrest at a train station (an event which may be routine for the arresting officers, but is a uniquely horrible interference in the lives of law- abiding citizens), but I am pleased to confirm that I won for him – 

1. A letter of apology
2. Confirmation that his biometric data from this arrest (fingerprints, photo and DNA) have been deleted
3. A damages payment of £10,000
4. His legal costs of pursuing the claim

 The Inspector of the “Professionalism Directorate” of the Met who wrote the letter of apology to my client acknowledged that this incident had “undermined” his “trust and confidence” in the Police.

Improving Police Decision-Making at International Travel Hubs

 In order for all of us to have the trust and confidence in the Police that we deserve, the regularity of wrongful travel arrests like this need to be substantially reduced, by officers properly scrutinising apparent data matches and exercising due caution, rather than rushing to arrest. We would not expect a Eurostar train or an international plane to depart without thorough and rigorous safety checks; the liberty of travellers and passengers deserves equal respect.

Further Reading on Wrongful Arrests at Airports, Ports and Transport Hubs

 Anyone looking for some “poolside reading” this month, might be interested in some of my previous blog posts on this very subject; though if you prefer a fictional thriller series – I don’t blame you! 

• Passport to Prison? Unlawful Arrests In The Airport
• Hell After Holiday: Wrongful Arrests at the Airport
• Departure Gate? The Scandal of Another Wrongful Airport Arrest
• Flight Risk: Damages for Wrongful Arrest at the Airport
• Wrongfully Arrested At the Airport For Failing To Attend Court in the Future
• Ferried across the Mersey: an unlawful arrest at Liverpool Port
• Man Subject to Multiple ‘Mistaken Identity’ Arrests Recovers £52,500 Damages

My client’s name has been changed. 

How you can help

Making specialist legal knowledge accessible is a core part of why I write this blog. If you believe that clear, independent information about police powers and civil liberties is important, I would greatly appreciate you taking a moment to leave a 5-star review. Each review helps ensure that those searching for answers can find this site — and the help they deserve. Thank you for your support.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

In 2024, my colleague John Hagan wrote a series of guest posts on this blog highlighting the problematic Police mentality which leads to serial acts of abuse of power towards non-violent protestors, activists and campaigners across a wide spectrum of social and political issues. 

All too often, rather than acting as even-handed referees of the law, Police Officers fall into an “us verses them” mindset as regards protestors, and John compared this to a “Blue team” versus “Red team” approach, in which Police prejudice against and hostility to protestors spill over into civil rights abuses. A “perfect” example of this is the current case of our client Gemma Barnes, an animal rights and civil rights activist, who during a lawful and non- violent protest at a Police Station in Norwich was aggressively assaulted by a senior officer, wrongfully arrested and then maliciously prosecuted – resulting in a not- guilty verdict, of course.

Gemma’s story is powerfully told in a recent video post by Police accountability campaigner Rob Warner, who does such excellent work in this field on his “Crimebodge” You Tube Channel. One of the most striking things about this case is the fact that, as Rob highlights, the Police Officers who ‘dealt’ with Gemma ended up “bugging” themselves when they confiscated her body camera device – and then forgot to turn it off. Rob’s video, collated from that footage, lets you see and hear what happened next – in all its sleazy glory.

John has summed up his own view of the case in these terms –

“This footage shows us what goes on inside many Police Officer’s heads and behind the closed doors of the Police Station, and it is not a pretty sight. Officers can be heard describing my client as a fucking waste of space, discussing other officers attempting to generate an unsubstantiated charge against her and describing a transgender person as a “thing.” They are gleeful about the violence they have used against Gemma, a peaceful protestor, and frankly the whole atmosphere is akin to a school in which the teachers are absent and the bullies have taken over. What is perhaps equally shocking to what is revealed on the “candid camera” with which the Police recorded their sordid comments, is their behaviour in the full light of day. Sergeant Allum publicly and brutally assaulted my client with the kind of cocky impunity which is born of a Policing culture which fails to police itself. The so-called Independent Office of Police Conduct has, as usual, shown itself to be anything but independent in its assessment of my client’s case, and she will now be using the full force of the civil law to hold both Norfolk Constabulary and the IOPC to account for their egregious actions.”

If Police Professional Standards Departments (PSD) and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) decline the opportunity to properly ‘police the Police’, as they have here, then it is down to courageous private citizens such as Gemma to take legal action against the offending Police Forces, as Gemma will now be doing with the help of specialist actions against the Police solicitors in the form of myself and John.

Gemma does not need to stand alone. Please see below links to a petition and fundraiser account which she has created in relation to this case, and consider giving her your financial as well as moral support –

https://www.change.org/p/hold-norfolk-constabulary-officers-to-account/dashboard/home?source_location=user_profile_started

https://gofund.me/016782b5f

I also suggest that you not only consider subscribing to Rob Warner’s Crimebodge channel, Crimebodge – YouTube but buying his book “Copper Stopper” which is an excellent survey of Police wrongs, and your rights, and for which I was proud to write the foreword. 

Rob’s book can be purchased here – https://starchamber.co.uk/

How you can help

I publish these articles regularly to demystify police powers and to help people understand when those powers have been misused. If this post has clarified your rights or reinforced the importance of police accountability, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your review helps point others towards experienced representation at a time when clear guidance really matters. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

As the busy summer travel season begins, I revisit the recurring problem of innocent travellers being wrongfully arrested because of flawed police data-matching and poor use of intelligence systems. This post tells the story of “Michael”, who was mistakenly arrested twice at UK airports after being confused with a wanted suspect who shared his name but not his date of birth. Despite obvious discrepancies, police officers relied on inaccurate alerts rather than carrying out proper checks, leading to unlawful arrests, embarrassment, distress, and financial loss. After legal action, Michael has already recovered substantial damages for one of the incidents, with a second claim ongoing, highlighting the importance of holding police forces accountable when technology is used without proper judgement.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Wrongful Arrests Caused by Police Data Errors 

As we approach the heart, and heat, of the Summer travel season, I am revisiting in this week’s post a recurrent theme of this blog: how many times our Police Forces and other law enforcement agencies use Information Technology in an unintelligent way, data- matching without joined-up thinking, and as a consequence innocent travellers at our international airports and railways stations end up with a “passport to prison.”

Wrongfully Detained on a Plane – Michael’s Story

My client Michael, a man of good character of Nigerian heritage, flew from New York to Heathrow airport with his brother in May 2023. It was a routine Virgin Atlantic Flight, but ended in personal turbulence for Michael: after the plane had landed, an announcement was made telling all passengers to remain seated, because Police Officers were boarding the plane. A few minutes later, Cabin Crew asked Michael to come to the front of the plane; there he found several Metropolitan Police Officers waiting for him. They asked him for his passport, which he agreed to provide, entirely non-plussed about what they wanted.

Wrongful Arrest at Heathrow Airport After Mistaken Identity

The Officers then escorted Michael off the plane and into a corridor in the Terminal. There, to his absolute shock, Michael was told that he was under arrest for an offence of “aggravated burglary” – involving a stabbing –  and that he would be taken to a Police Station for interview. Bewildered, Michael asked to be allowed to use his mobile phone to prove that he was not in the area of the alleged offence on the given date, but the Officers refused to allow him access to his phone, and instead placed him in handcuffs.

Michael protested that he had been in another town at the time of the alleged offence and told the officers that he had not been arrested previously.  An officer explained that passport names and numbers are checked when entering Heathrow and that Michael’s details had come back as a “wanted male” and that they “look similar”. 

Police Officers Realised They Had Arrested the Wrong Man

However, another of the officers now commented –  “I guarantee this is the wrong male.  I said that as soon as you came off the plane”.  A second officer added “Yeah, we both looked at each other and said, I don’t think so”. The officers then held up a photograph of the wanted male next to Michael and noted that there were differences in their appearances. The officers then told Michael that the arrest was “just to rule it out” (which, it need hardly be added, is not a lawful basis for arrest).  Michael told the officers that he did not like being in handcuffs and an officer flippantly replied that he would have a “funny story” to tell in due course.

Fingerprint Check Proved Michael Was Innocent

After several minutes, an INK fingerprint device was brought and when this was used upon Michael, it showed a non-match between him and the wanted male.  My client was then de-arrested and had his handcuffs removed, having endured approximately 26 minutes of arrest in distressing and embarrassing circumstances.   The Officers told Michael that they would put a “marker” on his details to say that they had spoken to him, and that he was not the wanted man.

Michael was now free to proceed to the Arrivals hall, but with a lot of unwanted emotional baggage.

Catching the Heat at Heathrow – What Had Gone Wrong?

It is rarely straightforward to get an admission of liability out of the Police in these circumstances, and they have a tendency to hide behind the “National Border Targeting Centre” (NBTC) which is a Border Force unit which co-ordinates arrest requests and passenger identity checks. In this case, the Met asserted that they had received such an alert from the NBTC, identifying Michael as the suspect in the said offence of aggravated burglary and hence dispatched a team to arrest him upon his arrival.

National Border Targeting Centre Alerts Do Not Remove the Need for Reasonable Suspicion

An NBTC alert does not permit Officers to bypass their brains, however, and the arresting Force is still required to carry out such diligent checks as are necessary to ensure there is a reasonable basis for presuming this particular traveller is indeed the wanted suspect. The Met’s lawyers asserted that they had done just that: with reference to the suspect’s Police National Computer (PNC) record, and they determined that Michael and the wanted man were “one and the same person”, on the basis that they allegedly had the same name and date of birth.

The Police Ignored a Crucial Difference in the Passenger’s Identity

However, once I had obtained unredacted disclosure of the Met’s records – which they were initially reluctant to provide, but in regards to which I knew what I was looking for – the following facts were revealed:

• Michael and the suspect did share the same first and surnames, but both are common Nigerian/ West African names, so that alone could never have formed a reasonable basis for arrest.
• The alert issued by the NBTC did state that the man on the incoming plane (Michael) was the suspect in the Aggravated Burglary offence.
• However, the alert also provided the Police National Computer reference number for the suspect’s personal profile, from which it was clear that the suspect had a different date of birth from that of Michael.
• That difference in the dates of birth of the aeroplane passenger (Michael) and the actual suspect was known to the Met, but they proceeded to intercept and arrest Michael regardless, apparently on the assumption that he was the suspect and that for some reason he was travelling under his own name but an ‘alias’ date of birth.

Why the Arrest Was Never Based on Reasonable Grounds

This assumption was a ridiculous one, and entirely undermined any argument that the Met Officers had an objectively reasonable suspicion that my client was the suspect. International air travel must be verified by a valid passport, and we all know how rigorously that identity- regime is policed, especially for travellers coming to and from America. Unless ‘spy games’ were being played, the only reasonable presumption was this: that the man on the plane was not the suspect, because of their different dates of birth, which could not have been ‘faked’ in this very particular context.

Your Liberty Is Delayed – Lightning Strikes Twice

Unfortunately, Michael was to experience a very unpleasant form of déjà vu the following Summer, June 2024, when he arrived at Gatwick Airport with his wife, to fly to Rhodes for his friend’s birthday celebration.

Wrongfully Arrested Again at Gatwick Airport

Initially all went well, Michael and his wife passed through security and passport control and then boarded the flight. However, before the plane had begun taxiing for take- off, Michael was called to the front of the plane, and with a sinking feeling in his heart, saw that there were Police Officers waiting to ‘greet’ him there. These were officers of Sussex Police, and they informed Michael that he was “wanted”.

The Same Police Intelligence Failure Happened Twice

Unbeknownst to Michael at this stage, was the fact that, notwithstanding the ‘mistaken identity’ incident of the previous year – when the Met had promised to put a marker on the PNC to stop this happening again – the National Border Targeting Centre had again ‘matched’ Michael’s passenger data with the criminal suspect who bears the same first & surname, but has a different date of birth, and who was now wanted for nothing less than conspiracy to murder.

Michael pleaded with the officers that he had been mistakenly arrested in similar circumstances in May 2023 when he returned from America, but they tried to wash their hands of the matter by saying that they were effectively merely acting as agents for the Metropolitan Police who had put out the “wanted” marker on the suspect’s details, which the NBTC had then acted upon. My client then provided the officers with a code relating to the May 2023 incident, which he had been told to provide to Police in the event of related trouble in the future.  The officers relayed this code for urgent checks.  One of the officers commented that “this is ridiculous and embarrassing. It makes us look like idiots”.

Police Arrested Michael Despite Earlier Proof of Mistaken Identity

Nevertheless, the Officers ultimately decided to carry out their original orders, and notwithstanding Michael’s protests, the reference code he had given for the previous incident, or the evidence of his passport, they arrested him on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder and he was taken from the plane and incarcerated at Gatwick Police Station.

Failures in Police Communication and Identity Checks

It subsequently transpired that the Sussex Police Officers had contacted the Met regarding Michael’s reference code for the previous incident, only to be told that they were unable to glean any information from it “because it was over a year old.” It also transpired that Sussex Police had not actually been issued with a photograph of the wanted man, and thus were unable to carry out a straightforward visual ID of Michael. Furthermore, the Met had erroneously informed Sussex that there was an actual Court warrant for Michael’s arrest, which was not the case. Finally, the INK machine which should have been available to check Michael’s fingerprints inside the airport was not working. None of this is the greatest advertisement for “Police Intelligence”, I am sure you will agree.

Michael Missed His Flight Before the Mistake Was Finally Corrected

At the Police Station, Michael’s fingerprints were scanned, and the penny finally dropped; Michael was clearly not the wanted man. He was de-arrested, approximately an hour and a half after he had originally been summoned to the front of the plane… but by then the flight to Rhodes, with Michael’s wife on board, had already departed, greatly adding to his anxiety and inconvenience. He had to pay for a seat on another flight the following day.

It was only after the double- whammy of this second event that Michael approached me for help and advice, and I identified that he had viable claims for wrongful arrest in respect of both incidents – including not just the duration of his loss of liberty on each occasion, but its emotional and financial consequences.  

As is par for the course, both the Met and Sussex Police initially denied liability.

Ticket to Success –  Michael’s Damages Award

Backed by my specialist knowledge and advice, Michael was confident in issuing proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in regards to his 2023 arrest and against both Sussex Police and the Met in regards to the 2024 incident.

Compensation Recovered for Wrongful Arrest and False Imprisonment

I am pleased to report that Michael’s second plane has recently come into land: we have recovered substantial damages from the Metropolitan Police, plus legal costs, for Michael’s wrongful arrest in May 2024.

A Further Compensation Claim Against the Metropolitan Police Continues

My client’s claim for the 2023 arrest, against the Met, is still ongoing, but I am confident that will have an equally satisfactory conclusion, and that Michael will end up with far more than just the “funny story” the officer suggested.

Can You Claim Compensation for a Wrongful Airport Arrest? 

I myself have another story to tell of an innocent international traveller who enlisted my aid to win justice, this time after an arrest at a railway station, which I will return to in next week’s post.

In the meantime, I wish you all safe and happy journeys wherever you may be bound this month.

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

I publish these articles regularly to demystify police powers and to help people understand when those powers have been misused. If this post has clarified your rights or reinforced the importance of police accountability, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your review helps point others towards experienced representation at a time when clear guidance really matters. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

Andy Burnham’s victory in the Makerfield by- election has set him on seemingly inevitable course for the biggest constituency of all – the UK, as our next Prime Minister, and the tame surrender of Sir Keir Starmer (perhaps he will return to his former field of practice in civil liberties actions – watch this space) means that he is likely to assume the ultimate leadership mantle within weeks. 

Our new PM will have a lot on his agenda, and don’t worry, I’m not going to turn this into a political blog-space (we’ve got enough of those), but I want to make a serious point about something that really matters to the clients I represent and which has been overlooked by successive governments since 2013. It is about the exposure of litigants in Police claims to the risk of having to pay the Defendant’s legal bill if they lose, and what can be done to minimise or even eliminate those risks, allowing meritorious claims to be fought without the worry of financial catastrophe for the Claimant. 

The Problem: The Financial Gamble of Litigation

 In 2018 I wrote a blog post about access to justice in civil claims, in particular, the introduction of the “Qualified One Way Costs Shifting” rules or “QOCS”, set out at 44.13 – 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), which paved the way for QOCS, effectively abolished the rights of Claimants in civil litigation to take out “After the Event” legal expense insurance products to protect them from having to pay the swingeing legal costs which Defendants are entitled to if the claim fails (on the principle of the loser in litigation having to pay the victor’s costs). I say effectively abolished, because it was still legal for claimants to take out such insurance products – it was just that their right to recover the cost of that insurance from the Defendant if they, the Claimant, won was removed, leaving litigants with the prospect of paying more for an insurance premium than their claim was worth; insurance premiums in my specialist area of claims against the Police could easily amount to £40,000 if the case went all the way to trial. Clearly that was no longer an economically viable model. 

Recognising that this change might significantly harm access to justice i.e because people would be scared away from pursuing meritorious claims because of the financial costs of either an irrecoverable premium, or the Defendant’s legal bill if they didn’t have insurance cover and ended up losing the case, the government introduced a special allowance for claimants in personal injury matters and that was Qualified One Way Costs Shifting. In essence, QOCS means that a losing Claimant doesn’t have to pay a victorious Defendant’s costs, unless the claim is found to have been “fundamentally dishonest”. 

The key problem in my area of law, however, was that the government, in its wisdom, restricted QOCS to personal injury claims – excluding claims for hugely significant civil liberty breaches, such as False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, Trespass to Land and breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. A cynic might note that whereas the paying party in the majority of personal injury claims are private insurance companies, who now had to swallow the costs of unsuccessful claims against them, the government departments and agents of the state who are the usual Defendants in civil liberties claims – including, of course, the Police – were allowed to retain the ability to pursue unsuccessful litigants for their costs, often amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. This is a significant financial “truncheon” which lawyers representing our Chief Constables are more than happy to brandish in order to ‘scare’ off potential claimants. 

As I highlighted in my previous blog post, the injustice of a situation in which those whose fundamental civil liberties have been violated face greater financial hurdles to accessing justice than do those who’ve been involved in a minor accident, was stark, and did not go unremarked upon. Indeed, a Civil Justice Council report highlighted this issue in March 2016, in strident terms:

“There are strong, if not compelling, arguments of principle –based on access to justice and on the asymmetry of the relationship between the parties – weighing in favour of extending the scope of QOCS protection (or something very similar) to claims against the police…Principled arguments for not doing so do not appear to have been made out.”

And yet, 10 years and almost sixPrime Ministers later, nothing has changed and the QOCS rules remain unaltered.  

The Solution: Playing your Cards Rights

 In reality, Britain’s new Prime Minister is going to have enough unpalatable problems home and abroad to deal with over the remaining duration of this parliament, to get around to blowing the cobwebs off that Civil Justice Council recommendation. But that doesn’t mean that those contemplating the financial risks of a claim against the Police need to despair; there are a number of ways to obviate the risk which I, as a specialist in actions against the Police (and State authorities generally) can guide you to and through. 

The first is the continued availability of legal aid for claims against the Police, the Ministry of Justice and other government departments and agencies. My firm, DPP Law, is one of those niche firms with a franchise in civil legal aid and we can offer the legal aid representation which many other lawyers cannot. Legal Aid is subject to means testing, but if you have a meritorious claim and you meet the financial criteria, I can secure a public funding certificate for you from the Legal Aid Agency. Not only does this cover your own legal costs (meaning you would not have to pay the “success fee” of up to 25% from your damages, which is generally charged under a “No Win, No Fee” arrangement) it also crucially means that you are protected from having to pay the Defendant’s costs if you lose. The best shield for any claimant is to have a legal aid certificate covering you all the way to trial; not everyone can forge that shield for you, but with the right material, I can. 

The second is the understanding and application of case law, which has continued to develop over the last ten years, even if the underlying legislation has not changed; that is, of course, the essential hallmark of the British legal system at its best: the combination of statute law (made by politicians) and case law (made by judges) – flexibly complimenting and enhancing one another and thereby the rights of the citizen. 

It is possible to bring claims against the Police within the protection of QOCS if the case is presented and evidenced in the right way. For example, if you have a claim for wrongful arrest which involves the use of force and/or psychological suffering being inflicted upon you – these are personal injuries and if they represent a significant enough proportion of the damages being sought and/or are shown to be sufficiently intertwined with other aspects of the claim (such as damages for enduring loss of liberty, or trespass to your land and property) then the right legal argument can win you full QOCS protection. 

The question of how the Court should apply QOCS to a “mixed claim” involving not just personal injury but other remedies and classes of damage, was first substantially addressed by the Court of Appeal in the 2019 case of Brown v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWCA Civ 1724. 

In that case, the Court of Appeal stated, in essence, that where there is a ‘mixed’ claim for both personal injury and non- personal injury damages and remedies, the Judge dealing with the case must exercise his discretion as to what extent it is fair to allow the Claimant (if he loses the claim) QOCS protection, in full or part. 

The Court of Appeal stated that:

“the fact that QOCS protection would have been available for the personal injury element of the claim will be the starting point, and possibly the finishing point too, of any exercise of the judge’s discretion on costs. If the proceedings can fairly be described in the round as a personal injury case then, unless there are exceptional features of the non-personal injury claims…I would expect the Judge deciding costs to endeavour to achieve a ‘costs neutral’ result through the exercise of discretion. In this way, whilst it will obviously be a matter for the judge on the facts of the individual case, I consider it likely that, in most mixed claims of the type that I have described, QOCS protection will – in one way or another – continue to apply.”

 Since the Brown case, the High Court has awarded 100% QOCS costs protection to claimants against the Police in a number of high- profile cases. 

For example, in the case of Afriyie v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] EWHC 1632 (KB) the Claimant was claiming not only basic damages for personal injury but also misfeasance in public office and aggravated and exemplary damages. The Judge granted Mr Afriyie 100% QOCS protection as the case was “in the round” a personal injury claim and the grounds for aggravated and exemplary damages arose from the same activity of the Police as gave rise to the personal injury claim. 

Likewise, in the case of ALK and Another against The Chief Constable of Surrey Police [2025] EWHC 1964 (KB) two Claimants who brought “mixed claims” against the Police for both unlawful arrest and the psychiatric injury caused by those arrests, were found to be entitled to 100% costs protection. 

In Summary: Ensuring Access to Justice 

Although reform of the QOCS rules to extend costs protection to all claims against the Police whether they involve personal injury or not (no ifs, no buts) is long overdue, and is clearly in the interests of justice, I do not expect our new Prime Minister to have it anywhere near the top of his agenda, if, indeed, it is even in his contemplation. But as I have hopefully outlined above, there is no need for despair as there are a number of routes through which justice can be accessed with no or minimal costs risks for Claimants. 

I am here to put my expertise at the disposal of those with meritorious claims, and help shield them from adverse costs through the application of the Legal Aid system and/or my knowledge of the caselaw in regards to this crucial issue. 

The PM’s constituency is the country; and mine is the cohort of its citizens who have been the victims of Police misconduct and abuse of power. Whatever our politicians do, I will strive to do what I can as a lawyer, to spread access to justice far and wide, through education, advice and advocacy.

How you can help

This blog exists to inform, empower, and reassure people who may otherwise feel overwhelmed when dealing with unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article helpful or informative, I would be very grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Your support helps me continue this work and, just as importantly, helps others find reliable, specialist advice when they need it most. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

The answer to the question that forms the title of this week’s post is a definite “yes” – and in fact the Officer who arrests you, as they will almost certainly be doing so in accordance with an arrest warrant issued by the Court (following your non-appearance) will almost certainly have immunity from being sued by you under the archaic provisions of the Constables Protection Act 1750.

However, as I will go on to explain below, through the example of one of my recently settled cases, that does not mean that you are not entitled to the compensation for the injustice that you have suffered. 

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

The Problem: A Court Summons goes to the Wrong Address

In the summer of 2025, my client Stuart was arrested by North Wales Police, after having been involved in a road traffic collision.

He cooperated with the subsequent Police enquires, including providing a blood sample, confirming his current address and attending a voluntary interview at Denbigh Police Station.

Stuart was subsequently summonsed to attend Llandudno Magistrates Court in December. 

Notwithstanding the fact that he had provided his current address to the Police, the Summons was sent to an old address at which my client had not lived for around 15 years. 

Blissfully unaware of the Summons, therefore, Stuart went about his daily life until one day in late January 2026 when two Merseyside Police Officers (the Force local to Stuart’s home address) arrived at his house and arrested him for failing to attend the Hearing in December.

As is always the case is such scenarios, the arresting Officers ignored Stuart’s protestations of innocence – they were acting under a warrant issued by the Magistrates Court for Stuart’s failure to appear, and they were not personally under any duty to investigate the circumstances of the issuance of that warrant. 

Stuart was then detained overnight in Police custody before being taken before Liverpool Magistrates Court in the morning.

At the Court, Stuart did plead guilty to the original motoring offence, for which he received a non-custodial sentence – but was left with a very legitimate grievance about his arrest and detention in Police cells, none of which would have been necessary had he received proper notice of the original Magistrates Court date. 

The Remedy: Instruct the Expert Police Claims Solicitor

A few days after his Court appearance, Stuart, recognising my expertise as a solicitor who has successfully sued all of the Police Forces of England and Wales, instructed me to act on his behalf on a ‘no win no fee basis’.

My investigations revealed that after Stuart had attended his voluntary interview with North Wales Police following the road traffic collision, PC Lunt had issued a Postal Requisition (i.e Summons) for Stuart to attend Llandudno Magistrates, but the address on the Postal Requisition form had “auto-populated” as Stuart’s old address – where he had not, in fact, lived since he was a teenager.  The Postal Requisition (Summons) was then sent to Stuart’s former address, and of course he never received it, hence the subsequent trouble that unfolded as I have described above.

Here, then, is a perfect example of how technology old (the postal service) and new (the ‘auto-population’ of personal details in electronic forms) can combine to create the type of ‘uber admin error’ that causes a person to be taken from their home address and deprived of their liberty, spending a miserable night in Police cells. Posted letters do not, of course, have the ‘undelivered’ bounce back message that a sender receives when an incorrect email address is used; whilst important legal forms that do not require manual imputing of all of the relevant information are the lazy Police Officers short cut to loss of liberty.  Clearly, here, the Officer completing the Postal Requisition should have checked the ‘auto-populate’ address she was offered for Stuart, against the information that he had actually provided and confirmed at the time of his arrest and subsequent interview, but she failed to do so, and thereby effectively condemned Stuart to arrest.

Some things never change; regardless of the technology we use, there is always room for human error.

The Result: Significant Damages, Promptly Recovered

Notwithstanding the fact that Merseyside Police Officers who actually arrested and detained Stuart would be able to claim that they were acting under the legal ‘shield’ of a Magistrates Court warrant, the negligence of PC Lunt which had led to the sending of the Summons to the wrong address in the first place, made North Wales Police liable for what happened to my client, as being a breach of both the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Human Rights Act 1998.  Therefore, despite the fact that they themselves had neither arrested nor detained Stuart in January, North Wales Police were liable for his loss of liberty, and after receipt of my detailed letter of claim on Stuart’s behalf they promptly agreed to meet his fair demands for compensation. 

I am pleased to report in the space of just 4 months, I have secured for Stuart damages of £7,700, plus his legal costs. 

Compensation for Arrest Following a Court Summons Sent to the Wrong Address

If you’ve been arrested because a Police or Court error sent your Summons through the wrong door, then come knocking on mine –  and I’ll give you the right advice and representation.

Expert Legal Help for Wrongful Arrest and Police Negligence Claims

You can read here some of the stories about the many other clients for whom I have won significant damages in this or similar scenarios –

• Postal Summons by Surrey Police error leads to man’s wrongful arrest and pay out of £6,500 compensation and costs
• Going Postal? £12K Compensation For Wrongful Arrest After Court Summons Sent to Wrong Address
• £20,000 Damages for Postal Summons Address Error Arrest
• Postal Requisition error leads to man’s wrongful arrest and pay out of £9000 compensation and costs
• Police Negligence: Postal Charge Sent To the Wrong Address
• How I helped a client claim compensation after a postal summons error
• Gwent Police Agree to Pay £8,000 Damages After Court Summons goes to Wrong Address
• Arrested for Failing to Attend a Court Hearing You Knew Nothing About?

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

Every post on this blog is grounded in real cases, real experience, and a commitment to holding abuses of power to account. If you’ve taken something useful from this article, or if you wish to support that broader aim, I would be grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Each review strengthens this work and helps others in need of straightforward, specialist expertise find their way here. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

Breach of the Peace is one of the most misunderstood powers available to police. It is not a criminal offence and can only be used where there is actual violence, an imminent threat of violence, or a genuine fear that violence is about to occur. This article explains the legal definition of Breach of the Peace, the strict limits on police powers of arrest and detention, and why officers cannot lawfully use it simply because someone is being argumentative, rude or uncooperative. It also examines a recent successful claim against Lancashire Constabulary, in which a judge found that a man had been unlawfully detained and awarded damages for false imprisonment, battery and trespass to property.

 Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Do the Police Understand What a Breach of the Peace Really Is?

 Do the Police not know what a Breach of the Peace is, or do they just not want the public to know, so that it can be used as a shorthand, a place holder, a convenient fiction to allow them to exert authority over a person when in fact they have no right or power to do so? 

This question was at the heart of a trial which I and my team have recently won at Preston County Court against the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary.

What Is a Breach of the Peace? 

Breach of the Peace is not a criminal offence, and therefore you cannot be “charged” with or “convicted” of it. It is a power available to any police constable, or indeed, any citizen, and must be exercised reasonably and proportionally. 

As it is not a criminal offence it is not subject to the rules and regulations set down in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Breach of the Peace is an ancient Common Law power, literally intended to be used to restrain or stop a “breach of the King’s peace.” So, when you are thinking about this offence it helps conceptually to think Medievally rather than Modernly: Peace is the absence of “bloodshed”, not the absence of “noise or argument.” 

Peace in the terms of his law therefore means what it means in the phrase “war & peace” (I.e “the absence of violence”) not what it means in “peace & quiet” (I.e serenity, the absence of noise or disturbance).

The Legal Definition of a Breach of the Peace 

This key principle was clearly enunciated by the Court in R v Howell (Errol) [1982] QB 416 (at 427), approved in Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex [2000] EWCA Civ 113.

A Breach of the Peace can only occur in situations where –

“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.”

When Can Police Lawfully Arrest Someone for Breach of the Peace?

 The Court of Appeal, in Bibby, went on to provide the following ‘checklist’ by which to assess the legality of an arrest for a “likely” breach of the peace – 

“In order to exercise the now exceptional Common Law power of arrest [for Breach of the Peace] certain conditions must be met in relation to the person who is to be arrested and his conduct:-

1. There must be the clearest of circumstances and a sufficiently real and present threat to the peace to justify the extreme step of depriving of his liberty a citizen who is not at the time acting unlawfully;

2. The threat must be coming from the person who is to be arrested;

3. The conduct must clearly interfere with the rights of others;

4. The natural consequence of the conduct must be violence from a third party;

5. The violence in 4 must not be wholly unreasonable;

6. The conduct of the person to be arrested must be unreasonable.”

 

Common Police Misunderstandings About Breach of the Peace

This very precise definition is one which as I have said is often confused – or, perhaps, deliberately misunderstood – by Police officers looking to exert power/ authority over people whom they don’t actually have any basis to arrest.

Why Breach of the Peace Cannot Be Used as a Catch-All Police Power

 As the Court emphasised in R (Hicks) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 9 at [4] – 

“The essence of a breach of the peace is violence…” and hence it must not become “a recipe for officious and unjustified intervention in other people’s affairs.” 

All too often, however, in the hands of lazy, bullying or uneducated Officers, it becomes just that. 

A person can only commit a breach of the peace through violence, or by doing something which, considered objectively, is a real threat of immediate violence. 

What Does Not Amount as a Breach of the Peace

 Being rude, noisy, argumentative or ‘disobedient’ to a Police Officer does not amount to breach of the peace, and nor does a speculative or possible risk of violence; the risk of violence must be specific, likely and imminent i.e literally about to take place (if it is not already occurring).  

Here are some pertinent examples from English case law –

Can You Be Arrested for Being Rude to the Police? 

• Mere irritation, rudeness or disobedience is insufficient to give rise to a breach of the peace – Redmond-Bate v Director Of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733 (23rd July, 1999)  – this was in the context of a group of fundamentalist Christian preachers who were attracting the hostility of a crowd, and who were arrested when they refused the instruction of a Police Officer to stop preaching. As Lord Justice Sedley memorably commented in his judgment in this case:

“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having…From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy.”

Is Arguing with a Police Officer a Breach of the Peace?

• Verbal abuse and a refusal to exit a Police car was not a breach of the peace – Hawkes, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] EWHC 3046 (Admin) (02 November 2005)

Can Refusing to Follow a Police Instruction Amount to a Breach of the Peace?

• A refusal to obey a Police Officer’s instruction to leave the premises (a Youth Hostel), such refusal unaccompanied by violence or the threat of it did not amount to breach of the peace – Maguire v Cumbria Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 619 (26 April 2001)

Can a Heated Argument Be a Breach of the Peace?

• An argument between a bailiff and a debtor did not amount to a breach of the peace – Bibby v Chief Constable Of Essex Police [2000] EWCA Civ 113 (6 April 2000)
• The joint owner of a house insisting that he be let back inside it by family members with whom he had had an argument was not a breach of the peace – Foulkes v Merseyside Police [1998] EWCA Civ 938 (9 June 1998)

Does Peaceful Protest Amount to a Breach of the Peace?

• Police interception and re-direction of a coach load of anti- war protestors for “anticipated breach of the peace”  was also found to be unlawful – Laporte, R (on the application of ) v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55 (13 November 2006. 

How Long Can The Police Detain You for Breach of the Peace?

 Once again, this is governed by the crucial distinction between “breach of the peace” and the commission of an actual criminal offence: crimes require investigation and punishment, breaches of the peace require only prevention.

When Must Police Release Someone Arrested for Breach of the Peace?

 As soon as the situation has calmed and any threat of violence is gone, then the deprivation of liberty must cease and the person must be released.

 If you have committed an actual crime – such as by assaulting someone or damaging property, you can of course be further arrested and detained whilst that crime is investigated.

 But if the breach of the peace has passed and no crime has been committed, there is no basis for further detention: unlike statutory offences there is no retrospective investigation of or punishment for a breach of the peace. Once it is over, it is over.

 Hence none of the “necessity” criteria which are required to justify a person’s detention in Police custody could or would apply.

 You must be released at once. Although there is an archaic power to allow a person to be brought before Magistrates to be “bound over to keep the peace” this cannot be applied retrospectively or in punishment for an earlier breach. This power only exists if the breach is continuing; and that continuance (of the threat of violence to persons or property) must be real and obvious, not merely hypothetical: I.e it must be based on the detained person’s current demeanour and behaviour not what they “might” do next.

Can Police Hold You Overnight for Breach of the Peace?

 In Williamson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2003] EWCA Civ 337 it was found that a man who had been, initially legitimately, arrested for “breach of the peace” at midday on a Sunday, should have been released by 6pm that evening, rather than being kept in custody overnight (in order to be brought before Magistrates for a ‘bind over’ in the morning), because there was by that time no longer any danger of his committing a further breach of the peace and therefore a bind over was unnecessary.

What Happens After a Breach of the Peace Arrest?

 You must be released (or, alternatively) arrested for an actual criminal offence as soon as you no longer present a danger to the peace. 

Thus, most “breach of the peace” arrests are over within minutes. 

If they are not, and the person involved has not been arrested for a statutory offence (of violence or public order, for example), then the likelihood is that person is being unlawfully detained.

Can Police Search You After a Breach of the Peace Arrest?

 The answer to this question is “no”.

 Section 32 PACE search powers do not apply to a common law detention for “breach of the peace.” This was clearly explained and enunciated in the judgment in Williamson, cited above, at 16 – “the word “offence” where it appears in PACE does not include breach of the peace.”

Can Police Confiscate Your Property During a Breach of the Peace Detention?

 In other words, Police powers to search you or confiscate your belongings are tied to one of the two main powers they have under PACE: stop/search and arrest for a criminal offence. As a “breach of the peace” detention is neither of those things, the Police have no power to search you or take your possessions: if they do so, when you are detained only for a breach of the peace, they would not only be committing battery upon you, they would be committing trespass to your goods, and liable in a subsequent civil claim to pay you due compensation. 

Of course, the Police themselves, on arrest for breach of the peace, frequently (deliberately?) overlook or forget this crucial distinction.

How to Tell If a Breach of the Peace Arrest Was Unlawful

Were you committing violence, actually threatening violence or doing something sufficiently unusual and extreme so as to present a real and imminent threat of violence? If the answer is no, then you have been wrongfully arrested. 

Has your detention continued even after the situation has become calm, or you have been removed from the place where it occurred? If yes, then your continued detention from that point on is unlawful, and constitutes false imprisonment. 

Remember, that even if there is a risk of violence, once that risk no longer objectively exists, the power to detain for “breach of the peace” immediately ends.

Case Study: Lancashire Police Found Liable for False Imprisonment

 An excellent example of how the above principles are applied in practice, arises from a claim against the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary, in which I and my team were victorious at trial in March of this year, before HHJ Deane at Preston County Court.

Breach of the Peace Arrest at a Police Station: What Happened?

 In the Summer of 2019, my client, Peter, had come to a Lancashire Police station entirely voluntarily, in fact, as a victim of crime to report an offence which had been committed against him. 

Unfortunately, Peter became involved in a heated argument with several Police officers, which centered around whether or not he was entitled to film them, if they insisted on filming him.

Arguing with Police Officers is not, of course a crime – although that appears to be a blind spot in the training of all too many of them. 

When the three officers, now refusing to take my client’s statement unless he submitted to being filmed, started to leave the public foyer of the station, my client put his foot against the door to stop it closing before he had finished having his say. 

This is not, of course, a tactic with which the Police themselves are unfamiliar – and as Peter was in a public area, it was also not an act of trespass (of which the same can’t be said of many Police “boots over the threshold” manoeuvres in our private homes). 

Peter resting his foot against the door, was also not an act of violence against person or vandalism to property, and hence was not a “breach of the peace.” 

The acts of violence instead came from the opposite direction – one of the officers (an Inspector, no less) started to kick Peter’s foot with his own (to try and dislodge it), causing Peter to exclaim in alarm and state that he would use reasonable force (as we are all entitled under the law to do) if the violence against him continued. 

Sadly, the Inspector now escalated matters further – grabbing hold of Peter he pushed him backwards into the foyer, and was joined by the other two officers, who grabbed and restrained Peter, despite the fact that far from fighting back he was now, in alarm and distress, attempting to exit the Station. 

One of the officers at least seemed to recognise this, saying to Peter (as the officers held his arms) –  “Are you going to leave the Police Station?” 

Peter immediately said that he would leave – but this simple resolution to the situation was callously overridden by the Inspector who had started it all, and who now snapped “Lock him up.” 

Peter was then taken by van, in handcuffs, to another Police station, miles away – Preston Custody Centre – and detained there for hours, without any clear purpose, and without ever being taken before a Magistrates Court to be “bound over to keep the peace” (if that was the supposed reason). The Police had also confiscated Peter’s personal belongings, which, as explained above, they have a power to do under an arrest for a criminal offence, but not under the common law for a breach of the peace arrest. 

In reality, I strongly felt that Peter’s treatment and detention was motivated by the opposite of the preventative purpose of “breach of the peace” powers: it was driven by a Police desire to punish Peter for what the Police, and in particular the Inspector, considered to be disobedience and disrespect on his part. This was a gross misuse of breach of the peace powers, and Her Honour Judge Deane agreed with our analysis.

Why the Court Found the Arrest Unlawful

 Granting judgment for Peter, she found that the officers of Lancashire Constabulary had committed against him acts of battery, false imprisonment and trespass to his property.

False Imprisonment, Battery and Trespass to Property: The Judge’s Findings 

The judge found that although Peter’s attitude towards the officers was disrespectful, uncooperative and even unpleasant, nothing he did constituted a threat of violence and in reality the Inspector was ‘arresting’ Peter not because he feared violence but because he was ‘fed up’ with his ‘disobedience’ – in essence, because Peter wouldn’t remove his foot from the door. Peter’s statement that he would use “reasonable force” if the officer kicked him again, was correctly ruled by the judge to be a defensive comment, and not a threat of impending violence. 

Even if that had amounted to a breach of the peace on behalf of my client, which the Judge found it hadn’t, she noted that in any event he should have been immediately released upon his agreement to the other officer’s suggestion, made moments later, that he now leave the Police Station. 

On arrival at the Custody desk in Preston, even the Police records indicate that Peter was presenting as “calm and co- operative” but nevertheless he was locked up in the cells for hours, just as he would have been if he were being investigated for a criminal offence. Thus did Lancashire Police lose another opportunity to end Peter’s unlawful detention. 

The Judge also ruled that the seizure of Peter’s personal belongings would have been unlawful even had he been legitimately arrested for breach of the peace, as the common law does not bestow such search-and-confiscation powers upon Police.

Compensation Awarded Following Unlawful Police Detention

 Peter now stands entitled to receive thousands of pounds of compensation from Lancashire Constabulary, the final amount pending assessment by the judge, plus of course his legal costs; but he has already received the most important thing of all – the vindication of the Court and the upholding of his fundamental rights.

Can Police Arrest You Simply for Being Disrespectful?

 Police Officers can’t invoke “Breach of the Peace” as an adjunct to their ego. Merely frustrating or disobeying an officer of the law, are not in themselves unlawful acts, and if an officer says they are, then he is simply using his uniform to unlawfully pull rank on a civilian.

What To Do If You Have Been Wrongfully Detained for Breach of the Peace

Breach of the Peace is not a “Go to Jail” card that the Police can play once they get fed up arguing with you; it is contingent on violence, not bad attitude, language, disturbance or disrespect. The “rude” health of our society requires that Police do not abuse or over-use this power. If you have been detained for breach of the peace, reflect on the commentary I have given in this blog, and contact me to seek legal representation if you feel your liberty has been violated. 

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

This blog has grown through the trust of readers and clients rather than through aggressive marketing or paid promotion. If you feel this article offers genuine insight or practical value, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your feedback plays a meaningful role in helping others identify experienced, specialist advice when it counts. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation

I am providing an update this week on a case which I have blogged about several times – that of my client Scott Barratt – a man of the upmost good character who, in a case of inexcusable ‘mistaken identity’, was forced onto his hands and knees at taser point by PC Kirkwood of Lincolnshire Police and then, whilst he was in this utterly submissive and defenceless position, was deliberately kicked in the face by the Officer, who called him a “f*****g b*****d!”

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human. 

The Law of the Land, or the Law of the Streets? Police Officers and Vigilante Justice

 PC Kirkwood had unreasonably mistaken my client for a bicycle thief whom he was pursuing, and had then decided to administer some vigilante ‘justice’ to his captive – breaking both the bounds of the law and Scott’s nose in the process.

 Crown Court Trial and CPS Failures in Police Assault Prosecutions

Scott was first denied justice when PC Kirkwood was acquitted of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) at Nottingham Crown Court in February 2024, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), whose job was to supposedly secure the conviction of the Officer, made the bizarre decision not to call the key witness i.e. Scott himself, preferring to present their case on the basis of the Officer’s body camera footage only.  Crucially, this deprived Scott, as the victim, of his voice and left PC Kirkwood as the only character ‘on stage’ – and therefore the natural magnet for the sympathies of the Judge and Jury.   

Lincolnshire Police PSD Declares Officer’s Actions “Reasonable”

Be that as it may, Scott hoped that the Police’s own internal disciplinary system would give him some measure of justice, at the second time of asking – only for Lincolnshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) to declare that PC Kirkwood’s actions were “Reasonable, proportionate and necessary”, delivering a finding that the Officer had done nothing wrong.   

Overturning Incorrect Police Misconduct Decisions through the IOPC

At this point, I was able to bring my experience and expertise in overturning incorrect Police misconduct decisions to bear on behalf of Scott, and I persuaded the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) to quash the PSD decision, and to order that PC Kirkwood should face a gross misconduct hearing. 

Even this was not the end of the fight, however, as my client and I ran up against the type of passive-aggressive resistance to external criticism which is, frankly, part of the DNA of PSD, and Policing culture as a whole.   

The Mishandling of Police Misconduct Hearings in England and Wales

I have written many times before about how dysfunctional the Police complaints and misconduct system is because of the huge extent of pro-police bias at its heart.   

In the words of Baroness Louise Casey, author of the 2022-23 reports into culture and standards of behaviour in the Metropolitan Police which was part of the Profession’s post-mortem following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Police Officer –  

“There are moments when I have looked at the cases with people I’ve listened to and I have wondered what exactly would constitute gross misconduct in order to get them out of the force.”  

Police Misconduct Panels and the Exclusion of Victim Testimony

Just as the Crown Prosecution Service had done, the Chair of the Misconduct Panel (Assistant Chief Constable Nicole Mayo) debarred Scott himself from giving evidence at the hearing, determining that hearing from the victim himself was not required in order for her to address the allegations against the (now recently retired) PC Kirkwood.   

For the second time, therefore, at a crucial point in the justice process, Scott was deprived of his voice, and his absence from the witness roster had predictable consequences.  Unopposed by his victim, Kirkwood was able to tug on the heartstrings of the Misconduct Panel members and make the following false assertions which my client was unable to challenge –  

• Kirkwood was allowed to claim that he did not use a “full swing” of his foot, and only cut Scott’s nose “slightly” with “the lace part of the boot”.
• He denied fracturing Scott’s nose, claiming it was “already wonky” from an old break and asserted that he had “considered calling the Complainant a liar” over the nature of his injury.
• He further went on to outrageously assert that Scott had told him “You probably did me a favour as it’s always had that wonkiness”.  

Shockingly, the Panel had apparently not anticipated that Kirkwood would try and obfuscate the force he had used and the extent of the injury he had caused, which you might think surprising naivety from Police professionals whose role is to gather evidence to prove a case in the face of denial.

Not only had the Assistant Chief Constable explicitly refused Scott’s request to give evidence, no medical or expert evidence was put before the Panel either. As the Regulation 43 report issued by the Panel at the conclusion of the hearing limply acknowledged – “There was limited evidence before the Panel of the physical and emotional harm caused to the Complainant report.”  

Key findings of the Police Gross Misconduct Panel

The key findings of the Panel were as follows –  

• PC Kirkwood had acted out of anger
• Scott was “compliant” with the Officer’s instructions, and not resisting or threatening him in any way
• Kirkwood’s use of force – delivered to a “red” area of the body (the head) thereby risking severe harm to Scott – was disproportionate, unnecessary and unreasonable
• Kirkwood’s use of the words “f*****g b*****d” – were disrespectful and abusive.  

Gross Misconduct Found – But No Meaningful Sanction Imposed

In conclusion, it was found that (former) PC Kirkwood had committed Gross Misconduct – but by way of further insult to (quite literal) injury to my client, the Panel decided that rather than declaring that Kirkwood would have been dismissed without notice had he still been a serving Officer (and thereby added to the Police Barred List, preventing him from ever returning to the profession), the appropriate sanction was just a “Final Written Warning.” This means that had Kirkwood not retired, he would still be patrolling our streets and without suffering any real penalty. It was a rap on the knuckles for a kick in the face.  

Victim Response to the Police Misconduct Outcome

As my client eloquently put it, in words which it is a crying shame the Misconduct Panel could not hear, because they didn’t let him speak –  

“It seems insane to me that even with his version of events been taken as truth, they’d theoretically be happy for this man to continue to work in this position and with potential power over the public.” 

Potential Judicial Review and Further Action against the Misconduct Findings

I now intend to write to the IOPC and invite them to appeal this outcome by means of a Judicial Review. I would hope that they will be as disappointed as we are at the lightness of Kirkwood’s ‘sentence’, and the mishandling of the Misconduct Hearing in terms of the failure to call Scott as a witness or assemble appropriate medical evidence.  

Civil Claim against Lincolnshire Police

Regardless of the IOPC response, matters won’t rest there, however. I have already instituted civil court proceedings against the Chief Constable on behalf of Scott, and firmly expect that Lincolnshire Police will soon come to the negotiating table in light of the Gross Misconduct finding, and the weight of the evidence I have gathered in my client’s favour. Thanks to the failings of the CPS and the Police themselves, Scott has now twice been denied justice and accountability – but that won’t happen for a third time.  

Further Reading on Police Misconduct and Civil Claims

 Further reading on this case and related subjects can be found in the links above and below – 

• The Regulation 43 outcome report for PC Kirkwood’s case, published by Lincolnshire Police
• How I overturned another incorrect misconduct decision and won £100,000 from Lincolnshire Police for my client Shane Price

How you can help

Making specialist legal knowledge accessible is a core part of why I write this blog. If you believe that clear, independent information about police powers and civil liberties is important, I would greatly appreciate you taking a moment to leave a 5-star review. Each review helps ensure that those searching for answers can find this site — and the help they deserve. Thank you for your support.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation for his clients.

This week’s blog post discusses the case of a man who suffered a Police raid on his home despite having attended the Police Station for interview the day before. The “wanted” marker on the Police computer system had not been removed. Later, the Police sought to limit their liability by arguing that whilst the incident was a “data breach” it wasn’t a wrongful arrest (or false imprisonment). In response, I commenced civil court proceedings, and won substantial damages for my client.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Arrested Despite Full Co-Operation

 In December 2022, my client David was a suspect for an alleged offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On 6 December, David was circulated as ‘wanted’ on the Police National Computer system (PNC).

Police Powers of Arrest and the Necessity Test Under PACE 

Suspicion of an offence does not entitle Police Officers in England & Wales to arrest you, unless there is also necessity for the arrest in accordance with Section 24 (4-5) of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and Code G of the same Act. This is designed to properly respect and protect the liberty of individuals when there is no risk of immediate harm to others and a criminal investigation can be progressed in less intrusive ways. It is an outgrowth of British traditions of personal liberty and democratic freedom. Necessity Criteria: Why Failure To Consider Alternatives to Arrest is a Police Abuse of Power – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor 

In this case, PC Moss of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) correctly recognised that there was no necessity to arrest David, if he ‘came in voluntarily’ and therefore on 7 December made contact to invite him in for a voluntary interview.  

David engaged with this request, and attended his local Police station the following day (8 December) for interview. He fully co-operated with the Police, gave his account (denying any wrongdoing) and left. 

Police Failure to Remove “Wanted” Marker from the PNC

 That should have been the end of the matter, but unfortunately it wasn’t, because of one of those ‘careless catastrophes’ that can occur when human error and great power over people’s lives intersect: PC Moss failed to remove David’s ‘wanted’ marker from the PNC. 

Police Raid and Wrongful Arrest at Home

 On 9 December David was asleep in bed, when he was awoken by two GMP officers drilling their way through his door; bleary-eyed and barely dressed, David at first couldn’t understand what was happening.  

The officers entered David’s flat, handcuffed, and arrested him for the same harassment offence about which he had been interviewed only the day before.  

David pleaded the truth to the officers who, thankfully, took the time to check what he was saying, rather than just carting him off to custody – and when it was confirmed that he had in fact been dealt with yesterday, his handcuffs were removed and he was de-arrested.  

The officers departed, leaving David with a hole in his door – and, far worse, although his wrongful arrest had only last 10 minutes, a shattered sense of safety and security in his home and lack of trust in the justice system. 

Compensation Claim Following Unlawful Arrest and Police Misconduct

 A few weeks later, it was confirmed that David was no longer a suspect for the offence; but along with this vindication he also wanted restitution for the violation of his home and liberty.  

David therefore turned to me to represent him, recognising my expertise as an actions against the Police Solicitor who has successfully represented thousands of victims of similar torts (civil wrongs) throughout England and Wales. 

Apology, but Evasion?  

 A complaint was lodged with Greater Manchester Police and Detective Inspector Ogdon offered the following apology to my client –  

“In this instance PC Moss should have known that [David] was circulated wanted on the PNC and then subsequently cancelled [David’s] PNC marker as soon as he attended at the police station and was interviewed… he should also have communicated this to the [Arrest] team to ensure they didn’t make any attempts to arrest [David]. 

PC Moss’s failure to do this led to the unnecessary damage to [David’s] front door and surround but more importantly caused [David’s] unnecessary arrest which resulted in him suffering a traumatic experience which has had a detrimental impact on his mental health in the longer term”.  

Police Attempt to Limit Liability to a Data Protection Breach

The Police subsequently admitted liability for a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 in the form of PC Moss’s failure to remove the “Wanted” marker against David’s name from the PNC. However, they went on to argue that they were only liable for a ‘data breach’ and not for trespass to person or property, nor false imprisonment, because the two officers who attended at David’s home on 9 December had “an honest and reasonable suspicion” that he was indeed still ‘wanted’ – because of PC Moss’s failure to update them or to remove the wanted marker from the PNC.   

In other words – the mistake was PC Moss’s, not theirs, and because PC Moss was not himself the arresting officer, David’s arrest was lawful.  

Why This Case Was About Far More Than Just a Data Breach 

 The Police must not be allowed to diminish our age-old civil liberties – the right not to suffer trespass to our homes, assault and battery or false imprisonment – by hiding behind the technicalities of a data breach in the computer age.  

I was determined to win for David compensation which reflected the full extent of the wrongdoing he had suffered and the effect which it had upon him.  

I am often faced with this sort of superficially smart manoeuvring on the part of Police Forces, but am pleased to say that I know my way around the case law better than they do, and on behalf of my clients I will not let them get away with this. 

Parker v Chief Constable of Essex Police and Wrongful Arrest Law

 In the case of Parker v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2018] EWCA Civ 2788 Appeal: Parker v CC Essex police the Court of Appeal found that the Claimant, Mr Parker (aka the entertainer Michael Barrymore) had been unlawfully arrested on suspicion of murder, because the arresting officer himself, PC Cootes, did not himself have sufficient knowledge of the case to form, in his own head, the grounds of reasonable suspicion and necessity to arrest; instead PC Cootes was acting on behalf of another officer, DC Jenkins, who was “well aware of the evidence” but had been “detained in  traffic”.  Nevertheless, the Court decided, Mr Parker was entitled to ‘nominal’ (i.e extremely low) damages only, as he could have been lawfully arrested by the officer with the requisite knowledge. 

The reverse of this point applies to cases such as David’s. If there are officers within the same Force, in this case PC Moss, with knowledge which would completely negate any necessity to arrest, then that fact renders the arrest by other officers unlawful as being objectively unreasonable, even if those other officers, innocent of the true facts subjectively believe their acts to be reasonable.

Aggravated and Exemplary Damages in Police Claims

GMP were clearly seeking to water down their liability, and minimise the payment of damages to David; their first offer to David had been a mere £2,000, however –  

• Liability, as I have argued above, was not restricted to a Data breach only, but also the civil torts of trespass, battery and false imprisonment – entitling David to aggravated and/or exemplary damages # in addition to basic compensation;
• The extent of David’s injury (the psychiatric impact) went far beyond the actual 10-minute length of his detention, and I was able to prove this through the use of expert evidence.

£20,000 Compensation Settlement for Wrongful Arrest

It was on this basis that, after instituting Court proceedings on behalf of David, I was able to get GMP to settle his claim for £20,000 damages (ten times their initial offer), plus legal costs. 

So, if the Police wrongly come knocking down your door, as they did David’s, do what he did in response – come knocking on mine.  

You can also read here about other similar cases I have handled –  

• Birmingham man recovers substantial compensation following Police failure to update the Police National Computer (PNC) – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor
• Metropolitan Police failure to update PNC leading to man being arrested twice on the same Warrant results in compensation pay out
• Police Data Error Sends Bailiffs After Wrong Person
• Lack of Necessity to Arrest .

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

I publish these articles regularly to demystify police powers and to help people understand when those powers have been misused. If this post has clarified your rights or reinforced the importance of police accountability, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your review helps point others towards experienced representation at a time when clear guidance really matters. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation