Blog

Highlighted in the news recently have been some shocking statistics in relation to rape investigations: victims face an agonising average wait of almost two years before the trial begins, if the case even gets that far. Figures for the 12 months to September 2021 showed that only 1.3% of the 63,136 rape offences recorded by the Police resulted in a suspect being charged – and this in an era when the video and scientific tools available to help secure a conviction are stronger than ever.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, has acknowledged a “crisis of public trust” over how the criminal justice system deals with rape and other sexual offences. The Crown Prosecution Service also highlighted how few of the reported cases are actually passed out of Police hands by being referred by local Forces to the CPS – a mere 2,747 rape cases being sent by the Police to the CPS in 2020/21.

When similar failings were in the spotlight last year, a joint report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate lamented a “deep division” between the Police and CPS as to how to solve this problem, identifying “continuing underlying tensions between the Police and the CPS, and a desire on both sides to blame the other for low charge and conviction rates.”

Home office statistics for 2021 also indicate that over 40% of rape investigations were closed because the victim did not support further action: that should not be interpreted as absolving the Police from blame, however. In many cases – such as the case study which I will present below – the courage and determination of victims to persevere through the terrible ordeal of a rape investigation and prosecution is severely tested by Police incompetence, callousness – or just simply, lack of faith in the victim in the first place.

Behind the Statistics: A Case Study

My client, whom I will refer to as Emma in this blog, was 16 years old when she was viciously attacked and raped by a stranger in the early hours of the morning of 23 August 2019. During the attack Emma sustained multiple injuries, including being choked by the rapist, and her facial piercing was ripped out. She was also robbed, in that the attacker took her mobile phone and bank card.

Following the attack Emma fled to a nearby hotel and spoke to the night porter, who called her mother. The attack was reported to the police by Emma’s father, shortly afterwards.

Two Police Response Officers then attended and the subsequent investigation was recorded on a Crime Log. Emma provided an initial account of the attack to the officers; one of the officers did write a witness statement following this interaction but was not asked for it until December 2019, whilst the other officer did not produce a witness statement at all. Sadly, this was just the beginning of a catalogue of errors and failures which would blight Emma’s case until its conclusion.

On a log entry at 05:53 the Response Officers noted an indentation in the sand on the beach where Emma indicated the attack had taken place, however the scene was not secured nor was it forensically examined, at any point.

Using a “Find My Phone” application Emma’s father was able to direct the Officers to his daughter’s mobile phone, which had been either discarded or dropped by the attacker on a nearby footpath. This was secured as evidence and placed into a sealed evidence bag.

At 06:38 officers took a brief account from the hotel night porter which differed slightly from Emma’s account as the night porter stated that Emma had initially alleged that she had been attacked by her boyfriend. Also, the night porter stated that he had not noticed any injuries to Emma.

Doubt, Distrust, and Incompetence

The case was then assigned to DC Alice Jones of CID as the Officer In Case (OIC) and supervised by DS Steven Barnes.

That morning, at a time unknown, DS Barnes retrieved Emma’s mobile phone, still in the evidence bag, from the evidence store and ripped a hole in the evidence bag in order to charge the phone. Thereafter DS Barnes circumnavigated the phone’s PIN by means unknown and accessed the phone’s data. Following this he returned the phone to the property store in the ripped evidence bag.

DS Barnes made no written record of this, and did not inform anyone of his actions; furthermore, he had not obtained Emma’s permission to access the phone.

Later that day DC Jones attended Emma’s home and talked her through the process of the investigation. Emma and her father immediately formed the impression that DC Jones did not believe Emma. Shortly after the meeting, DC Jones called Emma’s father to inform him that she thought there were a number of inconsistencies with Emma’s account, although she did not provide any specifics.

Emma’s mother noted a number of injuries to her daughter, including subconjunctival haemorrhaging to both eyes, which Emma took photographs of that afternoon, and again over the next few days. Despite the family making DC Jones aware, these photos were not seized as evidence, raising further concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation, and the attitude and commitment of the officers leading it.

That evening Emma was examined by a Forensic Medical Examiner who took intimate swabs and noted bruising to her left arm, right leg and left eye as well as subconjunctival haemorrhaging to both eyes. The Examiner noted that the injuries were consistent with Emma’s account of the attack. Emma’s clothing worn during the attack was also seized as evidence; however none of this forensic evidence was submitted for DNA analysis at this stage. House to house enquiries were made on the same day; however no report of the outcome of this was made.

On 24 August Emma provided an “ABE” (achieving best evidence) interview, which was consistent with her previous accounts of the attack and confirmed that she had had consensual sexual activity with her boyfriend earlier that night, following which she was attacked by the stranger on the beach. Giving little consideration as to the potential psychological impact, DC Jones then requested that Emma do a “walk-through” of the crime scene the following day. Emma was very uncomfortable with this suggestion, however, believing it to be proper procedure in cases of sexual assault and wishing to assist with the investigation in any way, she agreed to the walk-through.

On 25 August Emma accompanied DC Jones to the Beach to do the walk-through. To my client’s shock she found that the scene, a public beach, had not been secured and had been open to members of the public since the attack. Emma found the experience of the walk-through to be deeply traumatic, as DC Jones callously asked Emma to “re-enact” various elements of the attack, such as walking to the sea without turning around, which she had been ordered to do by the rapist after the attack. Furthermore, contrary to Force policy, DC Jones did not record the walk-through and Emma’s Sexual Offences Liaison Officer was unaware that it had occurred.

The Police now spoke to Emma’s boyfriend; however, this conversation was not video/ audio recorded and he was not asked to complete a witness statement. Emma’s boyfriend later told her that he found the questioning by the Officers to be very “strange”, in that he felt he was treated as a suspect, and that he was being pressured to confess to the attack. This further confirmed to our client that the Officers did not believe her account i.e that they did not truly think she had been attacked by a stranger that night – or in other words, their working premise appeared to be to at least doubt, if not actively disbelieve, this 16 year old victim of rape.

CCTV and Forensic Errors

In today’s ‘surveillance society’ the ubiquity of CCTV cameras in urban locations gives the Police numerous additional ‘eyes’ on criminal occurrences – provided of course, prompt action is taken to secure the footage from diverse businesses/ local authorities before it suffers routine deletion; it is hardly rocket science therefore, to make the preservation of potentially relevant CCTV footage a top priority in the investigation of any crime, let alone one as serious as rape.

However, it was not until 25 August that the Police identified possible CCTV footage opportunities and began to make enquiries for the same; somewhat unsurprisingly, the local train station responded on 29 August that relevant CCTV footage had been automatically deleted after three days.

On 30 August DC Jones retrieved CCTV footage from a nearby beach café. DC Jones then spoke to Emma and her father and informed them that it showed nothing of relevance, thereby implying that this further undermined Emma’s account. Emma was deeply distressed on hearing this, as she felt that without such evidence she was unlikely to be believed, given the coldness and apparent hostility which the Police were displaying towards her.

However, the incorrect footage had been obtained, as it covered the 24 hours after the attack took place. This mistake remained unnoticed for some time despite the footage bearing a clear date and time stamp. By the time that the mistake was identified, the correct footage had been overwritten. Emma was not informed of this gross Police error until much later.

CCTV from local Council cameras was also obtained. One camera did capture the rapist fleeing the scene following the attack, however as no further evidence had been found linking this CCTV to the attack, the Police failed to realise the relevance at that time.

On 2 September it was suggested by the Detective Inspector who had been on duty on the night of the attack, that the case should be referred to the Major Crime Investigation Team.

During this time, entries made on the Crime Log and emails exchanged between DC Jones, DS Barnes and other officers expressed concern about inconsistencies between Emma’s account of the attack compared to the initial account provided by the hotel porter. The officers openly questioned Emma’s veracity, suggesting either that she had been attacked by, or had had further consensual sexual activity with her boyfriend, and that her injuries were self-inflicted.

On 4 September DC Jones informed Emma that due to a lack of any evidence supporting her account the forensic samples had not been sent off for analysis. DC Jones then made it clear to Emma that she could ‘choose’ to not proceed further with the case. If there was any doubt as to what DC Jones herself wanted Emma to do, this was dispelled when the officer spoke to a colleague from the Serious Crime Analysis Section on 13 September, arguing that it was not in the public interest to have the forensic evidence examined.

The investigation team seemed to have made up their mind therefore: Emma was lying, and she had not after all been attacked and raped by a stranger on the beach that night. Frankly, it was this mindset which seemed to have guided DC Jones and DS Barnes’ cynical and lackadaisical attitude to the investigation from the very outset.

Despite this, an email from a Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) on 17 September advised sending the samples for analysis any way, as Emma was unlikely to have self-inflicted her injuries. The SOCO also expressed concern that the reasoning of DC Jones to not submit the forensics for analysis would be called into question if someone else was attacked; tragically, this was exactly what happened, only two days after that warning.

The Rapist Strikes Again

On 19 September 2019 the man who had raped Emma, attacked another woman (identified in subsequent Police reports as Female B) on the same beach where Emma has been attacked.

Prompted by the second attack, the forensic evidence collected from my client, including her clothes, swabs, and mobile phone, was at last submitted by the investigation team to SOCO for analysis on 30 September. However, the DNA and fingerprint analysis of Emma’s mobile phone was subsequently refused as the hole in the evidence bag made by DS Barnes had compromised its forensic integrity (although at the time the cause of the hole was unknown).

On 7 October, Emma’s father emailed DC Jones a series of questions regarding her conduct of the investigation – and querying whether the officer had actually believed his daughter prior to the second attack. He received no substantive reply from DC Jones, who later provided an account to the IOPC complaining that she found my client’s father to be “demanding”. Evidently, asking the officer for a competent and compassionate investigation of his daughter’s rape was asking too much?

On 17 October Emma attended an E-FIT appointment. The civilian operator that conducted the appointment seemed inexperienced and although an E-FIT was produced, Emma felt that it was not an accurate reflection of the rapist, as the officer had not paid sufficient attention to her description. The E-FIT operator asked Emma to score the likeness he had produced out of 10, to which she replied that it was between 3 and 5 on the scale. The operator then told her that anything less than a 7 was “probably worthless”. Emma found the operator distant and dismissive throughout the process; his attitude further heightening her concern that the Police were disinterested in her case.

CID Failings Exposed

The cases of Emma and Female B, now jointly referred to as Operation Laurel, were then subject to reviews by the Major Crime Investigation Team (MCIT) and the National Crime Agency (NCA). The report of the NCA expressed concern that “the current resourcing and governance (of Operation Laurel) presents a strong risk of a ‘failed investigation”. This led to MCIT providing increased support to the investigation before assuming responsibility for Operation Laurel on 18 November 2019.

On 20 November a formal statement was taken from the hotel night porter who was the first person Emma had spoken to after the attack. However, due to the passage of time since the incident, he was unable to provide any significant detail above and beyond the brief account provided to the response officers.

On 6 December an officer from MCIT met with Emma and her father, who discussed with him the failings of the CID officers, and how this had significantly undermined the confidence of Emma and her family in the Police. This officer then emailed his supervisor noting a number of concerns regarding the initial investigation.

Emma’s father subsequently submitted a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the officers from CID during the investigation. However, the investigation into the complaint was put on hold until Operation Laurel had concluded.

Justice is Done

On 20 December 2019 the rapist was arrested and charged in relation to both attacks, and three days later the same man was linked to another attack, which had happened on 19 October 2019. He was subsequently convicted of the offences against Emma and the two other victims on 13 October 2020. At the trial, Emma courageously gave live evidence to help secure the rapist’s conviction.

Emma’s complaint, along with the conduct of Operation Laurel as a whole, was then referred to the IOPC. In addition, DS Barnes was also investigated for an offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 for the unlawful accessing of Emma’s mobile phone, for which he received a criminal caution.

During the course of the IOPC investigation, DS Barnes provided an account denying culpability, and instead sought to blame the failings of the investigation on operational demands, and a lack of resources, experienced officers and support from MCIT. DS Barnes claimed that he had expressed his concerns regarding the lack of resources of CID and the inexperience of CID officers on a number of occasions to senior officers, however no action was taken.

DS Barnes was found to have a case to answer for misconduct. The matter proceeded to a misconduct meeting on 6 October 2021 when DS Barnes was issued with a final written warning due to the following derelictions of duty –

1. Did not secure the crime scene or ask SOCO to examine the scene;
2. Failed to ensure that the scene walk-through was recorded or otherwise conducted in accordance with ABE guidelines;
3. Did not ensure that Emma’s injuries were photographed by SOCO, and did not arrange for further photographs to be taken when further signs of injury appeared;
4. Accessed material on Emma’s mobile phone after it had been seized and exhibited, and did not take sufficient steps to ensure that any forensic or digital evidence was preserved, and did not create an auditable record of his actions and decisions;
5. Failed to ensure that the CCTV trawl was undertaken promptly, with the result that some CCTV was lost, and some relevant CCTV evidence was overlooked;
6. Failed to ensure that statements were obtained from key witnesses;
7. Failed to ensure that items were submitted for forensic examination promptly, and in one instance the wrong items were submitted;
8. Did not issue a witness appeal; and
9. Did not believe Emma.

DC Jones was also found to have a case to answer for misconduct and was given management action for her role. In an account provided to the IOPC, DC Jones acknowledged her lack of experience and training with investigations of serious sexual assault and asserted that although she was the OIC, DS Barnes had provided guidance throughout and in effect he had control of the investigation. Having subsequently had additional training to deal with victims of sexual assault, DC Jones now acknowledged the damage to Emma that her actions had caused.

In addition to the failures identified during the investigation of Emma’s case the IOPC also identified further failings in the Police handling of Female B’s case.

During DS Barnes’ misconduct meeting a statement on behalf of my client and her father was read out by the Chair pointing out that had Emma not stayed strong in the face of the adversity and disbelief by the investigating Officers, the rapist might not have been convicted.

Here therefore, is just one illustration of the tragic reality behind the headline statistics with which I began this blog; an investigation littered with basic errors from the start and almost actively undermined by officers who, either through cynicism, prejudice or inexperience, failed to believe the victim – and failed to catch the rapist before two more women had been attacked. No wonder so many rape investigations go nowhere, as this might have done had the perpetrator not struck again.

The Police need to take this criticism to heart, and take the opportunity to improve their attitude towards rape investigations substantially, rather than becoming involved in finger- pointing games with the CPS. The Police are the frontline of these investigations, and no doubt many rape victims ‘drop’ the case because they have every reason to conclude that the Police are not fighting on their side.

At the present time, I continue to represent and assist Emma, who has suffered significant psychological harm from the way the Police handled her case, in seeking appropriate compensation from the relevant force. How much rather she wishes that they had just done their job properly in the first place.

Care, compassion and competence don’t seem too much to ask for, in such traumatic circumstances.

The names of my client, and the Police officers referred to in this blog, have been changed to preserve her anonymity.

Sometimes the best thing to say, is nothing at all.

This is a message seemingly lost on a lot of Police forces when it comes to the thorny issue of ‘apologising’.

Forces seem to acknowledge that in principle they should apologise; but then find themselves, out of pride, unable to do so in practice, or do so only through gritted teeth.

Others use the word ‘apology’ as a form of passive- aggressive weaponry, in contexts where they are paying lip-service to the word – presumably as a public relations exercise – whilst not actually apologising at all: indeed, quite often their supposed apology is closer to being an insult heaped upon the complainant’s injury.

Take for example the following excerpts from a complaint investigation report which one of my clients received from the Metropolitan Police this month:

“Firstly, I would like to apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service about the name used in regards to your son … I believe the wrong surname was used and referred to within the 1st report that was provided to you.” – This is an actual and legitimate apology, albeit for a relatively minor error.

“On behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, I would like to apologise for the fact that you and your family have had to go through this frightening experience, especially given the fact that you were all in your home and had not committed any criminal offence.” – Any suggestion that this was an ‘apology’ was undermined by the conclusion of the complaint investigation which was that, in the opinion of the Police, the frightening experience they put my client and her family through was an entirely reasonable and proportionate one, and involved no Police wrongdoing.

“On behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service I apologise for the fact that it was necessary to search your address and I fully understand how this intrusion would have added to the upset caused…” – An apology must be something more than a mere expression of sympathy for somebody else’s bad luck: it must involve real contrition and an admission of fault on the part of the ‘apologiser’: here there was again no acceptance of any fault on the part of the MPS.

“On behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service I apologise for the fact that you believe that your son was racially profiled and that because your son is black, the police chose to use a disproportionate and excessive armed response.” – This is again not an apology (for the report then purports to exonerate all officers involved of racial bias/ prejudice) and indeed appears to be less even than an expression of ‘third party sympathy’ (I’m sorry that happened to you) and more a species of gaslighting: far more provocative when you think about what it is saying in the wider context of the Police response, which is really this: “I don’t apologise for the fact that you wrongly believe your son was racially profiled, but I will taunt, mock or otherwise belittle you by using that word in a context where we both know it’s not meant, and is in fact inferring that your judgment is wrong/ impaired or that you are overly sensitive…”

On the face of those statements, a casual observer might think that the Metropolitan Police Service had offered no fewer than four apologies to my client. In the wider context of the report however, it is absolutely clear that only in regards to the first statement was a real apology being offered, and that the powerful word “sorry”, which can do so much good, both in the context of repairing harm done to an individual who has suffered Police misconduct, and in building wider public and community trust, was on three occasions being taken in vain.

Sorry Is the Hardest Word

This brings me back on to the subject of my client Brett Chamberlain’s case, about which I have previously blogged. Brett received a significant amount of compensation, plus legal costs, in recognition of the fact that he had been unlawfully arrested by Devon & Cornwall Police, a claim which it was necessary for him to bring after his initial complaint had been wrongly rejected (with the Police even going as far at that stage of still accusing him of a non-existent crime of ‘bilking’).

Shamefully, after agreeing to apologise to Brett as a key part of the settlement deal, Devon & Cornwall have failed to do so, hiding behind the following sham apology issued by the Deputy Chief Constable-

“The force has the expectation of the highest standards from its officers and staff and we are sorry that you feel these have not been upheld in this matter. The force has taken on board any lessons which can be learned to ensure it continues to offer the best possible service to the public.”

As can be noted, if the three words I have highlighted were deleted, the message would at least constitute an actual, if somewhat lukewarm, apology; with those words as written, however, it is rendered not an apology at all.

Although I pressed Devon & Cornwall for a full and proper letter of apology, they have maintained their stance, out of what I can only assume is pride and petulance: sorry seems to be such a difficult word for them that I am drawn to question whether there are actually any grown-ups in the room, on the Police side of this debate.

Brett himself has adopted a far more mature and reasonable approach to this issue than the entire institution of Devon & Cornwall Police, from front line officers to senior management, via the legal department, seem capable of, as he recently wrote to me in the following terms-

“Funny how they’re not too fussed about dishing out £5K but a letter of apology is just too much to ask…It’s not really an apology when it’s forced out of them anyway. There’s little to no chance of reforming the Police when they can’t even admit their mistakes in a relatively trivial case. That’s why guys like you do a great job of holding them to account…”

On many occasions, it is my job to teach the Police what the law actually says, and what the parameters of their power within it truly are. Is it also necessary for me to teach them that professional communication and honest dealings should not involve the use of weasel words or doublespeak phrases as barricades to hide behind? Sorry should mean sorry, Chief Constable – and please don’t insult us all by saying it, when you don’t mean it – or indeed when intending the opposite of the word, you mendaciously add insult to injury.

Say sorry honestly, or not at all.

This is the story of my client Hannah Currie who was made the victim not only of Police trespass and violence in her own home, but also – far worse in many ways – a mendacious attempt to frame her for a criminal offence, probably as a tactical ‘smokescreen’ to hide the Police officers’ own flagrantly unlawful actions.

Trespass and Lies

On the morning of 20 January 2018, Hannah’s 12-month-old son Dharma was bitten by the family’s pet beagle.

Although the bite was not severe, Hannah was understandably very distressed and protective of her young son; she immediately washed the wound out and then she and her partner Craig, Dharma’s father, drove Dharma to their local hospital.

The treating hospital nurse made a statement later that day in which he recorded that on examination: “there was no evidence of any severe damage and (the injuries) appeared more consistent with a dog having a quick ‘nip’ and release”. The nurse had: “no immediate concerns for the child (who) …looked well looked after and healthy and the parents seemed genuinely concerned and as far as I could tell it appeared an innocent accident.”

However, Craig became angry/verbally abusive towards the nurse, when he questioned what the couple intended to do about the dog.

Upon leaving the hospital, Hannah in fact telephoned a Veterinary practice and arranged for the dog to be immediately euthanized. Meanwhile the nurse at the hospital had phoned the Police to report Craig’s aggressive behaviour, in the context of concern for Dharma’s welfare.

One of the officers tasked to attend from West Mercia Police later made a statement, recording that he and other officers were directed to: “conduct a safe and well check on the child and also to ensure that the dog was removed from the house… The matter involving the dog bite needed to be investigated but providing that the child was considered to be safe and well and that the dog was no longer at the address, then this matter could be dealt with in slow-time on another occasion”.

At approximately 16.20 that evening, four Officers of West Mercia Police – PC Elland, PC Charles, PC Davies and PC Middleton – attended my client’s home. Upon Hannah opening the outer porch door, which swung outwards, PC Elland immediately held the door open to prevent it from being closed.

PC Charles then asked to come in. Hannah refused entry because of a previous unwelcome incident involving officers of West Mercia Police; she asked PC Elland to let go of the door and move away. PC Elland refused. A female officer, PC Davies, then asked if she and Hannah could talk. Hannah indicated that she was prepared to discuss matters with this officer at the front door, if the other officers moved away, however PC Elland again refused. Hannah explicitly stated that the officers were trespassing on her property (being on the driveway) and that their implied right to be on the premises was removed.

PC Davies advised that they had attended: “To make sure Dharma is okay and to have a chat to you about it and to your partner.” Hannah explained the circumstances of the earlier incident, that she had immediately sought medical treatment for her son, that she had taken the dog to the Vets that afternoon and had the dog put to sleep, and that her son was safe. PC Davies replied: “I’m sure that’s the case”.

Hannah now returned inside her home, shutting the inner door behind her, leaving the officers at the outer porch door.

Indeed, PC Charles then telephoned the Vets who confirmed that the family’s dog had been euthanized. PC Charles then notified all officers present of this information.

Hannah, inside the house, received a telephone call from DS Thomas. DS Thomas demanded that, although Hannah had taken appropriate action as regards medical attention for Dharma and putting the dog down, she must nevertheless allow the officers entry into the premises, otherwise Dharma would be taken into care. Hannah refused – but did explain that she was willing to speak to officers the next day once she and her partner had got over events and/or to speak to PC Davies on her driveway, if the other Officers present left.

In my opinion, this was a more than reasonable suggestion, but meanwhile the original four Officers outside the family’s home had now been joined by PC Hornby, PS Ainsworth, PC Pritchard and PC Scully and at approximately 16.45, PS Ainsworth directed that forcible entry be made into the premises, purportedly under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

In other words, the Police ‘welfare visit’ – despite officers having seen the family, and having established that the dog was no longer in the house (indeed, had been put down) – now escalated into a Police siege and assault of the property.

Section 17 of PACE grants Police officers powers to enter and to search private premises in certain specific situations, generally connected with exercising powers of arrest – however, there was no suggestion even on the Police version of events that they had evidence indicating that any criminal offence had been committed, or that they were seeking to arrest either Hannah or Craig. The remaining justification for exercising a power of entry under Section 17 was the emergency power to enter in order to “save life and limb” but such a situation manifestly did not apply; the dog was gone, Dharma had been treated appropriately at hospital on his parents’ initiative, and the only threat to any occupant of the house was now coming from the Police themselves.

In such a situation, the Police had no right to be on Hannah’s driveway, let alone inside her home, and all of their actions taken after she had instructed them to go away were as trespassers. Hannah was entirely in the right in what she had said to the officers, but they, of course, had might on their side.

PC Elland and PC Pritchard now gained entry into the rear garden by lifting a garden fence which was damaged in the process; the two officers then further gained entry into the premises via an unlocked back patio door.

PS Ainsworth and PC Hornby also gained entry. Having entered the house, PS Ainsworth unholstered his taser, shouting: “Taser”, and then pointed his Taser gun not only towards Hannah and Craig but also – in effect – Dharma who at that point was being cradled in his mother’s arms. The four Officers were at this point in a back room of the house, which connected to the living room.

Hannah was standing in the doorway between the back room and the living room with her son cradled in her left arm. She again told the officers to: “leave”. The officers refused, and indeed one officer now touched Hannah’s arms to which she shouted: “Get off me…assault.”

Again Hannah explained all of the actions she had taken after her son had been bitten. An officer believed to be PC Hornby replied: “We do need to chat, we’d rather do that on calm terms”. Hannah quite fairly responded that: “the one guy (PC Elland) was asked to leave and I said to the lady (PC Davies) if he moves to the end of the driveway, I will happily speak to her”. PC Hornby asked: “Are you willing to talk to her?” and Hannah replied: “When you’re off my property”. PC Hornby then stated: “There are certain things we need to do, we cannot leave the house right now, we do need to have a chat”.

Hannah yet again explained background events and asserted that she had taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances. PC Hornby confirmed that he knew that their dog had been euthanized: “But it would be remiss of us not to check your address for other dogs”. Hannah replied: “We haven’t got any other dogs”.

This was of course entirely true, and the Police had no evidence to suggest otherwise; they had no excuse for intruding on the family’s property – but as is often the case, Police arrogance and assertion of their power seemed to trump lesser matters such as the letter of the law…

Indeed, at this moment, other officers began to force entry to the outer porch door which caused Hannah to become distracted, and PC Hornby and PS Ainsworth stepped past her and into the living room.

PC Elland, who was still in the back room, was now standing at the living room doorway and Hannah directed him to stay where he was and raised her right hand in a defensive manner chest high, but did not touch PC Elland.

Nevertheless, PC Elland surged forwards and grabbed Hannah’s right arm, forcing it behind her back and in doing so, twisted her around. Hannah protested: “Get off me” to which PC Elland shouted out: “Assault” and a second officer then stated: “You’re under arrest for assault”. Whilst the officer was manhandling Hannah in this way, she was still holding Dharma in her left arm, and thus the officer’s actions were now putting the child at risk.

Hannah was understandably reluctant to let go of her son, but after a short while said: “Get this person (PC Elland) behind me to let go of my arm and then I will let go of my son”. PC Elland however continued to manhandle Hannah such that she screamed: “You’re hurting me, you’re hurting me”. At this, Dharma also began to scream in distress. Eventually, after a short period, Hannah released her grip on Dharma (who was taken by an officer) causing both mother and child further distress.

With Dharma ‘out of the way’ Hannah was then violently taken to the ground by the officers, and during that process, she felt pressure on her ear, scalp, arms and shoulder, and a knee on the side of her head. She was then handcuffed to the rear.

Hannah again correctly asserted that she had been in her rights to refuse entry; an officer responded that she was not.

Hannah was then caused further distress by an officer stating that Dharma would be taken into care unless a suitable family member could care for her son; she therefore had to provide her brother’s name and address to the Police. She was then taken away from her son and placed into custody at Hereford Police Station.

After Hannah had been taken away, the officers continued to search her house, including upstairs and then into the loft where boxes were searched; what on Earth were they looking for? Being familiar with the mental play-book for officers in this sort of situation, I would guess that it was evidence of an unconnected crime to ‘retrospectively’ justify the officers illegal entry into the premises in the first place.

The custody record subsequently created at the Police Station indicated that Hannah had been arrested at 16.55 by PC Pritchard for “assaulting a police officer”.

The custody record described the circumstances of arrest as:

“Officers have been at the address and entered to check on the 1 year old child, Officers have attempted to enter the address and the detained has barged at the Officer and it is alleged that the detainee has swung a fist at the Officer”.

Hannah was processed, searched and then obliged to provide her fingerprints and DNA sample and be photographed, before being incarcerated in a cell.

At 19.40, PC Charles then further arrested Hannah for being the owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury.

An officer believed to be PS Ainsworth then contacted Social Services to report events. A call at 20.29 on 20.01.18 was recorded by a social worker as follows:

…”both parents were aggressive, verbally and physically and had (sic) not regard for Dharma’s welfare.

Father was told that a taser would be used so mother stood in front holding Dharma to protect father. She then hit a police officer while holding Dharma and would not let him go. Police had to restrain her by one arm. They begged her to hand him over but she continued to resist. The home address is being described as filthy and covered in mess and clutter. Police have used body cam to record it.

Parents will receive bail conditions that will not allow them contact with Dharma.”

At 21.13, Hannah was seen by a Health Professional, who described Hannah as being “very emotional and tearful… complaining of a headache and requesting pain relief, pain and redness to wrists and a tender area to left of forehead”.

At approximately 23.30 Hannah was further arrested for “child neglect” on the basis that she had placed herself and Dharma between PS Ainsworth and Craig, whilst PS Ainsworth was pointing his Taser at Craig. This was really the very definition of “throwing the book” at Hannah, and was an outrageous twisting of moral responsibility for what had occurred; PS Ainsworth was a trespasser who had entered the family home and brandished an electroshock/ projectile weapon, and yet Hannah was now apparently to blame for that. The Police were evidently as determined to ‘get’ her on one charge or another, as they were to pretend that they had had lawful justification to enter her home by force in the first place.

At 23.30, Hannah was interviewed under caution, during which she denied committing any offence. Despite the interview concluding by 00.44, Hannah was returned to her cell and kept in custody until approximately 05.30 when she was bailed with conditions to return to the Police Station on 10th February 2018. The other bail conditions were not to have any unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 16, any such contact to be supervised by a person approved by social services and not to attend Hereford Hospital prior to 12.00 on 21st January 2018 except in case of genuine medical emergency.

Upon her return home, Hannah realised that the Defendant’s officers had retained her house and car keys, and she was obliged to return to the police station so as to retrieve the same.

Later that day, Hannah and Craig attended Hereford Hospital to meet Hannah’s brother and then travelled to his house to supply equipment, set up and discuss Dharma’s routine, creams, and equipment. Hannah’s brother then collected Dharma from Hereford Hospital and cared for him for the next 5 days.

To the distress that anyone would suffer after being unlawfully assaulted and arrested during a Police ‘home invasion’, was added for Hannah the anguish of a parent falsely accused of neglecting her child, and now forcibly separated from him.

Following considerable effort, Hannah’s bail conditions were eventually removed, and she was re-united with Dharma again.

Subsequently, Hannah was advised that she was not required to return to the Police Station, and she was instead summonsed to attend Hereford Magistrates’ Court on 25 April 2018 for “assaulting a Police Officer”.

Victory at Court

Hannah attended Court on 25 April 2018 and pleaded not guilty. At trial on 17 September 2018, the case against her was completely dismissed.

Justice was thus eventually done – but not until Hannah had suffered almost 9 months of hell as a result of this “welfare” visit by the Police, all as a result of officers grossly and unnecessarily exceeding their powers and prosecuting her for an offence of which she was entirely innocent; in her own words it was an “agonising” wait for trial in the face of the malicious allegations brought against her.

Seeking restitution for her suffering, Hannah instructed me to pursue a claim against the Police.

In response to the claim, West Mercia Police admitted liability for trespass, false imprisonment and assault and battery but denied malicious prosecution/ misfeasance in public office. They put forwards an initial settlement offer of only £3,000, but by bringing Court proceedings on behalf of Hannah I was able to get them to increase this to the sum of £20,000; properly reflective of their wrongdoing towards Hannah and the serious harm they had caused to her.

Afterwards, Hannah wrote to me in the following very kind and eloquent terms-

Dear Iain,
Whilst words can hardly express my heartfelt gratitude to you for all the care and concern you have shown me, and for working tirelessly to ensure that the law worked in our favour. I have no doubt if it weren’t for your analytical skills and knowledge, the matter wouldn’t have been settled by now.

I hope you will share this testimonial with readers of your blog to help anyone who stumbles across your website looking for your services, that they have indeed arrived at the right solicitor for the job.
Following the events which lead to your instruction… I was at a place where I felt closure had not been reached. Having achieved a law degree myself I was disgusted by the conduct of West Mercia Police who I had been brought up to believe are employed to uphold the laws and protect the public. Their shockingly hostile and overzealous behaviours, erring more towards mob mentality than any sort of policing or indeed law abiding behaviour had caused unquantifiable harm to me and my family on a day where we had been through quite enough. Not only had they acted unlawfully in forcing entry to my home they then made spiteful accusations in a deliberate attempt to taint my character and excuse their unacceptable behaviours, with my son being the biggest innocent victim. On the day the most traumatic thing that had happened to him in his young life, he was ripped from the comfort and security of his parents and home, no doubt believing we had abandoned him when there was absolutely no need.

Not being one for being ‘bullied’ once the criminal trial had been dismissed, I set about requesting the body worn video footage of the event. Upon receipt I became certain there were grounds for a claim/complaint and set about exploring what was involved and whether this was something I could do myself. Having had poor experience of the police complaint processes in the past, when witness to a questionable arrest of another, I was unconvinced this would bring closure. I came across your blog which was accessible and relatable and echoed my feeling about the police complaint process being in need of reform. I read your ‘about’ section and knew instantly you were the right solicitor for me and my family.

Your website was my introduction to yourself and detailed examples of how you had helped so many others, who had also been wronged by the very people you are meant to call on for help. This all led me to completing the online enquiry form. The free text field allowed me to express, in my own words, my version of the events and where I felt there were grounds for a claim. It was extremely easy to do and within four hours you had replied, much to my delight. I finally felt heard and dazzled at your prompt response. Over the following three years you have continued to keep in touch by phone, post and email, I always felt you listened and advised me appropriately. I cannot tell you how relieved I am that we have finally arrived at a life changing settlement. Whilst I didn’t request a formal apology from West Mercia Police or have a day in court to say what I wished, you were able to help remove the malicious accusation from the PNC which was very important to me.

In closing, I do hope with the amazing service you continue to offer that in future the police service will come to recognise it is not sustainable to operate in their current way. The public need to trust the police and to do this THEY need to follow the law and also protect the public from lengthy litigation to correct any errors on their part at a much earlier stage. I hope they move towards a more transparent and open process of being able to say “sorry” and mean it by sustained meaningful change in the ways they conduct themselves.

Thanks once again for your legal advice, time and I will continue to recommend you to anyone and everyone who will listen. I am blown away by your integrity and all the hard work you did on my behalf. I will always be grateful for all of your efforts and kindness shown – you are deservedly a legend in this field.

Keep fighting the good fight!

I certainly intend to!

The names of my client’s son and the Police officers in this blog have been changed.

A case which I have recently concluded on behalf of one of my clients, whom I shall identify for the purposes of this blog by the pseudonym Catherine, centred around one of the most shocking ‘bureaucratic errors’ that I have ever encountered: the release by both the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service of a rape victim’s personal data to her attacker.

Owing to the need to entirely protect my client’s anonymity, I will restrict the details provided to a minimum.

Catherine was the victim of a serious sexual assault (stranger rape) which was subsequently investigated by her local Police Force, and shortly thereafter, the perpetrator of the rape, a man whom I shall identify as “D” was arrested and remanded into custody.

Thereafter, an unredacted bundle of evidence, which had been assembled by the Police, was disclosed by the CPS to D (who was being held on remand in prison). Included amongst this disclosure was Catherine’s full name and home address.

On discovering this ‘mistake’, the Police made contact with Catherine, although they didn’t initially admit their own instrumental role in what had happened, merely telling Catherine that “somehow” her name and address had been disclosed to her attacker. The Police then sought to alleviate concerns as to Catherine’s personal safety by fitting an emergency alarm at her home address (where she lived with her mother and younger siblings) and also giving her a ‘rape alarm’ device to carry around with her; however, she was so shaken and disturbed by this revelation that she actually crashed her car on the way home from work the following day, fortunately avoiding serious injury.

Then, only weeks later, Officers came to visit Catherine at her place of work to give her further information about the disclosure of her sensitive personal data; Catherine was now told that D had written a letter to the Police, telling them that he was in possession of these documents, and making abusive comments about her – which had prompted a search of his cell, and recovery of the documents.

In the months following the rape Catherine had been trying to get her life back to normality; however, these data breach revelations set back her recovery significantly, by causing her terrible concern about the safety of herself and her family. Although D was in custody, Catherine feared that he could have passed on information to someone outside of prison and that they might seek to intimidate and/or assault her and her family, in the run-up to the trial (in which D was pleading not guilty). She felt as though a “bombshell” had gone off in her life and that she could no longer trust the Police to fully protect her; indeed, she felt that they had ‘exposed’ her and given the rapist control back over her.

The Police were blaming the CPS lawyers, and vice versa; Catherine felt that she couldn’t trust anyone and began to suffer flashbacks to the rape, and recurrent dreams in which she was being threatened. Furthermore, as a direct result of the risk which the Police now believed her to be in, Catherine and her family had to hastily relocate to another address, leaving behind the family home in which she had grown up.

In other words, what the Police and CPS had done, had stripped away the security and comfort of the one refuge where she should have been able to feel entirely safe and protected – her family home – and turned it from being a place of healing into a place of danger where her attacker might be able to find her, either now or in the future. The only way to resolve this risk was therefore the massive upheaval of Catherine and all of her family moving to a different location, in circumstances which Catherine and her mother were reluctant to fully explain to Catherine’s younger siblings.

Of course, this bricks- and- mortar relocation could not in itself alleviate Catherine’s concerns for her safety, given the details which her attacker had been made privy to about her; and all of this added massively to the stress which burdens any rape victim who is facing the tortuous criminal trial to try to ensure that her attacker stays behind bars. Catherine felt anxious and panicky most of the time, unable to relax at home (even in the new house) and frequently checking that doors and windows were secure.

Just over a year after Catherine’s rape, D was convicted of that offence, having changed his plea to guilty a day before the trial. He received a mandatory life sentence, though Catherine knew that was not a guarantee he would never be released – and she continued to fear that he could track her down and harm her by means of an associate outside of prison.

The combined effect of these events led to Catherine having to seek psychiatric treatment, and to suffer so much stress that she quit her job, experiencing a (thankfully temporary) period of unemployment. Thereafter, she found herself having to embark on a new career in a different, and less satisfying line of employment.

The Data Breach Claim

I received instructions from Catherine to bring a claim against both the Police and the CPS. This was on the basis that the unredacted evidential material containing Catherne’s personal information, had been first assembled by the Police and then disclosed to D by the CPS (via D’s criminal defence solicitors).

Receiving no formal response from either proposed defendant to the letters of claim, I had no choice but to institute court proceedings on behalf of Catherine in November 2019.

Sadly, neither the Police nor the CPS took the right step of promptly admitting liability; Catherine throughout this ordeal had done all she could to help herself get back to normal – including forging a new career after her break-down, in which she was now prospering – but the Police and the CPS having created this huge burden on her shoulders in the first place, then compounded their wrongdoing by disputing her claim for compensation. Rather than those two organisations, who are such close partners in the criminal justice system, putting their heads together to settle the claim, they denied liability individually – each disputing that they actually owed Catherine a duty of care or that what they had done gave her any right to compensation under the Data Protection Act – and argued that in the alternative, it was the other organisation who was to blame.

Thus Catherine was now put through the additional stress of another contested court case, in which she had to repeatedly give evidence and talk about the impact the data breach had had upon her life after the rape, including undergoing psychiatric examinations by both her own medical expert and one appointed by the Police/CPS; once more re-opening the mental wounds/ trauma of these events. To make matters worse, the medical report of the Police/ CPS psychiatrist was only disclosed at an extremely late stage, in breach of the Court directions timetable, putting the trial itself in jeopardy and only increasing the stress and worry of the litigation process for Catherine. Such conduct by the Defendants frankly smacked of a lackadaisical attitude and disrespect towards both Catherine and the Court, especially egregious given the underlying facts of this case.

It was not until late November 2021, after some 2 years of litigation, and only a few weeks before the scheduled trial of the claim that the Defendants settled Catherine’s claim in the sum of £40,000 damages (their initial offer of £24,000 having been quite properly rejected).

In the meantime however, Catherine had been taken once again almost all the way to trial; she had been wronged by major organisational failings whereby the Police and CPS, both of whom owed her a duty of careful handling of the disclosure process, had released her home address to the last person on Earth it should be provided to, and she was wronged by both organisations once again by the manner in which they adopted the approach of callous bean-counters, and dragged out her suffering through the civil court process (largely prolonged, I believe, by their own internal bickering over their respective share of the responsibility) – rather than properly and promptly compensating her for the gross error they had jointly committed.

It sometimes seems too easy for those agencies who run our criminal justice system to overlook the victims of crime; in this case, a victim of crime whom they further victimised by a data breach which was easily avoidable, and which they then contested – adopting the role not of protectors, but adversaries.

Justice was eventually done, but at significant cost to all involved.

My final word on the case of Yvonne Farrell this week, relates not to the original wrongdoing by Hertfordshire Constabulary – as heinous as it was – but to the attitude and conduct of the Police thereafter, which was littered with obstruction, denial, delay, excuses, and counter- accusations; everything, in fact, apart from an apology until the very last moment.

I felt the need to highlight this after reading the press release which Hertfordshire Police issued following Yvonne’s interview on Newsnight. Therein, the Police strove to present themselves as having been on Yvonne’s side throughout –

“The fair treatment of people detained in custody in Hertfordshire is very important. Following a review of the circumstances we accepted that, regrettably, we didn’t get everything right on this occasion four years ago. We were in regular contact with the complainant’s legal team throughout and the force agreed to settle the matter in recognition of the distress caused. The matter was settled amicably.”

In reality, that statement is nothing more than misleading ‘spin’. Tell me how ‘amicable’ you find the following Police actions/ responses-

• 2/8/18 Yvonne is wrongfully arrested and subjected to an unlawful strip- search
• 15/8/18 Yvonne lodges her complaint
• 15/3/19 Hertfordshire Professional Standards Department provide their response in a 26 page report – entirely rejecting all aspects of Yvonne’s complaint and purporting to find that her claim was entirely lawful and that there was “there is no evidence to suggest the actions of the officers have fallen below the Standards of Professional Behaviour…”
• 14/3/20 I submit a formal letter of claim on behalf of Yvonne
• 4/6/20 Hertfordshire Police Legal Services deny all liability (“your client’s claim is denied in its entirety”) relying heavily on the findings of the Complaint Report (praised by Legal Services as having been “an extensive PSD investigation”) but make a confidential offer of £800 damages.
• Their offer was eventually increased to £5,000 but the denial of liability was maintained.
• 1/9/20 I issued Court proceedings on behalf of Yvonne.
• 19/11/20 The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire filed a Defence to the claim, again entirely denying liability and alleging “All force was necessary, reasonable and lawful.”
• 15/12/20 The Chief Constable accepted the Claimant’s offer to settle her claim for £45,000 damages and agreed to provide a letter of apology.

The reality is that this wasn’t an amicable process, with the Police trying to set things right from the outset, as their publicity implies. Instead, the Force’s long- established internal processes – designed, in my opinion, to demoralise victims of misconduct, deter complaints and frighten off claims (through the spectre of lengthy and costly contested court proceedings) – went to work to obfuscate Police wrongdoing and frustrate a legitimate complaint and claim.

It is those processes, the institutional response to external criticism, which need just as much reform as the dirty practice of stripping detainees of their clothes along with their rights.

Let me therefore offer a re-worded version of Hertfordshire’s statement which more accurately reflects the truth-

“The fair treatment of people detained in custody in Hertfordshire was sadly not as important to us as protecting our officers from criticism. Following a review of the circumstances we wrongly maintained that we had got everything right. We were in regular contact with the complainant’s legal team throughout, repeatedly denying liability and thereby adding to the distress caused to her; and the force agreed to settle the matter only after being sued.”

I am pleased today to see the amount of coverage which the case of my client Yvonne Farrell has received, following her BBC Newsnight interview, which you can watch below:

You can read more about that case, and how justice was won for Yvonne, in my previous blog posts: Police Apology, or Excuse? and What price a Police apology?

I really do count what happened to Yvonne as one of the most heinous institutional abuses of power in modern-day Policing. As I told the BBC, those who have been unlawfully arrested – often having no prior experience of Police custody – tend to be understandably upset, and many of them then dispute the need to provide their personal details, as a form of protest against what has been done to them. In response to this, the Police too often use a strip-search as a ‘punishment’ designed to enforce the person’s compliance through a very physical act of degradation and humiliation. In my opinion, it is a low-level form of torture, deliberately implemented not to safeguard a detainee’s welfare, but to break their spirit.

And all of this in a week in which further revelations have come to light about the prevalence of toxic attitudes of misogyny, racism and authoritarianism amongst our nation’s largest Police force – Wayne Couzens being shown to be an outlier on the same continuum of sinister behaviour which at its lower levels encompasses too many male Police officers.

Courageous victims of Police wrongdoing, such as Yvonne, coming forwards and telling their stories are the building blocks we need for a reformed Police service, one in which the public can place proper trust and faith, and one in which the Police themselves are the first to clamp down on misconduct in their ranks, rather than waiting for it to be exposed from outside. In current Policing culture, with its ingrained authoritarian attitudes and ‘tribal’ mindset, letters of apology such as Yvonne received are rarely forthcoming until a member of the public sticks their neck out and sues the Chief Constable; it simply shouldn’t have to be that way.

By speaking up, and raising awareness of these matters, we can all strive for change and a healthier tomorrow.

I currently represent Emmanuel Madugbah, an NHS worker who has been publicly lauded for his courage and dedication in working 43 consecutive days at Northwick Park hospital during that terrible time at the peak of the first Coronavirus wave in 2020; Emmanuel pursues a claim against the Police arising out of a violent ‘stop and search’ incident which occurred in October 2019. The details of this incident are as follows.

Emmanuel, as noted above, is a man of exemplary character having had no previous adverse encounters with the Police. At the relevant time, he was living in a shared house in Watford.

At approximately 17.45 on 4 October 2019, Emmanuel left his house in order to do some shopping. As he crossed Vicarage Road, leading to the High Street, he was talking to a friend on his mobile phone. Suddenly, he heard someone shout, causing him to raise his head.

Emmanuel was shocked to see a man, whom he now understands to be PC Richmond, facing him and pointing a taser gun directly at him. PC Richmond directed Emmanuel to raise his hands and then drop to the ground.

In a state of fear and alarm, Emmanuel complied without question, and hit the ground heavily, damaging his phone on the ground in the process. Two other men (DS Matthews and PC Graham) then converged on my client, and he was handcuffed to the rear, without any explanation. During this process, he felt one of the men kneeling on his back.

Emmanuel was now asked for his name and address and it was at this point that he realised that the men were police officers. He immediately confirmed his name and address, and directed the officers to the wallet in his back pocket, which contained his driving licence.

At this point, still being held down on the floor, Emmanuel heard one of the officers then radioing through his details, and was also aware that both he and his ID were being photographed.

Emmanuel was then lifted up and pushed up against a wall of a nearby shop.

One officer alleged that Emmanuel bore a strong resemblance to a “bad” man, wanted for a stabbing, who they were looking for.

Emmanuel understandably protested his innocence, and asserted that he should be released.

However, his street detention continued as the officers questioned him about his address, and agreed to remove his handcuffs only so that he could unlock his phone for them, and they could scroll through his data.

DS Matthews then admitted that this was a case of “mistaken identity” and apologised to Emmanuel, also offering to arrange reimbursement for the damage to his phone.

However, the impact of this incident went far beyond a mere cracked mobile phone screen: Emmanuel had been threatened with a taser, violently handcuffed and detained in public, being intrusively questioned, for around 15 minutes: he was shaken, hurt and very distressed.

Then, to compound matters, a mere 10 minutes later, Emmanuel received a telephone call from one of his housemates, who advised that the Police were now at their shared house (not far from the location of the incident). Emmanuel was further shocked and confused and called DS Matthews to seek an explanation. DS Matthews informed him “We’re searching a couple of houses on the street and yours is one of them”. Emmanuel questioned this bizarre ‘coincidence’ but received no adequate response from the officer; extremely concerned, he immediately returned home.

On his return, Emmanuel established that the same police officers who had stopped him were indeed now in his house and were carrying out an extensive search. Given that these officers had not just 20 minutes earlier explained that his arrest as a suspect was a mistake, Emmanuel was completely bemused.

To make matters worse, Emmanuel’s housemates were now under the impression that he was a criminal suspect. Emmanuel asked the officers to explain to his housemates that this was simply a mistake; unfortunately, his housemates’ understanding of English was limited and Emmanuel formed the impression that they did not accept or understand this, causing him to have subsequent problems with them.

Emmanuel subsequently lodged a complaint. During this process, he met the investigating officer who showed him a photograph of the real suspect whom the officers had been looking for that day. Other than both men being black, there was little physical resemblance between Emmanuel and the suspect, leading my client to conclude that he was the victim of discrimination on the part of the officers who had rushed and assaulted him – all of whom were white.

Emmanuel’s grounds of complaint against the officers involved were as follows-

• Assault
• Mishandling of Property
• Neglect/ failure in duty
• Discriminatory behaviour
• Incivility, impoliteness and intolerance.

Multiple Grounds, Multiple Failings

Although my client’s complaint related to a single, and relatively straightforward incident, Cambridge Constabulary’s Professional Standards Department took over a year to complete their investigation report, which was finally received by Emmanuel in December 2020.

As is generally the case, the PSD Report appeared to both myself and my client to be an exercise designed to excuse the conduct of the Officers, starting and finishing from a position of bias and prejudice in favour of those Officers, rather than a fair and objective investigation of events. Unsurprisingly the report purported to reject all aspects of Mr Madugbah’s complaint – with the exception of a ‘technicality’: the officers failure to provide the requisite written notice to the occupants of Emmanuel’s house following their search of the premises under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

On 6 January 2021 I lodged an appeal on behalf of Emmanuel with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

Although the IOPC’s role is not to reinvestigate the complaint, they are granted oversight of the way the Police themselves investigated the complaint and they have the power to intervene, via directions or recommendations to the Police, if the complaint has not been handled in a reasonable and proportionate way.

The key points which I raised in my letter of appeal were as follows –

• No detail at all had been provided in the report as to the description of the third party who the Police were said to be actually looking for, other than that he was black and had a beard.

• It was stated that the Officers had seen two images of the third party, a Custody image dated 10 September 2018 and a CCTV still described as being poor quality (“grainy”). Of note, the Complaint Investigator (IO) gave no indication that he had actually bothered to review these 2 images and/or consider whether Emmanuel bore any resemblance to the third party (other than being black).

• Furthermore, my own enquiries had indicated that the third party (the actual wanted man) was aged 25. At the time of this incident, Emmanuel Madugbah was in fact aged 41, and PC Graham had actually conceded that when face to face with our client – “I suspected he wasn’t the subject …….. as he looked too old.”

• Yet further, the Officers appeared to have jumped to the conclusion that Emmanuel was the wanted man after seeing him from a distance of almost 100 feet (on their own evidence). The reality is that skin colour appears to have been the officers’ only real basis for ‘identification’ of Emmanuel as the third party, rather than any resemblance of facial features between the wanted man and Emmanuel. However, the IO appeared entirely disinterested in this issue during his discussion of the evidence in the Complaint Report – and had failed to subject his colleagues purported identification of Emmanuel as being the wanted man to any proper critical analysis.

• Yet further, my client’s significant allegation that despite his immediate compliance with the Officers/non-resistance , one of the Officers held Emmanuel to the ground with a knee in his back, had not been put to any of the Officers by the IO.

I am pleased to confirm that in late April 2021 the IOPC upheld my client’s appeal, and directed that a thorough re-investigation of the complaint be carried out by Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

Amongst the IOPC’s criticisms of the investigation were the following-

• The report lacks attention to detail given the “overriding seriousness” of the allegations.

• The IO has not displayed sufficient objectivity in assessing the allegations, in weighing the officers’ accounts against other evidence and has failed to properly explain his conclusion.

• Whilst 12 minutes of apparently highly relevant CCTV footage of this incident was available to the IO, he neither properly discusses nor links the content of the footage to any of his conclusions on various issues, including the use of force.

The subsequent re-investigation report, prepared by the same Investigating Officer who had prepared the first report, was published on 14 September 2021 (only a month short of the second anniversary of Mr Madugbah’s complaint).

Once again, the report purported to dismiss Mr Madugbah’s complaint about the illegitimacy of his identification as the wanted man, and the force used upon him by the Officers. It seemed to me that the Investigating Officer in carrying out the further enquiries which he had been directed to by the IOPC, had simply used these further enquiries as the ‘window dressings’ of a new report which he had always intended to enshrine the outcome of the old report.

It was therefore necessary, once again, to appeal to the IOPC –

• Although the IO now confirmed that he had reviewed the images of the actual suspect that the Officers had been provided with prior to this incident, he still failed to provide any detailed discussion or analysis as to why it was reasonable to believe that the person pictured in the photographs (the real suspect) was Mr Madugbah. There still appeared to be no basis for the assertion of any similarity in appearance beyond the extremely generic facts that both the suspect and Mr Madugbah were Black (IC3 categorisation) and wore beards. The IO made no attempt to detail or explain any concordance of appearance between the images of the suspect and the images of my client, of which he had also had sight.

• It was notable that of the three Officers involved in the initial identification/detention of Mr Madugbah only PC Richmond, and not DS Matthews or PC Graham , had been asked to comment on/clarify the identification issue, despite the fact that on DS Matthews’s account it was he who initiated the entire sequence of events – “I saw a male who resembled ###### on Farraline Road, walking towards Vicarage Road. The male crossed from left to right and the sighting was from a distance from approximately 30 meters. I immediately believed that it was ###### and recall saying words to the effect of THAT’S HIM. Traffic was fairly heavy, so we all alighted from our vehicle and ran to catch this male up.”

• The reinvestigation also failed to address specific concerns, highlighted by the IOPC in April, regarding PC Graham’s comment that “face to face with the male, I suspected he wasn’t the subject we sought as he looked too old” as well as DS Matthews’s admission that “On closer inspection and supported by ID of the male detained, it was clear that Mr Madugbah was not [the suspect].” Again, the reinvestigation simply failed to engage with these important points of evidence at all, and no information was offered as to any concordance of facial feature, height or build between the real suspect and Mr Madugbah.

• Furthermore, despite the IOPC having identified that the issue of the use of force against Emmanuel had not received sufficient consideration by the IO in the first report, it was clear that a number of important enquiries had still not been completed in this regard. Emmanuel had always maintained that one of the Officers, whom he described as a “Bald well built man” (presumed to be PC Richmond) had held him to the ground with his knee in his back. This allegation had been completely ignored by the IO during the initial complaint investigation, and the re-investigation report remained wholly inadequate in this respect, in that the IO only bothered to raise the issue with PC Richmond(who denied it) but did not ask any of the other two Officers who were present to comment on the allegation.

• In a similar, slipshod fashion, the IO had only canvassed the opinion of PC Richmond as to whether it was reasonable and proportionate for my client to be kept in handcuffs for 10 – 15 minutes, despite the Officers being in possession of his driving licence confirming his true ID within 1 – 2 minutes and did not bother to address this issue with either DS Matthews or PC Graham .

Police Complaint Reports: A Farcical Merry-Go Round

I have now, on 20 January 2022 (over 2 years and 3 months since the incident), received notification that the IOPC have once again upheld my appeal on behalf of Mr Madugbah and Cambridgeshire Constabulary have accordingly been directed to re-investigate the complaint, largely on the basis that they did such an inadequate re-investigation of the key issues following the IOPC’s first intervention.

Do we now have to call this a re-re investigation? My client could quite reasonably ask how much longer is this merry-go-round going to continue, and I would not be able to give him a definitive answer, owing to the open-ended nature of a Police complaint process that lacks the cogency and control granted by having punitive deadlines in place, which (by way of contrast) are key elements of both the criminal and civil legal systems in this country.

Amongst the many scathing comments made by the IOPC in regards to the re-investigation report were the following –

• When asked by the IO what led PC Richmond to the ‘reasonably held suspicion’ that Mr Madugbah was the suspect, the Officer’s account failed to provide any further substantive detail as to how this decision was reached, making no reference to any intelligence and/or the circumstances which might have substantiated the decision making.

• Specific rationale as to why it was believed that Mr Madugbah resembled the wanted suspect had not been provided by DS Matthews, and this had again not been further probed by the IO.

• The IOPC review was unable to ascertain the specific rationale which contributed towards the Officers forming an alleged reasonable suspicion, and there was only limited explanation of the assessment conducted by each Officer within their accounts. Given the heightened use of force – including the drawing of a taser – during the stop and subsequent search of Mr Madugbah, a thorough and proportionate rationale and assessment of why it was believed he was the suspect should have been provided as a key element of the Complaint Investigation Report.

• It was not sufficient for the IO to merely ‘insinuate’ the reasons for identification from the Officers’ accounts.

• My client was entitled to a full explanation of the information available at the time that had led to the alleged reasonable suspicion being formed by the Officers – but despite being given two opportunities to do so Cambridgeshire Constabulary had failed to do so.

Furthermore, the IOPC have, somewhat delicately, suggested that Cambridgeshire Constabulary now allocate a new Investigating Officer to deal with the (third) complaint investigation, on the basis that the IO who (mis)handled the first two investigations might lack the necessary “objectivity”. Indeed.

The IOPC reviewer rightly acknowledged that this event in 2019 had caused a significant amount of distress to Emmanuel, and to that I would add the fact that his distress has certainly not been alleviated by yet another frustrating, demoralising and biased Investigation Report – which is sadly one of the hallmarks of our dysfunctional police complaints system. In my opinion, it is perfectly understandable why many of my clients reject the opportunity to raise a complaint and instead wish me to proceed immediately with a claim for damages – in bringing a claim, whether or not it proceeds to court litigation, a person who has suffered mistreatment at the hands of the Police is in control and can proactively obtain evidence and hold the Police to account, ultimately in front of a Judge and Jury if necessary, as well as expecting the Police to comply with legally mandated time- frames for response. In the complaint process, on the other hand, the victim of Police Misconduct is largely shut out and kept in the dark whilst the complaint investigation is ongoing, and he and his lawyer have no direct access to the evidence relied upon by the Complaint Investigator until after the report is finalised. Alongside this, the IOPC often proves to be little more than a ‘paper tiger’ showing a limited appetite to correct most Police complaint errors, biases and delays – and also lacking robust statutory powers to properly intervene; note that in the present case, for example, the IOPC have merely suggested, rather than ordered the replacement of the Investigating Officer, despite his multiple failings to date . The Police complaint process can drag on for years, even in regards to relatively straightforward incidents, and often seems to be simply going round in circles.

No wonder people want to get their hands on the ‘steering wheel’ provided by a civil claim, rather than being passengers on the ‘merry-go-round’ process of a Complaint Investigation.

I have already commenced Mr Madugbah’s claim against Cambridgeshire Constabulary, which I anticipate will give him far more vindication and satisfaction than the time consuming, wasteful and massively inefficient Police complaints process.

Increasingly, I find myself urging those who consult me regarding wrongful Police behaviour – take your case to Court, not to the Circus.

The names of the Police officers in this blog have been changed.

I have on numerous occasions highlighted the disregard which many Metropolitan Police officers show towards the rules governing speculative ‘stop and search’ operations upon members of the public; rules set out under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act so as to respect the liberty and individuality of the citizen and to ensure that officers do not abuse such powers – as if they were agents of some dystopian police state – and instead operate in a democratic environment of transparency and accountability. Such is the law as provided under Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the modern bedrock of that age-old principle of the British constitution: policing by consent.

Unfortunately, as the case of my client Mohammed demonstrates, the abuse of stop and search powers, and lack of regard for the fundamental steps which any officer is required to comply with to make such an ‘on the street’ detention and search lawful, is also commonplace amongst the other police Forces of England and Wales, as is evidence of ‘racial profiling’ by their officers.

At approximately 1:55 am on 10 March 2021 Mohammed, an 18-year-old university student, was in his car on Bedford Street, Rhyl with a friend, having recently finished work. A North Wales Police car containing PC Richards and PC Yang pulled up nearby. Thinking nothing of it, Mohammed and his friend got out of the car to walk home; the officers then approached the two lads and asked to speak to them.

Unexpectedly, Mohammed’s friend ran away from the officers. Mohammed was surprised by his friend’s action but chose not to act similarly; he simply refused to engage with the officers and began to walk away. He was followed by PC Richards, whom he asked not to touch him. Mohammed knew that the law of England and Wales does not require a citizen to simply ‘account’ for themselves to an officer on demand, nor to answer the officer’s questions, if they are not being lawfully detained for either the purposes of a justified search, or on suspicion of an offence.

PC Yang then suddenly rushed forwards and took hold of Mohammed’s arms shouting, “Give me your fucking hands!” before putting his arm around the back of Mohammed’s neck and pulling his head forwards. As this occurred, PC Yang’s elbow connected with Mohammed’s face. PC Yang then grabbed Mohammed’s coat and partly pulled it over his head.

Mohammed was understandably distressed by this abrupt and unnecessary use of force. He repeatedly shouted for the officers to get off him and asked what he had done, however PC Richards only told him that he was “Being searched”. My client remonstrated with PC Yang for hitting him in the face and for not wearing a mask (given the high prevalence of Covid cases at the time). With the assistance of PC Richards, PC Yang handcuffed Mohammed to the rear and then searched him; nothing illicit was found. As the search was occurring, other Police officers arrived, and PC Yang threatened to use further force and take Mohammed to the ground.

PC Yang then decided to subject Mohammed to a drug swab and a breathalyser test and attempted to force him into the rear of the police car. Mohammed refused to enter the car but said that he was willing to take the tests outside. PC Yang then arrested Mohammed for “resisting” and forced him into the rear of the car. My client again questioned why he had been stopped and assaulted and it was only at this point that PC Yang announced that he had detained and searched Mohammed under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The breathalyser test was negative and whilst awaiting the results of the drug swab, Mohammed’s father attended the scene. The drugs swab was also negative, although PC Yang commented that “Surprisingly you’ve passed that test … because from the look from your eyes you look stoned”. This accusation was entirely false – Mohammed had not taken any drugs, as borne out by the battery of tests he had been subjected to by the Police.  PC Yang then de-arrested my client but informed him that he would be reported for obstructing a police officer and cautioned him.

The following day Mohammed was suffering from pain in his jaw and attended hospital, where he was given painkillers.

Mohammed was subsequently prosecuted for allegedly obstructing PC Yang in the execution of his duty; however, on 5 May the CPS discontinued the prosecution, evidently realising that an officer who is carrying out a blatantly unlawful search is not “acting in the execution of his duty”. It is disgraceful that matters even got that far however, and that Mohammed was subjected to the stress and worry of having this false charge hanging over his head for several months.

Failure to comply with Code A renders Stop & Search Unlawful

My client subsequently lodged a complaint. The complaint was upheld on the basis that Mohammed was searched unlawfully as PC Yang failed to provide the grounds for the search, the object of the search, the legislation relied upon, his identity or his station until after the search had been conducted; i.e. the officer had failed to comply with the “GOWISELY” criteria, and was therefore in breach of Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, rendering his detention and manhandling of Mohammed unlawful. Furthermore, Mohammed’s complaint of incivility against PC Yang was upheld due to PC Yang’s comments regarding the negative drug swab.

This incident and the subsequent prosecution caused Mohammed significant distress and upset, including sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression; he was at the time of these events a first-year university student and following the incident found it difficult to concentrate, negatively impacting his studies. Mohammed remains extremely concerned that he could again be assaulted and arrested by police officers without any reason, especially when in his car. This led him to avoid using his car and experiencing significant fear and anxiety when interacting with police officers.

I subsequently brought a claim against North Wales Police on behalf of Mohammed for false imprisonment, assault and battery and malicious prosecution, which was settled out of Court for the sum of £7,500 damages plus legal costs; this will provide Mohammed with an entirely appropriate sense of vindication, help him to move on with his life and – possibly – encourage the Police to adapt their future approach to such encounters/ events.

A Circle of Mistrust, Fuelled by Police Prejudice

Although the Police upheld Mohammed’s complaint because of PC Yang’s failure to provide the requisite information in accordance with PACE, I think that the circumstances of this incident do demonstrate a wider malaise amongst officers than merely a failure to ‘say the right words’ in the heat of the moment; of great concern, in my view, is the lack of an objectively reasonable basis for the stop/ search in the first place – the circumstances instead being indicative of officers (possibly bored, with too much time on their hands during the second national ‘Lockdown’) carrying out a speculative stop and search encounter upon an individual because of his personal characteristics and the time of night, rather than any behavioural indicators on his part or other evidence of criminality. Certainly, the Police failed to produce any evidence from either PC Yang or any of his colleagues justifying an objectively reasonable suspicion that Mohammed might have had illegal drugs upon him; and I strongly suspect that Mohammed was targeted simply because of his general characteristics i.e. being a young, British Asian, male ‘out and about’ in the early hours. As Home Office data published last year and widely reported on demonstrates, Mohammed’s cohort of the population – BAME (Black, Asian, and other minority ethnic) males aged 15-19 – were the subject of over 20% of all Police searches nationwide.

As stressed above, we do not live in a Police state where individuals otherwise behaving in an entirely law- abiding manner are required to account for themselves to the Police – nor one in which the law presumes them to be criminals because they refuse to engage; regrettably, however, many agents of that law do appear to operate on just such prejudiced presumptions. Justice is blind – but not, it seems, all of her foot soldiers – to the colour of a man’s skin.

When Police officers throughout England and Wales carry out heavy-handed and unjustified searches upon young, ethnic minority males, they are fuelling a ‘vicious circle’ of mistrust between such young men and the Police, with Police officers then interpreting that mistrust/ refusal to engage as somehow being evidence of criminality, or suspicious behaviour in and of itself – whereas sadly they are in large part its cause.

I will leave the final word in this blog to Mohammed himself, who sent me this kind testimonial at the conclusion of his case-

I contacted Iain after recommendation from my older brother who was at the time studying his masters in law… he looked into some cases you had dealt with in the past and was very impressed. He originally contacted you on my behalf until I took over communication.

Contacting you was very easy and even when I was unable to speak to you, I was very happy with your colleagues who were very helpful.

I am very happy with the service and of course the result I didn’t think I was entitled to any compensation until your help I just wanted to make sure I made a complaint to prevent this happening to someone else.

The names of the Police officers in this blog post have been changed.

It’s always good to start the new year with a victory at Trial, and that was what happened this week for my client William Biddle (known as Billy) at Nottingham County Court; however, his case is also yet another example of how broken and dysfunctional the Police complaints system is: his dispute with the Police simply didn’t need to go this far, had they addressed it properly in the first place.

We’ll Knock You Over, Then We’ll Arrest You?

Billy is a supporter of Mansfield Football Club, but because of work commitments is not usually able to go to the match. On Saturday 17 March 2018, on a rare day off work, he had the opportunity to go and watch Mansfield play away at Notts County (a local derby) and looked forward to attending the game with three of his friends.  

Shortly before kick- off, Billy and his friends were making their way along County Road, approaching Notts County’s ground.  

They walked past a stationary Police van, which was parked fully on the road, to their left. As they passed the van, Billy, who was on the outside of the group of friends, walking closest to the edge of the pavement, noticed three more Police vans approaching them from the opposite direction. At this point, they were only about 100 feet from the turnstiles.  

Because of the weather conditions – strong winds and snow – Billy kept his head down as he walked; he was fully on the pavement, albeit close to the edge.

 Suddenly, he felt a sharp blow to his left shoulder, such that he was spun around and knocked into the friend who was walking beside him. Billy felt immediate pain and realised that he had been struck by the wing mirror of the first of the three vans in the Police ‘convoy’, which had mounted the kerb as it drove past, striking Billy in the process.

 This van was then followed by two other Police ‘riot’ vans which performed the same manoeuvre i.e mounting the kerb and continuing to drive for a distance before coming to a halt partly on, and partly off the road.  Thankfully, because of the first impact, Billy was at least no longer in the path of the second or third vans.

 Billy was shocked and in pain, and was minded to immediately complain, but one of his friends told him not to say anything in case the Police thought Billy was causing trouble and might stop them from entering the ground.

 Billy was also aware that the gates were about to be locked and didn’t want to miss the game.   Accordingly, he let it go and went through the turnstiles.

 However, at half time, Billy took the opportunity to approach the convoy of parked Police vans, which were still in situ outside the ground; there were four such vehicles in total i.e the first one Billy had noticed parked on the road, and the other three (the leader of which had hit him) parked half on/half off the pavement. Several of the vans contained Police officers, presumably awaiting deployment at the end of the game.

Billy approached the first uniformed Police Officer that he saw, a Sergeant sitting in the front passenger seat of the fourth and final van.

Billy tapped on the window and then noticed that the Sergeant was on the phone.  He waited politely for the officer to finish.  The Sergeant then wound his window down and asked, “What’s up?” 

Billy explained what had happened to him, to which the officer replied “Yeah I seen it happen, it wasn’t that bad, I’m not in charge, go and speak to the Inspector” – gesturing to a van ahead. He then wound his window back up and turned his attention back to his phone.

Not perhaps the response we might want from a Police officer who on his own evidence had witnessed a road traffic collision involving a pedestrian…but perhaps the response we might expect when the vehicle involved was a Police unit.

 Billy was not impressed by the Sergeant’s dismissive response and decided that he would complain; he used his phone to take a photograph of the officer’s collar number.

Although witnessing an accident was apparently not enough to pull the Sergeant’s attention away from his phone, taking a photograph of him was – he immediately alighted from the van and, Billy says, threatened him with the words “If you don’t piss off now, I’ll arrest you.”  When Billy asked what he could possibly be arrested for, the Sergeant contemptuously replied, “I don’t know, I’ll think of something.”

This response was both so despicable and so ridiculous that Billy’s reaction was to laugh at the trumped-up Sergeant, but one of his friends, who had overheard the conversation, pulled him away with the warning “Come away, he’ll lock you up.”

Billy didn’t want to spoil the day for himself or his friends by getting arrested.  He walked away, and down the road to the van that the first officer had pointed to.   The van’s doors were open; it was being used as a mobile “control centre” for the match day.

Billy now spoke to a second Police Officer. He told him what had happened i.e. about being struck by the Police van.  This officer replied that the Inspector in charge was in the ground, however he took Billy’s name, address and phone number.  Billy also pointed out exactly which van had hit him and the officer seemed to make a note of the registration plate number of that van.  The officer then told Billy that he would call him on Monday. Billy then returned within the ground, to rejoin the rest of his friends for the second half of the match.

It was only on waking the next day, that Billy realised the full extent of the injury he had suffered; his left shoulder was really painful, and he could barely move it. He also had a tingling sensation in his fingers; he struggled to get out of bed and couldn’t drive.  

Accordingly, on Monday morning Billy attended his GP surgery; he was signed off work, prescribed painkillers and referred to hospital for x-rays; fortunately, these confirmed that there was no fracture.

 Having obtained medical treatment, Billy then attended his local Police Station, Mansfield Woodhouse. He was kept waiting for some time and asked that someone call him. 

 He did subsequently receive a call and was invited to re-attend the Police Station the next day (Wednesday), whereupon he gave a full report as to what had happened and signed a detailed witness statement. He also provided the photograph he had taken of the Officer who had been rude to him, and who had so outrageously threatened to arrest him for no reason. He was assured that the incident would now be investigated.

Because of his injury, Billy was off work for two weeks and suffered loss of earnings as a result; he works in traffic management and when he returned, the physical aspects of his job, such as repetitive, heavy lifting of street furniture caused significant discomfort in his shoulder for months afterwards.  

Insult to Injury: Why the Police Complaint System Remains a Bad Joke  

In early June 2018 Billy received a letter from Inspector Longden of Nottinghamshire Police headed “Summary of Local Resolution” which stated that his complaint had been investigated, but which did not offer any proper findings or conclusion – Inspector Longden completely failed to address the serious accusation that the Sergeant whom Billy had approached had threatened an unlawful arrest to get rid of him, merely offering a typical, non- committal, ‘corporate’ apology in the following terms – “I would like to apologise if you felt the officer you spoke to was rude…” 

Furthermore, although an accident report had now been completed by the Police, the Inspector failed to tell Billy what its conclusions were, or to supply a copy of the same, merely stating that Billy’s solicitor could request a copy of the report, if he was interested.  

The “resolution” letter was then signed off with yet more standard, empty verbiage – “Whilst I trust all the areas of your complaint have been answered, you may exercise your right to appeal if you are not satisfied…” In fact, Billy was so disappointed by the totally lacklustre response he had received, he couldn’t be bothered appealing – almost certainly a correct decision, as it would likely have been a waste of time on his behalf given the defensive/ disinterested attitude Nottinghamshire Police had displayed to date in response to his complaint.  

From the accident report, which I was able to obtain for him, Billy then learned that the Police had identified the van that hit him, and the van driver as being PC Hornsby.  The report, apparently completed by Inspector Longden himself, stated as follows “Injured party reports being struck on his shoulder by the wing mirror of a police personnel carrier which was deployed to a public order incident. Police driver unaware of incident and other personnel and passengers are also unaware.”

 The report contained no suggestion that any effort had been made to obtain the kind of video evidence, which is likely to have been available, had prompt enquiries been made – given the very nature of the vehicle involved being a Police carrier, with numerous other officers and police vehicles in close proximity, as well as a football ground nearby, likely fitted with CCTV cameras.

 Rather, the report seemed to have been completed as a half-hearted ‘box ticking’ exercise, and came to no useful conclusion as to whether a collision had occurred or not: certainly, no action was taken against the alleged driver of the offending Police van, PC Hornsby, in any way.  

I will also highlight here the fact that in the statement he made for the subsequent County Court proceedings brought by my client, PC Hornsby, whilst accepting that he had been driving a vehicle in the vicinity on the day in question, not only denied any knowledge of hitting Billy– he also asserted that “I am unsure of how I came to be referred to in the report as I was not involved in the complaint investigation” – rather begging the question of why Inspector Longden felt he was able to so confidently assert in that report “Police driver unaware of incident”.

Frankly, is it any wonder, in light of conduct like this, that so many people are cynical about the integrity of the Police complaints system?

 Suing the Police for Personal Injury

 In any event, Nottinghamshire Police had had an opportunity to deal with this matter promptly with an acceptance of liability for Billy’s injury and a proper apology for the Sergeant’s misconduct – they failed to take that opportunity and would instead devote the next three years to spending public money in an attempt to frustrate Billy’s legitimate, and modest, claim for compensation, forcing him to go all the way to Trial during the continuing Covid pandemic.

 Along the way, the Police attempted to throw as many obstacles as they could in the path of Billy’s claim, variously accusing him of –  causing the accident through his own negligence, being drunk, walking into the carriageway (into the path of the vehicle) and exaggerating the severity of his injury (or even making it up entirely) – all without a shred of positive evidence in their favour, and despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary (Billy’s prompt report of the incident and the photograph he took of the Sergeant; his contemporaneous medical records; his documented absence from work; his witness statement; and the fact that the Police themselves, whilst denying knowledge of any collision, accepted that the van Billy had pointed out had driven onto the pavement in the manner he had described).

 Finally, at Trial, on Monday of this week, justice was done with His Honour Judge Godsmark QC taking only two hours, rather than three years, to cogently assess the evidence and conclude that Billy’s case was proven – the balance of the evidence was, of course, that he had been struck by a passing Police van, and suffered injury as a result – as, we might well imagine, the Police themselves might have promptly concluded, had the vehicle and driver in question not been ones of their own.

 The game was finally up for the Police, and Billy was awarded compensation of almost £6,000 for his injury and loss of earnings.

 But how many more members of the public will suffer similar disappointment and frustration before the bias and partiality of the Police complaints system is addressed? It continues to be a major systemic and cultural failing within our Policing system, and sadly, a determination for root and branch reform of how the Police ‘police themselves’ does not seem likely to be on the New Year Resolution agendas of any of our Chief Constables, either now or in the foreseeable future.

All technological advancements bring with them both benefits and risks, and one such problem that I have been reflecting upon recently is the increasing number of cloned motor vehicles on the road, combining with the ubiquity of our modern surveillance systems to put innocent motorists at real risk of ‘identity theft’ resulting in wrongful arrest, fines or prosecution.

This was starkly highlighted by the Telegraph newspaper last year, which reported that complaints made by people to the DVLA about incorrect fines, penalties or correspondence being issued in regards to their vehicles had almost doubled between April 2019 and March 2020 from 656 to 1,105. It is suspected that this is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of a problem fueled by the easy availability of duplicate registration plates online; many of the companies which provide such services being based outside UK jurisdiction – for example, in Jersey – thereby circumventing laws requiring the purchaser of the plates to provide proper documentary evidence of his or her legitimate ownership of the original vehicle by production of photo ID and the V5C form.

It would therefore seem to be all too easy for criminals to obtain duplicate plates, and fit them to a car simply matching the make, model and colour of the vehicle bearing the original plates, thereby creating a ready made ‘getaway’ car which can – at a surface level at least – trick the eyes of our modern surveillance society – the ubiquitous CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. Latest Police data indicates that roadside ANPR cameras – whether in fixed locations, or carried on Police vehicles – submit an average of 60 million vehicle registration plate ‘reads’ to national ANPR systems daily. A record of all motor vehicles passing by each camera is made; this technology can then be used by law enforcement professionals to track any given vehicle’s movements around the country, provided there is a legitimate Policing purpose. Police will input the registration number of any ‘vehicle of interest’ and gets ‘hits’ from the database indicating every location in the UK where the said vehicle has passed an ANPR camera over the specified timeframe of the search – which could be going back over weeks, months or even years.

Cloning scams, as well as shielding the actual criminals, can of course throw suspicion onto the entirely innocent owner of the original vehicle, who remains entirely in the dark – until, in the worst case scenario, the Police come knocking on his or her door (or perform a violent/ shocking road- side stop) and blissful ignorance turns into a nightmare experience…

One such victim of a cloning scam was my client Richard Taylor; sadly, he would also become the victim of Police negligence in the form of an unnecessary and unjustified arrest, as I explain below.

Wrongfully Arrested because of Cloned Vehicle Plates

In April 2021, Richard was the registered keeper of a Mazda motor car. Entirely unbeknownst to Richard, on 26 April 2021 a Mazda of the same model, year and colour, bearing a “cloned” copy of his vehicle’s registration plate was taken to an ATS Euromaster garage in Wantage, Oxfordshire for a full service.

The driver of the Clone left the Clone’s keys with the garage and provided a mobile phone number. The Clone required work to the value of £675, namely four new tyres, replacement brake discs and pads. On 28 April the driver secretly returned and used a second key to take the Clone from the garage forecourt without paying for the works; however the Clone’s original set of keys were left in the garage. ATS staff reported this incident to Thames Valley Police the same day. An invoice for the work carried out – which included details of the specifications of the replacement tyres – was provided to the police, but officers neglected to seize as evidence the original car keys that had been left at the garage.

In the early hours of the morning of 12 May 2021, PC Royal and PC Johnson of Thames Valley Police, attended my client’s home in the Avon & Somerset area. His (legitimate) Mazda was parked immediately outside, and before entering the premises, PC Royal examined the Mazda and took pictures of its wheels.

Richard resides in a building made up of a number of apartments, and by ringing the communal bell and asking directions to my client’s apartment the Police officers thereby attracted the attention of numerous other residents, to my client’s subsequent shame and distress.

Richard, who is a man of entirely good character, then suffered a Kafkaesque awakening, with the officers knocking on his door, and then leading him away, under arrest for a crime of which he knew absolutely nothing. On being told that he was under arrest for ‘Making off without payment’, contrary to Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1978, Richard was deeply shocked, but complied with the officer’s instructions and supplied them with the keys to his Mazda on request; nevertheless, despite his polite co-operation he was then humiliatingly handcuffed by PC Royal.

Richard was then conveyed to his nearest Police Station. On arrival, PC Royal was unable to take the handcuffs off using his key and had to ask for the assistance of an Avon & Somerset officer to do so (it seems the lock may have been damaged), causing my client pain to his wrists. The simple fact of the matter is that Richard should never have been handcuffed in the first place; it was a completely unnecessary and degrading use of force – although sadly all too common as a matter of Police practice.

During the booking in process at the Station, PC Royal showed to the Custody Sergeant the photographs that he had taken of Richard’s Mazda. The Custody Sergeant immediately expressed concerns that the tyres shown were different than those fitted to the Clone, as detailed in the invoice from the ATS garage. Furthermore, due to the build-up of dust and dirt on the alloy wheels it was clear that they had not been removed for some time.

Nevertheless, Richard was processed, obliged to give his fingerprints, DNA and have his photograph taken, and then interviewed under caution. Following interview, during which Richard stridently maintained his innocence, he was released at 04:45 and returned home by the same officers who had arrested him, still in a state of shock and bewilderment.

Just over a week later, Richard was informed there would be no further action. His custody record was updated with the following entry –

“The detainee is to be released without charge for the following reasons: From the OIC – This occurrence has been reviewed… and the decision has been made to NFA Taylor. It is quite clear that the vehicle used in this incident was on cloned plates. ANPR work has been done on our end and there have been no ‘hits’ in the Oxfordshire area.”

Richard quite rightly then submitted a complaint to the Professional Standards Department of Thames Valley Police which was upheld by Inspector Ford, who apologised to my client for his arrest. In the complaint report Inspector Ford noted that-

“Too much emphasis was placed on the vehicle plates used in the crime linking back to the complainant as the registered owner without sufficient professional curiosity or other corroborating evidence … As a finding, Officers could and should have done further enquiries before arresting the complainant and this is likely to have precluded the complainant as a suspect.”

Inspector Ford noted a number of failings in the investigation which led to my client being incorrectly identified as a suspect-

• Subscriber checks had not been completed on the phone number left with the ATS garage prior to Richard’s arrest (which would have shown that the phone number had no connection to him);
• ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) checks should have been completed much earlier on in the investigation which would have determined that, while there were ‘hits’ in the Avon & Somerset area (from my client’s legitimate Mazda), there had been no hits between the ATS garage in Oxfordshire, and my client’s home address, meaning the Clone had not travelled in that direction.
• The Clone’s key could have been used to quickly determine whether Richard’s Mazda was the same vehicle – without any need for arrest – but Police had failed to take that key despite it being readily available at ATS.
• PC Royal had incorrectly identified the tyres on Richard’s Mazda as the same as on the Clone’s invoice, and had failed to note the obvious wear and tear to those tyres (although the Custody Sergeant had picked up on this).

Furthermore, Inspector Ford noted the ‘disruption’ that arresting my client late at night had caused and expressed concern regarding the necessity for this given the significant delay that had already elapsed since the time of the first report of the offence (some 3 weeks).

This apology was welcome, but could not negate the significant adverse effects this incident had upon a man with no previous experience of arrest or custody. Richard suffered distress and anxiety; not only was he an innocent party, but several other residents of his building were aware of his arrest late at night, deepening the shame and humiliation of the incident; the timing of the arrest likely to suggest in the minds of witnesses that it was for a particularly serious offence. As a result, Richard suffered from disturbed sleep and nightmares and became deeply concerned that the arrest might be disclosed on a DBS check and impact upon his employment.

Additionally, Richard was acutely apprehensive that ‘lightning might strike twice’ and that he might be arrested again due to the activities of the ‘Clone’; he was understandably left with no confidence that the Police would handle any such further incidents better than they had the first.  As a result, he sold the Mazda at a significant loss a few weeks after these events, just to get it off his hands.

Police Failings Double the Damage

The wrongdoing in this matter undoubtedly originated with the user of the Cloned vehicle, who ripped off the ATS Euromaster garage, and clearly it was right that the Police pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry in an attempt to catch the ‘scam artist’ – but at the same time they were under a duty to ensure that in so doing they did not themselves break the law by effecting an unlawful arrest. As a result of their failure to do this, my client Richard ended up suffering a far more harrowing experience and longer lasting damage than did the original victim (ATS).

Both modern technology – in terms of the ANPR data available (which would have easily shown that Richard’s car had not travelled to/from Oxfordshire) – and good old fashioned common sense (realising that the Mazda’s tyres had evidently not been recently replaced, and/or bringing along the Cloned vehicle’s key, which was freely available to the investigating officers), if used promptly and proportionately, could have entirely averted Richard’s arrest and saved the Police themselves a considerable amount of time and resources in detaining and interviewing an innocent individual, and then having to deal with his legitimate complaint.

As a result of the complaint findings, the officer who had conduct of the investigation – PC Royal – has been identified as requiring urgent retraining owing to “omissions of attention to detail that demonstrate a significant area of learning and development for the officer.” Meanwhile, I am pursuing a claim on behalf of Richard against Thames Valley Police for wrongful arrest.

Richard’s claim is currently ongoing, but I am confident that he will receive substantial compensation from Thames Valley Police, as well as the ultimate deletion of Police database records of his unlawful arrest.

If you have been made a ‘double victim’ by a vehicle cloning scam being compounded by the Police wrongfully arresting you, please contact me for expert advice and representation: together we can hold the Police to account for any misuse of their powers, and thereby help encourage them to reform their practices and focus on their proper job – catching the real criminals.

Names have been changed.

Update

I am pleased to confirm that, after negotiations, the Police agreed an out-of-court settlement of £12,000 plus legal fees – a settlement reflecting my client’s claim for wrongful arrest.

Another week, another story in the headlines about a Police officer abusing his position for sex; PC Darren Thorn was dismissed by Wiltshire Police following a public gross misconduct hearing on 14 December 2021, where the misconduct panel heard how Thorn had formed a sexual relationship with a vulnerable woman whom he had met whilst on duty, and how he had used the Police National Computer system as a tool in his pursuit/ grooming of the woman – accessing sensitive information on the PNC about members of the public and sharing it with her.

Thorn had already admitted criminal offences arising out of the relationship, which took place between 2016–2018, including misconduct in public office and computer misuse, for which he remains to be sentenced by the Crown Court.

Paul Mills, Wiltshire’s Deputy Chief Constable said as follows –

“PC Thorn significantly abused his position as a Police officer by making contact with a vulnerable woman he met on duty and then going on to pursue a sexual relationship with her…His actions were not only illegal, but were a consistent and sustained flagrant breach of the standards the police service and the public rightly expect of those who serve in the office of police constable.”

Misconduct in public office is not an offence that can only be committed by Police Constables, however; many ‘civilian’ Police staff members potentially have access through their jobs to the type of opportunity, influence, information and authority that can be exploited by the unscrupulous/ predatory amongst them for sexual gain. Indeed, I have recently concluded a claim for misfeasance in public office (the civil tort which is the counterpart of that criminal offence) on behalf of a woman who was the victim of one such civilian Police employee.

On 29 June 2018, my client, whom I will call Nicola for the purpose of this blog post,  established that her home had been burgled – and, to her distress, strongly suspected the perpetrator to be her ex- partner.  Nicola called West Yorkshire Police and later, a uniformed Officer attended.  The Officer obtained a statement from my client and inspected the intruder’s entry point (a downstairs kitchen window).  Nicola was then advised that a “Scene of Crime Officer” (CSI) would attend so as to take fingerprints/other forensic evidence.

Approximately 1-2 hours later, a uniformed male arrived, who my client now knows to be Daniel Cordwell.  He introduced himself as a Crime Scene Investigator. 

Nicola invited CSI Cordwell in, showed him to the open kitchen window, and proceeded to make him a cold drink.

CSI Cornwall remained on the premises for approximately 30 minutes but as time went on, Nicola became more and more uncomfortable in his presence.  Once CSI Cordwell had completed his examination of the window, he said to Nicola, “I’m trying to work out how someone as gorgeous as you would end up with someone like him”  – referring to Nicola’s ex-partner. He then followed up on this totally inappropriate comment with the blatant invitation – “I’d like to see you again under different circumstances”.

By this point, CSI Cordwell  was standing directly in front of Nicola, looking into her eyes, and she felt as if CSI Cordwell was going to kiss her.

CSI Cordwell  then said, “Are you sure you’re going to be okay?” Nicola, who wanted to disentangle herself from this creepy situation as quickly as possible, told him that she would be fine and that she was not vulnerable, but  CSI Cordwell insisted – because this was no doubt what he was hoping to exploit –  “You are vulnerable, you’ve been burgled”.

CSI Cordwell then put his hand on Nicola’s shoulder and kissed her on the cheek, twice.  Nicola was shocked and didn’t know how to immediately respond.

CSI Cordwell then packed up his equipment but whilst doing so, complimented my client’s 2 year old daughter, bent down and kissed her.  He then kissed her 5 year old son. Cordwell then approached Nicola again, put his arm around her and whilst looking into her eyes, played the “white knight” card –  “Are you sure you’ll be okay?”  Nicola insisted she would be, still in a state of shock and just desperate to get this man out of her house and away from herself and her children. 

Soon afterwards, however, Nicola noticed that CSI Cordwell was still sitting in his van outside her house.  She now felt so uncomfortable she called her current boyfriend, and then, after 20 minutes or so, left the house with her children.

She had effectively been caused to flee from her house by the very Crime Scene Investigator who was supposed to be there to help protect and secure it.

Nicola subsequently reported what had occurred to West Yorkshire Police, and the Professional Standards Department became involved.

In July 2019, Nicola received the welcome news that CSI Cordwell had been disciplined and dismissed from service, but other disturbing revelations had come to light as part of that process: it was established by the misconduct investigation that back in 2011 CSI Cordwell had used the same ‘tactics’ at the home of another female victim of burglary, and had then commenced a sexual relationship with that woman. Yet further, at the same misconduct hearing in July 2019, it was noted that CSI Cordwell had struck up inappropriate relationships with two other women he had met through his work duties.

The misconduct hearing also noted that CSI Cordwell’s ‘disregard for professional boundaries’ had actually been highlighted and raised by West Yorkshire PSD at an Integrity Discussion back in September 2017 – but they had nevertheless continued to allow him to serve, and to groom – or attempt to groom – vulnerable female victims of crime, for sex.

As noted above, claims against the Police for misfeasance in public office can be brought not only in respect of abuse of power by Police Officers, but also for the acts of civilian staff/ employees, and it was on this basis that I successfully sued West Yorkshire Police for damages of £17,000 on behalf of Nicola, reflecting the serious impact this event had upon her, especially the psychological effect which had caused her to require counselling.

Thankfully, Nicola can now move on and begin to put this incident behind her; but that is something which is not so easy for the Police profession, who clearly continue to have a real problem keeping their house in order in this regard.

Following the dismissal of the predatory PC Thorn, with whose case I began this blog, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire, Philip Wilkinson, evidently troubled by the fact that this was the third such misconduct case involving sexual exploitation that had taken place within the force since his election in August, issued an emphatic warning that “it would be wholly misguided to suggest that these former officers are lone ‘bad apples’… Cases like this chip away at public trust and [Wiltshire Police must] ensure that we do not end up in a place where that public trust cannot be rebuilt.”

I very much echo the PCC’s sentiments on this issue. The inescapable conclusion of incidents like this, is that Police culture is very much not a toxic environment for toxic masculinity; and indeed in too many respects is an environment that attracts those with such tendencies – whether into roles as Police officers or civilian staff – and fosters the growth of their abusive and exploitative behaviours. There is much work still to be done to eradicate it.

In 2014, I was invited to visit the Headquarters of TASER International in Scottsdale, Arizona, and offered the opportunity to experience the effects of the electric-shock weapon the TASER. And so it came to pass that on a bright November day, I would find myself standing on a mat, in an empty conference room, waiting to be ‘Tasered’. Despite having volunteered for this experience, I am extremely nervous. I stand tall and wait for the loud ‘pop’ that accompanies the firing of the weapon. The short time it takes for the two metal probes to hit me feels like an eternity and when they do, I involuntarily scream in agony as the electricity passes through me. The sensation is like nothing I have felt before: an agonising pulsing and cramping that seems to take over my body at regular intervals. As well as being a painful experience, it is also a disorientating, unfamiliar, and pan­ic-inducing one. The part of my brain that is able to reflect on the experience is frantically trying to classify it and compare it to something more familiar in order to reassure myself that I am safe—but to no avail. Thankfully, the shock lasts only five seconds. I am lowered to the ground by company officials, shaken but not too badly affected by the experience.

This is the vivid description offered by Dr Abi Dymond, Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Exeter, of her personal experience of being ‘tasered’ – in carefully controlled conditions – as part of the research she undertook for her authoritative study of Police Taser use “Electric-shock weapons, Tasers and policing: Myths and realities” to which I was happy to have been able to contribute.

I would ask you to read Dr Dymond’s description of that nightmarish experience (pain, helplessness, lack of control of your body) and then pause to reflect on what it would be like to be shot by, or even merely threatened, with a taser if you were not an adult, but a pre- teen child? Whilst the effects of the electric- shock which the taser barbs deliver might only last seconds, the mental impact of such an assault on your bodily integrity can last for years, and could do untold damage to the vulnerable and developing mind of a child.

Sadly, we seem to be witnessing an  increasing tendency by Police to use these weapons in an ever wider range of scenarios, and upon ever more vulnerable victims.

Police officer Tasers a 10 Year Old Child

I am currently acting on behalf of a 10 year old girl who was tasered at her home in London in January of this year by a Metropolitan Police officer, following an altercation with her mother in which she had picked up a pair of garden shears. There were two Police officers present at this time, and although my client was ‘armed’ with the shears, there was no suggestion that she was actively seeking to attack anyone with them. The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the evidence, and declined to charge the taser officer (PC Jonathan Broadhead) with any criminal offence, but the Independent Office for Police Conduct (after unsuccessfully appealing the CPS decision) has this month determined that the officer does have a case to answer for gross misconduct in relation to excessive use of force, and the matter will now proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

It is the view of the IOPC decision-maker that PC Broadhead’s use of the taser upon my client was neither justified, necessary nor proportionate to such an extent that it is open for a disciplinary panel to potentially dismiss the officer from the Force.

I will be following the misconduct proceedings – conducted within the internal systems of the Police, rather than the law courts –  with interest, but also with a healthy skepticism, born of long experience, as to whether they will deliver justice for my client. My mind is drawn to another case of mine, also involving a young child (12 years old in this case), in which a complaint which was upheld by the IPCC (forerunner of the IOPC)  led only to long-drawn out frustration for my client and his family, who did not get the accountability and apology they deserved from the Police until after I had instituted Court proceedings.

Police officer threatens to Taser a 12 year old Cyclist

The case in question involved PC Jonathon Hillier of West Midlands Police, and the incident took place in February 2017.

My 12 year old client, who had been playing with his friend in a local park, was simply riding his bicycle home when he noticed a police car. He did not hear any shouts or calls coming from the police car and was not aware of the officers therein making any signal to him to stop; nor was he aware of any reason why he should stop. He therefore continued to ride his bike until the police car, which contained two officers, was alongside him.

It is my client’s account that one of the officers in the police car, now known to be PC Hillier, was holding what looked to my client like an actual gun; in reality it was a taser, although this was an understandable mistake for a child to make.

My client alleges that PC Hillier then pointed the taser at him, through the open window of the police car, and shouted at him, “Stop you little fucker or I’ll taser you.”

My client immediately slowed down, rode his bike onto the kerb and stopped and got off his bike. My client suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder and already found interactions with strangers to be difficult; he was shy and retiring by nature, and terrified at what was now unfolding.

My client alleges that PC Hillier marched over, and taking hold of him, shook him hard before throwing him backwards, so that he fell into a nearby garden, banging his back on a low concrete wall which surrounded an area of planting.

My client was now so scared he was struggling to breathe, and his back was hurting. He states that PC Hillier picked him up off the ground and then dropped him to his knees. At this point, my client hit his right elbow and it began to hurt.

PC Hillier then took hold of my client’s arms and manhandled him towards the Police car, pushing him against it.

It transpired that PC Hillier and his colleague had identified – we say wrongly – my client as one of a group of youths on bicycles who had been reported as  riding in a dangerous/ anti- social manner. The two officers, realizing that my client was hurt then took him (against his will) to a nearby hospital where they effectively detained him until his mother arrived, and during which time the officers made threats – thankfully unfulfilled – to ‘arrest’ him.

There can be no dispute that my client sustained injury in this incident, as the hospital records and photographs taken shortly afterwards by his parents amply demonstrate that he had cuts and bruises to his lower back, upper chest, arm and right elbow, consistent with the use of force he described Hillier subjecting him to.

In response, PC Hillier sought to explain away my client’s injuries by claiming that he had fallen over (without being touched) as the officer approached him.

He also denied showing his taser gun (although he was certainly armed with one), instead claiming that he ‘merely’ shouted “Stop! Taser Officer!” without producing or pointing the weapon at this terrified child on his bicycle.

A formal complaint to West Midlands Professional Standards Department about this incident immediately followed. In August 2017, the PSD investigation rejected all of the complaints, resulting in the usual outcome of complete exoneration of the officer – despite what was, in my opinion, a weight of evidence to the contrary.

As a result, I wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), as it was then (now the IOPC), to appeal the outcome of complaint investigation.

In January 2018, the IPCC upheld my client’s appeal on all points, save for in relation to a referral to the CPS, and recommended that PC Hillier attend a misconduct hearing. There then followed protracted correspondence in relation to the IPCC’s recommendation between the IPCC and the West Midlands PSD for several months.

The outcome of this process, reached in August 2018, was extremely frustrating for my client and his family, and , I might add, for any objective observer concerned with Police transparency and accountability; West Midlands Police ‘called the bluff’ of the IPCC by simply refusing to send PC Hillier before a misconduct panel and proposing the ‘slap on the wrist’ sanction of management action as the only penalty he should face. Regretfully, the IPCC chose not to exercise their power to direct the Police to follow their initial recommendation, and instead now agreed ‘management action’ as the appropriate sanction for Hillier.

I will add here the following additional and highly pertinent information: whilst this process was ongoing, with West Midlands Police opposing a misconduct charge and seeking to shield their officer from any serious sanction or criticism, that self- same officer was undergoing a criminal prosecution, also in connection with an allegation of excessive force, and also involving his taser weapon. Hillier faced criminal proceedings following an incident in February 2018 in which he discharged his weapon at close-range into the face of a man named Scott Cutler, whom Hillier was trying to arrest for a public order offence (which effectively amounted to Cutler’s alleged use of bad language). The taser barbs were left embedded in Cutler’s neck and eyebrow and, the jury before whom Hillier was subsequently tried for ABH (Actual Bodily Harm), heard that after discharging the weapon, Hillier had shouted “Fucking ‘av that” at his victim (who he had been trying to arrest for swearing), and declared “Good” on being told that Cutler had been struck in the head.

Hillier did not deny having aimed his weapon at the other man’s face, but claimed it had been an act of reasonable self- defence from a perceived threat. He was ultimately found not guilty of ABH against Cutler at Birmingham Crown Court in April 2019.

The Quest for Police Accountability

However, I am, at least, pleased to report that my client’s story did not end with the unsatisfactory outcome of mere ‘management action’; for the reins were now in the hands of his parents and myself – rather than West Midlands PSD and their eventual ‘collaborators’ the IPCC. The complaint process over, we now pursued a civil claim which culminated in Court proceedings, recently concluded, in which the Police agreed to pay my client damages in the total sum of £25,000 for this incident, plus legal costs, and to issue a fulsome apology in the following terms-

It is accepted that PC Hillier’s approach to this incident did not reflect the level of decision-making it should have done, and that his performance of his duties fell far short of the standard which is expected.

I am aware that this incident caused you physical as well as psychological injury. I accept that you have suffered a significant negative impact on your lifestyle and schooling over the last 4 years as a consequence of your anxiety reaction to these events.

I also acknowledge that you and your parents felt deeply let down by our complaint investigation process.

West Midlands Police would like to offer you an unreserved apology for all distress and injury which you have suffered, and trust that with this apology and the settlement of your claim, your trust and confidence in West Midlands Police can be restored.

Should it have taken that long – and the use of Court time and resources – for Police accountability to finally materialize in this case? I am sure most will agree with me that the answer to that question should be ‘no’, especially when we are dealing with the use of electric shock guns against children.

The fact that our Police officers seem to be increasingly lackadaisical about the use of such weapons, either out of a reluctance to get their hands dirty, or in order to indulge ‘cops and robbers’ fantasies, should come as a concern to us all.

As Dr Dymond observes in her excellent book, the police in England and Wales are often held up internationally as the “gold standard” when it comes to the traditional model of “policing by consent”, rather than by force,  but this heritage of which we should be proud is under threat by the increasing, and ill-regulated roll out of taser guns.

It is in the context of my own experience with the victims of unlawful force by Police officers that I echo Dr Dymond’s call for genuinely robust and truly independent investigations into complaints, and not the kind of lukewarm effort which is what we all too frequently get under the auspices of the IOPC. Likewise I endorse her recommendation for far tighter guidelines to be imposed upon the use of taser weapons. Current College of Policing guidelines allude in airy terms to taser being “one of a number of tactical options available when dealing with an incident with the potential for conflict.”

As Dr Dymond succinctly puts it, this definition “is vague and leaves the door open to excessive, discriminatory and disproportionate policing. Such unclear policies also result in additional pressure for officers, who are faced with making decisions around the use of the weapon with minimal guidance about when such use is, or isn’t appropriate.” She contrasts this with the type of clarity provided in 2008 by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, specifically that – “the use of TASER will be justified where the officer honestly and reasonably believes that it is necessary in order to prevent a risk of death or serious injury.”

Going even further, it is worth considering the guidance issued by the United Nations Committee Against Torture in 2013 which called for a limitation on the use of all ‘electrical discharge weapons’ save for “extreme limited situations where there is a real and immediate threat to life or risk of serious injury, as a substitute for lethal weapons.”

In many cases which I have handled, there is no discernable threat to life or limb whatsoever when Police officers draw their taser guns – whether on children or adults – but only a perceived threat to the officer’s self- importance, or their (often unlawfully) asserted authority. In other cases, some use of force might be justified, but the firing of a taser is grossly disproportionate to the level of threat posed…especially by a 10 year old girl.

If Police chiefs fail to heed the calls of lawyers such as myself and criminologists such as Dr Dymond in this regard, and continue with the softly regulated roll out of taser weapons – and then fail to follow up on that with robust punishments for the abuse of such weapons by ill-disciplined or aggressive officers – then the gold standard of UK Policing will become increasingly tarnished. The more we arm our officers, and the more habitually they use tasers as the ‘go to’ answer to any form of dispute/ resistance,  then the more we move, however incrementally, towards an American model of ‘paramilitary’ policing – which is not, in the long run, a healthy state of affairs for either the people on our streets, or those who police them.

It is a sad fact of life that the Policing profession is attractive not only to those who feel the call of duty to help keep society safe, and to protect others – but also those with authoritarian tendencies and who, in the wrong circumstances, can let their impulses turn them into overgrown playground bullies.

I have recently concluded claims recovering damages totalling £65,500 on behalf of four young men, who were on the receiving end of vicious abuse and violence from an officer of British Transport Police who has now, thankfully, been dismissed from the service.

I will set out here the shocking details of this case.

Arrested for Queue-Jumping?

 On the evening of 4 June 2018, my client Eduardo was working at a restaurant in the Westfield Shopping Centre. 

That same evening at approximately 19.25, a group of four friends, including Mohammed (Mo), Rui Cassama and Rui Santos, queued up to eat in the restaurant. All the friends are of Black African heritage. Rui Santos had a pre-existing injury (from football) and was using a crutch. 

Mo and the two Ruis temporarily left the queue, debating whether to eat elsewhere, but then decided to stick with this restaurant, and returned to the point in the queue where their fourth friend had remained throughout. 

PC Mahbub Ahmed of the British Transport Police (known to his colleagues as “Mabs”) then approached the friends and accused them of queue jumping; they reasonably disputed this. PC Ahmed was with two other officers, PC Owusu and PC Davenport. 

An argument then developed, during which PC Ahmed threatened to arrest the friends for an unspecified offence – queue jumping? – and also grabbed Rui Santos’s shirt, in an attempt to pull him out of the queue.  When the friends protested about this, PC Ahmed then indiscriminately deployed his captor spray, spraying Mo, Rui Cassama, Rui Santos and several others in the vicinity, including Eduardo who was innocently standing behind the food counter in the course of his employment.  All of my clients felt a burning sensation in their eyes and on their faces, and their eyes began to water. The spray had also affected some of Eduardo’s colleagues and contaminated food that was on the restaurant counter. 

Fortunately, the unfolding events, the aggression and increasingly deplorable behaviour of PC Ahmed were captured on the shopping centre CCTV and the body cameras worn by PC Ahmed, as well as the numerous other police officers who quickly gathered in the vicinity, PC Ahmed having activated a ‘panic button’ which had brought numerous other officers of both BTP and the Metropolitan Police, who had been elsewhere in the Westfield Centre, running to this ‘emergency’. 

PC Ahmed, referring to Rui Santos, said to a colleague (believed to be PC  Owusu), “Let’s nick him mate ……. he’s coming in for assault bruv, cos I captored him as well.” 

At this point, Eduardo touched PC Ahmed’s elbow to gain his attention and tried to explain that, whilst working, he had been affected by PC Ahmed’s deployment of captor spray.  PC Ahmed replied “I know you’re working.”

PC Owusu then said to PC Ahmed, “Mabs, calm.” However, PC Ahmed instead decided to berate Rui Santos with the words “Listen, you’re a pussy, you’re a fucking pussy.” ,  before declaring to his colleague PC Owusu, “I’m gonna drop him.  Let’s fucking drop him” and “I swear to God I’ll drop him.”

 PC Ahmed then continued to spray insults and threats around as liberally as he had his captor spray, repeatedly calling Rui Cassama a “pussy”, and threatening to “pepper spray” everyone again, before announcing “I’m a mad man”. He then went on to call Rui Santos a “Fucking piece of shit”, and threatened Mo with the words “I will fucking drop you like a piece of shit.”

 PC Ahmed then advised Rui Santos that he was to be arrested for “Common assault” because he had “grabbed hold” of PC Ahmed.

 The argument continued and PC Ahmed questioned Rui Santos about what had happened to his leg, in reference to his crutch, stating “Did someone beat you up? You’re an idiot mate, I’ll break your leg as well.” 

The Thin Red Line

 That thin red line into rage which is evidently near the forefront of certain Police officers’ minds had evidently now been crossed. PC Ahmed pushed Rui Santos and produced his baton. Rui in turn raised his crutch, defensively. 

PC Owusu and another officer, PC Obaseki, then took hold of Rui Santos. PC Ahmed approached. A member of the public sought to intervene. 

PC Ahmed pushed the member of the public aside and said “Get rid of him. Me?  I’m handling my job.” Then, whilst Rui Santos was restrained by his police colleagues, and using over-head strikes, PC Ahmed lashed out twice with his baton – first inadvertently striking PC Obaseki’s shoulder and then, getting his aim right, deliberately striking Rui Santos in the head, connecting with Rui’s left cheekbone. 

PC Ahmed then said of Rui Santos “He’s getting nicked” and then indiscriminately towards the rest of Rui’s companions – “You’re getting nicked as well, they’re all getting nicked for common assault.” To literally add insult to injury, PC Ahmed, on noticing the wound he had caused to the side of Rui Santos’s face, taunted him with the words “Ooh, we’re bleeding now, are we?” He also mocked Mo, whose eyes he noticed were watering in response to the captor spray, with the jibe “Don’t you dare cry now.”

 The member of the public who had just been pushed aside by PC Ahmed now said to him, ”You guys are antagonising the situation” and “You need to care, because you’re the one that caused this.”

 Ignoring this, PC Ahmed told PC Walters, “They all need to get nicked ………  for common assault” and “I tried to talk to them, all three of them………….  just started pushing me and grabbed hold of me by the collar, so all of them are getting nicked. He’s [referring to Rui Santos] the main aggressor and all of them have to get nicked… If there aint no one else gonna do it, I’m gonna do it. Mate, they need to get nicked.”

PC Ahmed now went on to engineer the arrests of Rui Cassama and Mohammed, outrageously alleging that Rui Cassama had come at him with a knife, and that Mo had tried to assault him with a fork.

Mo immediately protested his innocence, but to no avail, and was unquestioningly handcuffed by PC Brown. Rui Cassama’s pleas of innocence likewise fell on deaf ears.  Both men were simply incredulous at the blatant lies that Ahmed was telling. 

Appetite For Detention

 PC Ahmed’s appetite for arrest was evidently not yet satisfied, however.

 Eduardo had seen Rui Santos, Rui Cassama and Mohammed be arrested, and attempted to engage with PC Ahmed about his conduct. Instead, Westfield security staff restrained Eduardo, PC Ahmed approached him and announced, “You’re going to get arrested in a minute as well.” 

 In response to this outrageous threat, Eduardo understandably protested “Who do you think you are?” to which PC Ahmed replied, “Who do you think you are? You work behind the counter mate.  Go back there you little idiot.  Mate, drop him to the floor if he does anything else.”

 PC Ahmed then turned to PC Owusu and said, “That member of staff’s getting nicked as well ‘cos he’s just come and grabbed me by the collar ‘cos I accidentally sprayed him.  He needs to get nicked.”

This allegation of assault by PC Ahmed was a blatant untruth, but none of the police officers present challenged their colleague; instead, they joined in the pursuit of Eduardo, as he attempted to escape from his unlawful arrest. PC Mirza grabbed hold of Eduardo and pushed him up against a wall.

 Eduardo was told several times that he was to be arrested but was not given any explanation as to what the alleged offence was; he was then handcuffed to the rear.

Truth be told, it should have been PC Ahmed who was being restrained and arrested at this point, but of course that is not what his brother officers did.

One of the Westfield security guards did, at least, challenge PC Ahmed’s reason to arrest, pointing out that Eduardo had not assaulted him, but had just tapped Ahmed on the shoulder.  PC Ahmed dismissed this challenge, pontificating “That is an assault ……  listen, don’t teach me my job mate…..  just because it’s a member of staff that works with you, I don’t give a shit.” 

Eduardo protested that he was innocent, that he was not resisting, and that the officers were treating him like “an animal”. Another member of staff queried if they could give Eduardo first aid because of the obvious pain the captor spray was causing to Eduardo’s eyes. Unsurprisingly, PC Ahmed replied, “It doesn’t matter. ………..  he don’t need no first aid.”  

All four of my clients were then transported separately by van to Leyton Police Station, where they were variously informed they were under arrest for either “assault PC” or “common assault”. All four were then subjected to the degrading ordeal of being searched, having their fingerprints and DNA taken, and being detained overnight before being formally interviewed on the assault charges the next day. All of them denied any wrongdoing. They were subsequently released under investigation but had the false accusations hanging over them for several months, until they were finally advised that no further action would be taken.

The mendacious PC Ahmed had made a series of deliberately false accusations of assault and public order against my clients, firstly in the heat of the moment, at the restaurant, but then ‘doubled- down’ upon in his later written statement, as he attempted (but failed) to manufacture a smokescreen for his own wrongdoing. 

Discredit to the Service 

 Thankfully, PC Ahmed’s lies were exposed by the plenitude of video evidence available – including that officer’s own body camera recording.

 The tables were turned, and it was he, rather than my clients, who faced charges as a result of this investigation – albeit for disciplinary, rather than criminal, offences.

Following misconduct proceedings, PC Ahmed was dismissed for gross misconduct by reason of, inter alia, unreasonable use of force on 8 September 2020.  

Following that hearing, the head of BTP’s Professional Standards Department, Detective Superintendent Peter Fulton described PC Ahmed’s behaviour as “completely inappropriate and he brought discredit to the service…PC Ahmed’s reaction was unnecessary and completely inexcusable. I support the decision of the independent panel to dismiss him with immediate effect.”

 Justice has been done in this case, but what to me remains a grave concern is the fact that PC Ahmed’s outrageous behaviour – in terms of the lies he was telling, the violence he meted out, and his orchestration of not one but four unlawful arrests – were not stopped by his Police colleagues, all of whom essentially followed Ahmed’s lead despite the evidence of their own eyes, and what they were evidently hearing from the members of the public and Westfield staff who had witnessed these shocking events.

It is that type of culture of complicity and compliance amongst the Police ‘brotherhood’ which unfortunately facilitates the abuse of power to which many officers fall prey when their ‘red mist’ descends – and which attracts those with tendency to bully to the Force in the first place.

 That is the real discredit to the Police service.

The names of all individuals in this blog have been changed apart from – PC Ahmed, Detective Superintendent Fulton, Rui Santos and Rui Cassama.

When is “sorry” the hardest word to say ? – When you are a Police Officer, or so long experience has taught me.

Common decency, professional integrity and even pragmatism often seem to be thrown out of the window when it comes to apologies from the Police, who will fight claims and complaints tooth and nail to avoid having to apologise – even where a prompt and fulsome apology could have saved everyone involved a great deal of heartache and expense.

I blogged recently about the case of my client Brett Chamberlain, who was arrested in ridiculous circumstances because Tesco had refused to accept the payment he offered for his petrol by way of a commemorative coin, which was entirely legal tender.

After arresting Brett, and then contemptuously dismissing his legitimate complaint (and his request for deletion of the arrest record), Devon and Cornwall Police rapidly backtracked after I presented them with Brett’s civil claim, and agreed to pay him compensation of £5,000 and to issue an apology.

A Broken Promise

The letter that was subsequently sent to Brett by Devon & Cornwall’s Deputy Chief Constable Jim Colwell, in fact said merely the following (under the heading “Letter of Apology”) –

I have been made aware of the claim for compensation that has arisen out of your arrest on 27 July 2020.

The force has the expectation of the highest standards from its officers and staff and we are sorry you feel these have not been upheld in this matter. The force has taken on board any lessons which can be learned to ensure it continues to offer the best possible service to the public.

I have also been made aware that you have been offered and accepted compensation in full and final settlement to conclude this matter.

I wish you the best for the future.

There is, in fact, no apology whatsoever contained within that communication, which appears to be a ‘cut and paste’ standard letter. An apology requires an acceptance of fault on the part of the wrongdoer, otherwise it is merely an expression of ‘sympathy’. DCC Colwell’s letter fails to demonstrate any such acceptance; the DCC acknowledges only that my client feels that the ‘highest standards’ of the Force have not been upheld, and is entirely silent as to his own view of the matter. Indeed, the implication is that the DCC does not think those standards have been breached: if this is not the case, he should say so.

This failure to acknowledge the wrongdoing of Sergeant Attwood (compounding the earlier rejection of my client’s legitimate complaint), is then perpetuated by the DCC’s suggestion that “any lessons which can be learned” will be taken on board – he does not even accept that there are lessons to be learned from these events.  

Brett was induced to settle his claim in part by the offer of an apology. In fact, no apology has been forthcoming, and thus as matters stand, he and I have been misled by the Force, and I have made it clear that if this letter is not altered so that it actually offers an apology for what was done to Mr Chamberlain, then we will be lodging a complaint against the Deputy Chief Constable.

A Proper Apology

In another recent case which I concluded, involving a substantial payment of damages from West Midlands Police in respect of their Officer’s use of force (including threat of a taser) against my 12 year old client, a proper apology was made, and reads as follows-

This second example, which included an acknowledgement of and sensitivity towards my client’s autism, and a genuine offer to engage with him and his parents so as to ‘learn lessons’, should be the norm rather than the exception.

Instead, the majority of Police ‘apology’ letters which I see are more akin to that which has been offered to Brett Chamberlain: clearly given through ‘gritted teeth’ if not, indeed, passive- aggressive in tone or full-blown exercises in “double-speak”.

Rather than apologising, such missives seem almost deliberately designed to add insult to injury, or to advertise the fact that the Police are ‘not really sorry’. The prickly pride of the Police profession is what is most often on display here, rather than any real humility or contrition.

The Police it seems to me, are far too willing to put the public’s money where their own mouths are, when it comes to refusing to say ‘sorry’ – or saying it with fingers openly crossed.

The Courts cannot, of course, order any one litigant to apologise to another, but a great many claims and complaints could be resolved with significantly reduced expenditure of time and money, if only the Police used that five letter word more often, and more honestly.

My client Curtis Givens has recently concluded his claim against Merseyside Police, and there are some interesting aspects of his case which I felt it worth highlighting in this week’s blog.

Curtis and his adult son resided at separate flats in the same building in Liverpool. In June 2019, a dispute was ongoing between Curtis’s son and the building’s landlord over rent arrears.

On the afternoon of 10 June, Curtis’s son’s flat was ransacked by unknown individuals whilst he was out walking his dog.

That evening, Curtis had his son and a friend round at his own flat socialising, when the three men were startled by a loud banging at the communal door to the premises. Three uniformed officers from Merseyside Police were outside the building; when Curtis’s son spoke to them through the window of the flat (Curtis’s flat being on the 1^st floor) the officers stated that they were responding to reports of an (unspecified) incident, and requested that Curtis’s son come down to talk to them. They refused requests to elaborate as to the nature of the ‘incident’.

Curtis’s son challenged the officers as to whether they had a warrant; they did not. They then alleged that Curtis’s son was not a tenant of the building, but was rather a ‘squatter’, to which he responded by throwing down to them a copy of his tenancy agreement and bank statements.

The officers persisted in asking Curtis’s son to come down stairs to ‘speak’ to them – for unspecified reasons – and he continued to refuse to do so, as was his right.

However, numerous other officers were now arriving at the scene, and some of these new arrivals were armed with an ‘enforcer’ (i.e battering ram) and crowbars. Police dogs had also been brought.

Curtis encouraged his son to now go down and talk to the officers. With a view to avoiding unnecessary damage to the property, Curtis’s son did so, but before opening the front door he made it clear to the officers that he was coming out to speak to them, and he was not giving them permission to enter the property. The officers replied that that was understood/ agreed.

Nevertheless – but perhaps predictably – as soon as Curtis’s son opened the door he was aggressively grabbed by a male officer, who pulled him out of the building, and immediately handcuffed him. To compound the unlawfulness of this action, no reason was given as to why Curtis’s son was being arrested/ detained.

Curtis – who had accompanied his son downstairs – was now likewise pulled out of the building by the Police, and handcuffed by a different officer. Again, no explanation whatsoever was given to justify this.

Numerous officers then entered the building, and shortly afterwards, Curtis’s friend was brought down from the flat, also in handcuffs.

All three men remained entirely in the dark as to any basis for their (presumed) arrests – with Curtis’s son questioning the officers as to whether his landlord had put them up to this with a false report of illegality (as he had done that before) – until around 15 minutes after the officers had laid hands on them: an officer announced that they were all under arrest on suspicion of possession of a Class A drug (Cocaine) with intent to supply. Curtis and his companions were incredulous and disputed these false charges, but were nevertheless taken into custody at St Anne Street Police Station.

The Custody Record gave the following justification for Curtis’s arrest-

“PWITS A [Possession With Intent To Supply Class A] suspected to be cocaine circumstances:- Called to a disturbance…  report of males attacking another within a property patrols attend and enquiries take place another arrested male spoken to in the property he refuses officers entry and was evasive, male kept moving away from the window – patrols entered under s17 PACE x 3 males located inside property evidence of drug misuse snap bags and white power suspected to be cocaine no person making allegation of assault DP 1 of 3 inside therefore C+A no reply handcuffed to the front anc informed”.

Curtis, his son and his friend knew nothing about any such disturbance/ fight – let alone drugs in the property – but were nevertheless strip- searched, detained for over 18 hours and interviewed.

During the interview process, photographs of a mysterious ‘white powder’, said to have been found on a surface in Curtis’s son’s flat, were produced to Curtis and his son. Curtis’s son correctly observed that this powder, rather than being a Class A prohibited drug, was in fact flour – although the Police actually went to the length of laboratory tests before they admitted defeat on this.

In their apparent desire to find ‘something’ to pin on the three men, and thereby justify their intrusion into the premises, the Police had also gone into an unoccupied flat in the same building and discovered there a handful of “extremely tiny” cannabis seedlings of “no monetary value” (that is the official Police description of this ‘haul’).

Curtis and his son were released “pending further enquiries” on 11 June and subsequently received confirmation that no further action was to be taken against them. The final Police report stated-

“It is my request due to the serious lack of evidence this matter be NFA’d …  I strongly believe this matter is not in the public interest to pursue any further and the likelihood of a conviction for PWITS or POCD [Possession of Class D] is impossible.”

Curtis subsequently instructed me to pursue a legal claim for compensation against Merseyside Police on the basis of trespass to land, false imprisonment and assault and battery: those proceedings have recently been successfully concluded.

Analysis

Absent of a warrant, the Police only have the power to enter a private dwelling house, if permission is not granted by the occupant, in certain limited and generally ‘emergency’ circumstances.

The power which Merseyside Police purported to rely upon on this occasion was that granted under Section 17 (1) (e) of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) – the power to enter premises for the purpose of “saving life and limb or preventing serious damage to property.”

My client now understands that the landlord of the premises had made a malicious report to the Police, alleging that a new tenant at the property was being threatened by a gang of teenagers linked to Curtis’s son. Curtis asserts this was entirely untrue, and it is undisputable that when the Police arrived, there was neither sight nor sound of any such disturbance.

The Police log indicates that before arriving at the property, the Police did speak by telephone to a male who claimed to be the new tenant, and who stated that a group of males had chased him from the premises – but that he was now safe elsewhere. Even if this was true, therefore, there was no evidence of any ongoing threat to ‘life and limb’ which would have justified the Police entering under Section 17 – but that is nevertheless what the officers did, having enticed Curtis and his son to the door by suggesting that they just wanted to talk.

Thus it was my firm view that the entry of the officers into the flats was unlawful and constituted trespass to land; furthermore, the Police were at the same time committing the offences of trespass to the person and false imprisonment upon Curtis and his son, by handcuffing and detaining them not only without an objectively lawful excuse – but in fact, without any stated justification at all! Even the Police themselves, in their response to the legal claim, did not contend that any justification for arrest had been given to Curtis during the first 13 minutes of his detention (until he was then formally arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to supply flour – sorry, cocaine).

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

I have blogged before about the disconcerting tendency of some Police officers to ‘detain’ people whilst they try to find an excuse to arrest them . That is indisputably what was going on here; the Police evidently took a dislike to Curtis and his son, as the inhabitants of low-rent housing with a previous history of interactions with the Police, and decided that they would find a reason to arrest them, rather than arresting them for a reason. Such acts of Police misconduct might be written off as incompetence/ rashness on the part of officers who genuinely do not understand the limits of their own powers, but I have grave concerns that many officers know full well that such acts of detention are unlawful, but nevertheless consider them a useful tactic in the face of the general public, who do not necessarily know that such powers don’t exist. Even if the Police commit such acts of wilful false imprisonment ‘with the best of intentions’ this gives rise to a slippery slope whereby such conduct could become more commonplace/ accepted, severely eroding our long established civil liberties.

If the Police exceed the law, then the law must be used to push back at them – and I am pleased that is exactly what Curtis Givens, with my expert assistance, was able to do.

Last week in my blog I addressed the issue of Police negligence, by reference to an almost farcical situation in which a postal summons had been sent not to my client’s address (or indeed any private address at all) – but to the street which was the location where he had been stopped and searched.

Unfortunately, the gross ridiculousness of this type of error by Police officers/ staff, does not render it a one-off. I am aware of many other incidents where slip-shod correspondence or record keeping – which would not be acceptable in the marketing department of a commercial company, let alone an arm of the justice system – has likewise resulted in loss of liberty for the unfortunate individuals who were the victims of this negligence.

Another recent example of this was the Police error in the case of my client Liam Hughes who was arrested twice on the same warrant, for exactly the same offence.

On 21 December 2020 Liam  was arrested by the Metropolitan Police, under a warrant issued in relation to a number of historic allegations . During the arrest, Liam’s iPhone 12 and an old iPhone 6 which also belonged to him were seized. Following Police interview, during which a series of harrowing allegations were put to Liam – which he entirely denied –  Liam was released on bail with the condition to return to the station on 17 January 2021. As a result of the arrest and allegations, Liam felt severely depressed and, indeed, experienced suicidal thoughts.

Then, on 3 January 2021 at approximately 19:30, officers from the Metropolitan Police re- attended Liam’s home, and arrested him again in relation to the same allegations. Liam informed the officers of his previous arrest and even showed them his bail sheet; nevertheless the officers persisted with the arrest. Liam was handcuffed and the officers seized a replacement mobile phone that he had purchased since his original arrest. Liam was devastated and incredulous that he was being arrested again for the same offence, and experienced an understandable exacerbation of his mental health issues.

Liam was then conveyed to Holborn custody suite, processed and placed into a cell. Concern about his mental health issues led to him being placed on a regime of constant observations by the custody staff; he was also physically unwell with a cough and concerned that he might be suffering from Covid. After approximately 5 hours the custody sergeant entered Liam’s cell and admitted that he was unsure why Liam was there, as he had already been interviewed in relation to the allegations. Shortly afterwards, Liam was de-arrested and allowed to return home.

Unfortunately, Liam could not walk away from the mental ordeal of this incident so easily; he felt deeply suicidal as a result of the stress of the unnecessary arrest. He felt that he was being persecuted. The day after Liam’s second release from custody he called 999 from a public phone box, an ambulance attended and Liam was sectioned at the Priory Hospital, Roehampton. Such was the severity of his condition, he remained in hospital for approximately a month. Whilst in hospital, Liam was informed that his police bail had been extended by a further three months. Eventually however,he was informed that there would be no further action in relation to the allegations, which were now deemed to have been false/ malicious, and his property was returned to him.

I am pleased to confirm that Liam’s claim for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and trespass to goods has now been settled for a substantial sum, plus legal costs.

The blatant error committed here by the Metropolitan Police, in arresting Liam twice for the same offence in the space of two weeks, had a devastating effect on his mental health and well-being and could, frankly, have resulted in tragedy. My enquiries revealed that the officer in charge of the original arrest had failed to update the PNC (Police National Computer) to the effect that the arrest had been carried out; hence the arrest warrant had remained in circulation. To describe this as a mere ‘admin error’, as the Met did, constitutes an almost contemptuous dismissal by the Police of a gross act of negligence which could have driven a man to suicide, and did result in his being sectioned in a mental health hospital.

We are entitled to expect much higher standards from those who control the keys of the custodial system.

It is natural that claims against the Police involving deliberate abuse of power have a tendency to steal the media headlines, however a great many of the people whom I represent have suffered as a result of acts of Police negligence/ incompetence which can be shocking in their own right.

The utmost care and attention to detail should be applied by officers who are initiating a process which could result in a person losing their liberty – but sadly that is not always the case, as the situation my client Tony Jones found himself in demonstrates.

On the evening of 16 February 2020, Tony was proceeding along Green Lane, Liverpool, when he was stopped by two officers of Merseyside Police, including PC Scully.

Tony admitted to being in possession of a small amount of Cannabis and confirmed his name, date of birth and address (42 Montgomery Road).

Tony understood that because he had made a full admission there and then, and surrendered the cannabis, that no further action would arise. He was released and allowed to continue on his journey.

In fact, it appears that PC Scully subsequently decided to issue a postal requisition against Tony i.e a ‘remote charge’ of being in possession of cannabis, delivered by post, and requiring the charged individual (in this case Tony) to attend the Magistrates Court.

On the morning of 27 August 2020, no less than four officers of Merseyside Police attended at Tony’s address (42 Montgomery Road) and arrested him; a warrant had been issued by Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on 10 August 2020 in respect of Tony’s failing to appear in response to the postal summons.

In a state of considerable shock, as he was completely unaware of the postal summons, Tony was transported to Belle Vale Police Station where his detention was authorised. Tony was kept in Custody for around half an hour before being granted bail to appear at Liverpool Magistrates Court in December 2020, to answer charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Tony was left bewildered by what had occurred, knowing full well that he had received no summons and had been innocently unaware of the original date for his Court attendance.

All however became clear when Tony received the prosecution papers for his case, which revealed that the summons requiring his attendance at court on 23 July 2020 had been sent to “Street Record, Green Lane, Tuebrook, Liverpool, L13 3DB” i.e not his home address – but the location of the stop and search!

Nevertheless, the Police staff member who had completed the “Certificate of Service by Post” had endorsed the declaration that this was “an address at which the issuing authority reasonably believes that the Defendant will receive the documents”.

That such an elementary and obvious error could have been made by Police officers/ staff and then relied upon as a basis to issue a warrant for arrest against Tony, simply beggars belief, and yet that is what happened. As one of my colleagues commented – someone in the Police must have been having a “stupid day” when they drafted the request, and equally baffling is the fact that the Court then issued the warrant despite such a glaring error in the address. Subsequent enquiries revealed that the Court staff apparently believed that “Street Record” was the name of a hostel for the homeless! The CPS lawyers conducting the prosecution also appear to have read the blatantly incorrect address with glazed eyes.  But this is no laughing matter really; a man was unjustly deprived of his liberty by this bureaucratic botch-up.

Although Merseyside Police were protected by an archaic piece of legislation (the Constables Protection Act 1750)  from a claim under the common law for the tort of false imprisonment  – on the basis that they had arrested Tony under the authority of a Court warrant, and sadly notwithstanding the fact that the gross error as to his address had arisen as a result of Police fault in the first place – I was nevertheless able to obtain an appropriate four figure settlement for his 30 minutes of detention.

I am left to reflect once again how human error in the form of ‘schoolboy mistakes’ such as the Police committed here – and numerous other legal professionals then overlooked/ signed off on – remain rife even in our modern era of data sensitivity and risk management.

Names have been changed.

Regular readers of this blog will no doubt recall the case of my client Ben Joynes, who was subjected to an un-provoked headbutt by PC Mark Knights of Derbyshire Police, after he tried to complain about the officer calling him a “fat cunt”.

Knights was convicted of common assault in Derby Magistrates Court in December 2020 and then in March 2021 dismissed from the Force, and placed upon the Police Barred List.

It has now been revealed that Knights was also under investigation for the  harassment of a female Police colleague, and was convicted of this latest offence by Southern Derbyshire Magistrates Court earlier this month. His behaviour, including asking his victim to “come and sit on my ****” reduced his victim to tears, and the best defence which Mr Knights’ barrister could offer – it seems – was to describe Knights’ behaviour as “immature” and “stupid”. In reality, his behaviour was a lot more sinister than that. He was a serving Police officer, not a school boy. The woman he harassed summed up Knights’ behaviour as follows –

“It was predatory. He thought I was new in the service and thought he could get away with it.”

Knights received a suspended sentence as well as a fine and 120 hours of unpaid community service. District Judge Jonathan Taaffe informed Knights that he was very lucky not to be going to prison, admonishing him with the following words –

“The fact that you were a police officer is of course relevant because the public have the right to expect police officers to uphold high standards. It leads me to question what on earth was your attitude to members of the public? There is a breach of trust here to the public and to your colleagues…You have let the people of Derbyshire down and you have let your colleagues down.”

The latest court proceedings also revealed that Knights was frustrated after his application to become a firearms officer was rejected- shortly before his assault upon Mr Joynes; however, a man like this should never have been allowed to become a Police Officer at all.

It is salutary to reflect on this in the context of the Government’s push to recruit 20,000 new Police Officers by 2023. On the day that the Government proudly boasted that half the recruitment total had already been achieved (27 October 2021), HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Thomas Winsor, sounded the following note of warning to the Home Affairs Committee- “If you’re going that fast in recruitment there is a danger the wrong people will get in…” cautioning that when officers during their probationary service display “attitudes or preferences which are incompatible with the office of constable, the police need to be much more assiduous in recognising that and throwing them out.”

I whole-heartedly endorse his comments, as the list of vices and character flaws which Sir Thomas warned against have, in my experience, been amply displayed amongst many of the current crop of Police Officers who have abused, assaulted and mistreated my clients – a propensity for violence, a fondness for exercising power over their fellow citizens, misogyny, racism, homophobia and a basic “lack of maturity and judgement.”

Ex- PC Knights is just one such example against all too many.

The doorway to the Police profession needs to be vigilantly guarded, but sadly I suspect the Government’s current programme is more focused on quantity than quality.

Concerns have rightly been raised this week about the quality and coverage of Legal Aid provision in England and Wales by a cross party group of MPs known as the Westminster Commission on Legal Aid.  They have published a 95 page report identifying major concerns as to the sustainability of this country’s Legal Aid sector.

The Report opens with a rallying call to the authors’ fellow MPs and other stakeholders to help preserve the health and integrity of what the UK can rightly call “One of the best Justice systems in the world” and sounds the following important warning –

“The Legal Aid sector is an essential part of our High Streets.  Many Legal Aid firms and organisations are small businesses employing local people and servicing the local communities. The sector as a whole is in desperate need of revitalisation and investment if it is to meet public demand in the years to come.  Successive Governments over the past two decades have taken measures to reduce the cost of the Legal Aid system and the proportion of the population that it is able to help is becoming increasingly small.”

Certainly these concerns are borne out by my own experience.  Over the decades I have witnessed the Government cutting the Legal Aid budget and drastically reducing its scope/coverage, so that less and less people are able to use it as a means to access true justice.

In the words of the Westminster Commission – “There were significant issues around individuals accessing the Justice system….  In some areas, this led to a worrying inequality of arms for those unable to access legal advice or representation in the most emotive and challenging of cases.”

The Legal Aid Agency is, in my opinion, in dire need of reinvestment and reinvigoration – so that it truly begins to function again as a gatekeeper facilitating access to justice for the less wealthy/fortunate in our society, rather than acting as a ‘bouncer’ whose apparent job is to keep people out of the club, not let them in.

Let me give a demonstrative example of how I believe the current Legal Aid regime is failing the public, and is not fit for purpose, by reference to the case of my client David White.

Mr White, a gentleman of entirely good character and aged in his 60’s, was making his way home through his local area  when he was made the victim of disturbingly heavy handed and unconstitutional actions by two West Mercia Police Officers  who stopped him on his journey home and bundled him into the back of a car against his will – and all without any suggestion that he had committed the slightest criminal offence.

The incident began at approximately 10.30pm with a report from an off-duty PCSO (Mr Barlow) who reported that he had seen Mr White on the pavement of a road bridge and he was concerned because Mr White was standing still and was refusing to engage with Mr Barlow when questioned.  To be clear, there was no suggestion from Mr Barlow that my client was putting himself in any physical jeopardy – Mr White was simply on the pavement, on the correct side of the railings.  Nevertheless, notwithstanding the fact that Mr White then continued his journey over the bridge and along the pavement of the road in normal fashion (he was walking home) Mr Barlow chose to ‘phone in’ the incident to his Police Headquarters on the basis that “I just had a bad feeling about it…..  it just didn’t sit right with me.”

Whilst I am sure that Mr Barlow’s concern was genuine, and his call made in good faith, it is a huge leap to go from having a ‘bad feeling’ about another person – who is not in fact saying or doing anything which puts themselves, or any other person, in jeopardy –  to deciding that they have a mental disorder “requiring care and control.”

However, within minutes of PCSO Barlow’s phone call, a pair of Police Officers (PC Masters and PC Smith) had stopped my client as he continued his journey home, and physically forced him into the back of their vehicle, demanding that he identify himself and answer questions about what he was doing. The officers (at least after the event) asserted that they believed that Mr White was suffering from a mental disorder and that they were therefore entitled to detain him using the powers granted by Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

If the unspoken implication was that the mental disorder Mr White was ‘suspected’ by the officers from suffering, was suicidal or self-harm inclinations then that was in my opinion a shocking judgment to make, indicative of lack of reasonable care and consideration of the true facts, as there was simply no evidence whatsoever before the officers that Mr White was contemplating, let alone attempting self-harm or suicide.

Mr White’s first ‘misdemeanour’ it seemed was to refuse to talk to an apparently civilian motorist (Barlow) who approached him out of nowhere in the middle of the night, and his second ‘crime’ to refuse to answer demands for his personal details/ purpose of journey from PC Masters.

I repeat again, that there was no suggestion whatsoever that any criminal offence had been committed. Mr White refusing to answer the officer’s questions is not of course an offence, and certainly not a justification for a person to be taken into a Police car from the public street and then driven away against their will under the justification of  ‘mental health’ concerns.

Analysis of the Incident

PC Masters asked Mr White what he was “up to” in a very intimidating matter, even though it should have been clear that Mr White was not ‘up to’ anything, but merely walking along a public path.  The officer then claimed that Mr White was drunk, despite the fact that he was completely sober, and when Mr White protested that PC Masters should not treat him this way, because Mr White had committed no crime, the officer replied facetiously “Well none we’re aware of yet…” PC Masters asked for Mr White’s name and address, but had been so rude and aggressive in his approach from the start, that Mr White felt he had to stand up for his rights and politely – and correctly – asserted that  he was not obliged to give that information, as he had done nothing wrong.

Then, without warning, PC Masters grabbed Mr White’s arm, put him into the restraint position, and forced him into the back of the Police car.  He told Mr White that he and his colleague would keep Mr White in their custody until he cooperated – even if it took all night. He then threatened to take Mr White to the Police Station, which finally scared him into giving PC Masters what he wanted.

It was in these circumstances, in a state of fear and duress, that Mr White reluctantly provided his name and address and the officers then – against Mr White’s will – drove him to the vicinity of his home address, where he was finally released from the Police vehicle and allowed to go on his way.

As Mr White entered the flats where he lives, he noticed a  neighbour was outside and was ashamed to think that she may have seen him alighting the Police vehicle.

It is also notable that despite the fact that the officers were later to assert that they were acting under Mental  Health powers out of a concern for Mr White’s welfare – once having extracted his name and address, and thereby asserted their ‘authority’ over him, they did not even accompany him to the door of his home, but simply released him into the street and drove away.  This is hardly indicative of a genuine concern for Mr White’s mental health, which would surely have resulted in the officers taking Mr White to a hospital. Indeed, the entire purpose of the powers granted under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act is to allow officers to take a person into protective custody and convey them into a “place of safety” – i.e. a Police Station or Mental Health Hospital where they can be assessed by appropriately qualified Medical Practitioners – and being dropped back outside a person’s home is not in that context, a place of safety in accordance with the Act.

Furthermore neither PC Masters nor his colleague attempted to consult a Medical Practitioner/Mental Health Professional prior to or during the exercise of their alleged powers under the Mental Health Act.

It is my view that the conduct of PC Masters demonstrated that the officer was acting in bad faith towards Mr White – motivated not by genuine concern about Mr White’s health, but rather by animus arising from Mr White’s perceived disrespect for the officer’s authority (his refusal to answer the officer’s questions) and that what PC Masters in fact did was to misuse the powers conveyed by the Mental Health Act so as to pressure Mr White into answering his questions – which effectively having been kidnapped by the officers, he was duly browbeaten and cowed into doing.

Mr White was understandably outraged by what had been done to him and made a formal complaint.  His complaint was (as is usually the case) rejected by West Mercia’s Professional Standards Department and it was on reading the Complaint Report that Mr White first learned that PC Masters and his colleague were claiming that Mr White had appeared to be mentally ill and that they were using Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to excuse their actions. Mr White was confident that absolutely nothing about his appearance or behaviour that night could have reasonably caused anyone to suspect that he was mentally ill, and he was shocked at the lies which the officers had apparently told to the Complaint Investigator.  In particular, PC Masters had denied grabbing and forcing Mr White into the car – claiming that he had got in voluntarily, but that the officer might have put  his hand on Mr White’s arm simply to ‘guide’ him as he did so.

In  my opinion, Mr White was quite right to feel extremely aggrieved at the response he had received to his legitimate complaint.  On reading the Complaint Report it was obvious that there were numerous issues tending to suggest that the officers’ accounts were not accurate, and that their exercise of their powers was not in fact lawful – but all of these contradictions were air-brushed over with the typical pro- Police bias which is commonplace amongst PSD Investigators.

Here are just a few of the issues which should have given an open-minded Complaint Investigator pause for thought before he chose to exonerate the officers and reject the complaint –

·        The Police incident log at 22. 48 tersely records ‘male is not cooperative, not giving his details’. It is then recorded at 23.00 that Mr White had been taken to his home address. There is no suggestion there in the incident log that PC Masters or his colleague had encountered a person whom they reasonably believed to be suffering from a mental health disorder.

·        PC Master’s Pocket Notebook for the night in question contained no reference to this incident (which one would have assumed a MHA intervention upon a ‘mentally disordered’ person, detained and driven from one place to another against his will, would have required). This speaks to a real possibility the officer’s actions were not in compliance with the Act, either being done in bad faith and/or without reasonable care. Why else would he not reference the use of his powers?

·        In response to the subsequent Complaint, the two officers gave accounts highly contradictory as to whether Mr White was actually detained under MHA powers or not. PC Smith indicated he was not; whereas PC Masters stated that he did so detain Mr White, but did not say that any explanation of these powers was given to Mr White.

·        The account of PCs Smith and Masters that Mr White ‘voluntarily’ got into their vehicle without threat or physical force was inherently unlikely in the context of the officers’ own accounts– they repeatedly labour the point of his non-cooperation, obstructiveness, and refusal to answer questions – why on Earth would he then voluntarily have got inside the police car, when he obviously wanted to be allowed to go about his business?

·        Furthermore, PC White attempted to justify his purported use of the Mental Health Act powers by saying that a member of the public was concerned that Mr White might ‘throw himself off the bridge’ – well, Mr Barlow’s concern was actually couched in terms of a ‘gut feeling’ and we know from the incident log that there were no specific details which suggested a self-  harm act was actually about to occur. Yet further, it was not disputed that Mr White was no longer in the vicinity of the bridge; the two Officers had stopped him around a mile away, with Mr White’s direction of travel being away from the bridge.  Therefore PC Master’s only real reliance was on the fact that Mr White “would not facilitate communication with us” which again, I submit, could simply not in the context be a basis for bona fide use of mental health detention powers.

A Quest for Justice

Having been badly let down by the lack of impartiality of our Police Complaints system, Mr White, who was of limited financial means, first approached a local Solicitor in the hope that his case could be taken on a no win, no fee basis – but the Solicitor declined to do so.

Mr White was then prepared to bring an action in the County Court against West Mercia Police as a litigant in person, seeking damages for assault and false imprisonment – only to learn whilst he attempted to draft the letter of claim that Section 139 of the Mental Health Act requires all potential Claimants who have been subject to a purported detention under the Act to obtain permission from the High Court before they can commence their claim, and in doing so to demonstrate that the actions taken towards them by (in this case) the Police were done in bad faith and/or without reasonable care.

Mr White was dismayed at the prospect of having to navigate the tortuous  process of bringing and succeeding with such an application in the High Court itself, and knew that he could not do so without specialist legal advice – but also that he lacked the means to pay for the same.

Following a personal recommendation, Mr White then approached me.

Having assessed Mr White’s case as meritorious, and noting that he was of limited financial means, I made an application on his behalf to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) seeking public funding for the case.

Regretfully, the LAA rejected Mr White’s request for Legal Aid on the following basis –

“It is unreasonable for Legal Aid to be granted as the prospects of obtaining a successful outcome in the proceedings, assuming the case were determined at Trial or other final hearing are poor. Having read the Complaint Investigation Report, I cannot see that the prospects would be better than poor.  In any event, this case would not meet the proportionality test.  There is no reason to consider that either aggravated or exemplary damages would be awarded even if your case were successful. The value of the claim would be no more than £1,000.”

The institutional negativity displayed by the LAA in that assessment of Mr White’s case demonstrates in a nutshell why our current Legal Aid system is not fit for purpose and in urgent need of investment and reform.

·        To assess Mr White’s prospects as being ‘poor’ (i.e. less than 50%) demonstrates an unacceptable inability to cogently assess the evidence and understand the law – not least the fact that where the detention of a person is admitted (which it was here) the burden of proof rests firmly on the Police to justify at all times the lawfulness of their actions and the Complaint Report itself (as highlighted above) was littered with contradictions and apparent inaccuracies by the officers which would tend to suggest that they would fail to meet that burden.

·        Likewise, either naively or cynically, the Legal Aid Assessor has accepted the outcome of the complaint investigation as if it were ‘Gospel’ likely to be determinative of the proposed civil proceedings. Anyone at all familiar with the Police Complaints process would know that the regular rejection of meritorious complaints is par for the course, and that the limited and biased complaint investigation process is in no way comparable to the full, fair and rigorous process of a County Court claim.  The findings of complaint investigations are not binding on subsequent civil proceedings; which indeed, as my own personal experience will amply testify, frequently come to the reverse conclusion following the initial exoneration of officers by their own PSD colleagues.

·        Finally, there was a demonstrable failure by the LAA to properly consider and apply the proportionality test i.e. the weighing up of the costs of bringing a legal action against the potential rewards which are available.  Firstly, it was inaccurate to assert that no more than £1,000 damages could be recovered.  The outcome of this case will speak for itself (see below) but even at the initial assessment stage it was clear that although Mr White’s detention was fortunately no longer than around  20 minutes, the physical assault that he suffered, combined with his understandable alarm and distress and the arrogance and unconstitutional behaviour of the officers (particularly PC Masters) should have made it obvious to any competent assessor that the range of damages were certainly significantly in excess of £1,000 and that aggravated and exemplary damages were potentially recoverable.

·        Even more importantly, there were also issues of personal and civic justice over and above the ‘pounds and pence’ amount of the actual compensation award which should have been taken into account by the Legal Aid Agency as a crucial factor when assessing the ‘costs v benefits’ criteria for funding this case.  The case was never just about the recovery of damages, as if Mr White was merely seeking recompense for a broken dishwasher – rather it engaged important issues of civil liberty and the accountability of Police actions.

In summary, this was a proposed claim involving a man who had committed no crime – who indeed was not at any point under suspicion of any crime – nevertheless being bundled into the back of a Police car on the flimsiest of pretexts.  Mr White had been assaulted, intimidated and deprived of his liberty and this was a case that deserved the full investigation that substantive civil proceedings would allow. 

Surely it is in the public interest to hold the Police to account in such circumstances? I feel it would certainly be of concern if police officers were regularly invoking ‘mental health concerns’ simply because a person who they approached on a public street was refusing the officer’s request for personal information. A British citizen has the right to refuse to talk to a police officer who approaches him in all but the rarest of circumstances, and none of those circumstances applied here. I repeat that there was simply no evidence of mental disorder, or mental disorder requiring immediate care and control.

Sadly, the LAA did not agree and maintained their rejection of Mr White’s request for funding.

I am convinced that many hundreds, if not indeed thousands of persons with meritorious claims such as Mr White’s, are being left high and dry and without access to justice by the current Legal Aid system for a whole variety of reasons  – but certainly including a negative culture within the LAA and a basic failure to understand fundamental points of law and the assessment of evidence.

The current civil Legal Aid system is anaemic and in real need of a transfusion not only of funding but also of new leadership and the adoption of an ethos more dedicated to facilitating rather than frustrating access to justice for those with limited financial means.

Mr White wrote to me in the following eloquent terms following the final rejection of his appeal for funding by the LAA –

“I believe very strongly that the Police should be held to account when they mistreat a member of the public, and that if people like me just shrug their shoulders and think ‘it’s too much work to do anything about this’, that makes it more likely that others will be mistreated in the future. I feel it is my civic duty to try to bring this case to court, so I hope you will continue to help me…….”

I am pleased to confirm that I did indeed agree to continue to assist Mr White, agreeing to act by way of a Conditional Fee or No win, No fee Agreement as the only means of funding which remained available.  Mr White was not in a  position to be able to pay me, and so I agreed to take on the case which the LAA had deemed as ‘poor’ with the risk that I would not be paid a penny if it did not succeed. 

Furthermore, Mr White was also having to shoulder the burden of having to pay the Police legal costs if his claim failed, because without Legal Aid a losing Claimant is directly exposed to those costs, which could, at worst, result in bankruptcy/seizure of assets.

Nevertheless, both I and Mr White were prepared to take these risks in the interests of the justice of his cause and to do what the LAA seemed uninterested in doing – which was to hold the Police properly to account after their abusive mistreatment of Mr White and shambolic/cynical rejection of his legitimate complaint.

I am pleased to confirm that the subsequent application which I made on behalf of Mr White to the High Court was granted, and thereafter, shortly after the commencement of full civil proceedings against the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police, Mr White’s claim was settled for damages in the sum of £1,200 plus an agreement by the Chief Constable to pay the costs of both the High Court application and subsequent civil proceedings.

Mr White’s sense of satisfaction in the vindication of his claim was worth far, far more than the mere monetary damages in this case but it is not right that he had to shoulder such a burden of risk in order to achieve justice.

We need to see a significant improvement in both the funding and culture of the Legal Aid Agency so that many more people like Mr White are not left wandering in the desert, without a lawyer to guide them or any hope of accessing justice.

After all, there is no point in having one of the best justice systems in the world if people cannot use it to hold to account abuses of power, and to expose evidence of corrupt character, amongst agents of the state. 

Names have been changed.