Blog

Sometimes, the question as to whether the Police have “reasonable suspicion” to justify a person’s arrest is a highly nuanced question which needs to be the subject of intense legal debate and analysis both in and out of the Court room.  On other occasions, it is a matter of blindingly obvious common sense which Officers have overlooked, as they going rushing in ‘where angels fear to tread.’

My client Richard is a 6 foot tall man, with a strong ‘northern’ accent, and who does not have any tattoos on either of his hands.  As far as distinguishing features go there is also the small matter of his having a prosthetic left leg, following a serious road traffic accident some years ago.

In or around 2021, Richard moved into Flat 2 of a shared house of five flats in a town in Kent.

In September/October 2023, Richard was asked by his landlord to move into Flat 4 in the same building, whilst renovation works were carried out. At this time, Flat 4 had been vacant for a lengthy period of time. 

Late one evening in November 2023, Richard was in bed, dressed only in his boxer shorts (and with his prosthetic limb therefore entirely visible) when he was disturbed by a loud banging on the door of his flat. 

Concerned, Richard opened the door to be confronted by three Officers of Kent Police.  One of the Officers, PC White, asked Richard if he was “Kevin Butler”.  Richard of course replied that he was not.

It is now known that the Officers were looking for Kevin Butler so as to arrest him for failing to attend Court. Mr Butler’s PNC (Police National Computer) record confirmed that he was 5ft 8 inches tall, with a London accent and distinctive tattoos on his left hand and right wrist – other than being white and male, Richard and Mr Butler shared no identifying characteristics – and, even more notably, Mr Butler had two legs. 

Nevertheless, PC White now stepped into Richard’s flat, seized hold of my client’s right wrist and told him “You are under arrest for failing to appear”.  PC White applied a handcuff to Richard’s right wrist, causing him discomfort.

Richard immediately challenged this misidentification and told the Officers his name.

Another Officer now commented “We will sort it out in a minute, we think you look very much like him (i.e. Mr Butler) and you’ve got a lot of tatts so we will be able to sort it out”. Richard did have tattoos on his body, but not on his hands.

Richard, now perhaps doing the Officers’ investigative duty for them, pointed out that he only had one leg and queried if Mr Butler also only had one leg.  All three Officers confirmed that they had not noted that particular detail on Mr Butler’s PNC record – which undoubtedly they would have done, had it been there. 

With realisation perhaps beginning to dawn, the Officers removed the handcuff from Richard and allowed him to produce ID in the form of his bank card.  Richard told the Officers that they had “scared the life” out of him. 

PC White then left Richard’s flat for several minutes to check the Police National Database, during which time Richard remained, in effect under (wrongful) arrest. 

When PC White returned, Richard had to allow his hands and wrists to be checked, to confirm that he did not bear the tattoos which Mr Butler did in those places, whereupon the Officers advised Richard “We will mark it up and hopefully we won’t bother you again”.  As the Officers left the flat one of them flippantly remarked “Your disability has done you a favour tonight”.

Richard was understandably left shaken and upset by these events, struggled to return to sleep that night and suffered with worry and anxiety for several weeks afterwards.

Although the whole incident had not lasted more than 16 minutes, it was a gross and disturbing intrusion into Richard’s home and life and the effects of it lingered for much longer than that.

Richard was subject to wrongful arrest and detention without the least justification in his home.  It was all the harder for him to bear because a modicum of common sense would have excluded him from all reasonable suspicion.  His arrest was therefore a perfect – or should we say imperfect – example of high handed, arbitrary, and egregiously thoughtless use of Police power. I am pleased to report that I have recently recovered £3,000 damages, plus legal costs, on behalf of Richard from the Chief Constable. You can read here about some of the many other mistaken identity arrests in which I have recovered significant compensation for my clients, including another case in which Officers ‘overlooked’ a missing limb . If you have been subjected to this type of arrest, then please do not hesitate to contact me for advice.

My client’s name, and the name of the wanted man, have been changed.

How you can help me

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

What are “Aggravated Damages”?

The general principle of the civil law in England and Wales is to put a successful Claimant back into the position they would have been in had the civil wrong (tort) not been committed against them by the Defendant. There is a special category of damages called “exemplary damages” which are specifically designed to punish the wrongdoer (tortfeasor) rather than make up for the losses of the Claimant – so any award of exemplary damages is a ‘windfall’ for the Claimant; as such, even in claims against the Police, exemplary damages are only rarely awarded, signalling the Court’s displeasure with the most egregious behaviour.

 So, the principle most civil claims are operating under is a strictly ‘compensatory’ one – designed to ‘make up’ for financial losses, loss of liberty or any injuries sustained, but not more than that. It is a ‘re- setting of the balance.’ Furthermore, in most cases, for example accident claims, compensation cannot be awarded for ‘injury to feelings’ – the only mental/ emotional anguish which can be compensated is that arising from a recognized psychiatric injury, diagnosed by an independent medical expert.  

However, awards for injury to feelings can be granted in exceptional cases which involve deliberate, as opposed to accidental, wrongdoing; such awards are known as “aggravated damages” and I am pleased to confirm that what is exceptional in most civil cases, is quite often achievable in cases  in which I specialise, namely claims against the Police.  

Aggravated damages give people the right to recover what the Court of Appeal in the case of Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2006] EWCA Civ 1773 called the “intangible consequences” of “humiliation, injury to pride and dignity…the hurt caused by spiteful, malicious, insulting or arrogant conduct of the Defendant.” As was cogently observed by Moore- Bick LJ  in the Rowlands case, the type of harm which aggravated damages are designed to address can be clearly distinguished from psychiatric illness/ injury – it comprises those upsetting emotions of humiliation, anger  and resentment which “do not ordinarily result in psychiatric harm, but are no less real for that reason.”  

The applicability of aggravated damages to cases involving wrongful arrest, excessive force or other Police wrongdoing was recognized by the Court of Appeal in the seminal case of Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498 which set the parameters for many categories of damages awards in claims against the Police, and which has stood the test of more than a quarter century of legal history –    

(8) “If the case is one in which aggravated damages are claimed and could be appropriately awarded, the nature of aggravated damages should be explained to the jury. Such damages can be awarded where there are aggravating features about the case which would result in the plaintiff not receiving sufficient compensation for the injury suffered if the award were restricted to a basic award. Aggravating features can include humiliating circumstances at the time of arrest or any conduct of those responsible for the arrest or the prosecution which shows that they had behaved in a high handed, insulting, malicious or oppressive manner either in relation to the arrest or imprisonment or in conducting the prosecution. Aggravating features can also include the way the litigation and trial are conducted.”

The entitlement to aggravated damages in these cases is, quite correctly, arising because the tortfeasors are Police Officers imbued with special powers and responsibilities and hence any insulting/ malicious behaviour by them is more hurtful to the injured party than the same conduct committed by a private citizen, precisely because the wrongdoers here are agents of the law, agents of the State – and it is requisite upon them not to behave like unprofessional, undignified bullies. It is, what we might call, another method of protecting the liberty and integrity of the citizen from “high- handed oppression” – every person’s mind and body also being ‘castles’ in their own way.

How To Win Aggravated Damages

Examples of Police behaviour which can justify awards of aggravated damages include the following –  

• if the conduct took place in public or within the knowledge of your community (e.g being lead away in handcuffs in front of family members or neighbours); 
• if you were of previous good character; 
• if a wrongful arrest is exacerbated by Police Officers maintaining lies in an attempt to justify it; 
• if you were belittled, verbally abused, or otherwise humiliated; 
• if the Police were motivated by racial prejudice;   
• if the Police attempted to obstruct the investigation of any complaint you have made; 
• the way litigation and trial are conducted (e.g if the Police refuse to apologise and fight a meritorious claim ‘tooth and nail’, denying liability all the way, or almost all the way to trial).  

Normally aggravated damages will not exceed the amount awarded for ‘basic’ compensatory damages. However, in the most exceptional circumstances, a Court could award aggravated damages at a maximum of twice the amount of basic damages. 

How does this work in practice? Let me give you a recent example from a case of mine which went to trial at Oxford County Court last month.

My client Mohammad was unlawfully detained when Officers of Thames Valley Police wrongly targeted his car on suspicion of it being a ‘clone’, handcuffed him in full view of members of the public on a garage forecourt, demanded his ID and searched his car without justification. Thankfully, Mo’s detention was relatively short- lived, only around 10 minutes, but the way he had been treated by the Officers during that time caused him precisely the form of upset and humiliation which aggravated damages are designed to compensate, and I identified the following factors for the Court’s attention –

• these events took place in the full glare of the ‘public eye’;
• the Officers used abusive words to Mo, including “wanker”, “knob” and “dick” (and then tried to deny this);
• the Officers attempted to frustrate Mo’s request for a written record of what they had done to him by first denying that any search had been carried out, and then admitting that it had but trying to make Mo desist in his attempts to have them create a paper-trail by exaggerating how long the process of creating the record was going to take; in my opinion this was a deeply unprofessional, if not in fact a malicious, attempt by the Officers to avoid future scrutiny of their actions and hence proper accountability;
• subsequent false accounts made by the Officers in an attempt to avoid liability for their actions.

I am pleased to say that the arguments put forward by myself and Mo’s barrister, the excellentUna Morris of Garden Court Chambers won the day , with His Honour Judge Andrew Davies making a significant award of aggravated damages in favour of my client, stressing his disapproval in particular at the Officers’ “high- handed manner”, their “unprofessional and obstructive” attempt to deny that a search had been carried out, and their flippant comments to my client, thereby causing Mo a “justifiable sense of outrage” at his treatment.   

Indeed, the award of aggravated damages in this case increased Mo’s total compensation by almost 90%, thereby allowing him to ‘beat’ an earlier offer of settlement which had been made by the Police and recover his full legal costs – which was as it should be. This is why aggravated damages are such an important weapon in civil claims against the Police, and the fight to uphold and vindicate our fundamental constitutional rights.

How you can help me

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

For those who doubt the existence of ‘racial profiling’ tendencies amongst Police Officers, I here offer a report on the case of my client Zac Sharif-Ali, a black man of Somalian heritage, who suffered no less than three unlawful stop-and-search events at the hands of the Metropolitan Police over an 8 year period. I have previously written about his other cases here. This week’s blog post concerns his third successful claim. 

One evening in July 2020, Zac was driving home in his BMW motor car when he noticed a marked Police carrier van travelling in the opposite direction.  As the two vehicles past each other, Zac noticed the Police van slow and perform a U-turn manoeuvre. 

A short distance along the same road Zac reached his home address and began reversing into his normal car parking space outside.  As he did so, the Police carrier suddenly pulled up sharply alongside him. 

A female Officer now known to be PC Lawless and two male Officers alighted from the van and walked rapidly towards Zac’s car.  He lowered his driver’s door window. 

PC Lawless said “Hello mate you alright?  Do you mind stopping the vehicle and getting out?” to which Zac asked “What for?” and PC Lawless replied “So we can chat with you, sir.” 

Zac considered his vehicle to be in an unsafe position (halfway through an angled parking manoeuvre) and therefore decided to finish parking up before he spoke to the Officers.  Before doing so, he wound up his window because it was raining. PC Lawless immediately opened the driver’s door and said to my client “Right, now I’ve asked you to get out of the vehicle, you’re detained under Section 1 Police and Criminal Evidence Act.”  Zac removed his seatbelt and responded “I was just parking my vehicle, I live right here”.  

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)  is that which allows Police Officers to detain a person for the purposes of a search of his person or his vehicle for “stolen or prohibited articles” (which includes offensive weapons)  – provided, of course, that the Officer has objectively reasonable grounds for suspecting the person to be in possession of such items. For the avoidance of doubt, being a black man in possession of a BMW does not  amount to grounds to suspect that you are a criminal.

PC Lawless stated –  “Sir, my name is PC Lawless from Larkhall Police Station and you’re entitled to a copy of the search form afterwards.  Get out of the vehicle now sir.”  Zac now began to voluntarily exit his car, but PC Lawless and her colleague PC Vigneswaran nevertheless seized hold of his arms and handcuffed his hands behind his back, notwithstanding his compliance. Zac’s mobile phone and keys were also seized. 

PC Lawless now continued, “As I’ve explained, I’ve asked you to get out of the vehicle, you’ve refused.  You put your window up as though you’re trying to hide something and then you’ve continued to reverse back, okay”.  This could not, in fact, amount to reasonable grounds for a search – for a start, what Zac was doing was not unreasonable; he had not refused to get out of the vehicle; and, most importantly, the Officers had clearly already decided to stop-and-search him before they even spoke to him. 

At this point, my client recognised two of the other Officers present, PC Ngo and PS Rees, who had stopped him for a negative drugs search in May 2020, as detailed in my previous blog post.   

Zac was led over to a wall, where PC Lawless said “The reason why we wanted to have a chat with you sir is that you’ve come out of the junction really quickly… right, you’ve shot out that junction really quickly.  You’ve then seen us come towards you on blue lights, you’ve then spun the vehicle round and it looks as though you’ve gone to drive off.  I’ve then approached you and asked you to get out of the vehicle multiple times, you’ve done the window up and continued to drive as though you might drive off.  So, I’ve detained under Section 1 for weapons…” 

PC Lawless then continued “The reason why I have put you in handcuffs is I suspect you having weapons on you, you could have stored them in the waistband etc, you could grab them and you could easily attack one of us ….. The reason why I took your mobile phones out of your hand is because they could be used as weapons to either attack me or my colleague.”  

Zac was flabbergasted by these spurious accusations, though at the same time they were depressingly familiar to him. He had no doubt that the Officers’ suspicion of him was based on his ethnicity, or, we might say, no more than skin- deep. 

The Officers now informed Zac that he would now be taken into the Police carrier and searched; given his previous experience of Police violence, including being subjected to a ‘choke-hold’ by PC Bullock of the Met in the 2012 incident,  Zac’s heart immediately started racing and he felt scared that the Officers were going to assault him.  Accordingly, he immediately remonstrated and requested that he be searched in the street “in front of everyone” to ensure his safety.

 PC Lawless replied that there were certain things that could not be done in the street such as the removal of Zac’s shoes.  Again, my client requested that the search take place in public.  PC Lawless responded “I’m happy to search you initially here, but then we’re going to need to do a more thorough search on the bus.” 

PC Lawless then began to carry out a ‘pat down’ search of my client.  PC Vigneswaran commented that Zac’s request “raised his suspicion” that Zac “had something concealed upon him.” Zac honestly replied that he was scared. He was already in pain and discomfort, owing to the tightness of the handcuffs upon his wrists. 

Despite the fact that Zac now removed his shoes himself, on the street, PC Lawless continued to maintain that his shoes could not be checked here “because it needs to be out of view” – a bizarre piece of check-box bureaucratic brutality in the circumstances. Multiple Officers forced Zac into the Police carrier with PC Lawless also claiming that his reluctance to get in was raising her “suspicions.”  

The response of the Police here displays both a lack of compassion and of common- sense. Officers so often fail to appreciate that their unwanted, intimidating presence is going to cause the very behaviour in people that they then claim as some kind of retrospective justification of their original decision to detain that person: such retrospective reasoning is not, of course, lawful and in any event mistakes effect for cause. 

Zac was now further searched, as was his vehicle: nothing illegal, of course, was present.

Nevertheless, Zac was not free to leave. PC Arthur now informed my client that they suspected that he was under the influence of drink or drugs and would be subjected to a breath test and a drug wipe accordingly. He was told he would remain under detention whilst testing equipment was obtained. This prolonged the emotional torment Zac was already under, as he was told he could not leave the Police carrier, despite his fears. Notwithstanding that nothing had been found on my client or in his vehicle, he continued to be handcuffed. 

This is another sadly common tactic deployed by Police Officers who have overstepped the mark: if at first, they don’t succeed, they will try, try again to find a reason to criminalise their victim, in order to cover their initial mistake. 

PC Lawless now at last relented, and assisted Zac out of the carrier – although she still refused to remove his handcuffs, despite his compliance; another unlawful use of force upon my client. 

When Zac again protested and asserted that all he had been doing was to reverse his car to park outside his home, PC Lawless at last moved his handcuffs and told him that she would complete the stop-and-search form that he was entitled to under the GOWISELY code which governs the legality of street searches. 

Somewhat farcically and giving the lie to any suggestion that the Officers properly suspected that Zac was under the influence of drink/ drugs, PS Rees now requested that Zac move his vehicle (i.e finish parking it) and his keys were returned to him. He was also allowed to go into his flat to relieve himself, and then on his return was informed that as there had been a delay in the testing equipment arriving, he would not now be tested and was, at last, free to go. PC Lawless issued him with a copy of the stop- search record. 

Striking Back: Zac’s Hatrick

 And so, for the third time, Zac had to sue the Metropolitan Police with my assistance in order to assert his civil rights. 

Given the typically combative approach of the Metropolitan Police to claims against them, I was not surprised when they denied liability, filing a Defence in which they asserted that PC Lawless had lawfully detained Zac for the purposes of a “weapons search” under Section 1 of PACE.

Denying – of course – that Zac’s ethnicity had anything to do with the decision to stop him, the Met were only able to offer the suggestion that Zac had “pulled out from a junction at speed” (whilst not providing any estimate of the alleged speed, nor having arrested Zac for any motoring offence) as a specific reason why they thought he might have weapons in his car, coupled with the highly generic assertion that there had been “an increase in gang and drug related crime” in the area. Such flimsy excuses could never amount to reasonable grounds to deprive a person of his liberty and commit trespass to his person, leaving us with the bad taste in our mouths of an unspoken, racial reason. 

Apparently reluctant to have his Officers subjected to cross- examination on these issues, and notwithstanding the Defence which had been served, the Commissioner of Police backed down in the face of Zac’s determination and ultimately agreed a settlement of £7,500 damages for my client, plus his legal costs. 

Of course, it never had to come to this, and Zac certainly wishes that it hadn’t, yet the Police must be held to account when they use ‘skin-deep’ reasons to interfere in an innocent person’s life. The Met should get this memo: BMW does not stand for “Black Male with Weapons.”

I am proud that throughout the many years I have been blogging on this site, its success has been organic, not paid for by advertising campaigns in order to “game” the Google rankings. If you value my site and my regular postings, you can play a crucial part in its ongoing success by giving a positive review. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

I have written before about how the Courts of England and Wales expect Police Officers on the ‘frontline of the thin blue line’ to display reasonably thick skins when it comes to unpleasant, but every day, swear words used in their presence – and not to ‘weaponise’ the Public Order Act  order to punish people who are being disrespectful, or even merely ‘cheeky’ in their presence.  

In this respect, the law has not changed since I wrote this blog post in 2011 regarding the case of Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions (2011) EWHC B1(Admin) l in which the High Court reminded the Police that “Parliament has not made it an offence to swear in public” and cited with approval the comments of Glidewell LJ in DPP v Orum [1989] –

“Very frequently words and behaviour with which Police Officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom. It may well be that, in appropriate circumstances, justices will decide as a question of fact that the words and behaviour were not likely in all the circumstances to cause harassment, alarm or distress to either of the Police Officers. That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the Police Officers are, and so on.”

Down the years, I have also recounted the stories of some of the many football fans whom I have helped to win substantial damages when it is the behaviour of the Police Officers policing the crowd which turns out to be the real hooliganism. 

 This week’s blog post brings both of these recurrent themes into focus, as I explain what befell my client Jack W and how I helped him to secure a court judgment against and compensation from Greater Manchester Police following an incident after the Manchester Derby in January 2023. 

Jack had attended the match at Old Trafford with his brother and friends, and after the game finished was part of the large exodus of fans heading towards the local Metrolink station. Jack was carrying a can of lager and a tray of chips and gravy. 

Jack accepts that as he was walking along he mischievously called out “pigs” at two Police Officers, now known to be PS Ritchie and PC Shahhet.  

The Officers then rapidly approached Jack and PS Ritchie questioned him “What did you say?”, to which Jack replied “You heard”. 

PS Ritchie then grabbed Jack’s wrist and pulled him from the (peaceful) crowd, whilst PC Shahhet removed the can of beer and tray of chips from Jack’s hands.  

Jack was escorted towards an off- road area and pushed against a metal fence. A third Officer, now known to be PC Sharples, also closed in and together the three Officers began bending and pulling Jack’s arms, hurting his wrists and then began standing on his left foot and kicking his legs in an apparent attempt to trip him to the ground. 

Bizarrely, two of the Officers then took hold of Jack’s legs (one Officer holding each leg) and lifted Jack up into the air, where my client found himself swaying precariously – above the Officers heads – as if they were cheerleaders trying to build some kind of human pyramid. The Officers then dropped Jack to the ground, whereupon one of them kneed him in the head.  

You won’t be surprised to read that this manoeuvre by the Police – lifting Jack up into the air by his legs – was not a ‘Home Office approved’ use of force technique.  When I saw mobile phone footage of this incident, I was frankly shocked. The Officers had placed Jack into a position of great danger, and it was only good fortune that he did not sustain potentially life changing injuries in a break-neck fall.   

Even as it was, Jack did not avoid injury – the three Officers applied further force to him as he lay face down upon the ground, grinding his face into the ground as his hands were handcuffed behind his back, and causing Jack to suffer a cut above his eye which bled profusely. 

At this time, still no Officer had told Jack that he was under arrest. The Police do not have powers of detention without arrest, except in limited circumstances which did not apply here – so there is no doubt that Jack was not only being unlawfully assaulted, he was also being falsely imprisoned.

Jack was brought to his feet and caged in the back of a Police van, before being driven to hospital, given the substantial gash above his eyebrow.

On arrival at the hospital, common sense at last seemed to prevail and the Officers removed Jack’s handcuffs and released him, allowing him to seek help from A&E staff for his injury without suffering the insult of being marched in as a Police prisoner. 

 In response to the letter of claim which I sent to Greater Manchester Police on behalf of my client, the Police flat-out denied liability, and disclosed statements from their Officers asserting that all of their uses of force upon Jack were lawful for the purposes of effecting his arrest for a Section 5 Public Order Act offence.  

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

Harassment, alarm or distress.

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

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

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

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

 As I am sure you will gather from my earlier comments, based on my thorough knowledge of the case law, I rejected GMP’s assertion that Jack’s act of calling the Police Officers ‘pigs’ could have constituted such an offence. Surely none of the many robust Police Officers in the vicinity, on football crowd control duty, could have possibly been caused “harassment, alarm or distress” by the use of that puerile, but also pretty inoffensive, word. 

Furthermore, any suggestion that actual members of the public in the vicinity would have been alarmed by Jack’s use of this porcine pejorative was equally unlikely. The only members of the public in the area were Jack’s fellow football fans, none of whom, I am confident, would have been shocked to hear that word – and many of whom were, frankly, probably thinking it. Jack’s behaviour has to be seen in the context of his being part of a football crowd – not a convention of nuns or choir boys. 

To my mind, the Officers could and should have simply ignored Jack’s run-of-the-mill insult. It was totally unnecessary for them to lay hands upon him – pushing, shoving and twisting him up. The Police Officers were wasting their own time; they were running the risk of completely unnecessarily antagonising the football crowd; and, as I have pointed out, they were also putting Jack at risk of far more serious injuries even than those that he actually sustained.

It was obvious to me that the Police were going to have real problems in justifying what they did to Jack, although that did not stop PS Ritchie having a stab at it in the statement that he wrote after the incident. This was how he described the key part of the incident, when Jack was raised up into the air by Officers holding his legs – 

“At one point he lifted himself above myself and the other two Officers, saying something along the lines of “even three of you can’t get me”….we managed to coordinate our movements and take [Jack] to the floor”.

 This was clearly nonsense.  How does a person ‘lift himself above’ another person in a situation like this? Jack was obviously being lifted up by the Officers; unless PS Ritchie was attempting to suggest that my client was levitating?

The Officers had got themselves into a ‘Keystone Cops’ mess, and had caused real injury and harm to my client in the process.  Faced with the Police denial of liability, I advised Jack about the strengths of his case and recommended that he bring Court proceedings to hold the Chief Constable to account for the behaviour of his Officers. Jack courageously accepted my advice – because even when you have a strong case and a lawyer who is an expert in this field –  going to Court can still be a daunting, lengthy and stressful process. 

However, I am pleased to confirm that these proceedings have been speedily concluded in Jack’s favour.  I secured Judgment for him against the Chief Constable and a settlement of £10,000 plus legal costs.  

I trust that those of you who are ‘season ticket’ holders to this Blog will tell any football fans you know to reach out to me, should they need advice and assistance when the Police Officers who are supposed to be the agents of public order, become its disruptors; hooligans in uniform. 

I am proud that throughout the many years I have been blogging on this site, its success has been organic, not paid for by advertising campaigns in order to “game” the Google rankings. If you value my site and my regular postings, you can play a crucial part in its ongoing success by giving a positive review. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

The primary duty of the Police is to keep the peace; but all too often, they break it – and today’s blog post contains a prime example of this and explains how I helped my clients Louise and Colin win compensation when they were unlawfully arrested by Officers of Nottinghamshire Police. 

One evening in September 2020, Louise, a nurse, returned home from a long shift in work. Her partner Colin was waiting for her, along with her pet dogs.  

Shortly afterwards, Louise and Colin noticed a Police car pull up on the road outside their home – and saw several Police Officers violently apprehending and handcuffing a young woman, whom they recognised as their neighbour. A short while later, they saw their neighbour being released by the Officers. 

Louise remembered that she had left her phone charger inside her car and went out to retrieve it.  As she opened the front door to leave, her dogs ran outside, and Louise and Colin had to spend a few moments shouting for the dogs to come back and ushering them back into the flat.  

Once the dogs were safely back inside the flat, Louise turned and took several steps along the garden path.  At this point, she saw three of the Police Officers who had been involved in the altercation with her neighbour, rapidly approaching.

 Louise was apprehensive about the Officers – given how she had seen them conduct themselves with her neighbour – and she therefore decided to go back inside her flat; however as she attempted to lock her front door she was prevented from doing so by the Officers, who forced their way in shouting that they needed to enter her flat because of  a “domestic incident”. 

 Both Louise and Colin truthfully denied that any ‘domestic’ had taken place between them, but nevertheless the Officers forced their way into the flat – barging past Louise and knocking her into the wall in the process.

The Officers then ‘swarmed’ Colin, twisting his arms behind his back painfully and announcing that he was under arrest.

The only explanation which the Officers were prepared to offer to either of my shocked clients at this point was the claim that there had been a “Domestic”.

Colin was then marched from the flat.

Louise remonstrated with the Officers about their treatment of her partner, and reiterated that no fight or argument had taken place between them, if that was what was being alleged.  Unfortunately, two of the Officers – Special Constable Hotham and Special Sergeant Wagstaff then took hold of Louise, forcing her arms behind her back and announcing that she was now also under arrest for being “Drunk and disorderly”.   

Louise immediately challenged the Officers, asserting that she had just returned home from work – pointing out that she was still wearing her nursing uniform – and that she was stone cold sober. To reinforce this, she offered to undergo a breathalyser test. 

Apparently still wanting to arrest our client – but recalibrating his excuse for doing so – Special Constable Hotham then announced that Louise was being detained for a “Breach of the peace”.  

As this incident was ongoing, Louise wisely and repeatedly asked for the Officers to activate their body worn cameras; however, they wilfully refused to do so.  

I have written before about how strongly I feel that there should be no discretion for Officers who are equipped with body worn video cameras to not record any conflict situations with members of the public; it is in everyone’s interest, and indeed the overarching interests of justice, that such cameras be activated to properly evidence what is going on and to act as truly impartial witnesses to the events.  Or, in other words – no ‘off button’ for Officers! 

Outside the flat, Officers asked Colin for his personal details, but he refused to provide them because he was incensed by their conduct and knew that he had done nothing wrong. 

Shortly afterwards, Louise was also led out of the flat in handcuffs and bundled roughly into a waiting Police car – during which process, SC Hotham tried to slam the car door shut and caught Louise’s foot, injuring her.  

As Colin maintained his refusal to provide his details, he was jostled by the Officers. He felt one of them grabbing and tightening his handcuffs and another one grabbing his underpants and pulling them with such force that they ripped.  

Meanwhile, Louise was told by one of the Officers that if Colin agreed to return to his own home address, and she returned inside the flat then they would both be de-arrested. Although my client was outraged by the purported reason for her arrest, she agreed to this proposal as she was desperate for them both to simply be released. 

Louise’s handcuffs were duly removed, and she was allowed to return into her home. Colin, however, was not released; he was told he was under arrest for breach of the peace and for being drunk and disorderly, placed into a Police car, and driven to the Bridewell Police Station in Nottingham.  

The custody record stated that Colin was arrested at 23.00hrs by Special Constable Hotham and the circumstances of arrest were described as follows –

 “Officers whilst dealing with a non related matter had been approached by the DP [detained person] who is drunk shouting and swearing – DP has moved away however has repeatedly come back out of his house onto front garden shouting abuse – arrested BOP [breach of peace]”. 

 Colin denied this – the only shouting that had come from himself or Louise was when they were calling to get the dogs back into the flat. It was also noted in the custody record that Colin had red marks on his wrists from the handcuffs – consistent with his allegations that these had been tightened/twisted to cause him pain.

 A short while later, Louise arrived at the Police Station – having driven there herself – in order to establish why Colin had been arrested and to submit a complaint about the treatment that both of the couple had suffered. She subsequently received a telephone call regarding her complaint from SS Wagstaff, who did not advise her at the time that he had been one of the arresting Officers.  

After spending a miserable night in the cells, Colin was released from custody without charge at 8.50am the following morning with the custody record noting that there was “insufficient evidence” to proceed against him.

A Breach of the Peace – or A Breach by the Police?

 What is a ‘Breach of the Peace’?

Breach of the Peace is a famous, although also somewhat vague- sounding phrase of the English common law. A literal reading of the phrase might suggest that it could be committed by merely noisy, offensive or anti-social behaviour – but it is much more limited in scope than that. The essence of the offence is the commission of personal violence or imminently threatened violence (which can include violence to property, if done or threatened in the presence of its owner). In modern law, the key definition was provided by the Court of Appeal in R V Howell [1982] QB 416, as quoted with approval by the House of Lords in R. (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary[2006] UKHL 55 –  

“We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance. It is for this breach of the peace when done in his presence or the reasonable apprehension of it taking place that a constable, or anyone else, may arrest an offender without warrant.” 

Another important qualification for this arrest, is the need for the arrestee to be released as soon as the danger of any continued breach of the peace has passed – it is not an offence for which one can be detained whilst investigation/ evidence gathering is going on, because it is not an offence for which one can face subsequent prosecution and conviction. This was neatly summed up by the judgment in Chief Constable of Cleveland Police v McGrogan[2002] EWCA Civ 86: 

“where a person has been arrested for breach of the peace, the power to detain to prevent a further breach of the peace is limited to circumstances where there is a real (rather than fanciful) apprehension based on all the circumstances that if released the arrestee will renew his breach of the peace within a short time; the officer making the decision for continued detention must have an honest belief that further detention is necessary to prevent a breach of the peace, and there must be reasonable grounds for such belief; continued detention cannot be justified on the ground that sooner or later the arrestee, if released, is likely to breach the peace.” 

In my experience, Police officers routinely misuse or abuse the concept of breach of the peace – either arresting a person without sufficient grounds or keeping them arrested long after any such grounds are gone. 

Winning Damages Against the Police

 When I learned what had befallen Louise and Colin, I was happy to accept instructions to act on their behalf and I built a strong claim for compensation for them, the key points of which were as follows – 

• Louise had been restrained and detained by the Officers before they had even announced any intention to arrest her and thus, they lacked even purportedly lawful justification for their uses of force upon her.

• There was no reasonable basis to suspect that Louise was intoxicated – her speech was clear and coherent, she was steady on her feet, she was still wearing her nursing uniform – it was in fact transparent that the arresting Officer could not have genuinely believed that Louise was drunk and disorderly, and that instead he was ‘taking the name of that offence in vain’ – as a mere pretext to assert power over her.  
• Likewise, there was no reasonable basis to suspect that Louise had committed or would commit any ‘breach of the peace’ – this further offence apparently being dredged up by the Officers as an excuse after the Claimant had correctly called them out on the manifest falsity of the drunk and disorderly arrest. 
• Colin’s arrest – a much longer detention – was equally improper.  SC Hotham’s initial assertion that Colin had been arrested for “domestics” was wholly inadequate – it failed to describe any actual criminal offence. 
• There was no reasonable basis to suspect that Colin had committed any breach of the peace.  Insofar as the Officers claimed to have heard Colin shouting shortly prior to their attendance on the premises, this was clearly directed towards Louise’s dogs.  
• Yet further, any assertion that the Officers genuinely believed that Colin (who had had 4 cans of beer earlier that night) was ‘drunk and disorderly’ was substantially undermined by the fact that this alleged offence was not recorded in the custody record – strongly suggesting that the arresting Officer and/or the Custody Sergeant did not believe it had been committed. 
• Finally, even if the Officers genuinely believed that a ‘domestic’ argument or fight amounting to a breach of the peace had been occurring between my clients, such a belief was far from giving justification for the Officers to assault and arrest my clients immediately upon their entry into the premises.  Police Officers are quite correctly under a primary duty to consider and explore reasonable alternatives to violence and arrest to resolve apparent conflicts.  The Officers on this occasion could have simply tried speaking to Louise and Colin in a calm manner, and if necessary, inviting them to attend a voluntary interview at the Police Station.  Instead, they went charging into Louise’s flat like bulls into a china shop. 

I brought claims against Nottinghamshire Police on behalf of Louise and Colin for assault and battery, wrongful arrest and trespass to land. The Police’s initial response was to deny liability – presenting a very different account of what had gone on. Of course, in the absence of any body camera footage (as noted above) this meant that it was my clients’ word against that of the officers – but my long experience of such legal battles gave me the confidence to trust my clients’ account and the knowledge to identify the weaknesses in the Police case. After issuing Court proceedings against the Chief Constable, and notwithstanding the Force filing a detailed defence in which they again robustly disputed liability, I am pleased to confirm that I have recently concluded Louse and Colin’s claims for damages totalling over £28,000 plus legal costs. 

The peace that night was being broken by the Officers – not my innocent clients whom they terrorised in their own home and arrested. The Police power of arrest is supposed to be a last resort in the fight against crime – but very often, as was the case here, Officers seem to act with the aggression of an army whose objective is arrest, the biggest bullies in town.  

My clients’ names have been changed. 

The purpose of this site is to educate people about what I consider to be the fundamental rights which uphold our civil society. If you value what I am doing here, please show your appreciation by posting a positive review. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

I have blogged before about how the criminal practice of ‘cloning’ motor vehicles can give rise to unfortunate circumstances in which innocent people are arrested.  Many of those arrests are unnecessary and I have been critical of Police decision making in situations where more careful enquiries could have identified the difference between the legitimate car and its cloned counterpart.  

Today’s blog, however, concerns a case in which the Police themselves were entirely the authors of my client’s misfortune – misidentifying his vehicle purely on the basis of generic make/colour factors without any ‘clone’ having been involved at all.

 Early one morning, in October 2023 my client Ryan was asleep at home when he was awoken by Officers knocking at the door.  Answering the door wearing only his bedclothes, Ryan was arrested by PC Griffiths of Leicestershire Police on suspicion of burglary.  Ryan was totally stunned and asked for further details of this alleged offence – all he was told was that it had taken place the previous evening in Narborough and that his vehicle had been involved.

Ryan was searched and handcuffed and the Officers then searched his house (where his sister also resided), claiming authority to do so under Section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)– which is the power that allows officers to search any premises in which an arrested person was present at the time of, or immediately before his arrest. The legality of such a search is of course contingent on the arrest itself being lawful.  

Still in a state of shock, Ryan was taken to a local custody suite, searched again, and had his DNA, fingerprints and photograph taken.  He was obliged to remove his laces from his shoes, and was then locked in a cell.  

If it wasn’t all so horribly real, my client could have been excused for thinking that he was still asleep and dreaming.  He knew that he had no connection whatsoever with this alleged offence and nor did his motor vehicle – it was a complete nightmare.   

After my client had been detained for over three and a half hours in Police custody, he was suddenly informed that he was going to be ‘refused charge’.  He was of course relieved – but still very much in the dark about what had happened in order to cause his arrest, and why things had now changed before he had even been interviewed.  A few hours after his release, Ryan was contacted by an officer called PS Moore, who informed Ryan that he was shocked by his arrest, that he would be raising an internal complaint about the matter, and he encouraged Ryan to complain as well. 

Ryan was thereafter released but remained very shaken by what had happened – and was understandably apprehensive that he might be arrested again because of some suspicion attaching to his motor car.  Understandably, he wondered whether a cloned vehicle was involved.

Ryan did indeed pursue a complaint to Leicestershire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) who sent him a report in February 2024 in which they upheld his complaint and offered an apology. 

It transpired that what had happened was this: following a burglary at commercial premises in Narborough, a witness had reported that an orange BMW 1 Series car had been used by the suspect, but that he had been unable to get the registration number.

As there was no registration, PC Wakeham requested a search from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system for similar vehicles in the immediate area.  When none were found, the area of the search was expanded to be county- wide, and Ryan’s vehicle was flagged up as possible match.  Bear in mind that this was based purely on make, model and colour – not the registration plate, and the search had been stretched across a very wide- ranging geographical area.  

Nevertheless, on the basis of this most tenuous of links, the decision was made to arrest my innocent client.   

During the course of the complaint investigation, PS Moore provided an account in which he explained that following Ryan’s arrest, he had reviewed the ANPR data and had noted that the last ANPR ‘hit’ for Ryan’s vehicle was a considerable distance from the crime scene, and that the pattern of hits showed that it was travelling in a manner consistent with previous journeys.  Furthermore, an orange BMW of a different model – with cloned plates – had been involved in several recent burglaries, and although the manufacturer had described Ryan’s vehicle as “sunset orange” it was in fact red in colour.   

Indeed, in addition to PS Moore several other Officers had voiced concern regarding the legitimacy of Ryan’s arrest. PS Moore stated to the complaint investigator that when he had called the Station, the Custody Sergeant PS King had admitted that he also had misgivings regarding my client’s arrest – and had authorised his detention nonetheless.

 The PSD report concluded as follows –

 “Section 24 PACE states that there must be suspicion of an offence having been committed or likely to be committed before an arrest can be made; the second part of the test is that the necessity test criteria should be met also. Both elements are required to be satisfied in order for an arrest to be made. I am not minded that there was enough for part one of the test (suspicion that [Ryan] was involved) was met. Further enquiries needed to be undertaken in respect of the vehicle and indeed, when PS Moore undertook enquiries himself, he quickly established that [Ryan] lived close by to where the last ANPR camera had picked up his vehicle and that [Ryan’s] vehicle regularly undertook the same route. There was also the opportunity to speak with [Ryan] and establish some initial facts when he first [answered] the door”.   

It therefore followed that both my client’s arrest/detention and the search of his home purportedly carried out under Section 32 of PACE was unlawful.  

Whilst this is a case which reflects poorly on those Officers of Leicestershire Police who subjected my client to the trauma of arrest, it reflects well on the pro-active PS Moore who did his duty to begin correcting the wrong that had been done to my client and to ensure that the errors and misjudgements of his colleagues were not brushed under the carpet.  Hopefully this will help prevent other innocent people suffering unnecessary arrest because of laziness and/or poor thinking on the part of Police investigators.

What it could not do, of course, was turn back time and spare my client the embarrassment, indignities and anxiety that he suffered during his unlawful arrest. Ryan’s arrest had not only caused his sister distress, but it had been witnessed by at least one of his neighbours; he had had to use the toilet whilst being observed by an Officer; he had been taken into Custody, handcuffed and dressed only in his nightclothes – and furthermore was left with real concerns about future international travel, because of visa requirements which relate to the declaration of arrests and which leave little room in their Yes/No boxes to explain the circumstances of an unlawful arrest.  

All of this could have been so easily avoided had the Police done their job properly and for this Ryan deserved appropriate compensation. I am pleased to confirm that I have this month settled his claim for damages in the sum of £15,000 plus legal costs having already secured agreement from the Police to delete all records created by reason of his arrest.  

But Ryan’s story is a reminder of how, to the long list of ‘risks of the road’ we must add another – the risk of Police misuse/ misunderstanding of ANPR data, leading to what can only be called a car-crash of an investigation.  

My client’s name has been changed.   

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

A common derogatory phrase that is used about the worst Police Officers is that they are “Thugs in uniform” Such a phrase leaps to mind when we see Officers behaving like bullies or unable to control their anger when the ‘red mist’ descends. As it happens, a case which I have settled this week involves a Police Officer who offered to take off his uniform – when inviting my client for a fight in an alley way.

In April 2022, my client Mr Fazal was stopped whilst driving by PC Young and PC Parmar of West Yorkshire Police for what should have been a routine insurance check.

Whilst Mr Fazal attempted to locate his insurance documents on his phone, PC Young unnecessarily criticised and argued with my client and then put his hand on Mr Fazal’s arm. When my client protested about the officer having touched him, the two officers then combined to force him onto the ground, causing him injury. Fortunately, this injury was not more than a few scuffs and scrapes but it was nevertheless outrageous – there was no suggestion that my client had committed an offence and nor indeed did the Officers purport to arrest him.

After restraining my client on the ground, the Officers released him, and he was able to stand up. His mobile phone now had damage to its screen, but Mr Fazal was able to show the Officers his insurance details and after a few further checks the Officers returned to their car.

Mr Fazal followed the Officers in order to remonstrate with PC Young about his use of force. At this, PC Young re-exited his vehicle and said to my client “If you’d like to threaten me … I’ll gladly take the uniform off and we can go down that alleyway and we can have a fight”.

At this point – with my client flabbergasted at the officer’s attitude – PC Parmar intervened, and the Officers left.

As a result of what they had already done to Mr Fazal, he was left with cuts to his finger and his leg and bruises to his torso and right elbow. These physical injuries fortunately resolved fairly quickly – but the psychological upset which this incident has caused my client has lingered to the present day.

Mr Fazal was outraged not only by the fact that the Officers had subjected him to an unprovoked assault whilst he was trying to find his insurance details, but that when he had tried to remonstrate with them, PC Young’s response had been to menace him with threats of arrest and to try to provoke a fight.

Sadly, Mr Fazal’s grievances would only be aggravated by the manner in which West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) responded to his complaint. During the course of the complaint investigation, PC Young’s body worn video recording of the incident was reviewed – however the Officer himself was not interviewed nor required to provide an account of his actions in any other way. Whilst the complaint was to some extent critical of PC Young’s actions, he was sanctioned with only the vaguest form of punishment – “To undergo learning”. We may well question what such an opaque phrase means: probably not very much – no details of any proposed ‘learning’ were provided. The whole tenor of the complaint investigation was, for myself and my client, summed up by the fact that PSD misrepresented the crucial audio from the body worn video recording in such a way as to tone down the Officer’s comments – the report misquoted Young as saying “I’ll take off this uniform and go down that alley and sort this out” rather than acknowledging that he actually said “and we can have a fight”.

My client quite rightly submitted a Request for Review to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The IOPC review determined that the outcome of the complaint was too lenient upon PC Young for several reasons –

• When force was used against him, Mr Fazal did not present a threat and use of force was not necessary;
• PC Young’s behaviour throughout the incident was not, as PSD had asserted, ‘polite and calm’ but rather, in the view of the IOPC, “frustrated and exasperated from the start” and the Officer had not made any attempt to de-escalate any tension/conflict;
• The IOPC also identified the misquotation/minimisation of what PC Young had actually said at the crucial moment.

As a result it was determined that PC Young required Reflective Practice Review Process for situation de-escalation, Officer Safety Training, Conflict Management Skills (resolving conflict without force) and consideration as to whether he required a period of increased supervision.

It is quite understandable that this drawn out and difficult process did not restore Mr Fazal’s faith in West Yorkshire Police. Mr Fazal is someone who can see the wood rather than just individual trees and what he was most incensed about was West Yorkshire Police’s institutional response – the way in which they sought to obscure their Officer’s wrongdoing and to insulate both themselves and the individual Officer from legitimate criticism.

In this respect, PC Young’s misbehaviour was compounded by the failure of PSD to impose the appropriate sanction upon the Officer, and also in the ‘victim blaming’ tone of their written response to the complaint, in which (as highlighted above) they had apparently sought to minimise PC Young’s wrongdoing and had also suggested that Mr Fazal was guilty of “provocation”. Mr Fazal felt very strongly by their mishandling of his complaint, West Yorkshire PSD risked enabling this type of violence and abuse of power not only in the person of PC Young but in the wider policing population. To Mr Fazal this incident wasn’t only about the Police mistreating him, but the deep harm that this type of pro- police bias in the complaint system causes to our society in general. In this respect, the unprofessionalism and apparent sense of impunity displayed by PC Young during this incident are indicative of the dysfunctionality of the Police complaint system, which will not be corrected until West Yorkshire – and frankly all Police PSD Units – are seen and known to be on the side of genuine complainants rather than the Officers complained about. 

It was also noticeable that PC Parmar faced no sanction for failing to challenge PC Young’s behaviour himself. Presumably he would not have been so passive if he had witnessed a member of the public apparently trying to provoke my client into an alleyway punch up.

As I have observed before, real change in policing standards will not occur until front- line Officers routinely call out unacceptable behaviour from their colleagues as and when it is occurring, as well as PSD taking a more robust and objective approach towards complaints i.e. step- changes at both street patrol and management desk level.

As for whether even the “Reflective Practice Review Process” is anything more than management- speak jargon which involves the ticking of boxes, rather than any genuine soul -searching or real learning – we can only assume that it did not lead PC Young along the path of any serious self improvement as at no point did he offer any apology to Mr Fazal – strongly suggesting that this Reflective Review did not change what he saw in the mirror.

Thankfully, some remedy for the deep disappointment and dissatisfaction of the Police Complaint process can be found through a civil claim for restitution and validation in the form of damages. When I presented a claim for assault and battery on behalf of Mr Fazal against West Yorkshire Police arising out of this incident, they admitted “excessive force” – but offered no apology and denied my client’s entitlement to aggravated damages or exemplary damages – offering a frankly insulting settlement of only £500. 

That offer rejected, and my client’s claim robustly advanced, I am pleased to confirm that I have this week settled Mr Fazal’s claim in the sum of £24,500 damages plus legal costs.

The primary purpose of the Police is to uphold human rights and dignity and to keep the King’s peace. PC Young’s antagonistic and aggressive behaviour towards my client during this incident was the exact opposite. In the heat of the moment, he did not behave like a Police Officer, but like a street thug. The damages which I have won for my client, if not Police attitudes and responses to his complaint, fully reflect that. 

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

BBC News reported last week on the case of former Lincolnshire Police Inspector Jonathan Mellor, who, whilst he was still an officer of senior rank, severely assaulted my client Shane Price in a ‘road-rage’ incident on the A46.

During the unprovoked assault, then-Inspector Mellor pushed and punched my client, and stamped upon his already injured foot, before forcing him down and pinning him on the ground. When police back-up units subsequently arrived, it was of course my client and not Inspector Mellor who was arrested. Fortunately, Shane’s then partner had captured the road-side assault on her mobile phone, allowing my client’s innocence to be vindicated.

At the Misconduct hearing, Mellor claimed to be the ‘victim’ in this matter but also bragged, in reference to his punching my client in the face – “If I’d have punched him with my full force I would have knocked him out.”

The Misconduct Panel found Mellor guilty of gross misconduct for his unjustified assault upon Shane and noted that the unrepentant ex-officer had “demonstrated inability to control himself” or to hold himself accountable for his wrongdoing. It was found that Mellor would have been dismissed from the Police service had he not already been allowed to retire.

This was not an outcome, however, for which Lincolnshire Police should take any credit. Although I will discuss the full circumstances of this case in a longer blog once Shane’s claim for damages is settled, I can reveal here that Lincolnshire Police Professional Standards Department decided that ex- Inspector Mellor had no case to answer for misconduct, despite PSD being in full possession of the shocking footage of the incident.

Even after viewing the footage – which shows in clear detail how Mellor was the aggressor, how he grabbed and pushed my client, how he punched Shane without warning in the face, and stamped on his already injured foot and threatened to “fucking put [him] down” – the PSD investigator purported to find that Mellor’s use of force was “acceptable.”

The matter only proceeded to its correct and just result after I, on behalf of Shane, appealed the original complaint decision to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and they, the IOPC, insisted that misconduct charges be brought against Mellor. Indeed, Lincolnshire PSD initially tried to resist the IOPC’s recommendations, causing the IOPC to invoke its power under Paragraph 27(4)(a) of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 in order to force the Police to do so, a decision which I heartily endorsed.

So justice has – belatedly been done – but here we have yet another reminder of the ‘toxic privilege’ which protects misbehaving Police Officers through the collaboration of their colleagues, consciously or sub-consciously, as evidenced here both by the behaviour of the ‘responder’ officers who came to the scene (and formally arrested my client, whilst laughing and joking with the Inspector) and the subsequent, outrageous white-washing of the complaint by PSD officers who, unlike the first responders, had seen the damning phone footage.

It is, frankly, nothing short of a betrayal of their policing duties and the public trust when PSD look for ways to let officers off the hook, rather than to hold them accountable – and deeply dismaying how common this is. Mellor may have thought he would escape accountability and ultimately he did not – but it was no thanks to Lincolnshire Police.

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

As each new year brings with it an ever rising tide of technological advancement, so this year will no doubt see more UK Police Forces following the lead of South Wales and Gwent in utilising “Operator Initiated Facial Recognition” (OIFR) mobile apps to identify suspects or missing persons, as was announced by South Wales Police shortly before Christmas.

The image taken of a person on an Officer’s mobile phone using OIFR is compared against the custody image database and/or the missing person database, and so only people who have previously been held in Police custody, or who have been officially reported as missing by their family would be capable of being identified in this way. It is promised that the photographs taken on OIFR apps will not themselves be retained, and are subject to automatic deletion after use.

Officers do not need consent to use OIFR on a person, but are certainly required to explore other less- intrusive lines of enquiry when seeking to ID someone, and must have a genuine policing purpose and reasonable grounds for their use of the device. Force cannot be used in order to take an OIFR photograph; but bear in mind that a refusal to co-operate with this particular kind of ‘photoshoot’ could be used by an Officer as a basis for arrest, as ascertaining a person’s name and address is one of the PACE Code G necessity criteria.

The use of such devices, further curtailing personal privacy in the interests of State surveillance, must be balanced, as acknowledged by the Assistant Chief Constable Nick McLain of Gwent Police, by “human decision making and oversight, ensuring that it is used lawfully, ethically and in the public interest”. Let us hope that is a mission statement which is put into practice on our streets, and not merely confined to power- point presentations.

Whilst the introduction of this technology could reduce the number of ‘mistaken identity’ arrests going forward, it is certainly not going to eliminate them all. I can think of plenty of examples from my own case work where the availability of a “facial recognition” app would not have made any difference because of a Police propensity to arrest first, ask questions later – even when the existing law as to necessity of arrest should have led Officers to pursue non- arrest investigative routes, thereby saving an innocent person from the physical – but above all mental – trauma of handcuffing and detention.

For example, I have recently settled a £17,500 claim for damages on behalf of a client who was ‘identified’ as a criminal suspect from a considerable distance (around 30 metres) by a group of officers, essentially only on the basis of generic/ racial similarities, and was then confronted by Officers brandishing a very different piece of the modern Police tool kit – not OIFR but TASER. I doubt that the gung-ho Officers who menaced my client in this fashion and forced him onto the ground before attempting to verify his identity would have taken a more delicate approach even had it been available to them; or, in other words, I strongly suspect that many Police Officers will continue to rush in where angels with facial recognition apps might fear to tread. 

You can read here some of my previous blogs and case reports dealing with the many different types of ‘mistaken identity’ arrests which have afflicted my clients –

• An arrest in which the images of the suspect relied upon were blurry/unreliable leading to misidentification of an innocent man.
• A case in which there was no image of the suspect, and my client was arrested simply on the basis of his having the same first (very common) name as the suspect.
• A case involving twin brothers.
• A man subjected to multiple wrongful arrests after his Police National Computer (PNC) record was catastrophically associated with that of a career criminal.
• An overweight man in his 60s arrested at his home despite the fact that the Police were in possession of a clear CCTV image of the suspect who was of slim build and approximately 30 years younger.
• My client who was mistaken by Officers, on the basis of a CCTV still, for the ‘Brighton Cat Killer’.
• One of the very many mistaken identity arrest which occur at airport gates despite the Police already having available to them, but failing to use, easily portable ID verification technology in the form of finger print machines and what we should perhaps term ‘plain’ common sense.

So, by all means let us embrace the new technology, which I believe will do some good in a certain number of cases, but let us not assume that it is a panacea any more than the introduction of Police body cameras or the increased roll out of taser weapons proved to be – and let us be always on guard as to its limitations and potentials for misuse.

I think it is particularly appropriate, after that part of the year when most of us have spent extended time with our families, to have a reminder about the legal protections which the law of England and Wales accords our private and family spaces – and which help to guard us from overreach and intrusion by the State, or which offer remedy if such abuses do occur. 

Case law going back to the 18th century stresses how upholding the integrity of the home is one of the underpinnings of our constitution. Thus did Lord Camden define it in his famous judgment in Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 – 

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole.”

Elsewhere, this tenet of the law has been summed up in the pithy phrase “An Englishman’s Home Is His Castle.” In today’s blog I will show how this admirable principle, albeit one expressed in language archaic to our ears, was applied to the benefit of one of my clients who was, in effect, arrested for failing to allow Police officers into his hotel room. 

One evening in February 2020, my client Mark Conway and his young son (then aged 7 years old) were staying overnight at a small hotel in Stockton-on-Tees, near Middlesbrough.

 Later that same day, Cleveland Police received a call from the Manager of the hotel advising that certain residents (not Mark or his son) were being disruptive, and Police Officers attended. 

 The following morning, the Manager of the hotel again called Cleveland Police to report further concerns, about alcohol consumption and (non-specific) concerns that other drugs were on the premises. The Manager also reported that a 7-year-old boy was also staying at the Hotel, which heightened her concerns, but there was no suggestion that Mark himself was one of the disruptive/ drug-taking residents. Mark and his son were in fact asleep and knew nothing about this report.

 PC Plumpton and PC Cave subsequently attended the Hotel. They found no evidence of illegal drug taking or any ongoing conflict or disturbances, but after asking whether there was a young child in the building, were directed by another resident to Mark’s room.

PC Plumpton knocked on the door of Mark’s room.  My client awoke and went to the door.

 Confused and disorientated, Mark opened the door. PC Plumpton asked if Mark was “Stopping here with [his] little boy”.   Mark asked what time it was and PC Plumpton advised that it was 7.20 am.  Given the early hour, Mark asked PC Plumpton to return later and then sought to close the door.

 PC Plumpton prevented closure of the door and stepped forward, thereby crossing the threshold of the door and entering Mark’s room. PC Plumpton again asked Mark if a little boy was in the room and said that she needed to see him because of (non-specific) “concerns for his safety”. 

 Mark fully opened his door to show that his son was safe in bed in the room, and then again sought to close the door.  PC Plumpton called for assistance and pushed Mark’s hand away from the door frame.

 Mark, shocked and angered by this unexplained and unjustified Police intrusion into his life, told PC Plumpton to “Piss off”. PC Cave now appeared and PC Plumpton warned Mark that if he carried on as he was, he would be “getting locked up”, although she did not specify what offence this could possibly be for.

 Mark again told PC Plumpton to “Piss off” and to “Get out”.  PC Plumpton advised that she would not leave, and now forced the door wide open with her foot. PC Plumpton again prevented closure of the door and pushed Mark in the chest.

 PC Cave advised that they “want[ed] to talk”.  Mark, believing (correctly) that there was no lawful basis for the Officers to enter the room, again sought to close the door.

 In response, PC Plumpton pushed Mark back and both PC Plumpton and PC Cave momentarily grabbed Mark around the neck.

 PC Cave again insisted “We just want to talk, just want to ask you a question”. 

 Mark was distressed and angry and said to the Officers “You’re disgusting” and “I was asleep in bed.” PC Plumpton requested assistance over her radio, stating “This male’s being aggressive.”

 Mark walked away and lay down on his bed; outraged by the officers’ actions in forcing their way into his room, he asked them “How dare you?” PC Cave replied “All we needed to do was check on the little one.”

 Mark accused the Officers of acting unlawfully. PC Plumpton claimed that she had lawfully entered the room under Section 17 of PACE (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).  Mark again directed the Officers to leave.

 PC Cave also referred to Section 17 of PACE and specifically their “concerns for a child.”

At no point, however, did either officer explain any basis for a specific concern for Mark’s son’s safety. When challenged on this point by Mark,   PC Cave replied, “My concern is……  your behaviour now ……. The fact that you have slammed the door on my colleague”.

 Mark, frustrated, replied, “Go away you fool, you child, we’re asleep in bed in a hotel, you want concerns, you’re a fool.  My son’s there asleep.” PC Cave replied “Yes, and we came for a chat.”

 Multiple other Officers now attended.

 PC Plumpton reported to her colleagues that she had been assaulted by Mark (by him slamming the door in her face and then elbowing her).

 PC Plumpton further asserted to Mark that “I knocked very politely, I politely asked to come in and then you started screaming at me.”  In fact, PC Plumpton had not at any point asked to enter the room. Mark replied, “I’m in a hotel, asleep in a room.”

 Mark’s son was now taken from the room by Officers and a male Officer, believed to be PC Kell, said to Mark, “Right fella, assault police. You’re under arrest for assault police.” Mark replied, “What do you mean I’m under arrest for assaulting police?” The reply to Mark was “You assaulted my colleague.”

 In a state of extreme distress, Mark, still bleary -eyed from being so recently awoken, was now handcuffed by the officers, forcibly escorted to a van and transported to Stockton Police Station. Of course, the most distressing thing of all for him was that he had been separated from his son, and did not know what was happening to him.  

The Custody Sergeant asked Mark if he was under the influence of alcohol and Mark replied “I was asleep in bed, don’t be stupid…  and then the police come through my door.  I’m asleep, that’s what I’m doing.  I ain’t got a clue what’s gone on.”

 The Custody Record stated that the circumstances of arrest were: “Police called to a concern for safety at an Air B&B where DP [Detained Person]  has refused Police in the room and assaulted a Police Officer by elbowing her.  Seven year old child has been in the bed crying and distressed.”

 Those tears and distress were all, of course, caused by Mark’s son waking to find strange people bursting into their room and assaulting his father.

 The Custody Record then records that en route to the cell, the Custody Sergeant asked PC Kell to confirm the relationship between Mark and the child. Because PC Kell could not confirm the relationship, the Custody Sergeant determined that “the DP could be a crime scene for sexual offences” and on that basis directed that Mark be stripped naked and his clothing be seized.

 Mark was made to lie face down on a mat, whereupon officers forcibly stripped him. There was not the remotest justification for this, and it was the culmination of Mark’s degradation and humiliation that day for doing – what? Refusing to allow Police Officers into the hotel room in which he and his son had been peacefully sleeping; for failing to allow the Officers to, at its highest, satisfy their curiosity. As Mark’s detention continued, he even began to experience suicidal thoughts.

 When, hours later, he was finally released, Mark learned that his son had been taken to his maternal grandparent’s home, and was therefore safe and well, although still separated from his father.

 My client’s torment was not yet over, however. In April 2020, Mark was charged by postal requisition with assaulting PC Plumpton and was obliged to attend Teeside Magistrates’ Court in July 2020.

 There he pleaded not guilty, and I am pleased to report that at trial in September 2021 Mark was acquitted, though not until he had endured months of threatened criminalisation hanging over his head.

 Can You Sue The Police For Trespass In Your Hotel Room?

 Mark had been found not guilty of assaulting PC Plumpton, but would the law now allow him to ‘charge’ the Police with civil offences committed against him – i.e could he sue the Police for trespassing in his hotel room, in the same way he would have been able to had it been his home ‘castle’ they were forcing their way into?

 The answer was yes, borne of out the respect which English law has for the sanctity of our family and private spaces, no matter how small.

 Police officers commit trespass if they enter, without permission, or other lawful authority which supersedes the need for permission, onto land which a person “possesses”. Whilst it is obvious that a freehold or leasehold owner of a property, or a long term tenant of a house or a shop, is in “possession” of that land with the right thereby to exclude others, it is less obvious that this would apply to an overnight hotel or b’n’b room – but it does provided that the room is not a dormitory- type shared with other parties, and you have a key allowing you to lock the door at your discretion during your stay. 

Mark was thus as entitled as he would have been in the same circumstances at his home address, to stand his ground and bar entry to the officers.

 The only exception to this point of principle would be, as enshrined in the Entick v Carrington judgment, if some positive law had empowered or excused the officers’ entry in the interests of the common good. Such an exception could be a search or arrest warrant issued by the Court (which was manifestly not the case here) or, the warrant-less powers of entry and search which legislation in the form of PACE sections 17 and 18 has granted to Officers to force entry into private places: a delegation of decision- making which is of course sensible, as if every such operation required the prior obtaining of a warrant, it would be impracticable.

These delegated powers, superseding occupiers’ rights, include –

 Entry in order to arrest a person for an indictable offence (i.e not an offence which can only be tried by the Magistrates Court) – S.17 (1) (b)

• Entry in order to recapture a person who is unlawfully at large and whom the Officer is pursuing – S.17 (1) (d)
• Entry in order to save life or limb or prevent serious damage to property – S.17 (1) (e)
• Entry to search premises occupied or controlled by a person who is already under arrest for an indictable offence, if the Officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that he will find on those premises evidence in relation to that offence or a similar offence  – S.18 (1)

Police Officers must, of course, have such ‘spur of the moment’ powers in order to do their jobs effectively, but it is requisite that such powers not be misused. Yet, in my experience, that is so very often what happens:  Officers using the essential S.17 PACE power to “save life and limb” so vaguely as to be rightly described as ‘the boys in blue who called wolf’.  “Life and limb” means what it says, it is an absolute emergency power – and the traditions of English law would not have it any other way. It is essentially a power to intervene in a private space to save a life, or prevent a traumatic injury,  and must be based on evidence of real and immediate danger – it cannot be used to allow snooping, to satisfy a hunch, to force people to answer ‘questions’ or to carry out simple ‘welfare checks’ (which at its highest, was all this situation warranted – if at all).

 When Mark consulted me for help, I advised him, based on my above analysis of the law, that I believed he had strong claims against Cleveland Police for trespass to land, assault and battery and false imprisonment.

 The entry into my client’s room by the Officers, and their continued presence thereafter was unlawful and constituted a trespass to land by the said Officers.  Mark had refused entry into the room to the Defendant’s Officers, and they had no lawful power to enter the room contrary to his instructions. The only power they claimed to have was Section 17 PACE – but in my opinion, this lacked the essential evidential foundation of a substantial risk to the life or limb of any of the individuals in that room (Mark and his son).

 When the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police denied liability, I issued Court proceedings against him and after several years of litigation, brought the Police to the negotiating table. After advising Mark to reject an offer of £10,000 damages, I was able to secure a final settlement of £17,500 damages, plus his legal costs, to reflect the full extent of the physical and emotional harm, and interference with his personal rights and liberties, which these events had inflicted upon him. 

All too many officers ‘take the name’ of S.17 PACE in vain, using it as a battering ram – sometimes metaphorically, sometimes not – to enable them to force their will on a civilian whose private space they wish to enter. When they do so, then it is in the interest of the rude health of our constitutional democracy that we push back, using the mechanisms which the law has provided us for hundreds of years in order to do so. The boundary of a home, or a hotel room, must be respected; trampling thresholds without due process, respect or regard, is how State abuse of power begins, and ends in the trampling of individuals themselves.

 In this new year, I am proud to be helping to maintain that age- old balance between the State and the individual which our traditions of democracy and liberty require, and with that in mind I will conclude this blog, and begin 2025 by quoting further from Lord Camden’s eloquent 1765 judgment –

 “By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted by the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.”

Back in September 2022 I wrote about the case of my client Aaron Humphreys who had been shot by a West Mercia Police Firearms Officer in circumstances which could have been described as farcical, if they weren’t so very close to being fatal.

Aaron, who was wanted by the police in connection with a criminal damage offence, was reported by a member of the public to have what they believed to be a firearm in his vehicle. It was in fact a ‘BB’ gun. Aaron, who had fallen asleep in his car, awoke to the sound of shouting and realised in shock that his vehicle was surrounded by a police firearms squad, who were training their weapons upon him. 

In accordance with their instructions, Aaron exited his vehicle and stood still. He was fully compliant, and the police could see that he was holding nothing in his hands.

Whilst one of the officers approached Aaron with handcuffs, and another trained a taser upon him (shining a red targeting laser on his chest), Aaron continued to be calm and compliant – and then, without warning, was shot by one of the officers with her carbine rifle. This is of course a deadly, military-grade weapon.

The police have never disclosed the actual identity of this officer, and so she can be referred to only as officer B.

The bullet from officer B’s carbine went through the open door of Aaron’s vehicle, grazed his left knee and then punctured his upper right leg, near the knee joint, creating entry and exit wounds. The moment of the shooting was captured by this video clip filmed by a member of the public –

Aaron immediately collapsed, bleeding and in excruciating pain, struggling to breathe and fading in and out of consciousness.  He was aware that he had been shot but struggled to comprehend what had happened.

He was then rushed to hospital by ambulance for emergency surgery.

Following Aaron’s admission to the hospital, he was at one point informed by a doctor that such was the severity of the damage it was likely he would lose his right leg: a terrifying and traumatic piece of information to process, even if, as it thankfully transpired, Aaron’s leg did not in the end have to be amputated. 

My client’s experience of being in hospital was made all the worse by the fact that he was also under arrest and suffered significant distress and disruption from being under constant police observation, which naturally generated a lot of light and noise around him when what he really needed was calm and quiet to allow his horrendous injury to begin healing.

As I reported in my previous blog post, following this incident the Independent Office for Police Conduct (the IOPC) received a Death or Serious Injury referral (DSI) from West Mercia Police and commenced an investigation into the conduct of officer B.

When officer B was interviewed by the IOPC her account was that she had accidentally fired her carbine whilst struggling to hold a large, heavy shield in her left hand and apply the safety catch to her firearm with her right hand. Body worn video recorded the officer shouting “Sorry, sorry!” immediately after the bullet was fired.

Whilst accidents do happen, and we all have occasion to have to say sorry, the fumbling of a loaded gun, whilst it is pointed at another human being is a level beyond mere clumsiness or misjudgement and in my opinion amounted to a recklessness so great that officer B should have been found guilty of misconduct. It was only by chance that her ‘rogue bullet’ did not kill Aaron – or in fact, one of her own police colleagues or an innocent bystander. 

Indeed, the IOPC advised that in their opinion officer B did have a case to answer for misconduct, but the subsequently convened West Mercia Police Misconduct Panel concluded that the officer’s conduct had not breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, leaving Deputy Chief Constable Julian Moss to release a rather jubilant and self-congratulatory statement celebrating the outcome, which he originally, erroneously described as a verdict of “no case to answer”.

My client was understandably deeply aggrieved by the lack of care and compassion that he received from West Mercia Police throughout these events, culminating in the lack of proper accountability for officer B. The police, it seemed, were now happy to walk away and forget this had ever happened, but Aaron would be left with life-long physical and mental scars as a result of the officer’s utterly reckless, but unpunished, actions and I was determined to achieve justice for him through a civil claim for damages.

I am pleased to confirm that as this year draws to a close, so that civil claim process has now also reached a natural and fitting conclusion.

In response to proceedings which I brought in the High Court, West Mercia Police have agreed to pay Aaron damages totalling £373,000 (net of state benefits received by Aaron following the incident, which the Police are separately obliged to repay to the DWP), reflective of the extreme seriousness of the injuries which they inflicted upon him.

A Six- Figure Settlement for Police Wrongdoing

In order to achieve this level of damages it was essential to fully investigate and measure every effect which this injury had had upon Aaron’s life, and accordingly I commissioned expert reports from Orthopaedic and Plastic Surgeons, a Psychiatrist, a Neurologist and I also assisted Aaron in accessing the rehabilitation services that he needed.

The medical evidence established that the gunshot had caused a fracture to Aaron’s right proximal tibia (the upper part of the shin bone that connects to the knee) leaving Aaron with chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain in his right leg, as well as extreme sensitivity around the scars of the wounds.

Aaron also suffered seizure-like episodes with sudden losses of consciousness and shaking of his body, which after MRI scans, nerve conduction studies and an EMG were deemed to be non-epileptic seizures likely to be psychogenic in nature and arising from the incident in question.  Psychogenic seizures are often caused by severe psychological distress and unresolved trauma and thus, as ever in a case of this nature, the rehabilitation programme and the compensation award had to address the real need for mental as well as physical healing.

Furthermore, it was established that Aaron was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, being the victim of a violent and terrifying shooting incident, and one which was further compounded by the terror he had experienced upon being initially told that he might end up with only one leg.

Before the shooting, Aaron had established a successful career as a civil engineer/ground worker.  As a result of his injuries – in particular the chronic pain and physical vulnerability of his right leg, as well as his risk of further non-epileptic seizures which would pose a particular risk in a building/construction work environment, it was deemed impossible for Aaron to return to his former occupation and he was advised that he would have to re-train for office-based desk jobs in the future.

A highly important element in determining the correct compensation award for Aaron was therefore the fact that although he could return to work in other roles, his former occupation was denied to him because of the physical limitations now imposed upon him by the officer’s negligent bullet. This is what is known as “loss of congenial employment” i.e. an injury which does not render a person incapable of work, but which forces them to forever leave behind the type of work for which they are most suited and which gave them great job satisfaction. Aaron talked to me eloquently about how rewarding he had found his work in the civil engineering sector. He had worked on the construction of roads and utility tunnels for new housing estates, often using heavy machinery and sophisticated GPS equipment, and taking great pride in playing his part in transforming a derelict zone or empty field into a beautifully landscaped area of new homes. His chosen career had given a great structure to his life, as not only was it physically demanding but also mentally stimulating. As he commented, the importance of his job to wider society had been emphasised by the fact that during the Covid pandemic he had been classed as a key worker. Now his injury had deprived him of all those psychological as well as physical benefits. Happiness in work is such an important component of a good life.

It was in light of all of the above elements of the claim that West Mercia Police recently agreed the settlement totalling £373,000 for Aaron.  But as this year draws to a close, remember that Aaron would give up every penny of that award if he could turn back the clock to 2021 and avoid the bullet’s bite.

I also urge everyone to reflect on incidents like this whenever there is further discussion about increasing the number of firearm officers in the UK, a country which has so long and so rightly been proud of its tradition of de-militarised policing.

Watch Crimebodge’s video about this case here.

How you can help me

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

I am grateful to Nick Stanage of Doughty Street Chambers for bringing to my attention the recent decision of a judge of the High Court, Mr Justice Ritchie, in the case of Dale Jamal Amadu- Abdullah v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, a case won by his colleague Alison Gerry, also of Doughty Street – one of the country’s leading sets for actions against the Police.  

Dale, a promising young footballer, was only 14 years old when he suffered life- changing injuries after being tasered by PC Adamson of the Met in February 2020. Officers had been called to an estate in Edmonton, London after a report of youths “running around and fighting” on the estate – Dale and his friends did indeed ‘scatter’ upon the arrival of the Police, but denied that they had been fighting, and asserted that they had only been playing.

Dale, like many boys of his age, dreamed of becoming a professional footballer – perhaps the dream was closer to reality for him than for others, as he had recently been issued with a 2 year contract by Leighton Orient Academy. Sadly, that dream was taken away from him by the events of this night.

The Laws that Govern Police Use of Force

Police use of force is governed by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967  and Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which provide as follows-

“3. Use of force in making arrest, etc.

(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the

circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting

in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons

unlawfully at large.”

“117. Power of constable to use reasonable force.

Where any provision of this Act—

(a) confers a power on a constable; and

(b) does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the

consent of some person, other than a police officer, the officer may

use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.”

Particularly appropriately in a case involving a taser gun, Mr Justice Ritchie went on to define the test as to whether any Police use of force was reasonable as having two steps – trigger and response – at paragraph 10 of his judgment:

“Firstly, the trigger: the Court determines what the police officer subjectively, honestly understood the facts to be which he asserts justified the use of force.

Secondly, the response: the Court decides objectively whether the use of force was reasonable on those facts. There is a finesse within step one. If the officer made a mistake as to fact he can only rely on it if the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.”

(Image of a typical Police-issue taser weapon)

In considering the specific facts of this case the Court also highlighted the following guidance on Police taser use issued in 2019-

“5.9 General

TASER will not be used as a compliance tool. This is to say that TASER is not to be used to impose the will of the officers on a subject who is failing to respond to their instructions. TASER must only be used in accordance with the NDM [National Decision Model].”

I really do not think those words can be emphasised enough, because so many cases of taser misuse, in my experience, come down to Officers behaving with apparently the opposite  mindset – using taser as a ‘short-circuit’ to reduce a person into their power, either out of laziness, frustration or recklessness, jumping over other options for a less, or even non- violent, resolution of the situation.

College of Policing guidance published in 2020 lists the risks to the targets of taser use as including the following-

• Loss of voluntary muscle control, leading to head injuries from unexpected and unsupported falls;
• Intense pain, particularly from repeated or prolonged discharge of the weapon;
• Taser barbs embedding in sensitive areas such as head, neck or genitalia;
• Positional asphyxia (i.e collapsing into a position which restricts proper breathing)
• The exacerbation of pre- existing medical conditions.

As the case which we are discussing demonstrates, the effects of taser weapons can be devastating, meaning that it is all the more important that they are only used in a properly judged and measured way.

The High Court’s Findings

After considering all of the available witness and police body camera evidence, Mr Justice Ritchie concluded that Dale and his six friends had been “mucking around, shouting and making a lot of noise” but not fighting. Perhaps ill- advisedly (but we must remember that they were only children) they all ran when a Police vehicle unexpectedly pulled up. PC Adamson and other officers gave chase to the youths. As PC Adamson ran along a path through the estate, he saw Dale running on a route perpendicular to his own path. Dale was alone. PC Adamson shouted a single warning, and then within a second of doing so, quickly fired his taser at Dale, hitting the boy in the back of his left shoulder and causing him to fall to the ground, bashing his head in the process and sustaining injury.

PC Adamson’s justification for this use of force – the deployment of an electrocution ‘stun gun’ upon a 14-year-old child – was that Dale had a knife in his hand and was chasing several other youths, possibly intent on stabbing them. The Judge comprehensively rejected that account, finding that Dale was not chasing any one when PC Adamson tasered him, and that neither was he carrying a knife. This judgment was based on the following findings –

• PC Adamson gave no descriptive details of the youths that he alleged Dale was chasing;
• PC Adamson’s body worn camera footage  not only contains no evidence of these youths, but also demonstrates that after tasering Dale the officer did not act in the way that would be expected if what he was saying was true – he did not call after the alleged youths (to check if they were ok, or to ask them to stop running) and nor, indeed, did he ever turn towards the direction in which the youths were supposed to have been running  – indicative of there not actually being anyone there;
• The officer’s first mention of Dale chasing anyone was not until 23 minutes later, and even then, he referred only to “one kid” being chased by Dale, subsequently increasing this number to 2-3 youths in later accounts;
• Dale was a young man of the utmost good character;
• No knife was found either on Dale’s person or anywhere in the vicinity;
• In his immediate interactions with Dale, the officer neither asked him why he was ‘chasing’ anyone, nor mentioned the ‘knife’ he later claimed to have seen in the boy’s hand;
• Indeed, the first time PC Adamson mentioned seeing “something” in Dale’s hand was not until 23 minutes after the tasering, at which point the officer now knew that Dale was only 14, unarmed, had never been in trouble with the police before, and had sustained a head injury, which as Mr Justice Ritchie delicately put it at paragraph 39.6 of his judgment “…may have started the process in [the Officer’s]  mind of needing to explain what had happened and why he had used his taser…”

For all these reasons, the Judge concluded that PC Adamson’s taser use was neither reasonable nor proportionate,  and that accordingly he had assaulted Dale by firing the taser and knocking him over, causing injuries, without lawful justification under either S.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 or S.117 of PACE.

As I noted in the introduction, Dale had recently signed a two-year contract with Leyton Orient football club. He was “totally committed” to becoming a professional footballer. After being taken to hospital following the tasering, Dale was discovered to have suffered a fracture of his left eye socket, going into the left splenoid sinus and nasal bone. He had a cut over his left eyebrow and burn- style damage to his left shoulder, where the taser had hit. He suffered left optic neuropathy and visual defect. Off school for a month, Dale attended various outpatient appointments and did attempt to return to Leyton Orient practice sessions, only to be sadly let go by them after they saw his opthalmologist’s medical report. Dale’s left eye injury has permanently impaired his 3-D vision and also deprived him of left ‘peripheral field’ sight – i.e he cannot see people standing on his left or coming towards him from the left, which would obviously preclude a successful football career. He also suffered damage to his left colour vision.

Taking into account that there was no guarantee that Dale would ever have been successful in becoming a professional footballer, but that there was no doubt that his choice of future careers is now impaired by reason of his long- term vision problems, especially for someone whose skills and inclinations would tend to lead him towards physical, sports- related jobs (even if not as a professional sportsman),  the Court award Dale damages totalling £131,984. 87, plus his legal costs. A four- year legal battle had been successfully concluded.

Lies, Damned Lies and Enhancements

Before concluding this blog post, however, I must make one further observation on the judgment.

Whilst I am naturally pleased that the right outcome was achieved in terms of the final verdict on liability, some of the judge’s comments on the evidence of PC Adamson serve as a reminder of the uphill struggle which Claimants so often face when the Defendant is such an established institution as the Police, and the benefit of the doubt which the Courts are inclined to give to Police Officers on questions of honesty.

Quite often, findings which in my opinion would lead a court to conclude that a witness was deliberately lying are, when they apply to a police officer, ‘defused’ by judicial dispensation, and are framed as ‘mistakes of recollection’ rather than dishonest fabrications.

I have already recounted how Mr Justice Ritchie firmly rejected PC Adamson’s account that Dale was armed with a knife, and was chasing other youths. However, the judge did not take the next logical step of finding that the officer had lied to him.

Despite noting that PC Adamson had initially said nothing about a knife, and that his account had progressively escalated – first becoming a vague claim of “something” seen in the boy’s hand, and then hours later “something shiny”, finally culminating seven months later the Officer’s description to the IOPC of a “4 inch blade” – the judge in place of the word ‘lying’ produced this fabulously polite circumlocution: “This expansion of the recollection undermined the veracity of it…” (para 39.6). Yet further, the judge passed serenely by the word ‘falsehood’ even when finding “I do not consider that objectively PC Adamson had sufficient evidence to form a genuine belief that the Claimant was about to attack another ‘kid’ in front of him.”

Mr Justice Ritchie instead expressed broad sympathy for how the officer “may have convinced himself that he saw “something” in the Claimant’s hand” (i.e after the event) and rather than finding that the officer had deliberately lied in order to cover up his infliction of serious injury upon an unarmed child, the judge referred to the officer’s beliefs being “later distorted by time and emotion” so as to become “…enhancements which I reject.”

This does rather leave one with the feeling that whilst ordinary citizens “lie”, Police Officers only “enhance” and is a reminder that succeeding in litigation against the Police is never straightforward.

Then again, they wouldn’t call it “the good fight” if it wasn’t a fight!

Former PC Nicholas Peacock has been jailed for misconduct in public office after having been found to have had a sexual relationship with a criminal suspect in a case he was investigating. 

Peacock, who was with West Mercia Police at the time of the offence, has been sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He pleaded guilty to the charge.  His actions had also caused harm to the criminal case which he was supposed to be investigating.

Acting West Mercia Deputy Chief Constable Rachel Jones commented as follows:

“The dishonesty and lack of integrity shown by Nicholas Peacock is deplorable…. He abused his power as a Police Officer, and in the process totally undermined the trust which the victim had placed in him to investigate the case fairly and impartially”.

Sadly, Peacock was not the first, and nor will he be the last, Officer to be convicted of this particularly sinister type of misconduct in public office.  It is absolutely an abuse of power – but as I have written before, the warning to the Police is that it is that very power which attracts this type of man to the profession in the first place and, historically, the strong strain of “toxic masculinity” in policing culture which has excused and even enabled this type of behaviour.

Policing the night- time economy, as it is phrased in modern jargon, is a common task for today’s ‘beat cop’.  The job of such Police patrols is, understandably, to help maintain law and order at times and places which can become fraught and a dangerous given the alcohol on which much of that economy is based.

The Police therefore do play a crucial role in keeping our city centres safe and allowing the vast majority of revellers to stay safe and have fun. But that does not mean that the Police can be excused when it is their Officers who turn out to be the dangers to the drinkers rather than the other way around.

In June 2022 my client Owen Andrews travelled to Liverpool for a night out with four friends, only to have their night ended by Police brutality. The recent settlement of his claim was prominently featured by the BBC’s Jonny Humphries in this recent news report, and I can provide further details about the case here.

Owen and his friends arrived in Liverpool early evening, checked in at a local hotel and then went out about 10pm/11pm, visiting a succession of bars before going to a ‘Subway’ restaurant to purchase food.

At approximately 3.45am Owen and his friends were making their way back through the city centre to their hotel, when Owen became aware that a Police van had stopped and was talking to one of his friends (who had been walking behind Owen).

Several uniformed Officers then alighted from the van and seeing them engaging with his friend, Owen approached and began to record events on his mobile phone.  This was a perfectly legitimate activity for Owen to be performing, as I have previously made clear. Without mobile phone footage, many modern episodes of Police misconduct would have gone unevidenced and unproven.

Owen was told to keep back by a female Officer. He protested that his friend done nothing wrong and walked around the female Officer, whilst remaining several feet away from where his friend was being dealt with by the other Officers.

Another Officer, now known to be Special Constable Gillon, instructed Owen to move back, but then, before Owen had had an opportunity to do so, the Officer then physically pushed Owen backwards saying, “Move away”. 

Although Owen stepped backwards, SC Gillon now grabbed hold of my client by the neck of his shirt and forcibly took him to the ground, whereupon Owen felt Officers delivering multiple strikes and blows to his body.

Whilst my client had been drinking, he had in no way been behaving in a disorderly manner.  Not for the first time I am caused to reflect on how often the two elements of that offence – “drunk and disorderly behaviour” – have been artificially brought together by two separate parties – a civilian who has been drinking, set upon by disorderly Officers. 

Whilst Owen was lying on his back on the ground, in a helpless, prone position, offering no resistance, SC Gillon, standing over Owen, deliberately sprayed him directly in the face with PAVA incapacitant gas. Owen immediately experienced pain and discomfort, he struggled to breathe, and his eyes became swollen. My client’s discomfort was made all the worse by the fact that he suffers from asthma.

Owen was then handcuffed, brought to his feet and – lo and behold – informed that he was under arrest for being “drunk and disorderly”.

Owen was then locked in the caged section at the back of the Police van. He tried to spit the foul taste of the PAVA spray out of his mouth, but was warned by the Officers that if he did so that he could be arrested for criminal damage. This, I am afraid is a common move from the ‘policing the night time economy’ playbook: Officers doubling down on an initial wrongful arrest by further arresting a person for causing ‘criminal damage’ to Police property which they are drooling, vomiting or bleeding upon precisely because of the violence which the Police have just meted out to them.

Owen was then driven to the Wirral Custody Suite.

The circumstances of Owen’s arrest were recorded in the Custody Record as follows –

“DP [Detained Person] and another group of males approached police vehicle and became abusive to officers, shouting and swearing in front of other MOPs [Members of the Public]. DP was warned about his behaviour but persisted, officers were trying to deal with another male but the DP placed himself in between them, AO [Arresting Officer] attempted to move the DP, he became obstructive and resistant, pushing, pulling, resisting and lashing out in officers direction… He was arrested D&D. Taken to the floor, actively resisting, put hands in waistband, refused to remove it. He was warned PAVA was to be deployed if he did not move his hands, AO feared he was reaching for a weapon, unable to gain proper control. PAVA deployed. Effective, cuffed to rear non-compliant. Further arrested obstruct. No reply. After-care provided at scene and on arrival in custody.”

Such was the extent of his injuries, Owen had to be assessed by a Healthcare Professional whilst in Custody, after which he was subjected to the degrading process of being fingerprinted and having a sample of his DNA taken, before being interviewed under caution, where he took the opportunity to deny all wrongdoing. 

Eventually, almost 11 hours after his arrest, Owen was informed that he was not going to face any charges and was released from custody on the basis of “No further action”. 

Special Treatment?

It soon became apparent that the Merseyside Police Officers reviewing the evidence in this case had not been happy with what they saw in regards to Special Constable Gillon’s behaviour, as evidenced by the body camera footage, and not only had this led them to release Owen without charge – the matter was now referred to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) and the Officer was prosecuted for common assault upon my client.

I believe that Special Constable Gillon should have been convicted; but as is often the case his Police status seems to have disposed the criminal court to look favourably upon him and, in effect, hold him to a different standard of account than members of the public. In August 2023 at Manchester Magistrates Court, Gillon was found not guilty of assaulting Owen, with the Judge criticising Owen’s “attitude towards authority”, drawing “no adverse inferences” from the fact that SC Gillon had chosen to exercise his ‘right to silence’ in interview and going as far as to praise the Officer’s “reasonable and proportionate” use of force as being in accordance with his training. Owen was blamed for “encroaching” on the Officers, when all he had actually been doing was to exercise his right to film them.

In this way, what begins as a criminal trial of the Officer often seems to ‘flip’ into a trial of the victim, and end with the kind of judicial address which might accompany a “decoration for valour.”

Owen was understandably demoralised by this outcome and assumed that it was now ‘game over’ for his chances of seeing justice done. However, I was able to reassure him that this was not the case: with the criminal process out of the way, I was able to take charge of the situation and to take steps to hold Merseyside Police to account for the Officer’s actions by means of a civil claim for compensation.

Police Accountability

The resolution of the criminal proceedings against Special Constable Gillon, had also cleared the way for Merseyside PSD to conclude their own investigation into matters of professional misconduct arising from this incident. Regrettably, but perhaps unsurprisingly, a 16 page investigation report by PSD concluded that SC Gillon had ‘no case to answer’ in respect of use of excessive force against Owen and furthermore that his decision to arrest Owen was entirely lawful.

SC Gillon had sought to justify the level of force he used against Owen on the basis that as the struggle began – initiated in the first place by the Officer of course – he feared that Owen might have a knife secreted in the waistband of his trousers. It was notable, however, that he based this assertion simply on unspecified ‘previous experience’ rather than anything that Owen or his companions had done or been seen to do. In my view, this was a retrospective excuse: the Officer was fixated on my client’s phone, not on a phantom blade.

Notwithstanding the fact that Merseyside Police Legal Services, in responding to the letter of claim which I had now sent on behalf of Owen, purported to endorse their Officer’s version of events and his justification of his use of force, they now admitted liability for false imprisonment and assault and battery. 

In addition to an admission of liability, I also secured for Owen the following letter of apology from the Force –

“On behalf of Merseyside Police, I apologise to you for your treatment at the hands of Officers of the Force on the evening of 11 June 2022.

You will appreciate that a full admission of liability in relation to your claims for false imprisonment and assault has been made and that in this instance the Force did investigate your complaint against Police which resulted in a prosecution of a serving Police Special Constable.

Once again, I apologise on behalf of the Chief Constable for the actions of the Officers of Merseyside Police”.

This of course was only part of Owen’s victory, albeit a very important part. I also sought on behalf of Owen damages for loss of liberty, physical and psychological injuries and other losses including damage caused to his clothing,  and I commissioned expert medical reports in support of Owen’s injury claims. After rejecting Merseyside Police’s initial offer of settlement of only £8,000, I went on to secure a final settlement for Owen of £22,375 damages plus legal costs.

Once again, I am caused to reflect on the fact that there is a three- pronged ‘trident’ of legal remedies with which the victim of Police brutality or misconduct can seek restitution/justice. Unfortunately, two of the points of that trident often prove to be blunt and/or useless i.e. criminal proceedings for assault against the Officer concerned and internal Police misconduct investigations. Thankfully, the third point of the trident remains sharp – the right to sue in the civil courts for damages and the very real opportunity to secure not only a sense of empowerment and accountability through legal action, but also an apology for the wronged individual, which such a claim brings with it. 

And I fully intend, through my actions on behalf of my clients and the publicity which I bring to such issues in this blog, to keep it that way.

PC Ian Brotherton of the Metropolitan Police has this month admitted causing death by careless driving after he ran a red light whilst responding to a 999 call, and struck and killed a moped rider, 26- year old Christopher De Carvalho Guedes, who had entered the junction through a green light.

The Officer’s barrister said “He is deeply remorseful for the accident but it was an accident that occurred while he was responding to a genuine emergency”.

Sadly, that is no excuse.  As I have written before, Police status and training does not give Emergency Response Officers ‘carte blanche’ to drive through a junction against a red traffic light at whatever speed they see fit – a Police driver is supposed to treat the junction as a give way and be aware of the extreme risks they are posing to other, innocent drivers and pedestrians who may not have appreciated his direction of travel or speed of approach.

The first duty of Police Emergency Response Drivers must be to ensure that their driving does not cause an emergency in itself. Testosterone and petroleum are a dangerous mix: when Police drivers are thinking only of the ‘chase’ or the ‘race’ then terrible tragedies like this one can occur, which have cost a young man his life. 

This week’s blog post contains two salutary warnings: the first a reminder of the risk possessed by self-styled “red-blooded” male officers to the women they encounter in the course of their duties, whose need for Police help they despicably seek to leverage to get those women into bed with them; and the second a reminder to be careful when selecting a solicitor to assist you in claims against the Police, for firms which have spent a great deal of money on establishing an internet presence to ‘capture’ such claims might not necessarily have invested as heavily in their staff training, resulting in overly cautious approaches or frankly wrong advice being given to their clients.

At the beginning of 2015 my client, whom I will call Harriet for the purposes of this blog, had been in an abusive relationship with her male partner for a number of years.  Finally summoning the courage to break away from her partner, she was assisted by Women’s Aid in moving to a new address with her child.  Unfortunately, Harriet’s former partner discovered her new address and turned up there and began to harass her. She called the police for help, but at the time did not have any Non- Molestation Order in place preventing her former partner from making contact with her.

Around the same time, Harriet’s former partner himself called the police and falsely alleged that she had caused criminal damage to his vehicle.  In consequence of this allegation, it was not Harriet’s partner, but Harriet herself who was then arrested by officers of West Midlands Police; a sadly familiar tale.

Harriet was understandably traumatised by her arrest, further adding to her existing vulnerability.  During the course of her detention, Harriet was interviewed by PC Colin Noble, a Domestic Abuse Investigation Officer who worked in the Public Protection Unit of West Midlands Police.

Harriet subsequently had to return to the police station in order to answer bail, and she was there met by PC Noble who as the officer in charge of the case (OIC) now formally charged her with criminal damage.

Having charged Harriet, PC Noble then took this highly vulnerable, single mother, victim of domestic abuse and now criminal suspect, into a side room and started to ‘chat her up’ in a grossly abusive manner. 

PC Noble first belittled Harriet by telling her that the situation she was in occurred “when you go for bad boys” and then made his own sexual interest in her clear with comments such as “How can you be single with boots like that? (she was wearing knee high boots) and “Why are you looking down there?” – insinuating that Harriet was looking at his crotch (she in fact had her eyes downcast owing to her lack of confidence in the situation).

Following her release from the station, Harriet initiated the process of and was successful in obtaining a non-molestation order against her former partner.

Then, a few weeks after Harriet had been charged by PC Noble, the officer called her from a private number and asked if she could talk. During the course of their conversation, PC Noble claimed that it was not his fault that she had been charged with criminal damage and asked her to go out with him for food and drinks.  Harriet was led to believe that PC Noble had run intelligence checks on her former partner and that he was going out of his way to try to help her with her problems.

Following this initial telephone call, PC Noble called Harriet regularly, several times a week and mentioned which ‘local’ pub he drank in. He also informed Harriet that it was he who had served the non-molestation order on her former partner and bragged about how he had told her former partner that he, PC Noble, would personally arrest him if the order was breached.

As the telephone conversations between Harriet and PC Noble became increasingly flirtatious, the officer disclosed to Harriet that he could get into ‘trouble’ himself for contacting her, which served to make her feel flattered and increase the connection that she thought that she had with him. It was then arranged that PC Noble would visit her at home one evening.  Harriet had come to believe that the two of them were in the early stages of a romantic relationship. 

Upon arriving at her home, PC Noble and Harriet initially sat on opposite sides of the sofa but the officer asked Harriet to move to sit by him, so that they could “relax”. Thankfully, the officer did not stay long that evening, and no physical, sexual encounter returned. Noble had come across as jumpy and on edge, leaving Harriet feeling confused about his motives.

The officer continued in his grooming of Harriet by using several common tactics from the police abusers ‘handbook’ – seeking to elicit her sympathy, he disclosed to Harriet that he was in an unhappy relationship and no longer slept with his partner; seeking to impress her, he talked about his work as a police officer, including how he had helped victims of domestic abuse and how he had previously worked in the “gang unit”. 

In July 2015, Harriet was acquitted of the charge of criminal damage.

Harriet was now beginning to realise that something was not right with PC Noble’s conduct towards her.  She began to suspect that he was seeking to exploit her, and when she questioned him about his existing relationship, he was not forthcoming with answers.  Shortly thereafter, her contact with PC Noble ceased.

As it turned out, however, Harriet was not the first woman whom PC Noble had targeted in this way, and nor was she the last.

In June 2017 PC Noble was tasked to obtain evidence from a young woman who had reported a breach of a restraining order (During subsequent misconduct proceedings this woman was identified as “Ms X”). Noble visited the woman at her home on two occasions; such was his inappropriate, sexualised demeanour towards her on the first occasion, Ms X covertly recorded the officer during his second visit to her house. Those recordings included the following comments by PC Noble towards Ms X –

• “I think you’re fit, and I could see why he would want ya”
• “I’m a proper red-blooded male…I love women in all their glory”
• “I need to get focused. I need to stop watching you.”
• “You’re telling me another fit girl like you is gonna be jumping all over his dick.”
• “I’ve got to be sensible and careful, I’m not supposed to be chatting you up…”
• “I’ve never done it before, but I’ve never met anyone like you before. And asking you personal questions like have you got any naked pictures…”
• “If I did anything with you it would have to be on the down low, because we’re not supposed to…You know that teacher, pupil relationship that you’re not supposed to have, goes for us as well. We’re not supposed to have relationships with people we’re deemed to help. It’s like doctors shagging their patients…”

We have, it seems, come a long way from “Dixon of Dock Green.”

On the back of those recordings, PC Noble was charged with the criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office and appeared before Birmingham Crown Court in August 2018. Disappointingly, he was ultimately found ‘not guilty’ at trial in April 2019 but, crucially, the publicity surrounding the trial led not only Harriet, but other women to come forwards with similar stories of Noble’s predatory behaviour towards them.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) was now conducting a wider investigation into PC Noble’s conduct towards other women, under the name “Operation Goulburn” Harriet was put in contact with the investigative team.

In November 2019, PC Noble falsely asserted that his interactions with Harriet had been “professional at all times”, and furthermore he denied ever attending her home address.  These lies only added to the trauma that he had already caused towards Harriet by his exploitative behaviour.

She was now determined to see justice done, and gave evidence at the misconduct hearing which took place with PC Noble in April 2021, as did two other women whom PC Noble had targeted in a similar fashion – Ms A (a domestic violence victim whom the officer had sought to exploit in 2014) and Ms B (whose daughter had been assaulted in 2017, with Noble assigned as the investigating officer).  The misconduct panel found my client and the other women to be honest and truthful witnesses, found PC Noble guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice. 

We already know about Ms X, of course. Sadly, there may well have been other victims of Noble’s misconduct who simply failed to come forwards.

Finding the Right Solicitor

Securing complete justice in a case like this, however, does not hinge only on the courageous decision to take action – but also on finding the right solicitor to represent you.

The firm whom Harriet initially instructed sent a letter of claim on behalf of Harriet to West Midlands Police, seeking damages for misfeasance in public office, arising out of the predatory conduct of PC Noble towards her.

In response, in early February 2022, the Police admitted liability, agreeing in principle to compensate Harriet. So far, so good. However, not only did the Police make a derisory – indeed, insulting – offer of only £500, but Harriet’s then- solicitors misadvised her as to the likely range of damages, incorrectly telling her that damages in such cases which didn’t involve “physical or sexual assault” were “generally not huge” and that she was likely to only recover something in the range of £1,200 – £1,500. Boldly, they advised her to “slightly inflate” the value of her counteroffer to a truly whopping £1,600 in order to “allow room for negotiation.”

Sometimes those with the biggest advertising budget, lack the necessary depth of experience and stomach for the fight to achieve the best results for the clients they have gathered.

Thankfully, Harriet recognised the solicitors’ timidity for what it was, totally inadequate to reflect the emotional harm which had been caused to her by having let PC Noble “into my life and into my home.” Dismayed and disappointed, she searched for an expert solicitor in actions against the Police – and she quickly found me. After reviewing the available evidence, I had no hesitation in advising Harriet to reject the offer and she decided to transfer her instructions to me.

Strikingly, when I wrote to West Midlands Police legal services to notify them that I was now acting on Harriet’s behalf, they initially tried to withdraw their admission of liability – perhaps recognising that I was not going to allow Harriet to be bought off as easily as her former solicitors almost had.

On my advice, Harriet now commenced Court proceedings against West Midlands Police, forcing them to pin their colours to the mast and to have to seek Court permission to withdraw their previous admission of liability: I strenuously contested their application, and their admission of liability was restored, this time permanently enshrined in Court documents.

The battle now would be for us to secure an appropriate level of compensation to reflect the officer’s abuse of trust and the harm that had been inflicted upon Harriet, and I commissioned expert psychiatric evidence accordingly, as well as advancing a case for aggravated and exemplary damages in addition to the basic compensatory award.

PC Noble’s behaviour towards Harriet had left her with deep feelings of shame, guilt, embarrassment and anxiety. She had had to go for counselling. She developed a lack of trust in police officers, which would put her at increased risk of harm given her history as a victim of domestic violence.  She was a person who even more than others needed to know that if she turned to the Police, help could be found; and yet when she had done so that very need had been shamefully exploited by a corrupt officer, a would- be serial philanderer.

Harriet told me that she was left with lingering feelings of dread – not only that, should she need to turn to the Police in the future, another male officer might turn out to be “a wolf in sheepdog’s clothing”,  but that officers generally might have animosity towards her because of the part she had played in the downfall of one of their colleagues.

I am pleased to record that I have recently settled Harriet’s claim for damages against West Midlands Police for damages in the sum of £25,000 plus legal costs : a damages sum over 16 times greater than the ‘maximum value’ of her claim according to her original solicitors.

But I must also sadly record that PC Noble’s type of behaviour remains shockingly common amongst male police officers. The Police are instituted in order to fight crime, but the power bestowed upon them for this purpose and the access which it brings into the lives of vulnerable women, is also an attractant to men who themselves harbour criminal, predatory urges.

 My client’s name has been changed.

News broke last week that a Metropolitan Police Officer is under criminal investigation for assault after ‘Sex Education’ actor Reece Richards claimed he had been unlawfully arrested in an incident in September. 

Richards’ account is that he was walking back home through the streets of London, after having appeared in the West End Musical Hairspray when he encountered a very different type of treatment –  Police ‘pepper’ spray.

Richards, who has also appeared on the Netflix show ‘You’, posted an account of the incident on Instagram.

“I had just finished performing in Hairspray the Musical when a car crashed near me.  Two men, one white and one Asian jumped out; one started running in one direction, and the other ran towards me where I stood with my suitcase.

Realising the Police were chasing them, I shouted “He ran down there Officer” and pointed out the direction they fled.

Despite hearing me, the Officer shouted that I was under arrest and demanded I get on the ground. I was confused, unable to understand why I was suddenly being treated like a criminal. 

Calmly I explained that I was a performer returning from a show, but one Officer yelled “Get to the floor or I will pepper spray you””.

Richards claims that the Officers then rushed him, pepper sprayed him (he is probably referring to the use of PAVA incapacitant gas), kicked his legs out from under him, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him.

Thankfully there was a witness to what was occurring – Richards’ mother – who was able to call for help from the director of Hairspray, the “Loose Women” star Brenda Edwards, who attended at the scene, and helped diffuse the situation with Richards being released shortly afterwards.

Richards summed up this very traumatic incident as follows –

“The whole experience was embarrassing, deeply upsetting, and exhausting. It has left me questioning everything I thought I knew about justice. Suddenly my understanding of right and wrong feels completely upended”.

I can deeply sympathise with how he feels. I have represented many clients who have had experiences like this at the hands of hot-headed Officers who ‘rush in where angels fear to tread’ – assaulting or arresting people who are not only innocent, but who were actually trying to help them. Read my recent blog about the case of my client Scott Barratt, kicked in the head by a Police Officer in very similar circumstances, here. 

Police Officers who commit brazen, brutal mistakes of the kind perpetrated against my client – and also against Richards if his account is correct – must be held to account in order to maintain the public’s and to restore their victim’s faith in our justice system.