I have highlighted on many occasions in this blog the huge problem of predators within the Police Force who groom vulnerable individuals, most frequently female victims of crime, whom they see as ‘fair game’ for their own incontinent sexual desires. A trial involving particularly heinous crimes of this nature has just concluded at Birmingham Crown Court, and I represent one of the several victims of the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” officers involved.
PCs Steven Walters and Anthony Ritchie of West Midlands Police stood trial on counts of misconduct in public office. Walters was accused of having domestic violence victims give him oral sex during callouts to their homes; one of his victims (my client) was also taken advantage of by PC Ritchie, who instigated a sexual relationship with her after likewise meeting her in the line of duty. Ritchie was also accused of pursuing a sexual relationship with a woman whom he met whilst arresting her son.
Both of these unrepentant officers entered pleas of not guilty to the criminal charges against them; Walters accusing both of his victims of lying about the sex acts, whilst Ritchie, accepting that he had slept with both women, maintained his behaviour did not amount to misconduct in public office.
Thankfully, the Jury saw through these contemptible defences and both men have today been convicted of misconduct in public office and now await sentence.
These events took place back in 2013-14, when the prevalence of Police predators had not yet been fully exposed to the public eye, and in such a culture of silence, many victims of their abuse of power felt isolated. Fear and vulnerability were no doubt part of these officers’ calculations in their cynical exploitation of these women: already abused by male partners, and as a result often emotionally fragile and lacking in confidence, officers no doubt thought they could treat such women as accessible sex objects and that they would remain timid and pliable. It was a despicable abuse of trust and power.
My client disclosed to the Court how Walters had, during the sex act, participated in a radio call with Police colleagues which he seemed to get a sick ‘kick’ out of. My client was then preyed upon again the following year, when PC Ritchie visited her home after she had been threatened by her violent ex-partner. PC Ritchie subsequently began messaging my client on a personal basis and a few weeks later came around to her house (uninvited) for “coffee.” Thereafter he began to visit her regularly for sex.
Meanwhile, PC Walters had repeated his pattern of behaviour by getting a second domestic violence victim to give him oral sex in the bathroom of her house, after he had attended in response to her crime report.
The third female victim met PC Ritchie when he came to her house to arrest her son; he initiated a relationship with her and visited her home for sex whilst on duty. The Jury also heard that in 2014, as a result of a separate incident Ritchie had been punished with the ‘slap on the wrist’ of “management advice” after he had texted a robbery victim congratulating her on meeting a “fit Police officer” and asking her out on a date. In my opinion, that incident alone should have been enough for him to be drummed out of the Police Force.
It was also revealed during the trial that PC Walters had actually been jailed for sexual assaults on two further women whom he met in 2015, again in the course of his duties.
So, two more officers who abused their privileged positions have received their comeuppance; but how many more like them remain, in a Police service still awash in the cultures and behaviours of toxic masculinity? It is utterly outrageous that female victims of crime should have to worry about whether the main agenda of the Police officer responding to their call, is not investigating the crime but the opportunity for that officer to get his penis out at the earliest opportunity.
The good news is that this case demonstrates that in today’s world accountability can be achieved; the Police perpetrators sentenced for their crimes; the victims believed. I will now be pursuing for my client the apology and just compensation which she deserves from the Chief Constable, who is liable in these cases for the abuses of his officers, to help her along the path to healing.
Update
Both Former West Midlands Police officers were sentenced in September 2023. Anthony Ritchie was jailed for four years and Steven Walters for two-and-a-half years. Read more 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!
This is a guest post by my colleague and fellow solicitor, Aidan Walley.
Since their introduction in 2003, Tasers (the brand name for Axon Enterprise’s Conducted Energy Device) are now used by every police force in the UK. Despite popular belief that Tasers are harmless after the initial electrical shock and the Home Office assurances that any officer that carries a Taser is properly trained in its use, they remain dangerous and potentially lethal weapons. It hardly seems that a week goes by without news of an officer facing possible criminal charges over the misuse of a Taser. The victims of that misuse often suffer physical and psychological injuries, with long lasting effects.
Unfortunately for my client Hamish he was the victim of such misuse in September 2020.
After a night in the pub one evening, Hamish witnessed an incident of criminal damage and an affray involving a baton at a corner shop. The suspects fled but Hamish remained nearby until Lincolnshire Police officers, including PC Nicholas Fox, arrived.
Suspecting that Hamish may have been involved in the original incident PC Fox searched Hamish for a weapon under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Nothing was found on Hamish.
As Hamish was intoxicated and his car was parked nearby, PC Fox suspected that he may have been drink driving and asked Hamish to sit in the rear of the police car for a breath test.
Hamish thought that he was about to be wrongfully arrested for the affray and ran away from the officers. PC Fox briefly gave chase before, without giving a warning, discharging his Taser. The barbs hit Hamish in the lower back and buttocks, and the electric shock caused him to lose control of his body and fall forwards onto the ground. As a result, Hamish sustained a number of injuries from the incident, including a broken bone in his right hand and various injuries to his body and head.
Other officers quickly attended and Hamish was arrested. After speaking with PC Fox about what happened, a Sergeant reprimanded him for discharging the Taser when Hamish was not a threat to the officers or the public. PC Fox replied “It’s fine … I suspected he might have a knife”, despite having searched Hamish himself only a few minutes before.
As Hamish had sustained an injury from the use of a Taser, the incident was subject to a mandatory referral to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) by Lincolnshire Police’s Professional Standards Department (PSD). On review, the IOPC directed the PSD to conduct a full investigation of the incident. Hamish also made his own complaint to the PSD.
During the PSD’s investigation, it was noted that in his statement PC Fox stated that he “was within 10 feet of (Hamish) and was keeping up with him as he ran”. Moreover, on his use of force form PC Fox justified the use of force to “protect the public, effect arrest, protect other officers, protect himself, prevent the suspect’s escape and to secure evidence”.
PC Fox further justified the use of the Taser in his threat assessment: “Medium risk of harm to public and officers of injury. Weapons involved used in violent manner against property in a public place. Low regard for public safety. Subjects involved unknown and motivation for actions unknown. Subject behaving in furtive manner avoiding eye contact and giving indications of lying to officers believed untrustworthy”.
Contrast that however against the comments of the Force’s Taser Trainer, who after reviewing the Body Worn Video of PC Fox said: “Taser fired to stop subject. Where is the threat of violence to justify that use of force? That statement alone suggests that Taser was used to stop the subject escaping and running away. There is no mention of a threat of violence. … When asked to sit in the police car he runs away. He still doesn’t offer any violence to PC Fox that I can see, not even a push or shove as he runs off… It appears from [the] BWV that Taser was used to stop the subject running off.”
The Trainer went on to recommend that PC Fox’s Taser permit should be suspended.
The PSD also found that while detaining and searching Hamish, PC Fox failed to give the requisite information required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, known by the acronym GOWISELY, or to make a record of the search, resulting in the search being unlawful.
The PSD determined that PC Fox had a case to answer for misconduct and the matter went to an internal misconduct hearing in October 2021. Unsurprisingly for such an internal inquiry, there was a finding of no misconduct against PC Fox, notwithstanding the weight of the evidence against him.
Despite the disappointing outcome of the misconduct meeting, Hamish persevered and instructed my firm. On Hamish’s behalf I pursued a claim for assault and battery occasioning personal injury, as well as false imprisonment.
Aidan Walley, solicitor
Lincolnshire Police’s solicitor accepted liability for the unlawful stop and search and the misuse of the Taser, but only offered Hamish £5,000. I had no hesitation in advising Hamish to reject this offer and to obtain medical evidence in support of his claim.
In addition to Hamish’s physical injuries, he was understandably caused significant psychological distress, including panic attacks and recurring nightmares. After a consultation with a consultant psychiatrist, Hamish was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
After negotiating with Lincolnshire Police, I am pleased to say that I was able to settle Hamish’s claim for £22,000. While this represents a good result for Hamish in light of his lasting injuries, unfortunately Hamish’s case was not an isolated incident and I have no doubt that there will be similar cases in the future.
Sadly, too many officers cannot be trusted not to play “cops and robbers” with the weapons entrusted to them, nor can the current Police misconduct system be trusted to hold them to account when they do.
There are two primary routes to hold Police officers to account for excessive force and, fortunately only the misconduct system is under the control of the Policing institutions themselves. Specialist actions against the Police lawyers, such as myself who are skilled in bringing compensation claims have our fingers on the trigger of the legal system and are ready to bring claims on behalf of Hamish and anyone else injured by an unlawful use of a Taser.
I have previously blogged about the case of my client Courton Green who was wrongfully arrested by Lincolnshire Police as part of an RSPCA-led “investigation” into alleged animal cruelty. Mr Green, an experienced farmer, was found not guilty of the charges against him at trial in 2020, and thereafter instructed me to pursue a claim against the Police for what he quite correctly regarded as his unnecessary and unjustified arrest. In my earlier blog, I discussed the problem of the Police deferring to/ collaborating with the RSPCA as if that organisation were truly the ‘Constabulary of Animal Welfare’, when in reality it is entirely a private charitable organisation with no special law enforcement status at all.
The Wrongful Arrest of a Farmer
At the time of his arrest, Mr Green was a farmer responsible for approximately three thousand sheep and four hundred cattle. Early one morning in January 2018, he was working on his farm when he was visited by two Police officers – PC Bell and PC Birden. To his shock, the officers informed Mr Green that he was under arrest for cruelty to animals and was to be taken to Grantham Police Station. My client’s arrest was witnessed by one of his farm employees which he naturally found deeply embarrassing.
Mr Green asked the officers if he could collect his glasses from a nearby truck, but this simple courtesy was refused. Despite being fully compliant, he was then handcuffed and placed into the rear of a Police van, before being taken to the Station. Mr Green felt that in applying the handcuffs, the male officer of the pair, PC Birden, was ‘playing up’ to his younger, female colleague.
To compound my client’s stress and anxiety, on the day of his arrest he had been expecting the arrival of a load of additional sheep from Cumbria. By reason of his arrest, Mr Green was unable to supervise this arrival which caused him significant worry.
On arrival at the Police Station, Mr Green had to wait in the Police van, still handcuffed. The van was stuffy, with little circulating air and caused my client to feel claustrophobic. This was particularly distressing for a man who naturally spent most of his working day out in the fresh air and sunshine.
According to the Custody Record, Mr Green had been arrested for a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, specifically that as a responsible person, he had failed “to prevent the causing of unnecessary suffering to an animal.”
The circumstances of arrest were stated as follows-
“AP has found a sheep that was ill on the ground. It is alleged he left it overnight in a trailer on a tractor, knowing that the sheep was in need of medical attention. The next day he put the sheep in the tractor bucket and dropped the sheep from an approximate height of 6ft and use the bucket to try and decapitate the sheep.”
After considerable delay, Mr Green was processed, searched and then placed in a cell. He had no prior experience of arrest and found his arrest and detention highly distressing. During his detention, he was obliged to provide a fingerprint and DNA sample and to be photographed.
Eventually, my client was allowed to ‘have his say’ in interview, conducted by RSPCA Inspector, Rebecca Harper, during which he robustly denied any wrongdoing.
As Mr Green’s detention continued, significant concerns were raised as regards his mental health and he was required to undergo assessment. He was seen by a Doctor in Police custody, who deemed him to be at risk and arrangements were made for Mr Green to be transported to Lincoln Hospital.
From there, Mr Green was allowed home, although in the days that followed, he remained in a highly distressed state, such that he even made plans to take his own life. Thankfully, he was able to come through this dark experience.
Approximately 5 months later, my client received a summons to attend court. He pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, and his case proceeded to trial in January 2020 where he was found not guilty.
At trial, Judge Veits commented that Mr Green’s arrest was unlawful:
“… the arrest had been unlawful as there had been no attempt … to invite [the client] for interview, he had merely been arrested. Had he been so invited and refused then the necessity of arrest would have been established….”
Civil Claim for Damages
Shortly after my presentation of the claim on behalf of Mr Green, Lincolnshire Police admitted liability for wrongful arrest. Not only did the arrest lack the requisite level of evidence to justify a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that Mr Green had committed the offence – the Police had, as observed by Judge Veits, failed to offer Mr Green an opportunity to attend for a voluntary interview as an alternative to arrest.
Notwithstanding their admission of liability however, the Police then sadly failed to offer my client an appropriate sum in compensation, their maximum offer prior to commencement of Court proceedings being only £3,750 which I had no hesitation in advising Mr Green to reject –
In Police custody, my client had been processed, searched and detained for over 7 hours. He was obliged to provide his fingerprints, DNA sample and be photographed – a degrading and humiliating experience which frankly makes even innocent people feel ‘criminalised’.
The unnecessary use of handcuffs upon Mr Green constituted an act of battery – the handcuffs being left on him for around 90 minutes and causing sores to his wrists.
Mr Green had never previously been arrested and the experience that he underwent had such a devastating effect on his mental health that the Police actually became concerned about his wellbeing and had to arrange for him to go to Lincoln Hospital for a full mental health assessment. Even following his release, Mr Green found himself in a ‘dark place’ and experienced suicidal thoughts.
I obtained a report from an expert Psychologist who diagnosed my client as suffering from an Adjustment Disorder with Depression, brought on by his wrongful arrest.
Furthermore, the arrest took place in unnecessarily humiliating and stressful circumstances, which I correctly identified as giving rise to an entitlement to aggravated damages for Mr Green-
Although a naturally stoical individual, Mr Green was deeply shaken by his experience of incarceration and for a while afterwards felt like a pariah in his local community because people assumed that the fact that the Police had seen fit to arrest him meant there was “No smoke without fire.”
With a further twist of bitter irony, given that my client’s arrest was instigated by such crusaders for animal welfare as the RSPCA, one of the things that tormented Mr Green the most during his period of incarceration was his concern for the welfare of the sheep who were due to be delivered to his farm that very day, and the fact that he was not allowed to make a telephone call to the person delivering the animals.
With the Police only prepared to make such a miserly offer of settlement – despite their admitted wrongdoing – there was no choice but to commence civil court proceedings on behalf of Mr Green. Before doing so, in March 2021, I offered Lincolnshire Police the opportunity to settle my client’s claim for damages in the sum of £20,000.
They declined that offer, and even after proceedings were issued and served upon them, offered only a modestly increased settlement of £5,000, which again Mr Green rightly rejected.
I am now pleased to confirm that in the trial that took place at Nottingham County Court in April 2023, the Judge awarded Mr Green precisely the sum of £20,000 which I had given the Police the opportunity to have settled his claim for almost 2 years previously.
Not only therefore did Lincolnshire Police throw away thousands of pounds in legal fees in erroneously fighting the court proceedings, they were also penalised by an award of additional damages and interest to represent the Court’s disapproval of the fact that they could and should have settled the claim by taking my earlier offer – and as a result the final award of damages made to Mr Green was £28,311.
I trust that Lincolnshire Police will learn two valuable lessons from this case – not to follow the lead of ‘amateur’ investigators like the RSPCA when conducting criminal investigations (and in particular deciding whether to exercise the power of arrest or not) and secondly, when they know that they are at fault, to make sensible offers of settlement at an early stage rather than a maximum offer which ultimately amounted to less than 25% of what the Court found Mr Green’s claim to be worth.
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!
Although the majority of the claims which I pursue are against the Police Forces of England and Wales, I have also previously written about the ‘Wild West’ world of private security, in which shop employees/security staff often unlawfully detain and assault innocent members of the public, in connection with false accusations of ‘shoplifting’: Today’s blog post discusses just one of those cases.
Here, it was the employees and security staff of a Co-op Store who behaved as if they were the sheriffs of their own private town and ran roughshod over my client David’s person and liberty; I am very pleased to have helped him bring them to account.
Early one October evening, David entered his local Co-op Store to do some shopping, carrying an orange bag containing a model building magazine that he had purchased at another store.
David perused the aisles of the Co-op and selected several grocery items, which he placed in a shopping basket, and then went to the counter to pay.
However, as David was in the process of paying for these items, he was approached by a Security Guard.
The security guard demanded to inspect the contents of David’s shopping bag, stating that the bag looked an ‘odd shape’. David replied that it had nothing to do with him.
The security guard then instructed the shop assistant who was scanning David’s purchases to stop serving David.
The security guard repeatedly demanded that David go with him and show him the contents of the orange bag, and then, when David refused to do so, the security guard attempted to grab the bag. In response, David pushed the security guard away, so as to protect his property and to get the man out of his personal space. The security guard then pushed David and took hold of his arm.
At around this time, David produced the receipt he had for his earlier purchase of the magazine, but the security guard refused to accept the receipt because it did not specify the items purchased, just the total sum paid. David grew agitated that the security guard would not believe him and because the security guard was crowding his personal space.
The security guard then stated that he wanted David to give him the orange bag so that he could ‘check’ it. David again refused to hand over the bag and announced that he was now going to leave the store, as he was upset at the security guard’s attitude. David therefore abandoned the grocery items he had been attempting to purchase at the counter.
David then attempted to walk towards the exit; however, the security guard intercepted him and placed his arm across David’s upper body to prevent him from leaving.
The security guard now positioned himself directly in front of David, blocking his exit route from the shop, and repeatedly pushed David, gripping his upper arms/ shoulders and forcing him up against a barrier next to the tills.
The security guard then stood in front of David to prevent him from leaving. Each time David attempted to move away, the security guard stepped in front to block him.
As there were a number of other members of the public in the shop whose attention was drawn to the commotion, David suffered a great deal of distress and embarrassment.
David now decided to show the security guard the contents of the orange bag and offered to get a member of staff from the first store he had visited to confirm his earlier purchase. However, the security guard continued to block and push David.
David once more attempted to walk past the security guard who now took hold of David and his bag, refusing to let him leave with it. Under this duress, David allowed the security guard to take his bag. The security guard then released David.
Whilst the above was occurring, a female member of Co-op staff approached the automatic sliding doors of the shop and locked them. This prevented a number of other members of the public from entering or leaving the store, requiring the female employee to periodically open the doors for them manually.
After the security guard had taken David’s bag from him, David approached the locked doors of the shop. Here the female employee at first refused to let David leave, stating that he had ‘assaulted’ the security guard and the police had been called. In response, David showed the female employee his receipt and explained that he was only leaving in order to get the person who had served him in the first store and would then return with her. Only then did the staff member open the doors for David, allowing him to leave.
David then returned to the first store and spoke with the shop assistant who had served him there. She kindly agreed to attend the Co-op store with David and confirm that he had paid for his earlier shopping. She duly did so, and she spoke to both the Defendant’s female employee and the security guard, although clearly this should not have been necessary.
After a few minutes the shop assistant from the first store left, and shortly afterwards two Police Officers arrived. The officers spoke to David and the Co-op staff. The security guard alleged that David had assaulted him, however the male police officer, after taking David’s account and apparently viewing the store’s CCTV footage, stated that David had done nothing wrong and quite correctly refused to arrest him.
David’s orange bag was then returned to him by the security guard, and he was finally allowed to purchase the shopping which he had earlier had to abandon at the counter and leave the store without further incident.
The following day, David called the Co-op to complain and received a call back from someone at the head office apologising for the incident. She assured David that the manager of the store would also apologise, however David received no such apology.
When David consulted me, I acted swiftly to secure the CCTV footage of this incident from the Co-op and on receiving that footage and considering David’s account, it was quite clear that he had done nothing wrong and his treatment at the hands of the Co-op staff – who had assaulted and (temporarily) imprisoned him in their store was quite outrageous.
David had clearly not committed any act of shoplifting and the security guard had no right to demand to inspect his belongings – and certainly not to physically assault David and confiscate his bag.
When I presented a claim against the Co-operative Group Limited on behalf of David, seeking compensation for wrongful arrest, not only was there no apology but the Co-op sought to deny liability.
They argued that they were not responsible for the actions of the security guard who was a sub-contractor from another company. However, it was clear to me that the security guard was acting under the direction and control of the management of the Co-op store as evidenced by the co-ordinated (if you’ll excuse the pun) closing/locking of the store door by another member of staff.
Whilst the Police Officers who attended thankfully displayed a reasonable attitude and refused to arrest David, he still suffered deprivation of his liberty at the hands of the Co-op, despite being nothing other than a lawful visitor to their store.
I am pleased to confirm that following the commencement of Court proceedings on behalf of David, I have recently settled his claim for damages against the Co-op in the sum of £6,750 plus legal costs.
If you have been the victim of false accusations of shoplifting and/or assault by store security guards, please contact me for advice and representation.
The name of my client has been changed.
How you can help me
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!
This week’s blog post concerns serious breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 by South Yorkshire Police which affected my clients, the Richards family.
Mr and Mrs Richards resided at their Yorkshire home with their teenage son and daughter; at the time of these events, the Richards’ son Harry had just turned 18 and was completing his A-levels. All of the Richards family were of entirely good character and in fact Mr Richards was himself a long-serving Police Officer.
In July 2019 South Yorkshire Police Officers executed a search warrant at the family’s home in respect of a criminal investigation. Mr Richards returned home to find several Police Officers in his house, busy removing computers, mobile phones, laptops and hard drives in clear plastic bags. All of this activity was taking place in full view of their neighbours and Mrs Richards was distraught. The level of Police intrusion at the time of the search was such that the Richards’ daughter had her bedroom and wardrobe searched and the Police confiscated her laptop, which had been issued by her school and was needed for her studies. It transpired that the Police were carrying out the search on the basis of information suggesting that Harry Richards had, when he was 17, downloaded what was allegedly an indecent image of a child; Harry later explained to his parents that this had occurred when he had naively clicked on a link sent to him in a message on the social media platform Instagram. The family was in shock.
The warrant which the Officers provided to my client at the time of the search contained an incorrect address in that on the warrant the address was described as ‘12 Evergreen Road’ whereas the correct address of the family’s home was 12 Evergreen Way.
Almost a year later, in June 2020, one of the Defendant’s Officers sent an email to the family email address stating that Harry would face no further action in relation to the investigation. That email contained the following passages-
“I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the investigation into the Possession of Indecent Images of Children for which you have been involved in.
After reviewing all material, I have spoken at length to Detective Inspector M… who has agreed that it is not in the public interest to proceed with this matter.
I will take this opportunity to remind you of the legislation surrounding Indecent Images of Children, the law states that a person under the age of 18 is to be recognized as a child for such offences. Such an image was located on your mobile phone and therefore, this phone cannot be returned to you. I am asking you to disclaim any ownership. I will approach our legal services to apply to the courts for a destruction order to be made.”
The Richards were overjoyed that this matter had now been resolved, and that Harry would now be able to fully put it behind him and pursue his planned career in the Armed Forces. The lengthy investigation had evidently shown the truth of Harry’s account i.e that this was material he had ill-advisedly clicked on once without soliciting it, and that upon all of his hard drives and other computer technology, there was absolutely nothing else of this nature. However, relief turned to dismay only a few weeks later when Officers from South Yorkshire Police reattended at their home and informed the family that a letter intended for Harry, containing materially the same information as the email quoted above, had been sent to an “incorrect address”.
The Richards were naturally concerned for their safety following this Data Breach given the inflammatory nature of the offence and the risk of vigilante violence and/or social stigma notwithstanding the decision not to bring any criminal charges.
The Officers stated that they would perform a risk assessment relating to the Richards’ home and social media generally, and that a priority tag would be placed on any calls to the Police from the family. Mr Richards was warned to be vigilant and to be wary of strangers coming to the house, or of unknown vehicles parked outside.
Following the Data Breach and the Police’s safeguarding advice, the Richards all felt anxious and unsafe, fearing that the contents of the misaddressed letter would expose the family to harm. They fitted a security alarm to their property, but that could not provide much comfort.
My clients’ subsequent complaint regarding these matters was upheld by South Yorkshire Police who accepted that one of their Detective Constables had made an ‘error’ when inputting the family’s address into the warrant and that “Clearly the information on the warrant should have been checked…prior to it being sworn out”.
The complaint response further stated that the Police had in fact received a phone call from a third party “Who had opened the [misaddressed] letter not realising it was for him. On realising the serious content of the letter, the resident contacted [South Yorkshire Police] using the details provided on the letter…an incident log was not created in respect of this”.
This information naturally heightened the concern of the Richards family as it was now clear that the misaddressed letter had indeed been delivered to a different residential address, presumably one in the local area, for there was indeed an ‘Evergreen Road’ nearby as well as ‘Evergreen Way’, and it had evidently been read by at least one person living there, who was concerned enough by its contents to contact the Police. The Richards had no way of knowing how far this highly confidential information had been spread.
The tone of the complaint response conveyed to the Richards family that South Yorkshire Police did not seem to care very much for what they had done, as the Police offered only a very lukewarm apology for the poor ‘level of service provided’; a typically passive-aggressive corporate response from the Police. Mrs Richards felt that the whole family had been ‘looked down on like scum’ at the time of the Police raid upon their house, and that this attitude had been maintained in the treatment they had received since then.
In light of the above I advised my clients that not only did they have claims against South Yorkshire Police under the Data Protection Act, but that Mr and Mrs Richards (as the owners of the premises) had a claim for trespass to land against the Police in that the Officers had entered and searched the house under a warrant bearing an incorrect address. That error undeniably invalidated the search warrant.
South Yorkshire Police’s careless error in regards to the misdescription of my clients’ home address – twice perpetuated in the circumstances set out above – represented a gross and reckless abuse of power which had significant adverse consequences upon the entire family – all of whom suffered negative psychological reactions with symptoms of anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance. The family feared not only for their physical safety but for their general reputation and career prospects in regards to the ‘leaking’ of this highly sensitive and confidential information.
Indeed, the family’s distress and anxiety was such that Mr and Mrs Richards made the heartbreaking decision to sell the house in which they and their family had placed several decades of financial and emotional investment and relocate to a new area, because they could no longer feel safe at that address.
Despite the fact that my clients’ initial complaint had been upheld, when I presented claims for damages on behalf of the family, South Yorkshire Police at first offered only ‘nominal’ damages for trespass under the misaddressed warrant and refused to admit liability for the data breach and hence it was necessary to issue and serve civil Court proceedings against the Chief Constable.
I am pleased to confirm that after dismissing South Yorkshire Police’s initial offer of settlement of only £250 I have recently concluded settlement on behalf of Harry and his parents for total damages of almost £25,000.
The bottom line is that the Police have to be punished for acts of carelessness like this in order to force them to raise their standards; it is simply not acceptable that errors such as the use of the wrong address in connection with a serious criminal investigation are allowed to occur. Indeed, it is also somewhat unfathomable to me that the Police wasted time and money and unnecessarily increased the risk of an accidental disclosure, by posting a letter which was simply a repetition of the email which my clients had already received.
Lazy policing should not be allowed to blight the lives of the innocent.
In the modern world many of us spend significant portions of our work and/or social life ‘online’, with the overwhelming majority of mail communications being electronic; however, the archaic reliance which Police and Court Services still place on paper correspondence mean that people are in jeopardy of wrongful arrest as a result of errors as elementary as the mis-recording of their residential address.
At all material times my client Mark resided at 10 Midwich Grove, Towerton, Wiltshire.
In April 2021 Mark attended a non-custodial interview at the request of Wiltshire Police, on suspicion of an offence of Actual Bodily Harm. At some point his home address was mistakenly recorded on Police Systems as 35 Moreland Road, Towerton, Wiltshire.
Unbeknownst to Mark, he was subsequently summonsed (by means of a postal requisition sent to the incorrect address) and was due to appear at Salisbury Magistrates Court in September 2022. However, he did not receive the Court summons and so did not attend. As a consequence of Mark’s non-attendance in September a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Mark of course suspected nothing. Over a month later, in October 2022, Wiltshire Police Officers attended at Mark’s home address and arrested him. He was taken away from his family, conveyed to a Custody Suite, processed and placed into a cell in a state of distress and bewilderment.
Mark was held overnight and appeared before Salisbury Magistrates Court the next day. At Court the mistake was established by the duty solicitor, and Mark was released at approximately midday.
Mark had thus suffered 18 hours of loss of liberty wholly as a result of the Police negligence in mis-recording his postal address on their system, which had in turn led the Magistrates Court to wrongly believe that my client had failed to answer the postal requisition, when he had not in fact received it, and for the Court to thus cause Mark to be unlawfully arrested and detained, in ignorance of the true facts.
On behalf of Mark, I pursued a claim against Wiltshire Police under the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act, and I am pleased to confirm that I have recently concluded his claim for damages in the sum of £8,500, plus legal costs.
This was a relatively straightforward case for me, but deserves highlighting nonetheless. There is simply no excuse for data errors to be committed in the Criminal Justice System, when a person’s liberty and record of good character are at stake.
Sadly, I know that this type of gross error by the Police is far from unique. If you or anyone you know has suffered a wrongful arrest as a result of Police or Court documents being sent to the wrong address, please don’t hesitate to contact me for advice and representation.
My client John Black has a twin brother named Jonathan Black. My client’s brother also resides in London, but at a different address.
In 2009 John was arrested for a driving offence, hence creating a Police National Computer (PNC) profile. While in custody my client had his photograph and DNA taken but was ultimately not charged.
On a July evening in 2022 several officers from the Metropolitan Police attended at John’s home address. When John answered the door to the Police, they asked him if he was ‘John Black’ (not Jonathan) and when he confirmed that he was John, they stated that they were there to arrest him for an offence of GBH. John was understandably shocked, but when informed by the Police of some of the details about the offence he immediately told them that they should be looking for his brother, not him. John even produced his ID to verify his identity, but the Officers nevertheless proceeded with the arrest.
John was allowed to dress in a t-shirt and shorts. As he suffers from sciatica, he was also allowed to take with him his crutch and his prescribed painkillers.
John was then conveyed to his local Police Station. Due to my client’s sciatica and the application of handcuffs, he was in considerable pain while in transit in the Police van and unable to relieve that pain. On being presented at the custody desk the circumstances of my client’s arrest were given as:
Arrest enquiry at the home address, DP has been circulated as wanted for the offence of GBH where its alleged DP has hit someone over the head causing bleeding and bruising.
Further, the reasons for his detention were given as:
To obtain evidence by questioning, To prevent breach of peace
John’s detention was then authorised, his DNA, fingerprints and photo were taken, and he was placed into a cell.
Given his skimpy attire John found the cell cold and uncomfortable. Throughout the night, John repeatedly requested his pain killing medication, however none was provided.
At 09:10 the following morning John’s custody record was updated with the following key entry:
I have discussed this case with the investigating officer and I have been briefed on the background to this case and the current status of the gathered material. I have been made aware by the OIC that the suspect arrested John Black is a twin and his brother Jonathan Black is actually the suspect for this offence.
The wrong information has been recorded on the suspect page and hence the wrong details entered on the PNC circulation.
John can be released NFA and the correct suspect will now be circulated.
Shortly thereafter, John was released with No Further Action. My client attempted to complain to Officers regarding the failure to provide his medication, however his complaint was ignored.
John subsequently instructed me to pursue a claim against the Metropolitan Police for his wrongful arrest and those breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 which had led to his arrest i.e. the Police confusing John’s personal details with those of the actual suspect, his brother Jonathan.
John felt angry and humiliated by what had happened to him. In addition to the physical pain that he had to endure, he had suffered over 18 hours of loss of his liberty as a prisoner of the Metropolitan Police in a cold and uncomfortable cell. Despite knowing that he was innocent, he felt ashamed and degraded by the whole process, which feelings were compounded by the uncaring attitude of the Police even once they realised their mistake. He suffered flashbacks, sleep disturbance and a loss of trust in the Police, which led to him being referred for counselling.
Although my client shared a date of birth with his brother and their names are indeed similar, there is simply no excuse for ‘mistaken identity’ errors like this in the Criminal Justice System. The Police and other law enforcement agencies must be held to the highest standards of attention to detail when it comes to researching the identities of suspects on the PNC and then circulating details for arrest, because the consequences of an error are so serious.
If the Police want the right to maintain databases containing the details of individuals who have single, minor, or decade-old interactions with the Criminal Justice System – then they simply have to handle that material to an impeccably high standard; nobody should be at risk of arrest because of an admin error which could have easily been avoided.
I have recently concluded John’s claim against the Metropolitan Police for significant damages and legal costs.
I am pleased that I have been able to secure this settlement for John, which represents fair recompense for the trauma and loss of liberty that he suffered; it is also another act of chipping away at Police negligence/recklessness and hopefully ensuring that fewer people suffer this form of wrongful arrest in the future.
The Metropolitan Police habitually fail to apologise or even admit formal liability in cases like this, so their money speaks far louder – and we might say more honestly – than their words do.
I make no apologies for the fact that there are certain scenarios which I return to frequently in this blog, such as this week’s subject, which concerns the unlawful stop and search of a young black man – because the frequency with which the Police commit such abuses needs to be highlighted. (When the Police stop misusing their stop and search powers, then I will stop blogging about it.)
My client, Emmanuel, is of black ethnicity and was at the time of the incident 17 years old.
One afternoon in August 2021, Emmanuel was walking along a residential road in London. As he was walking, he was approached by a group of men – dressed in plain clothes – who demanded to know where Emmanuel was going and why he was wearing a jacket on a ‘warm day’.
Emmanuel attempted to step around the men; only then did they inform him that they were Metropolitan Police officers. In contravention of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), none of the officers identified themselves or their Police station, however my client later learnt in response to his complaint that the officer who led the search was PC Pinkerton.
Emmanuel asked why he was being singled out, as there were many other people nearby wearing jackets/ coats; the officers declined to directly answer Emmanuel’s question but asserted that there had been “a lot of people carrying weapons.” The officers then demanded Emmanuel’s personal details, however as he had not been given a clear reason for why he had been individually stopped, my client declined their request.
PC Pinkerton then took hold of Emmanuel and placed him into handcuffs in the “rear stack” position. The officers then searched Emmanuel and during the course of the search, an officer took Emmanuel’s Oyster card from his pocket and checked his name on the Police National Computer system. On finding no PNC entries for my client, the officer commented that this was Emmanuel’s “first stop” – the apparent implication being that because of his skin colour it would not be the last…. How depressing it is that because of institutional Police racism “your first stop and search” has become an unwanted and unwarranted “rite of passage” for young black men.
The search was negative, and Emmanuel was released. Emmanuel, whom I stress was aged only 17 at the time and was therefore legally a child, was left highly distressed by the incident. Physically, he was now free to go, but mentally, an unjustified stop and search is not quite as easy for the victim to walk away from, as it is for the Police Officers. I will present here Emmanuel’s own eloquent testimony about how this event affected him-
“I felt embarrassed, upset and frightened. People were looking at me shaking their heads as if I had done something wrong. I felt vulnerable in handcuffs, surrounded by plain clothes Police Officers. I could not understand why this was happening. I felt violated and abused. I felt I had no rights.”
Later the same day my client and his mother submitted a formal complaint to the Met. Emmanuel is of entirely good character, had no previous experience of being stopped and searched or being subject to force by police officers. Due to the circumstances of the incident, he strongly believed that the stop and search and use of force were racially motivated by reason of his ethnicity. Emmanuel’s mother made it clear in the complaint that she was concerned about the mental health impact of this incident upon her son. As she wrote to the Police-
“Putting handcuffs on people may be routine for Police Officers, but it’s not for the individual who has done nothing wrong.”
During the course of the subsequent investigation into Emmanuel’s complaint, it was discovered that no record of the search had been created nor had PC Pinkerton completed a use of force form for handcuffing my client. Only some three months later, in October 2021, did PC Pinkerton create a stop and search record for this incident, which stated:
“Male was seen wearing large puffa style jacket on a hot day. The area is a known hotspot for gang related crime such as drug dealing and carriage of weapons. Male was seen walking with purpose and was aware of their surroundings which I believed was indicators of stress as they appeared nervous. On approach from police male has appeared to attempt to evade police by attempting to walk around officers. Male appeared to self-search towards coat when detained so handcuffs were used to facilitate search. Male would not account for behaviour and presence within area during stop. Male searched for weapons with negative result.”
Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police admitted that that whilst there had been Body Worn Video footage of the incident, and my client had made his complaint less than 24 hours afterwards, the footage had not been preserved. Of course, a crucial factor in the loss of the footage was no doubt the fact that Emmanuel was unable to give any of the officer’s identities when he lodged his complaint – precisely because the officers had ridden roughshod over the clear and very well understood PACE requirement that every stop and search subject is entitled to this information.
The Police failings on the day of the incident were thus compounded as Emmanuel’s complaint dragged on and on without clear resolution and opportunities to preserve the video evidence were lost. As my client later told the complaint investigator-
“Because of my race they [the Officers] assumed I was suspicious…and that was enough for them to illegally stop and search me. It was unjustified and there were no reasonable grounds to do so. I believe because of my race and being a teenager they felt it not necessary to follow PACE. I was not told under what section I was being stopped and searched, the officers did not give me their names or ID numbers or provide me with a copy of the stop and search record.”
I am pleased to confirm that I have recently concluded Emmanuel’s claim against the Metropolitan Police for a settlement of substantial damages and costs. But huge concerns remain about Policing culture and practice; and particularly the endemic disrespect which so many Officers show for the laws which are supposed to govern their conduct and ensure that they treat people fairly and are accountable to the public. Here a gang of officers misused their powers against a child and then apparently sought to avoid scrutiny by breaching their legal obligations to identify themselves and to create a written record of their actions; the Metropolitan Police’s lackadaisical response to my client’s complaint indicates that Police hierarchies continue to tolerate such law-breaking and raises the question – can the Police be trusted to police our streets, when they can’t properly police themselves?
In March of this year, BBC news reported on a case in which PC Ian Brown of Lincolnshire Police was cleared of misconduct in regards to his use of force, in the form of repeated baton strikes, upon a man who had already been tasered and restrained by other Officers.
The victim of PC Brown’s baton strikes was my client, whom I shall identify for this purposes of this blog as Christopher, and I am pleased to confirm that – notwithstanding the conclusion of the misconduct panel that PC Brown had “not breached standards of professional behaviour in relation to use of force and discreditable conduct” – I have now succeeded in holding Lincolnshire Police to account and have recovered a substantial award of damages and legal costs for my client.
The background to this incident was that Police were called to a residential street in Grantham in 2019 in response to reports that Chris was drunk and had committed acts of criminal damage at his mother’s address.
In total, five Officers attended at the scene. One of them tasered Chris, causing him to collapse to the ground.
After being tasered, Chris initially lay unresponsive on the ground whilst Officers handcuffed his arms behind his back. The Officers then lifted Chris up and moved him a short distance before putting him down on the ground again, where they also began to apply leg restraints. It was at this point, whilst several Officers were holding Chris face down on the ground, with handcuffs already applied, that Chris began crying out incoherently in distress. He was evidently confused and in pain, having been tasered only a few minutes before.
However, PC Brown’s response to Chris’s cries of distress was to deliver multiple baton strikes to Chris’s shoulder whilst shouting at him “Pack it in” and “No more, do you understand?”. Chris was to all intents and purposes completely defenceless at this point and only moments post-electrocution.
PC Brown is a particularly tall, strong Officer, measuring 6’ 4’’ in height and weighing 19 stone; at the time that he delivered these blows, not only was Chris under the control of several officers, it should have been manifestly obvious that Chris was still ‘coming back round’ after being tasered and was in a very vulnerable state. In my opinion, the officer’s actions were completely egregious and excessive and risked causing serious and unnecessary harm to my client.
Furthermore, PC Brown failed to subsequently complete a ‘Use of Force’ form as required (or even reference the incident in his pocket notebook) – perhaps indicative of the fact that the officer himself knew that his actions were unjustified.
My own assessment of PC Brown’s acts of violence was evidently shared by the Crown Prosecution Service, who authorised a charge of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) against the Officer with the following comments-
“I consider the culpability of Ian Brown high – he is an experienced officer, he should be well conversed in methods of restraint control and necessity. From the evidence before me, the use of the baton at the time of 2nd and 3rd strike was neither proportionate nor necessary. The IP [Injured Party] is on the ground, he is prone, he does not appear to be struggling and appears to be under the control of the officers.
The case is aggravated by the fact that the DF [Defendant] is a serving police officer – with a significant period of service behind him.
The injury, on its own amounts to a common assault – however there are two strikes here with a baton – it is not a sustained assault but the use of the weapon to strike the IP whilst on the floor when he poses little if any risk in my view is excessive and amounts to ABH.”
However, the criminal courts often prove to be lenient and sympathetic forums when Police Officers are on trial, with the Defendant’s Police colleagues proving only ‘lukewarm’ witnesses for the Prosecution, reluctant to give adverse evidence against a fellow officer. Following trial at Nottingham Crown Court 30 August – 1 September 2022, PC Brown was indeed acquitted of having assaulted my client.
Likewise, as noted above, although Lincolnshire Professional Standards Department concluded that PC Brown had a ‘case to answer’ in respect of his use of force, on 8 March 2023 a disciplinary panel concluded that those allegations of excessive force and discreditable conduct were not proven.
Thankfully, justice has a ‘third prong’ to it in cases like this; the criminal and complaints process may have failed to produce the result my client wanted but, on his behalf, I was able to use the civil claims system to get Lincolnshire Police to admit liability for PC Brown’s excessive force and hence achieve a substantial damages award for Chris.
When the CPS were justifying the bringing of criminal charges against PC Brown, their lawyer wrote –
“The breach of trust here is significant in my view too. The public need to have confidence in the police that they will deal with detainees appropriately and that police assaults on detainees are not acceptable.”
On this occasion, Police accountability in the crucial area of excessive force and mistreatment of detainees has been achieved through use of our robust and rigorous civil justice system; a system in which I am very proud to play my part. Please contact me if you require advice or assistance in relation to any aspect of Police misconduct law.
The case which I am discussing this week, is yet another reminder of the high duty which is correctly placed upon the Police not to misuse/ mishandle the power they have over people’s personal lives, by being privy to all of the information contained within criminal justice databases.
Following a conviction for an offence of violence in 2017, my client Alan was placed on the Violent and Sex Offender Register (VISOR). He had not, however, committed any sexual offences.
In early 2022, Alan entered into a new relationship with a woman whom I will identify as Clare. As Clare lived with her young children, an Initial Child Protection Conference was held in early Summer 2022. This meeting was attended by members of Social Services and a representative of Norfolk Constabulary. Also in attendance was Clare, her mother, her sister, and her former partner. During the course of the meeting the Police representative incorrectly stated that Alan was on the VISOR for a sexual offence, and hence was a sex offender. This was completely incorrect.
Following the meeting, this incorrect information was disseminated, and Alan began to receive abuse and death threats from members of Clare’s family. In response to a complaint raised by Alan with Norfolk Constabulary, the Police staff member who had attended the Child Protection Conference shockingly admitted that she had believed that as Alan was a VISOR subject, he was therefore a sex offender, failing to make the distinction between violent and sexual offenders.
Although Alan does have a criminal record, we all know that society understandably holds sexual offences in particular abhorrence, and for Alan to be so carelessly and wrongly stigmatised in this way was, in my opinion, an unforgivable breach of the duty of care which the Police owed to him, as the custodians of his personal data. Indeed, this inaccurate information could have put Alan himself at risk of serious violence and did blight his life and relationships in all manner of ways.
Even the Police’s subsequent correction of the erroneous information, does not necessarily undo all the harm which has been caused. There could be those who continue to believe or propagate the error, whether out of genuine suspicion or motivations of malice – such that there might indeed hang over Alan’s life, for a long time to come, a cloud caused by smoke which the Police have generated without any fire.
Alan instructed me to pursue a claim against the Police. Norfolk Constabulary, whilst admitting that “something went wrong”, initially sought to dispute liability and cited the case of Scott v LGBT Foundation Ltd 2020, in which it was found thatan oral statement of information is not “processing” under the definition of the Data Protection Act. Notwithstanding this argument, I maintained Alan’s claim for compensation, on the basis that he had viable claims in negligence and/or for breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life).
I am pleased to confirm that I have recently settled Alan’s claim for substantial damages, plus legal costs.
If you have suffered a breach of your data – whether that is an inappropriate disclosure of accurate personal information, or, as in Alan’s case, wholly inaccurate information given to third parties by authorities such as the Police, please contact me for advice.
This week’s blog post comes from my colleague and fellow solicitor John Hagan. Like me, John specialises in civil actions against the police.
Here he reviews the new Public Order Act, and the Metropolitan Police’s interpretation of it when dealing with protesters, over the Coronation weekend.
The Government’s new Public Order Act 2023 gained Royal assent only days before the Coronation of King Charles III on Saturday 6 May 2023. On the morning of the Coronation itself the Metropolitan Police, apparently using powers under the new Act, arrested six anti-monarchy protesters in London, including Graham Smith, the Head of the campaign group ‘Republic’.
The Government is insistent that the new Act will not curtail the right of people to protest peacefully – but will at the same time enable the Police to deal with those who are passive-aggressively disrupting the lives of other members of the public, for example by causing significant restrictions to traffic.
In response to the arrest of the Republic Group, Labour MP Lisa Nandy claimed that “Something has gone wrong” and that the Metropolitan Police must have made ‘mistakes’ in the arrests of the six protesters, on the basis that the Police have now announced that no action would be taken against them.
Of course, that statement is not entirely correct – the determination of whether an arrest is unlawful is not based on whether or not the person proves to be guilty of an offence, or even indeed whether there is subsequently found to be enough evidence to support a prosecution, regardless of its outcome. The question is whether, in the parameters of the laws of this country as set down by the Government, the Police did or did not have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that an offence was being committed.
“Suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof if lacking: ‘I suspect but I cannot prove’. Suspicion arises at or near the starting- point of an investigation of which the obtaining of prima facie proof is the end.”
The test of reasonable suspicion has a low bar which is appropriate, as it is a matter of common sense that the Police should not become liable for every arrest which does not result in a conviction. ‘Reasonable suspicion’ is a time-honoured method of balancing the rights of the individual against the needs of the Police to be able to operate effectively in the fight against crime, which must include leeway for them to make reasonable mistakes.
So of course, it is the word reasonable which is the key here – the Republic members were held on suspicion of possessing items which could allegedly be used for an illegal ‘locking on’ protest, contrary to Section 2 of the Act. These items turned out to be luggage straps which they claim were intended to secure their ‘Not My King’ protest placards.
It has to be said that luggage straps do not strike me as being made from material robust enough to facilitate a human ‘lock on’ protest, and therefore it does not seem surprising that the Republic arrestees have had their bail cancelled so quickly, officers now having returned the ‘offending items’ with a reported apology to the Republic chief. How much an ‘expression of regret’ without a formal admission of fault will count to those detained for up to 16 hours, in such politically charged circumstances, will remain to be seen.
Other arrests on Saturday included members of Westminster City Council’s women’s safety campaign Night Stars, who hand out rape alarms. The Police claimed they had intelligence which indicated that people were planning to use rape alarms to disrupt the Coronation parade.
The UK’s system of constitutional monarchy is based upon the theory that an apolitical head of state will help to preserve our age-old unwritten constitution, the bedrock of which are Common Law traditions upholding the liberty and privacy of the individual.
The Republic protesters were – inadvertently or otherwise – prevented from ‘raining’ on the royal parade, but I am sure that everyone who holds dear the true values of British liberal democracy will want the Police to be held to account if they have abused their powers and carried out wrongful arrests.
Those cheering for the Crown were, after all, cheering for a British State which holds supreme such values, and as a result can hold its head up high amongst the leading democracies of the World.
Much has been written about the culture of toxic masculinity, which is deeply entrenched in our Policing institutions, brought starkly to light by a number of tragedies. I was about to write ‘recent’ tragedies – but as the victims of the Police officer and serial rapist David Carrick, whose crimes spanned almost the entire length of his 20-year Police career, would testify – many of these atrocious acts and abuses of power go back decades, and are only now being brought to light. It took the rape and murder of Sarah Everard in 2021 for the Police to start properly policing themselves.
Whilst the number of predatory rapists amongst Police ranks – the real wolves in sheep’s clothing – is thankfully low, the wider number of Officers who abuse their privileged position to form improper sexual relationships with vulnerable women whom they have met through the course of their Policing duties, exploiting the special access they have to these women’s lives, is shockingly high. It is the very behaviour of those Officers who treat a career in the Police like a ‘stag weekend’ in Amsterdam, and the other Officers who tolerate this ‘locker room’ culture, which has formed the environment where monstrous outliers such as Carrick and Wayne Couzens were able to prosper and ‘hide in plain sight’.
I don’t think a week had gone by in 2023 without the media reporting on another ‘sexploitation’ case, and here are just a few recent examples –
PC Rhett Wilson (West Mercia Police) – who bragged to friends about his sexual relationships with multiple domestic violence victims, which he dubbed “Big R slaying more victims of crime”. Wilson had left the Force and joined the Army by the time justice caught up with him, but has now been jailed for his offences.
PC Jonathan Simon (Metropolitan Police) – who stalked and harassed a woman whom he met on duty, and who at one point he encouraged to turn to prostitution, convicted of stalking following a trial at Westminster Magistrates Court in March and this month receiving a suspended prison sentence for his crime. Although he has been suspended from duty, PC Simon has not yet been dismissed from the Met and is awaiting a misconduct hearing.
PC John Kelham (North Wales Police) – assigned to the case of a domestic violence victim, and aware that she had a history of mental health issues, Kelham repeatedly contacted the woman on social media, describing her as ‘gorgeous’ and asking for photographs of her in the bath. This then led to a sexual relationship between PC Kelham and the woman which the Officer continued to pursue even when his behaviour was under investigation by the Professional Standards Department, and he had been warned not to contact her. As is often the case, the Officer when first challenged over his behaviour denied having a sexual relationship with the woman and claimed she was ‘a liar’. At adisciplinary hearing in March 2023, the panel found PC Kelham’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and the Officer would have been dismissed if he was still serving on the Force – however he had resigned whilst the misconduct charges were pending.
PC Simon Miller (Humberside Police) –After meeting a vulnerable victim of crime following an incident in 2021 Miller had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Having been sacked following a misconduct hearing last August, this ex-officer now awaits sentence at Grimsby Crown Court and has been warned that he might face jail for his crime.
PC Christopher Grant (Wiltshire Police) – another Officer who would have been dismissed from the profession had he not already resigned. A misconduct hearing in March 2023 concluded that PC Grant had abused his position after being assigned to investigate a woman’s report of sexual assault in July 2022, bombarding her with more than 2,000 text messages over the next 2 months, some of which were of a clearly sexual nature, and also following her on social media. It was found that Grant had entered into a sexual and improper emotional relationship with the woman. This former Officer has now been placed on the National Police Barred List.
(It should also be noted that the Metropolitan Police, along with seven other Forces, declined to respond to the Freedom of Information Request).
Those stark figures, shocking as they are, are therefore likely to only be the tip of the iceberg – with some Forces apparently deliberately hiding the information from media scrutiny. My own experience leads me to conclude that there are many victims of this form of insidious abuse of power who by reason of shame, fear, mental ill health or other psychological barriers have not yet reported the crimes perpetrated against them by the very men who were supposed to be protecting them. Indeed, there is a strong argument to say that until Policing recruitment and culture has been fundamentally reformed, only female Officers should be assigned to deal with domestic abuse victims.
Superintendent Andy Maultby of Humberside Police said, in regards to the case of PC Simon Miller, that Miller had “completely abused his position of trust” taking advantage of someone “when she was in need of support” and that Miller’s conduct “was utterly condemnable and unforgivable”.
Supt Maultby is just one of many senior Officers who now line up to condemn predatory Police Officers in the strongest terms – but in my opinion Police leadership must bear its own share of responsibility for having presided over a profession which was for so many decades a hospitable environment for abusers. What begins with ‘locker room’ banter, ends in acts of sexual exploitation and for far, far too long this simply wasn’t taken seriously by the Police, who appeared to revel in their own ‘lads will be lads’ culture. By way of illustration, I am presently handling a claim on behalf of a woman who was, within weeks of her arrest in 2004, propositioned and made pregnant by the very officer who had arrested and interviewed her – his ‘seduction’ beginning when he stroked my client’s hand during her fingerprinting process.
Unlike many similar abuses of power, which have only recently been reported, my client did report this officer to his superiors and a Professional Standards enquiry in 2005 concluded that the officer had behaved “in a totally inappropriate and unprofessional manner…[casting] serious doubts on his suitability to be dealing with vulnerable females” – but ‘back then’ this was evidently not considered by the Police to be an offence for which an officer should be sacked, let alone face jail, and the perpetrator was let off with a ‘formal written warning.’
Another such example is that of the recently reported case of Humberside Police officer Craig Mattinson, whose 2003 admission that he had had sex with a burglary victim was at the time only deemed worthy of the lowest possible misconduct sanction – “management advice” – and who was allowed to continue in the Force, rising to the rank of Inspector, before being sacked earlier this year after he was found guilty of groping two teenage girls.
What can you do if this has happened to you?
Whereas the complaint of my client in 2005 was a ‘voice in the wilderness’ – and one which would have probably fallen on deaf ears had it not been for her pregnancy – there is no doubt that times have changed for the better, albeit that impetus for change has not come from within the Police themselves, and there has never been a better time for the victims of Police sexual abuse of power to come forwards and seek justice, whether the abuse that they have suffered occurred two weeks or two decades ago.
It is entirely right and proper that the officers who abused the privileges of their position to pursue women for sex, be held to account and dismissed from the Force and sentenced for their crimes, to jail if necessary. Victims who courageously report these crimes are doing more than Police leadership ever did to make the Police better and, crucially, to prevent other people being victimised in the future.
It is also entirely right and proper that victims receive appropriate compensation from the Police Forces themselves, which are indeed not only morally but legally accountable for their officers’ abuse of power, even if the sexual relationship was on the face of it ‘consensual.’ The reality is that a Police officer pursuing a victim of crime, a person they have arrested or a person suffering an episode of mental ill health – all vulnerable people with whom officers regularly come into contact in the course of their duties – for a sexual relationship, whether by way of phone calls/ text messages or social media as well as physical contact, constitutes misfeasance in public office and/or harassment i.e civil wrongs for which damages are payable to the victim.
Over the course of the last decade, I have recovered hundreds of thousands of pounds compensation on behalf of victims of Police sexual abuse of power. These officers groom and gaslight women whom they are fully aware are vulnerable to their ‘advances’ by reason of crises in their personal lives – often physical or sexual abuse at the hands of other men, of which they will now gleefully take advantage for their own sexual gratification.
If this has happened to you, contact me for help and advice. If the Police have abused their power over you, I can show you how to use the civil justice system to show them that you have power too.
Last year I blogged about the frustrations, delays and inadequacies of the Police Complaints process, by reference to the case of my client Emmanuel Madugbah, an NHS worker who heroically worked 43 consecutive days at Northwick Park Hospital during the critical phase of the first Coronavirus surge in 2020, witnessing the death of many patients, and also his own colleagues becoming patients.
Emmanuel, who is a man of exemplary character, was going about his lawful business in Watford in October 2019 when he was ‘ambushed’ by a group of Police Officers who pointed a taser weapon at him, forced him to the ground and handcuffed his hands behind his back.
It subsequently transpired that the Officers had mistaken Emmanuel for another black man, whom they were seeking to arrest. Emmanuel strongly feels that there was very little physical resemblance between himself and the real suspect – other than them both being black.
Although my client’s complaint related to a single and relatively straightforward incident, Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s complaint investigation was only finalised on 19 April 2023 i.e. 3 years and 4 months later.
Of far greater concern to me, however, than the length of time which it takes their complaint investigations to be finalised, is the pro-police bias displayed by most Forces’ Professional Standards Departments, bordering on active antagonism towards complainants, of which Cambridgeshire PSD is certainly no exception.
During the investigation of Emmanuel’s complaint, it was necessary for me to appeal on my client’s behalf not once, but three times to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC).
On each occasion my client’s appeal was upheld or partially upheld, and Cambridgeshire Police were ordered to take remedial action in regard to clear inadequacies in their handling of the complaint, including the following –
Their initial report lacking attention to detail given the “overriding seriousness” of the allegations;
The investigating officer not displaying sufficient objectivity in assessing the allegations and when weighing the officers accounts against other evidence;
Failures by the investigating officer to properly explain his conclusions;
Failing to properly interrogate the officers alleged ‘reasonably held suspicion’ that my client was the real suspect.
The IOPC also censured the failure of the Officers who stopped my client to record the incident on body camera.
Throughout this process, both I and Emmanuel have remained highly concerned that the three white officers who assaulted and detained Emmanuel apparently leapt to their conclusions on the basis of his skin colour, and in the absence of any other similarity between the real suspect (a man in his 20s) and Emmanuel (a man in his 40s) other than the highly generic factor that they both wore beards of some description. I strongly suspect that a white man would never have been identified on the basis of skin colour and facial hair alone.
Not only is it right to question the lack of objectivity and independence displayed by Cambridgeshire PSD in this process, it is also proper to question how much public money has been wasted by the Police failure to properly and thoroughly investigate Emmanuel’s complaint at the first time of asking – rather than having to have their homework marked and returned to them for revision by myself and the IOPC on no less than three occasions.
I will also highlight that throughout the appeal and reinvestigation process, Cambridgeshire PSD repeatedly failed to pursue lines of enquiry which the IOPC had requested – leading the IOPC to bemoan the Force’s unwillingness to fully ‘probe’ their officers’ accounts. In the end, Cambridgeshire Constabulary was allowed to hide behind “the passage of time” as a reason for their officers not to be questioned further – i.e the delay of three years which the Force itself was entirely responsible for. Disappointingly the IOPC acquiesced in this, but it is rare for our Independent Office of Police Conduct to show much stomach for a fight with resistant Police Forces.
The ultimate outcome of the investigation into Emmanuel’s complaint was the issuing of the following apology by Cambridgeshire Constabulary to my client on 19 April 2023 –
“It is clear that there was an incident of mistaken identity and on behalf of Cambridgeshire Constabulary, I would like to offer you a sincere apology for any distress this may have caused you.”
I will leave it to the readers of this blog to determine how sincere that apology actually was, given that it did not materialise until three appeals to the IOPC had been upheld over the course of 3 years.
In the meantime, I am now proceeding with civil litigation on behalf of Emmanuel in order to achieve the true vindication and appropriate compensation which, I believe, he deserves from the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire. In my previous blog post I spoke about the difference between the Police Complaints ‘circus’ and the much fairer and transparent process of the Court system, in which people have their hands on the ‘steering wheel’ provided by being the driving party in the litigation, rather than being mere passengers on the ‘merry-go-round’ of a complaint investigation.
If you believe that you have suffered from Police misconduct and have received a complaint report purporting to find that the officers involved did no wrong, I would strongly urge you to consult an expert in Actions against the Police such as myself, because it is my sad, but time-tested, experience that most Police complaints reports– and Police apologies – aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Baroness Casey’s recent report on the Metropolitan Police highlighted a raft of systemic problems in that Force – including under-resourcing, poor training and leadership on the ‘frontlines’, the misuse of ‘Misuse of Drugs Act’ searches – particularly against people of the “over -policed and under-protected” Black and Asian communities of the city – and officers ‘closing ranks’ in the face of even the most clear-cut complaints; all of which issues intersect in today’s blog.
Therefore, let us now step from the pages of the Casey report into the real streets of London…
My client, Suleman Iqbal is of British Pakistan ethnicity and works as an engineer for British Telecom.
On the afternoon of the 30 June 2020, Suleman went to visit his cousin who lives in Walthamstow.
Suleman was driving a two door BMW motor vehicle, fitted with tinted windows.
It was a hot sunny day. Suleman was wearing a baseball cap and had both front windows down. He was playing loud music on the car stereo and was smoking a cigarette.
As my client proceeded along Shaftsbury Road, there were cars parked up on either side of the road making passage slow. As he passed Shaftsbury Primary School, he was obliged to stop because of another car travelling in the opposite direction.
Whilst he was stationary, the rear passenger side window of Suleman’s car was suddenly and without any warning smashed by a Metropolitan Police Officer now known to be PC Harrington using an extended baton.
Whilst Suleman was distracted by the glass breaking, a second officer, now known to be PS Mason reached through the open driver’s window and seized Suleman’s right wrist and then forced his hand and arm backwards causing Suleman significant pain and discomfort and causing him to drop his cigarette. He was in a state of shock and did not understand why he was being brutally attacked like this.
A third officer, now known to be PC Roberts then took hold of Suleman’s right arm and forced it backwards causing him further pain and discomfort, whilst PS Mason opened the driver’s door and seized my client’s lower right leg, before pulling him partially out of the car.
At this time, the car was still in gear and Suleman’s left foot was on the brake. So as to stop the car moving forward, and a potentially serious accident occurring, Suleman took the car out of gear and applied the handbrake before voluntarily exiting his vehicle.
My client was understandably angry and remonstrated with the officers asserting that there was no basis for their actions.
“Assisted” by the Police?
Suleman was now led away from his vehicle and handcuffed to the rear by three officers believed to be PC Roberts, PC Halabi and PC Boyle. This was witnessed by a significant number of members of the public, who were out and about on the street in the lovely weather.
Whilst Suleman was being handcuffed, PC Harrington approached with his baton still extended, menacingly brought his baton up close to Suleman’s face and then flicked Suleman’s cap off his head with his right hand.
The bully-boy tactics now worsened as PC Harrington grabbed Suleman by the neck with his right hand, whilst still holding his baton in his left hand, and forced Suleman backwards whilst he continued to be restrained and handcuffed by the three officers behind.
This attack upon Suleman, and his manhandling generally as he was led away from his car – later disingenuously described by the Police lawyers as Suleman being “assisted out of the BMW” was captured on video by a concerned passer-by, and is shown here with Suleman’s permission:
Suleman was understandably incensed by PC Harrington’s actions and immediately demanded his name.
In response, officers now accused Suleman of spitting (which was untrue) and PC Harrington and PS Mason grabbed the top of Suleman’s t-shirt and raised this up to cover his mouth and nose whilst simultaneously forcing Suleman’s head backwards. Meanwhile, the three officers at the rear continued to restrain and handcuff him. Suleman struggled to breathe and in panic cried out that the officers were ‘strangling’ him. He also informed the officers that he was asthmatic. This was a totally unjustified and brutal use of force perpetrated by a ‘gang’ of Officers upon a man who was their helpless prisoner, and could have had tragic results.
When the other officers had completed handcuffing Suleman, PC Harrington and PS Mason released their grip on his shirt, uncovering his face. Suleman was then forced up against a wall/ railings where his left leg was forcibly held against the wall and a spit hood secured over his head. Suleman again struggled to breathe. Numerous members of the public were observing Suleman’s brutal mistreatment at close hand.
Two officers continued to restrain my client by holding him against the wall notwithstanding that he was handcuffed and was not trying to escape.
Suleman continued to assert that he could not breathe and was told to “calm down”. PS Mason asserted that the spit hood would not impede his breathing “in the slightest”.
PS Mason then approached the Claimant and told him “I ran to the driver’s window. I made eye contact with you ….. I screamed, please stop the car. I saw you attempt to drive off quicker ….. you revved the engine…. You failed to stop your vehicle when requested to do so.”
Prior to the events described, my client had in fact been unaware of the presence of any officers. Suleman disputed PS Mason’s version of events and truthfully asserted that he had not made eye contact with PS Mason, that PC Harrington had smashed his window for no reason and that PC Harrington had strangled him by the neck.
PS Mason asserted that in fact PC Harrington had “put” his hand around the Claimant’s mouth/face because he was spitting. Suleman responded, “Don’t lie officer, please don’t lie to me.”
After several minutes, PC Mason removed the spit hood from Suleman’s head, but my client continued to be handcuffed and restrained against the wall.
Suleman was aware of numerous people in the street watching events, around 30 local residents having come out of their houses or paused in their journeys, which added to his sense of degradation and outrage.
He asked if the handcuffs could be removed but was ignored. He asked if he could turn around (from facing the wall) but his request was rejected because he was said to be “agitated”.
Suleman was subjected to a ‘pat down’ search and his car was extensively searched. Officers removed from Suleman’s car: his laptop; mobile phones; and wallet, which was then inspected to establish his personal details. One of the officers claimed he could smell cannabis in Suleman’s car, which was not only untrue, but evidently could not have been the initial basis for the attack upon Suleman and his vehicle.
By this stage, an officer believed to be PS Sheehan had attended. Suleman remonstrated as to the use of force and his detention. PS Sheehan advised that his complaint would be reviewed.
Suleman was asked about his car. He confirmed that he was a trader and had purchased the vehicle the day before. Further, that he had a trade insurance policy which he could show on his phone.
PS Sheehan advised that my client would still not be released. Suleman demanded to know why given that there were so many officers, he was compliant, and the officers had his wallet and keys. He was ignored and continued to be held whilst ‘insurance checks’ were made.
Several minutes passed and Suleman again asked to be released. An officer believed to be PC Halahi said, “No, because you’re still angry” and “We’re just going to see what other offences you’ve committed or if there’s anything there?”
Finally, at 17.07, evidently having failed to find any alternative justification for assaulting my client following their initial unjustified stop, PS Sheehan directed that the handcuffs be removed, and officers removed the handcuffs.
PS Sheehan subsequently provided Suleman with the details of all the officers involved. PS Sheehan reassured my client that he would speak to the officers about the incident and call Suleman thereafter. Suleman requested a copy of the stop and search form, however none was provided.
Suleman felt nauseous and was experiencing pain and discomfort in his neck and wrists. He requested that the officers call an ambulance whilst he sat down at the side of the road.
The ambulance service sent a taxi to collect Suleman and conveyed him to Newham Hospital.
At hospital it was noted that my client had bruising to his right wrist and red ligature marks to his neck in the shape of fingers. Suleman also reported a severe headache and was provided with painkillers. Upon discharge, my client’s cousin picked him and drove him home.
PS Sheehan failed to call Suleman as promised and so Suleman called him. PS Sheehan stated that he had viewed the Body Worn Video of the officers at the scene and advised that he did not believe that there was anything wrong with their conduct. PS Sheehan also claimed that prior to the car window being smashed an officer had run down the road after Suleman’s car shouting for him to stop.
This knee-jerk dismissal of his legitimate complaint only added insult to Suleman’s injury.
Suing the Police
When Suleman instructed me to make a compensation claim on his behalf against the Met, he explained how he had required a month off work owing to injuries to his neck and wrist, but that the biggest effect of the incident was not physical but psychological – he suffered very disturbed sleep and anxiety symptoms, which were particularly provoked by him seeing Police officers and vehicles – an unavoidably regular occurrence for anyone who lives and works in a bustling urban environment like London. He was subsequently diagnosed with a specific phobia/ adjustment disorder.
When I presented Suleman’s claim to the Metropolitan Police they failed to respond on the issue of liability, forcing us to issue civil Court proceedings. A Defence was then filed in which the Met alleged that their officers had followed (and violently stopped) Suleman’s vehicle because he was behaving “suspiciously” – what this amounted to was an allegation that Suleman had performed a U-turn after allegedly seeing a Police personnel carrier, although it was not suggested that the Police were otherwise looking for Suleman or his vehicle, or that he had been driving in an unlawful manner.
On the basis of this tenuous reason the Police had then set off in pursuit of Suleman, and the events described above had occurred. The Police now admitted that Suleman had been unlawfully detained and ‘technically’ assaulted “from the point of assisting the Claimant out of the BMW”, but only because officers had forgotten to comply with the requirements of Section 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (i.e identifying themselves and explaining their actions) when searching Suleman and his vehicle. It was now asserted that search was carried out under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, although none of that had been said to Suleman at the time.
Notwithstanding the Police assertion that their actions were justified and their errors mere ‘technicalities’ I continued to strongly press Suleman’s case, and I am pleased to confirm that it has recently settled with an agreement by the Met to pay Suleman £17,500 and his legal costs.
As I stressed in another recent blog post, the ‘founding constitution’ of British policing is the principle of ‘Policing by Consent’ – the idea that democratic Policing derives its legitimacy from the people, rather than the State – and that the wellspring of its authority is the “approval, respect and affectionof the public” (Charles Reith, 1956) with Officers being ‘members of the public in uniform’ rather than the type of paramilitaries who would rule through fear and violence in an authoritarian State. Looking at the actions of the Officers who dealt with Suleman that day, I would seriously question whether they appear to be guided by a desire to earn the “approval, respect and affection” of the public. All too often, Police Officers seem to think primarily, not of their power coming from the people, but of the power they have over the people, and respond with anger and/or violence to any perceived infringement of their authority.
Until such attitudes are changed, the state of health of ‘Policing by Consent’ in this country will remain borderline.
Awareness of issues of sexual abuse between children and a commitment to the safeguarding of children from such abuse are probably at higher levels in our society than they have ever been, but such issues must be addressed with the utmost care, consideration and sensitivity – lest in trying to solve one problem those in authority create another problem.
A BBC report last year highlighted that more than half the teachers consulted from the NASUWT Union felt that their schools did not have adequate procedures in place to deal with ‘peer on peer’ sexual abuse and a lot of the teachers consulted felt ill equipped to address these issues because they lacked training.
Sadly, the Police are another professional body whose actions suggest that their Officers often lack the proper training to respond with appropriate sensitivity and proportionality to allegations of sexual abuse in which the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim are both children.
The unnecessary criminalisation of a child
In late 2020 my client, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, was arrested at home on suspicion of common assault, false imprisonment, making or distributing indecent images of a child and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. In a subsequent witness statement, the arresting Police Officer re-counted the explanation that he gave to my client at the time of her arrest as follows:-
“We have received a report today that over the summer you and a couple of others have been in an outbuilding in some sort of garden where it has been alleged that REDACTED has been dared to kiss a boy called REDACTED then has been dared to give him oral sex. Later on all the group has gone back to the address and it has been alleged that you have told REDACTED that she did not do it right and she would have to do it again. She has refused and it has been alleged that you have pushed her into the shed and held the door shut. …………..It has been alleged that you and another girl have recorded this and it has now been distributed.
At this time, the Police also seized my client’s mobile phone.
My client was then transported into Custody at a Police Station where she was required to provide her fingerprints and a DNA sample – just as if she were an adult criminal suspect – and was then detained for several hours before being interviewed (in the presence of her mother) and then released at approximately midnight ‘under investigation’.
The arrest necessity reasons as specified in the Custody Record were as follows:-
Allow the prompt and effective investigation;
Protect a child or other vulnerable person.
During my client’s interview under caution, it transpired that the event giving rise to the alleged offence had occurred several months earlier (on an unspecified date in the summer of 2020) and that the Police had not yet obtained a formal statement from the alleged victim.
It was also put to my client that other children had been present at the time of the alleged offence and that somebody may have videoed the incident. Under legal advice, my client chose not to answer any of the questions put to her.
A month later, my client’s mother received a telephone call from the Police to advise that no further action would be taken against my client on the basis that no criminal activity had taken place and my client’s mobile phone was returned to her.
Truth or Dare?
The Detective Sergeant who had investigated this matter wrote a summary of her findings as follows –
In summary, this is a case of a truth and dare game that has possibly escalated. REDACTED accepts that she was not forced into committing a sexual act on REDACTED but felt peer pressure into doing it. This is denied by all other people present at the time. There is no evidence of any coercion or incitement, no assault and no false imprisonment. REDACTED states that there were 2 incidents. This is not supported by any other witnesses who all maintain that there was just one.
The DS went on to conclude –
This case therefore is now complete. I request that the matter is filed. Although it is clear that a sexual act has taken place between two 14 year old children, there is no evidence to suggest that this was forced in any way and there was no imbalance of power or threats. Although REDACTED indicates she felt peer pressured into doing it, she also accepts that she did not verbalise this and therefore no one would have been aware. She was not assaulted or falsely imprisoned in the shed at any time and therefore there is no evidence to support or prove any of the offences for which the children were arrested. Although it is confirmed that a recording took place, there are differing stories around how this came about and whose idea it was. It was confirmed that it was recorded on the sister’s phone, again with differing explanations as to how this came about. As stated, CPS would not criminalise children for this. I request that this matter is filed with no further action.
The Rights of Children
A lawful arrest requires 2 elements:-
A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; and
Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.
When I was consulted by my client’s mother, it was my opinion that her arrest and detention were manifestly unlawful, as not being founded upon reasonable suspicion of the commission of the alleged offence and/or because arrest was not necessary as required by Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
Even leaving aside the lack of evidence that any crime had been committed in the first place, it was clear to me, when you considered the young age of the persons involved and the length of time that had elapsed since the alleged offence that it simply could not have been “necessary” to arrest my client – and that in so far as was required, the investigation into this matter could and should have been progressed by means of a voluntary interview, taking place without the shock and stigma of arrest.
The Police in rushing to arrest my client – as if she were an adult rather than a young teenager – were in dereliction of the guidance set down by the College of Policing for such matters –
a. Children and young people are a protected group with specific vulnerabilities. Their treatment in detention is governed not only by domestic legislation but also by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which the UK has signed and ratified. The UNCRC defines a child as a human being below the age of 18, unless the relevant laws recognise an earlier age of majority. Officers must take into account the age of a child or young person when deciding whether any of the Code G statutory grounds for arrest apply. They should pay particular regard to the timing of any necessary arrests of children and young people and ensure that they are detained for no longer than needed…
b. Of note, the UNCRC specifically states that “no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time”.
Words of Advice
The Police investigation log for this incident noted that “strong words of advice” had been given to my client and the other children involved in this matter.
I would like to echo such ‘strong words of advice’ back in the direction of the Police – who in unnecessarily arresting my client caused her real and really easily avoidable trauma. Teens generally have enough of an emotional maze to navigate each week of their lives without also having to process the shame, embarrassment and anxiety of being arrested in the place of safety that should be their homes, in front of their parents, deprived of their liberty and semi-criminalised by the dehumanising custody process. For a long time after this event, my client suffered nightmares, depression and low self- esteem. Fortunately, she has now overcome this and has regained her emotional confidence and health, but the consequences of her ill-advised and unnecessary arrest could have been far worse and long- lasting.
Safeguarding children is one of the key foundation stones of our society – and that includes responding sensitively and appropriately to allegations of ‘peer on peer’ sexual abuse and ensuring that, in attempting to help an alleged victim, harm is not unnecessarily caused to other innocent children, in this case the trauma of ‘adult’ arrest.
My client is now happily able to move on with her life; she has recovered a significant award of compensation to reflect her wrongful arrest and the record of her arrest on the Police National Computer has been deleted. I trust that the Police Force concerned will take the lessons learned in this case to heart.
Today’s blog is about the importance of finding the right solicitor to handle your Action Against the Police case. Whilst I pride myself on being such a specialist – as evidenced by my track record of success and the testimony of my clients on this website – there are, frankly, many other solicitors out there who advertise for Actions Against the Police work without having the necessary expertise to do a competent job.
Advertising for cases is one thing, winning them is another.
An example of this is a case I have recently settled on behalf of a husband and wife, whom I will identify for the purposes of this blog as Alice and Colin.
Alice and Colin experienced a traumatic event in June 2020 when their car was ‘ambushed’ by Metropolitan Police Officers who deployed a stinger device across the road, puncturing the tyres of their vehicle and bringing it to a violent halt.
The couple were bundled from the car – Colin was immediately handcuffed – and thereafter they were both detained for approximately an hour at the roadside, without arrest.
It transpired that an inaccurate report had wrongly caused the Metropolitan Police to believe that Alice and Colin’s vehicle had been involved in the ‘abduction’ of a child. There was in fact no child in the couple’s vehicle, and nor had there been at any point in their journey that day – this was very much a case of ‘mistaken identity’ which appears to have arisen from false information given to the Police by a member of the public.
Alice and Colin initially instructed a firm of lawyers whom I shall identify as “X Solicitors”. This firm’s website claims to deliver the ‘highest standards’ in actions against the police.
X Solicitors sent a letter of claim on behalf of Alice and Colin to the Met, but on receiving a denial of liability relying upon Section 17 powers of search under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, prevaricated about continuing further with the claim.
Seemingly unable to decide upon the merits of the claim without outside assistance, X Solicitors instructed a barrister who prepared an Advice which concluded that Alice and Colin’s claims were unmeritorious. Clinging to the Barrister’s coattails, X Solicitors ultimately informed Alice and Colin that their detention would “in ours and the Barrister’s view be considered reasonable”.
Thankfully, however, Alice and Colin did not let matters rest with the purportedly ‘expert’ advice of X Solicitors and instead consulted me for a second opinion.
Having reviewed the evidence, I was pleased to advise Alice and Colin that I not only felt that they both had legitimate claims against the Met – but that those claims were so strong that there was as good chance we would be able to get the Police to settle without the need for Court proceedings.
I therefore sent the Met what was in effect a fresh letter of claim on behalf of Alice and Colin, raising the following arguments which X Solicitors (and their barrister) had completely overlooked –
Even if it was conceded that Police Officers had a reasonable basis to deploy the stinger and stop my clients’ vehicle for the purposes of establishing whether it contained a kidnapped child, Section 17 of PACE did not grant a power to detain the occupants of the premises (in this case the vehicle) and any lawful basis for detaining either of my clients would in any event have evaporated once the search of the vehicle had been completed – which, given the size of the car, could not realistically have taken any more than 5 minutes.
At no point were either of my clients placed under arrest, but were nevertheless ‘detained’ for approximately an hour.
Furthermore, and in any event, the use of force upon Colin, in the form of handcuffs, was unlawful either on the basis that it was a disproportionate use of force against a wholly compliant and none threatening individual and/or was unlawful in that even if the initial application of handcuffs was justified the duration of the application of those handcuffs – approximately 30 minutes in total – was unlawful in that it was excessive and that the handcuffs were being maintained upon my client during his period of false imprisonment (as identified above).
Within a few months of my intervention on behalf of Alice and Colin, their claims – which had been rapidly approaching the third anniversary of the incident – were brought to a successful conclusion with the Met agreeing to pay both of them a significant award of damages and legal costs.
As I had indicated to Alice and Colin, it had not even been necessary to instigate legal proceedings in order to achieve this result.
I am proud to say that rather than spending thousands of pounds on advertising, I will let my track record of success in Actions Against the Police speak for itself. I possess the confidence and experience that those who dabble in these sorts of claims lack, and I will leave no stone unturned in order to achieve justice for my clients.
The frequency with which I blog about Police abuse of stop and search powers – in fact twice in the last month alone (see the reports about the cases of my clients Mo Izhar and James Reid – is I think indicative of how little our Police Forces can be trusted to use that power properly and proportionately. It is also, sadly, no coincidence that the majority of my blogs on this subject involve men of Black or Asian ethnic heritage. In my experience the misuse of stop and search powers by the Police is a problem at the very interface of two particular Police vices – authoritarian tendencies and retrogressive racism (which runs the full range from ‘schoolboy’ stereotyping to real racial animus).
Reflecting on Baroness Casey’s uncompromising enquiry into the state of health of the Metropolitan Police Service, I note that her findings closely match my own experience in this regard.
Her report quotes numerous examples of discrimination in the use of stop and search straight from the mouths of non-white Officers in the Force itself, one of whom told her –
“A lot of Officers are coming in who are not from London…none of them have been stopped and searched in their lives…I was stopped and searched 50 times before I joined”.
The Officers joining the Met from outside London are, of course, overwhelming white.
Baroness Casey cites numerous examples of bad practice in Met Police stop-searches, including-
Officers justifying the search on the basis of a person’s ethnicity alone.
Officers behaving in a rude/ uncivil manner during the search.
Officers using excessive force leaving those searched – often young people – humiliated, distressed and untrusting of the Police.
As I highlighted in last week’s blog post the legitimacy (and, frankly, efficacy) of Policing depends on public trust and confidence. Baroness Casey repeatedly stresses this point in her report –
“To date, the Met has been unable to explain clearly enough why [stop and search] is justified on the scale it uses it, and in the manner and way it is carried out, particularly on Black Londoners. It has damaged trust. If the Met is unable to explain and justify its disproportionate use and the impacts of these, then it needs a fundamental reset.”
Anyone who lives or works at the front line of British policing – such as black and Asian metropolitans and Police misconduct lawyers such as me – can see that trust and confidence is being eroded by the continued Police misuse of stop and search powers, a tide in which the racial prejudice element in Policing has failed to recede in the way that it has in so many other parts of our modern life and culture.
The following statistics from Metropolitan Police Stop and Search data largely speak for themselves-
Around 70% – 80% of all stop and searches lead to no further action.
The more stop and searches are done, the greater the proportion of no further actions.
In 2019-20 only 12% of stop and searches in London led to a subsequent arrest.
The Misuse of Drugs Act was consistently the most used reason to stop and search in London, not weapons.
That latter fact is a particularly important one to bear in mind, given that the Met in particular often seeks to justify its disproportionate use of stop and search powers upon young black men because of the higher prevalence of knife crime amongst that demographic.
The fact is that most stop and searches are not about stopping knife crime at all and are often based only on the dubious and easily abused excuse of an Officer ‘smelling cannabis’ – see for example the widely reported case of my client Tariq Stanley.
The Casey report also highlights the conclusions of a February 2019 research study by the Centre For Crime and Justice Studies –
Overall, our analysis of 10 years worth of London-wide data suggest that although stop and search had a weak association with some forms of crime, this effect was at the outer margins of statistical and social significance. We found no evidence for effects on robbery and theft, vehicle crime or criminal damage and inconsistent evidence of very small effects on burglary, no domestic violent crime and total crime.
The combined effect of these facts and data is, in my opinion, now raising a pressing question – should we strip the Police of their stop and search powers? There is reason to think that not only does the current deployment of ‘stop and search’ fail to reduce crime it may actually be indirectly exacerbating it, by turning people against the Police and crippling the type of community cooperation which is essential for effective policing, not only in terms of rooting out criminals, but stopping crime taking root in the first place. This is particularly the case amongst those predominately Black, Asian or other minority ethnic urban communities which the Casey report describes as being “Over -policed and under- protected”.
Personally, I think we should put the Police nationwide on probation when it comes to stop and search powers. Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) empowers Constables to search persons or vehicles for “stolen or prohibited articles”. Likewise, Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 empowers Constables to search persons or vehicles for “controlled drugs”. Both PACE and the Misuse of Drugs Act make the use of that power contingent on the Constable possessing reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Pause now, and look again at the Met Police data highlighted in Baroness Casey’s report – if 70%-80% of stop- searches lead to no further action, then it is clearly the case that the vast majority of people searched do not in fact have any prohibited article or drug upon them and the obvious conclusion from this extremely low ‘hit’ rate, is that the Police are habitually abusing their stop and search powers by targeting individuals for whom there are no objectively reasonable grounds of suspicion. If there were reasonable grounds, it is manifest that the ‘success’ rate from stop- searches would be much higher.
I suggest therefore that all of our Forces are put on an 18-month period of probation with the power of their Constables to carry out stop/searches under Section 1 PACE and Section 23 Misuse of Drugs Act to be rescinded if their hit rate of positive stop and searches does not increase to at least 50%.
Until such time as a Government initiative for holistic reform of Policing culture is genuinely and determinedly undertaken, it will continue to fall upon the shoulders of those who have been wronged by Police misuse of stop and search powers, and the lawyers such as myself who represent them, to punish the Police for this invidious form of misconduct and try to draw the poison from the wound they thereby inflict upon society.
News headlines this week were dominated by the publication of Baroness Casey’s long-awaited review into the standards of behaviour and internal culture of the Metropolitan Police, which was prompted by the public outcry following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a Metropolitan Police officer in March 2021. As highlighted by Baroness Casey in the foreword to her report, Sarah’s mother Susan Everard spoke courageously and almost overwhelmingly of her torment at the thought of her daughter’s last hours and her outrage that Sarah’s killer “masqueraded as a policeman in order to get what he wanted.”
I consider the fact that other Police officers failed to pull that mask from the face of the rapist and killer who was amongst them, and, indeed, by their actions and behaviour may have helped him – and others – to keep such a mask in place for so long, to lie at the heart of all that is wrong and rotten in Policing.
Baroness Casey eloquently summarises this problem in her report –
“Of course I accept that so many police officers go to work for the right reasons. They are committed to public service, and I thank them for that. But policing needs to accept that the job can also attract predators and bullies – those who want power over their fellow citizens, and to use those powers to cause harm and discriminate. All of British policing needs to be alive to this very serious risk. It needs to keep them out when they try to get in, to root them out where they exist, and to guard against the corrosive effects that their actions have on trust, confidence and the fundamental Peelian principles of policing by consent.
I am unconvinced that police forces are fully alive to that risk, nor that the Met fully understands the gravity of its situation as a whole. If a plane fell out of the sky tomorrow, a whole industry would stop and ask itself why. It would be a catalyst for self-examination, and then root and branch reform. Instead the Met preferred to pretend that their own perpetrators of unconscionable crimes were just ‘bad apples’, or not police officers at all. So throughout this review, I have asked myself time and again, if these crimes cannot prompt that self-reflection and reform, then what will it take?”
As the Casey report highlights, one of the fundamental problems in the management and culture of the Met is that its “processes do not effectively root out bad officers…” and it is too easy for senior officers to “ignore poor performing officers or let those with conduct issues get away with bad behaviour.”
“This Met is tasked with upholding law and order and keeping citizens safe. But it has failed over time to ensure the integrity of its officers and therefore of the organisation. Despite the obvious signals of major failure – with heinous crimes perpetrated by serving Met officers – it did not stop to question its processes.
Policing will attract those who wish to abuse the powers conferred by a warrant card. The Met has not taken this fact seriously…”
The report correctly focuses on the fact that concerns about officers raised through the misconduct or complaints process are not well recorded and are “more likely to be dismissed than acted upon… time and time again, those complaining are not believed or supported. ”
This, to me, is the original sin which lies at the heart of the failure of the Police to properly police themselves, to catch the criminals in their own ranks and prevent abuse of power by bullies, predators and other corrupt actors.
The Police mindset which I have witnessed over three decades of representing the victims of Police misconduct, is that complaints are generally treated as hostile attacks on the Police as a whole and the spirit with which they are half-heartedly investigated or the bias with which they are rejected (after consideration of the same facts which time and time again will lead a civil court to subsequently rule in favour of the victim) is one apparently motivated – in terms of culture and processes – by a fraternal spirit whose primary focus is to protect brother officers (and it almost always is ‘brother’ officers) from the ‘outsiders’.
“Behaviour which in most other organisations would lead to instant dismissal or serious disciplinary action – particularly amongst those who work routinely with vulnerable people – is too often addressed through management action or reflective practice.”
The often very intelligent people who lead the Police seem willfully blind to this failing. The Police as an institution seem to define as a virtue and a point of pride that they ‘stick up’ for their own, like soldiers in a war. But this is not a war – the public are those to whom the Police must, by definition, owe the highest duty, but whom all too often are treated as the alien, the other, the rival team, the enemy.
This is epitomised by every Professional Standards Department investigator who cloaks himself in the language of a judge, purporting to objectively weigh the facts “on the balance of probabilities” but who always starts with his hand holding down one side of the scales and rarely, if ever, removes it completely.
I can think of so many cases I have personally handled in which the initial Police misconduct investigation fully exonerated the officers concerned of any wrongdoing – often delivering that decision in hectoring, lecturing tones, patronising and victim blaming the complainant – only for the Police to apparently ‘reconsider’ the evidence when faced with Court proceedings and put their money where their mouth should have been. I point as a recent example to the case of my client Allon.
Witness also the recent response of Merseyside Police to the finding of a judge and jury that one of their officers had not only unlawfully assaulted my client John Kennedy and broken his arm during a ‘welfare visit’, but that this officer and his colleague had, in effect, then conspired to frame John for an offence he had not committed. Merseyside Police refused to accept any criticism of the officers and indeed ‘commended’ them for their actions that night.
These are not signs of an institution which has its priorities right, but one in which there is a deeply unhealthy ‘code of silence’, almost like the oath of omerta which binds a gang together, as I have written about here.
Even when the Police do apologise, it is very often through gritted teeth or in a type of passive-aggressive manner which only succeeds in adding insult to injury, indicating a real failure on the part of the Police to want to learn from their mistakes and change.
What Is The Solution?
Baroness Casey’s charge-sheet against the Met includes the following vices, sadly ingrained in Policing, about which I have been blogging for years –
Too much hubris, too little humility
Defensiveness and denial
Systems which support wrongdoers not whistleblowers
A lack of accountability and transparency
These are all symptoms of a wider malaise which Louise Casey succinctly identifies in this phrase: “the Met has become unanchored from the principles of policing by consent.”
The key recommendations of her report are as follows –
Reform of the misconduct process;
Change of vetting standards “with a relentless focus on identifying and reducing opportunities for predators who seek to abuse the powers of a police officer…”;
Making it easier to dismiss officers guilty of misconduct;
A kind of ‘truth and reconcilation’ commission – “The Met should introduce a new process with Londoners to apologise for past failings and rebuild consent”, particularly with ethnic communities, women and children;
Greater financial and emotional support for frontline officers;
Listening to Londoner’s voices – creating mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability.
If sufficient progress is not achieved within 2- 5 years then Baroness Casey recommends that “more radical, structural options” such as breaking up the Met into three smaller Policing institutions might be required, or in other words, turning a moribund Goliath into several brand-new Davids. This type of reformation would be similar to the transformation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary into the Police Service of Northern Ireland: exorcising the ghosts of the old system in an attempt to offer a fresh start for all, with transparency and accountability at its heart.
The ‘founding constitution’ of British Policing are the so-called Peelian principles, named after the founder of the Met, Sir Robert Peel. These enshrine the idea that Policing derives its legitimacy from the people, rather than the state – founded upon the “approval, respect and affectionof the public” (Charles Reith, 1956) rather than originating from a top-down projection of fear, surveillance and government power. As ‘members of the public in uniform’, constables are supposed to owe their primary devotion to the public – but all too often become enmeshed and corrupted by the pull and lure of loyalty to the uniform.
Baroness Casey culminates her report with the following, powerful plea –
“The Met cannot afford to squander the valuable contributions of people who want to make policing better. It needs to be prepared to listen, to understand that communication goes both ways and that they have to be humble and learn what they can give. The Met does not always know better, and cannot have all the answers…If the Met can rid itself of this tendency to want people to reaffirm what they’re doing as opposed to genuinely looking for insights and changes so it can improve relationships with local communities, then it might start to turn a corner.”
I very much applaud that sentiment and wish to not only echo her words, but to amplify them. It may not have escaped your notice that the examples I turned to above regarding Police failures to recognise misconduct and properly police themselves were all drawn from Forces the length and the breadth of the country, other than the Met (specifically – Hertfordshire, Merseyside, Derbyshire, Devon & Cornwall – the list could easily go on).
The Police could go such a very long way to fixing most of their fundamental problems by co-operating in the creation of a transparent, robust and rigorously independent complaint system; and that process would start by taking on board the fair criticisms which have been directed at them for decades by commentators such as myself.
I would strongly urge the government to ensure that every Police Force in England and Wales is now investigated in the same thorough and rigorous manner; that there be a ‘Casey Inquiry’ into the whole of British policing. If Policing by consent is broken in London, it is broken everywhere and it is not only the leadership of the Met which needs to wake up to that fact and start learning lessons quickly.
Today’s blog contains a trifecta of Police misbehaviour – an unjustified ‘stop and search’ of an Asian man, based on prejudiced profiling; the abuse of greater Policing power during Lockdown and the old Police habit of breaking the rules when no-one’s looking (or they think they’ll get away with it).
Abuse of Stop & Search Powers
During the second surge of the Covid pandemic, in November 2020, my client Mohammad Izhar was working as a Security Guard at a Covid Vaccination Centre in Aylesbury.
Whilst working the night shift, Mo drove to a nearby petrol station to refuel his car, an Audi A4. Having done so, he returned to the Centre. Mo is a man of entirely good character with no previous convictions, although he had previously been stopped and searched under the Misuse of Drugs Act – something for which Mo felt the Police had ‘targeted’ him because he was an Asian man driving a prestige vehicle.
On the night in question, Mo noticed a Thames Valley Police car following him closely as he neared the Vaccination Centre, and pulled over to the side of the road.
A male Officer and a female Officer, believed to be PC Clarke and PC McLaughlin, alighted from their vehicle and then approached Mo’s car. Mo remained in his seat and wound the window down; he explained to the officers that he was working and was about to shut the gates to the Centre. For his own protection, Mo wisely started recording events on his mobile phone.
The officers demanded ID. Mo confirmed his name and address and produced his security badge.
PC McLaughlin stated that because of the Covid pandemic, Officers were checking on “lots of different people.” She then told him “Due to what you’re known for, we’re going to do a Section 23 search.”
Mo was taken aback and immediately asked PC McLaughlin what she understood he was “known for”. PC McLaughlin did not respond and instead asked my client to get out of his car.
At this point, Mo and the two Police officers were joined by one of Mo’s work colleagues (whom I will identify by the name ‘Shahid’). Shahid had noticed what was going on and approached on foot.
In full view of Shahid, the male officer, PC Clarke, began to search Mo by doing a pat down search.
Mo again asserted that no reason for the stop and search had been given. PC McLaughlin replied, “We’ve already told you, due to Covid checks and at the time of day, it’s unusual to have vehicles out, so we’re doing checks.”
That was not, of course, a valid basis for a stop & search – particularly given that Mo had explained where he worked and produced ID.
PC McLaughlin then stated (in front of Shahid) “I’ve done checks on you, and you’ve come back as being known for drugs.” Mo was understandably mortified that the officer was besmirching his character like this in the presence of his work colleague.
Shahid then correctly pointed out that neither Officer had identified themselves. PC McLaughlin advised that she would give a form to Mo on completion which would confirm the Officers’ identity. He was, in fact, entitled to know who they were before the search commenced (even if the Officers had possessed a valid reason for detaining and searching him).
After a two-minute search of Mo’s person, which proved negative, PC McLaughlin advised that she would now check my client’s vehicle. That search likewise proved negative.
The Officers then provided Mo with a Stop Form. PC McLaughlin then said as follows, once again right in front of my client’s colleague;
“We’ve checked you because of Covid and the time of day and it’s the early hours of the morning and it’s come back as in trade, previous keeper details only, so we stopped you and we’ve done checks on you and it’s come back as being known for drugs so now we’ve checked you and your vehicle and there’s nothing in there so we’ve given you a word of advice that if you’re driving around at this time of day, especially in times of Covid, expect to be stopped.”
The Stop Form recorded the search grounds as;
“Male was seen driving around Aylesbury, Gatehouse Road. Due to the time of day and Covid, driver of the vehicle was stop checked, male was known for drugs.”
Having unnecessarily detained Mo, and embarrassed him in front of his work colleague, the officers then left.
Who Polices the Police?
In a constitutional democracy, the contract between the Police and the public, is that the public consent to the Police having extraordinary powers over them provided the Police respect the limits of those powers and the rules that are enshrined in law to ensure proper accountability for the use of that power and to prevent its abuse.
This incident is sadly a ‘classic’ example of the Police showing an utter disregard, we might even say disinterest, for the rules which are supposed to ring-fence their power and a reminder of how often Police used to ‘get away’ with this sort of misconduct when, in the days before everyone had a smartphone in their pocket, it all happened “off camera.”
In a blatant breach of the rules for conducting a stop/ search, as laid down by the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) –
The Officers failed to inform Mo that he was being detained for the purpose of a search.
The Officers did not give an explanation of the reasons for their search.
The Officers did not at any point prior to commencement of the search advise Mo what they were looking for.
The Officers failed to identify themselves (i.e. give their names).
The Officers failed to identify the station at which they were based.
The Officers failed to identify the legislation under which they were searching Mo.
The Police Officers also subsequently contended that Shahid had not arrived before Mo was searched and that they did not state that Mo was “known for drugs” within earshot of Shahid – both of which contentions were demonstrably untrue – but only by reason of the mobile phone footage. Neither officer had recorded the incident on body camera, despite the prevalence of such devices amongst the modern Police Force. I am once again left to reflect that in answer to the old Latin question : Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes? (Who Polices the Police ?) – the answer is that iPhones do a better job of this than the IOPC.
It is, in my opinion, a cynical and unjust abuse of power for officers to use previous negative stop/ search encounters as justification for targeting the same individual again. Mo’s behaviour on the night was unimpeachable and leads us both to consider that he may well have been picked out not because of anything he was doing but because of his appearance combined with the appearance of his vehicle.
The officers involved in this incident appeared frankly disinterested and unashamed by their breaking of all the rules listed above, and I am very pleased that Mo and I were ultimately able to hold them to account through a combination of his mobile phone footage, my legal expertise and our mutual determination.
After initially denying any wrongdoing by their Officers, Thames Valley Police were eventually brought to book by the Civil Court proceedings I instigated on behalf of Mo, shortly before the case was due to go to Trial. Despite the (thankfully) short duration of Mo’s unlawful detention during this search (approximately 10 minutes) I was able to secure him damages of £2,400 plus legal costs.
I reflect on the fact that this incident occurred during one of the Covid Lockdowns, when many Police Officers seemed happy for another excuse to unleash their inner authoritarian; but the truth is that this type of unjustified and possibly prejudiced stop-and-search is an age-old story on our streets.
If you believe that you have fallen victim to such an injustice, please contact me for advice and together we’ll Police the Police.
In this week’s blog post I will discuss a case which highlights the risks to liberty which modern motorists face because of the increasing number of ‘cloned’ vehicles on the road combined with insufficiently thorough or intelligent policing (i.e. a new problem combined with a very old one).
Automatic Number Plate Recognition, generally abbreviated as ANPR, refers to a technology now used by Police forces around the world (but which originated in the UK) for a variety of law-enforcement purposes. ANPR systems utilise the ubiquitous camera- coverage of our transport network – CCTV cameras, road enforcement cameras, mobile Police units etc – to allow the Police to track the movement or location of vehicles of interest, by reference to the registration plate. As vehicles pass ANPR cameras their registrations are being read and recorded and this allows the Police to carry out a retrospective search – potentially going back 12 months in time, to establish the movements of a particular vehicle. The registration plate of that vehicle will be fed into the ANPR database, which will then produce what is in effect a map of the vehicle’s journeys over the relevant time period, with ‘hits’ from cameras providing snapshots of the vehicle’s comings and goings on local and/or regional and/or national routes and the dates on which the vehicle was in the proximity of each camera.
An ANPR Alibi?
My client David, who lives in South Wales, was in possession of a Citroen Berlingo van, supplied and owned by his employer. The van was clearly marked with the distinctive red and black insignia of his employers. Due to David’s ill health, he was signed off work sick and the van had remained on David’s driveway for approximately 18 months. During that period the van had only been driven a few times.
Unbeknownst to David, another van with a registration plate cloned from David’s van was involved in an incident in London in June 2021, during which the driver of the Clone assaulted a cyclist. This was reported to the Metropolitan Police and the crime was investigated by PC Brown. Images of the Clone and its registration plate were captured on CCTV, and a description of the driver provided to the Police. At a point unknown, PC Brown contacted South Wales Police and requested that David be arrested.
In late November 2021 David was at his home address in the rear garden. Officers from South Wales Police, including PC Shankland, attended in a marked police van, which they parked outside David’s house. The officers then entered through David’s garage, passing the real van on the driveway, and approached David in the rear garden. David initially feared that they were there because something terrible had happened to his wife, but this awful fear then turned to a different kind of shock and confusion as the officers proceeded to arrest David for Grievous Bodily Harm. David was handcuffed to the front and escorted, bewildered, to the police van. He was upset to see that the officers had parked their van across his driveway with the vehicle’s blue lights activated, in full view of neighbours and passers-by.
David was conveyed to his nearest Police Station and produced before the custody sergeant. PC Shankland provided the circumstances of arrest as:
“TEAM 2… ARREST ON BEHALF OF MET POLICE. D/P ARRESTED SECTION 18 ASSAULT GBH. CIRCS: D/P SHOWN AS WANTED FOR MET OFFENCE. ALLEGATION D/P IS ALLEGED TO HAVE RUN A PEDAL CYCLIST OFF THE ROAD USING HIS VAN AND STOPPED. D/P HAS ALIGHTED FROM HIS VEHICLE AND HAS PUNCHED D/P TO THE FACE CAUSING INJURY REQUIRING 10 STITCHES.”
The arrest necessity reasons were given as:
“Allow the prompt and effective investigation; Prevent person causing physical injury; Prevent the disappearance of the person”
David’s detention was authorised, he was then processed, searched, had his fingerprints and DNA taken and was placed into a cell: the full, de-humanising ‘criminal suspect’ treatment. Whilst David was in custody, his wife returned home and, on finding David gone, became extremely concerned for his welfare because of his recent ill health. She was then informed by a neighbour that David had been arrested.
Late that evening, David’s detention was reviewed by Inspector Alexander, who commented to David that the arrest was unusual given how long it had been since the alleged assault (i.e. 5 months). David made representations to Inspector Alexander that he had not been in London for several years and about his ill health at the time of the alleged assault. Inspector Alexander then updated David’s custody record with the following entry:
“Detention authorisation
I have considered the account of the arresting officer detailing the circumstances of arrest and I consider that the arrested person’s detention is not necessary.
I earlier spoke to the DP on the cell intercom in order to conduct a review with him. When I spoke to the DP, he made representations to me to the effect that he should not be in custody. He stated that he was alleged to have committed a GBH in London in May 2021 and was aware that he had been linked purely from a work vehicle being linked to the scene.
He informed me that he had not been to London for 3 years and that he had actually been quite unwell at the time of the alleged offence due to COVID and other issues. His weight had dropped to 7 stone and he was not going very far, certainly not London. He stated that the van in question was parked on his driveway and had only driven 60 miles in 12 months, which would be confirmed through an officer going to the address and checking the odometer, which could be confirmed against recent MOT tests which also log the mileage.
I then spoke to the OIC [officer in case] from Metropolitan Police who, at this point, was en-route from London… to interview the DP and was approximately 2 hours away. The OIC informed me that essentially, the only evidence linking the DP to the offence was the index of the vehicle, which was passed by the complainant and was also captured on CCTV nearby…
The OIC informed me that ANPR [Automatic Number Plate Recognition] enquiries had been conducted, which returned no positive hits on the vehicle. I explained to the OIC the ANPR coverage within South Wales and on the M4, and the OIC conceded that the vehicle described in London may well have been on false plates.
Based on the information provided to me, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence available to form reasonable suspicion that the DP was responsible for the offence. The offence took place 6 months ago and the DP resides in another part of the UK. The offence was a stranger crime. Therefore, I am also not satisfied that the necessity criteria for allowing the prompt and effective investigation (the offence is 6 months old and other background enquiries could have been conducted to implicate / negate the DP’s involvement prior to arrest), preventing the person causing physical injury (again, the offence is 6 months old and the DP resides in a different part of the UK from the offence location) or preventing the disappearance of the person (the DP has a fixed address).
I have given the OIC some advice as to what background enquiries could be conducted, with the assistance of SWP, into confirming whether or not the DP was in fact responsible, such as ANPR enquiries, VOSA [Vehicle and Operator Services Agency] enquiries, considering taking a statement or interviewing the DP as a VA [Voluntary Attendance] etc.
I have since spoken to the DP. He is happy for his contact details to be passed to the Metropolitan Police for them to progress their enquiries outside of detention, either as a witness or voluntary attendance. Equally, he is happy for an officer to attend and inspect his vehicle, which he states will confirm its lack of movement over the past 12 months.
In view of the above circumstances, at the point of conducting the Inspector’s review, I am not prepared to authorise the DP’s continued detention as I do not feel that it is necessary.
The DP is to be released without charge.”
Based on the above, David was then released from custody under investigation (after approximately 8 hours of detention) with the understanding that a non-custodial interview would be arranged the following day.
David found the incident to be deeply distressing. Not only was he shocked at being arrested for a violent offence that he knew nothing about, but also was also deeply humiliated by the public manner of his arrest. Afterwards, David remained fearful that ‘lightning might strike twice’ and that he could again be arrested for a crime of which he knew nothing. This made it hard for him to put these upsetting events behind him.
ANPR & Human Error
When David contacted me for advice, I reviewed the evidence and advised him that he had a strong claim for wrongful arrest based on a lack of reasonable grounds to suspect he was the culprit and/or a lack of necessity to arrest him (as opposed to the Police making further enquiries without arrest). This was on the basis that – even leaving aside differences in the appearance of both David and his van from that of the suspect and his vehicle – there was no evidence to suggest that David’s vehicle had travelled between London and South Wales at any time between the incident and David’s arrest.
ANPR technology had been used, but the Police at both ends of this process – at the Met and in South Wales – had each failed to recognise the obvious significance of the absence of ANPR hits for the vehicle registration on the roads between the offence location and the arrest location. If David really was the culprit, ANPR would have recorded his vehicle travelling between London and South Wales. Unless David’s vehicle could ‘teleport’ the obvious conclusion from the lack of ANPR recordings should have been that it was a wholly separate vehicle with the same registration plate (i.e a clone) which was involved in the London incident.
As Inspector Alexander appears to have noted, it frankly beggars belief that the offending vehicle would not have generated ‘hits’ on the ANPR system showing it travelling between South Wales and London if it had in fact undertaken that journey and the absence of ANPR hits for this registration on any of the roads between South Wales and the Capital was highly persuasive evidence that the vehicle belonging to David had remained in Wales throughout the relevant time period. Any technology is only as good, of course, as its human users, and if a modicum of intelligence had been applied to the ANPR process as outlined above – the Police could surely have ruled out David’s vehicle as the offending vehicle.
Such a reckless misuse of Police powers – causing deep distress to David and his wife and depriving David of his liberty for approximately 8 hours – was almost as bad as deliberate abuse of power.
The chain of errors which led to David’s disastrous day, had originated with the Met, but it was also valid to pursue a claim for wrongful arrest against South Wales Police themselves on the basis that their Officers had a duty to assess the strength of the evidence against my client prior to arresting him and Inspector Jones’ post-arrest summary of the evidence clearly set out why South Wales Police should not have acted upon the Met’s request.
On my advice, David pursued claims against both the Metropolitan Police Service and South Wales Police for their combined bungling of the investigation which had led to his wrongful arrest, and I am pleased to confirm that I was able to secure a total settlement of £8,000 damages for David, plus his legal costs.
Ultimately, this was a case where two Police Forces were at fault in terms of negligent decision making and I was very happy to help David hold them both to account, although the case also serves as a somewhat chilling reminder about how ‘vehicle identity theft’ in the form of cloned registration plates potentially puts us all at risk of losing our liberty if the Police subsequently fail to join the evidential dots with due diligence.
As do we all, Police Officers investigating crimes have to adapt to modern circumstances. The fact that any person who is identified on the basis of a vehicle registration plate only could be at risk of wrongful arrest if that plate has been cloned, should give officers long pause for thought when they are considering whether to arrest – especially when there is a significant geographical disparity between the location of the crime and the location of the suspect and also when, as in this case, there has also been such a significant passage of time.
I also have to add that this is the fourth such case that I have handled in the last few years in which gross Police errors – specifically in the form of violent stops and/or arrests of innocent motorists – could have been avoided had ANPR data been sensibly interpreted.
What is the point of having a ‘surveillance society’ if the law enforcement administrators of that surveillance can’t be trusted to use it properly or proportionately?
You must be logged in to post a comment.