Blog

Once again, the forthright new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley has acknowledged – in the kind of no-nonsense terms which I applaud – a major problem in Policing, namely the abuse of ‘stop and search’ powers which, as the Commissioner put it “burns through [public] trust”. 

Police ‘stop and search’ powers (generally exercised under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act) are rigorously governed – at least on paper – by Section 2 PACE and Code A of the Police Codes of Practice annexed to PACE.  (See my blog post here about the “GOWISELY” safeguards for more information on this topic.)

However, all too often, Officers cynically or lazily ignore the safeguards dictated by legislation and carry out searches without any proper power or grounds to do so – failing to provide the necessary explanation about why and by whom search powers are being used, which are deliberately written in to the Codes of Practice so as to ensure transparency and accountability.

Without a rigorous adherence to these rules – as plainly acknowledged by Sir Mark – Police Officers can be perceived by the wider community as behaving in an abusive and/or arbitrary manner – which damages the trust that is essential between the Police and the public both to ensure the ethical legitimacy of Policing in a democratic society (Policing by consent) and to ensure that, on a practical level, the public are willing to assist and cooperate with the Police, rather than view them as antagonistic intruders in their lives.

All of these issues of community trust are all the more sharpened when people of non-white ethnicity are subjected to unlawful searches.  The statistics are inescapable in this regard – people of black ethnic appearance are almost 9 times more likely to be subject to ‘stop and search’ tactics by Police Officers in England and Wales than are white people, according to a recent Spotlight report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.

The case which I am going to discuss today involves my client, James Reid.

James is black British and a man of exemplary character.

In the early afternoon of 24 May 2022 James was standing outside his home when a marked police car pulled up, and two officers of West Midlands Police, one of whom is now known to be PC Cook, alighted and rapidly approached James.

PC Cook advised that a vehicle had just made off in suspicious circumstances and James was to be detained for a search.

James had done nothing wrong and calmy protested “Mate are you seriously going to do this?”  PC Cook confirmed that he was intent on searching James, and immediately handcuffed my client (despite his calm demeanour) causing him pain and discomfort.

PC Cook now clarified the background circumstances, stating that: “A vehicle has just made off from officers that potentially may well be cloned.  You’re walking away, there’s still two occupants in the vehicle and you’re walking from nearby.  Hence the reason you’re going to be detained for the purpose of a search to see if you’ve got any items on you relating to that vehicle, if not, you’ll be on your way.”

The officer then advised his name, that he was from the Force Traffic Unit and that at the conclusion of the search, he would inform James how he could “get a copy of the search.”

PC Cook then carried out a ‘pat down’ search of my client and searched his pockets.  During the search, one of James’ neighbours walked past, causing him acute embarrassment.

PC Cook asked James for his name and date of birth, which James duly provided and the officer used this information to make enquiries into my client’s background.

Whilst fully cooperating, James was nevertheless understandably frustrated that he had been detained – and handcuffed – and asserted “This ain’t right, putting me in cuffs like this, like I’m a criminal.”

The entire interaction between James and PC Cook was recorded on the officer’s body worn camera, an invaluable tool in the modern administration of justice.  

Eventually, after approximately 5 – 10 minutes, James was released and told he was free to go.  PC Cook did not however provide James with a “stop form” nor advise him as to how he could obtain one.

James subsequently lodged a complaint in regards to this incident. West Midlands Police Professional Standards Department adopted the ‘usual approach’ to this public complaint i.e. to act as if their primary goal was not to objectively investigate the complaint, but rather to defend the Officer.  They asserted that PC Cook was responding to a report of an abandoned vehicle on cloned plates and that James had been “seen to walk from the direction of the vehicle” before he was stopped and searched.  No apology was offered and his complaint was dismissed.

As a result of his handcuffing in this incident, James suffered pain and discomfort in both of his wrists for several days.  He also had a history of anxiety/panic attacks which flared up badly after this incident – causing him symptoms of breathing difficulty, sweating palms and a feeling of being completely overwhelmed.  This caused James to have to attend upon his GP and to be prescribed medicine; the panic attacks continued for around 3-4 months afterwards.

When James consulted me, I assessed the evidence and formed the view that the actions of the Police were arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional and had caused James totally unnecessary embarrassment and degradation. 

On James’ behalf I sent a letter of claim to West Midlands Police, giving them an opportunity to settle James’ claims for assault and battery and unlawful detention without the need for Court proceedings.

West Midlands Police rejected that opportunity, maintaining the same denial of liability with which their Professional Standards Department had earlier responded to James’ complaint.

I then had no hesitation in issuing Court proceedings on behalf of James.

I was confident that James would succeed if the case went to Trial, on a number of grounds, which included the following:-

• PC Cook lacked reasonable suspicion to carry out the search because, even on his own account, he neither saw James in the ‘cloned’ vehicle nor saw him in proximity to that vehicle (which was unsurprising because James was never in the vehicle and knew nothing about it).

• Furthermore, and in any event, PC Cook had failed to comply with Section 2 PACE/Code A in that he failed to specify a legitimate object for the search (“items relating to that vehicle” is not the same as “stolen or prohibited articles”) – and if PC Cook meant the latter, he failed to say so.

• The Officer also failed to specify the legislation he was purporting to utilise and he failed to provide James with a written stop/search record or explain how he could obtain one (despite at the beginning of the search saying that he would do so).

The Defence which was filed in response to the Court proceedings contended that PC Cook had legitimately detained and searched James pursuant to S.1 of PACE 1984.

However, as I observed above, that section only allows an Officer to search a person for ‘Stolen or prohibited articles’.  PC Cook in fact informed James that the object of his search was “items relating to a [potentially cloned] vehicle” which is not at all the same as ‘stolen or prohibited articles’.

It seemed to me that PC Cook either did not know the law that he was purporting to exercise, or proceeded with his search of James notwithstanding the fact that he knew he was exceeding the powers available to him.

A cloned vehicle may of course itself be a solen article – but presumably PC Cook did not think that James had the vehicle tucked away on his person…

Pertinently, James had not been seen in the vehicle, nor had he been seen in the close proximity to the vehicle – there was merely the tenuous assertion that he was seen walking from the same general direction as the location in which the vehicle had been abandoned.  That could not constitute reasonable grounds of suspicion for searching James in my opinion; and the whole encounter carried with it overtones, as is often the case in this type of incident, of racial prejudice – it certainly crossed James’ mind that the reason he had been targeted by the Officer, despite his having nothing to do with the cloned vehicle, was because of the colour of his skin.

Even more poignantly, James was not on his own when he first saw the Police approaching – he was actually walking with his teenage son. Suspecting, as many black men do, that they might be on the receiving end of unwarranted Police attention, James had immediately directed his son to go inside their house because he didn’t want the young man to be subjected to the degrading and alienating process that then befell him i.e. unjustified handcuffing, detention and questioning.   

This is exactly what I believe Sir Mark Rowley was referring to, when he spoke about abuse of stop and search powers as ‘burning through the trust’ of our communities.  No young person’s first encounter with the Police should be being unlawfully taken prisoner, handcuffed and searched, but for all too many – particularly young black men – that tragically is the case. 

Despite Sir Mark’s welcome admission, the Police Forces of England and Wales clearly still have a lot to do to improve their Officers’ standards of behaviour in this regard.   They have a lot of trust to win back which has been lost as a result of generations of ethnic minority men being mistreated on our streets and that mistreatment becoming ingrained in the mindset of our communities.

I am pleased to report, however, that after I provided a strong rebuttal to their defence, West Midlands Police quickly agreed to compensate James in the sum of £2,500 and pay his legal costs.

My client may understandably lack trust in the Police after this incident – but hopefully I have shown him that he can have trust in our justice system. At the conclusion of the case, James posted the following review-

“[Iain] fought my corner every step of the way…couldn’t speak any higher of the way he took on this case for me. I would recommend [him] to anyone, the very best around.”

Now we all wait to see how long it will take for Sir Mark Rowley’s leadership to change frontline British Policing, where actions must speak louder than words.  

On many occasions, I have come across Police officers arresting an individual not because of what he had done – but because of what they had done to him i.e incidents in which the Police inflict serious injuries on an individual and then decide to arrest and detain him in an attempt to ‘justify’ or explain away their use of force upon him. Just such a nightmare scenario was inflicted on my client Michael, late one night in September 2020, as I will discuss in this week’s blog.

Michael was travelling as a passenger in a friend’s car. Having driven to a nearby garage to buy refreshments, the two men returned and parked up in a road near Michael’s friend’s house in Wakefield. Owing to the time of night, the street was deserted.

As Michael exited the front passenger side door of the car, he saw a man dressed in black. It was not immediately apparent to Michael that this man was a Police Officer, although he later discovered him to be PC Pearson of West Yorkshire Police.

When Michael first saw PC Pearson, the Officer was standing at the driver’s door of Michael’s friend’s car (which was open) and appeared to be leaning into the car.

Not realising at first that Pearson was a Police Officer, Michael walked around the front of the car and asked him what he was doing. Rather than explaining his purpose, PC Pearson responded in an aggressive tone “I can open it if I want to” (i.e. referring to the fact that he had opened the driver’s door).

Michael queried this. Again, rather than explaining what he was doing, PC Pearson told Michael to “jog on”, again in an aggressive tone.

Michael asked PC Pearson what he meant by this, to which the Officer responded “Jog on, don’t turn around and get attitude with me”.

Michael was perplexed by the man’s confrontational tone and queried what he was on about. By this time, Michael was standing a normal conversational distance from PC Pearson, with the open driver’s side door of the car in between them.

Becoming more heated and aggressive, PC Pearson shouted at Michael “Back off now”.

Michael had neither behaved nor spoken aggressively to the Officer and indeed there was a car door between then. His only offence, it seems, was to question what the Officer was doing.

PC Pearson shouted “Back off away from me” again, and at greater volume.

Michael now queried “Who are you shouting at?” and muttered, under his breath and at such a low volume that it could not be heard on PC Pearson’s Body worn Camera footage (BWC), the words “silly cunt”.

PC Pearson now grabbed Michael’s jacket, shouting at him, “Don’t you turn around and call me a silly cunt. You’re getting locked up lad”. The Officer then repeated “You’re getting locked up for calling me a silly cunt”.

PC Pearson now continued his assault of Michael, by pushing my client up against the car, with the Officer’s right fist pressing into the area of Michael’s throat.

Another male Officer approached, now known to be PC Corden.

Michael was bewildered and frightened by what was happening to him. PC Pearson forced Michael’s head downwards with his hand, and in a panic – seeking to stop himself from falling to the ground – Michael instinctively grabbed out to hold onto something. In doing this, he may have inadvertently made contact with the taser on PC Corden’s belt. PC Corden now started shouting “Let go of my taser, let go of my fucking taser”, whilst punching Michael repeatedly in the face (or “used a striking technique to the face” as the Police’s doublespeak jargon would have it – as if such delicate phrasing could retrospectively pull those vicious punches).

Michael was then handcuffed and taken to the Officers’ car. He was already experiencing a lot of facial pain, particularly around his right eye, and bleeding heavily from his nose.

Stunned and bewildered, Michael was now taken under arrest to Havertop Police Station. There a custody record was made which stated that Michael had been arrested on suspicion of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Necessity for the arrest was recorded in the Custody record as “Allow the prompt and effective investigation; prevent an offence against public decency”.

Michael was detained all night before being interviewed at approximately 9.45am. Even after his interview however he was not released until almost 1pm. He was never charged with any offence.

My review of the evidence

After Michael contacted me for help I obtained and reviewed the available evidence in this case, and in particular the Officers’ body worn camera footage.

Having considered the same, I was strongly of the opinion that PC Pearson could not reasonably have suspected Michael of having committed a “Public Order” offence, for the following reasons –

• Michael muttered a swear word under his breath, at such low volume that it could hardly be heard on the BWC footage;

• In the circumstances, there was no possibility that anyone other than PC Pearson, PC Corden or Michael’s friend was able to hear Michael’s words;

• The officers themselves at no point indicated that either of them were caused harassment, alarm or distress by Michael’s words or behaviour, and in subsequent statements neither of them said that they were caused harassment, alarm or distress by Michael’s words or behaviour;

• Both PC Pearson and PC Corden themselves used ‘obscenities’, shouted at high volume and in an aggressive tone, during the course of the incident.

Furthermore, and in any event, Michael’s arrest was simply unnecessary because –

• There was no reason to believe that, had he been asked for his name and address, Michael would not have given this information, and any offence that PC Pearson believed him to have committed, could have been investigated in due course without the need for arrest;

• There was no possible reason to believe that Michael would commit an offence against public decency if not arrested. There was a stark disparity between Michael’s ‘sotto voce’ muttering with the aggressive shouting of obscenities by both of the Police Officers;

It was, in my opinion, plain from the body worn camera footage that Michael was arrested not out of any belief that his arrest was necessary, but because of PC Pearson’s antecedently aggressive attitude and personal dislike of what Michael had muttered, combined with the need for the Officers to justify the battery they had committed against him.

Police Brutality

Michael did not just suffer the indignity and loss of liberty of a wrongful arrest as a result of the actions of PCs Pearson and Corden – he had been badly beaten by the Officers and was left with significant physical and psychological injuries.

Immediately after the incident, Michael was in pain and bleeding from his nose. He developed significant bruising and swelling to his face leading him to have to attend A&E two days after the incident. A hospital CT scan of Michael’s facial bones was reported as showing “Right orbital floor and anterior maxillary wall fracture”.

Michael was subsequently further examined by a Maxillofacial Surgeon who diagnosed a “Right naso-orbital fracture with medial displacement of the right nasal pillar”. He was also suffering from blurred vision and was referred for an ophthalmology assessment.

My client subsequently had to undergo open reduction and internal fixation of his nasal fracture and nasal septoplasty in October 2020 though, even afterwards, was left with symptoms of discomfort in the form of headaches, numbness of his mouth and a deviated nasal septum which interfered with his breathing.

Michael was also subsequently diagnosed as suffering from a Phobic Anxiety Disorder in relation to the Police and was, distressingly, left with a right eye more sunken into his face than his left, causing him problems with his vision.

Frankly, Michael had suffered the type of injuries that might have been inflicted upon him by late-night muggers; all at the hands of the Police.

A Police Complaint ‘Whitewash’

The Police officers had behaved like arrogant bullies, and in my opinion, the evidence was there for all to see on the Body Worn Camera footage, but his legitimate complaint was given typical ‘Whitewash’ treatment by West Yorkshire Professional Standards Department. Some of the highlights – or should that be ‘low lights’? – of the complaint response were as follows-

• The report that was prepared into the complaint considered the Body Worn Camera footage, but asserted, contrary to what can be seen on that footage, that “…the evidence does not support [Michael’s] view that PC Pearson was immediately rude…”;

• The report says, contrary to what can be seen on the BWC footage, that “..[Michael]…moved into PC Pearson’s personal space and was heard (sic) direct vile and abusive language towards PC Pearson”;

• The report is drafted in terms calculated to suggest that Michael’s grabbing hold of something that happened to be the taser was something other than an attempt to prevent himself from falling, contrary to what can be observed on the BWC footage;

• The report likewise refers to Michael having shown ‘aggression’, contrary to what can be observed on the BWC footage;

• The report fails to acknowledge that the alleged ‘vile and abusive language’ by Michael was in reality an ‘under the breath’ comment and completely glosses over the fact that PC Corden himself shouted obscenities.

But the truth comes out in the ‘Wash’

West Yorkshire Police followed up their rejection of Michael’s complaint by also denying liability in response to the letter of claim which I sent on his behalf.

Undismayed, and very familiar with the Police playbook in these matters, I reassured Michael and advised him to issue Court proceedings against the Chief Constable for both wrongful arrest and assault and battery.

Despite filing a Defence to the claim which ostensibly maintained a complete denial of any wrongdoing, West Yorkshire then made overtures of settlement – starting with an offer of £17,500 damages. This starkly contrasts with their failure to make any offer of settlement prior to commencement of the Court proceedings.

On my advice, Michael rejected that offer and we continued with the proceedings; eventually bringing the Police to book with an agreed settlement of £35,000 damages for Michael’s injuries and loss of liberty. I was proud to have achieved justice for a very deserving client in the face of both Police ‘Red Mist’ and ‘White Wash’ – i.e the front line officer’s aggression and loss of temper combined with the back room officer’s desire to cover up his colleague’s misdeeds, which are the dual problems at the heart of many of the cases which I handle.

Once again, we are left to ponder what confidence the public should place in the internal investigations of Police ‘Professional Standards’? West Yorkshire Police maintained that their officers had done no wrong – and yet did not want the objective evidence of what had occurred to come before a Judge and Jury. I think we can all draw our own lesson from that.

I will let my client have the last word in this blog by quoting here from the kind review which he provided afterwards. It is being able to make a difference like this which makes my job so worthwhile-

“I didn’t realise how lucky I was at the time but after working with Iain for over 2 years we recently settled my case for a sum way more than I would have thought possible at the start.

Fighting through the lies and deceit of the police and seeing it all the way through to the end, when in honesty, it wasn’t always looking good for us.

Iain is fearless and I couldn’t have wished for a better representative of my case, he exceeded what I had hoped for from the start.

A huge thank you to Iain Gould for taking on my case, representing me and finalising my case with a very satisfactory outcome.”

A claim which I have recently concluded against Hertfordshire Constabulary has demonstrated once again the significant benefits to the administration of justice and proper accountability of the Police which arise from the fact that Officers now habitually wear body cameras during their interactions with the public. We should all be grateful that Big Brother is now watching Big Brother (as it were) but also aware of the fact that ‘old habits die hard’ and that the Police still frequently adopt the same “deny and dispute” tactics which were used when all of these events happened ‘off camera’.

The case in question concerned Hertfordshire Police Officers being called out to attend the aftermath of a party at a private dwelling in which two friends, Paul (who was the owner of the house), and Steven, had got into an argument over an item of damaged furniture which had turned ‘physical’ – there was some pushing and shoving, though neither man sustained any injury.

Paul’s female partner telephoned the Police as she was concerned that Steven was not going to leave the house.

However, by the time the Police arrived, not only had Steven exited the house, but tempers had simmered down and he and Paul simply wanted to patch things up.

The Police found Steven outside the house calm but confused about why matters had escalated so badly between him and his friend.

The Police then witnessed Paul coming out of the house and ‘making peace’ with Steven by shaking his hand.

As Paul then returned towards the house, he was aggressively pursued by one Police Officer who threatened Paul with arrest “for being drunk and disorderly” if he did not immediately return back inside his house. The officer was making reference to the offence of “Being drunk and disorderly in a public place” contrary to Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

This was despite the fact that:-

• Paul was not behaving in a “disorderly” manner and nor was Steven – multiple Officers had just witnessed the two men shaking hands and speaking in a calm and kindly manner to one another;

• Paul was clearly in the process of returning to his house in any event; and

• The location of these events was actually an area of private land upon which the cited offence could not be committed.

Conscious of that latter fact, Paul paused just as he was about to re-enter his house and queried with the Officer how he could possibly be committing the alleged offence in this location (as it was private land). Paul then turned and made to walk inside his home – only to be seized by the Officer, who grabbed hold of Paul’s arm and said in a self-satisfied manner, “You’re outside now”.

As the Officer pulled forcefully on Paul’s arm – apparently attempting to prevent him from re-entering the safety of his house – another Officer who had already entered the house, seized Paul from behind and the two Officers bundled Paul to the ground, shouting and swearing at him.

During this process the first Officer informed Paul that he was, “Under arrest for being drunk and disorderly in a public place”.

Paul was then handcuffed and kept ‘prisoner’ outside his house, before being de-arrested approximately 10 minutes later.

After viewing the body camera footage of this incident, I was strongly of the opinion that Paul had been grossly mistreated and should never have been assaulted, handcuffed or arrested – the only silver lining for him was that thankfully this abuse of power was of a relatively short duration.

Notwithstanding the clear testimony of their own body camera recordings (Four of the Officers who were present that night had their cameras ‘rolling’), Hertfordshire Police initially tried to get away with merely a ‘technical’ admission of liability and a minimal offer of damages (and no offer of legal costs) in response to the claim which I presented on Paul’s behalf.

The lawyers acting on behalf of Hertfordshire Police now argued that Paul, “Could and should have been arrested for breach of the peace which is a criminal offence in a private [or] pubic place. The behaviour of your client…should have been dealt with by way of a criminal prosecution and they are fortunate that is not the route the Police took.”

I felt that this was an outrageous position for the Police to adopt and I was deeply unimpressed by their behaviour.

The simple fact of the matter – as amply attested by the available body camera evidence – was that Paul, irrespective of whether he was in a public or private place, was simply not behaving in any kind of manner which amounted to disorder or a breach of the peace when the Officer purported to arrest him.

It was my confident view that any Judge or Jury viewing the body camera footage would conclude that when Officers laid hands upon Paul – apparently in a blatant attempt to prevent him from re-entering the ‘safety’ of his house – the only people present who were behaving in a disorderly manner were the Officers themselves.

No breach of the peace was occurring at the time of the Police arrival on the scene, nor could any such offence have been contemplated as likely to occur in the near future, given that Officers had just witnessed Paul and Steven shaking hands and Paul was leaving the scene and returning inside his house when the irate Police Officer laid hands upon him; indeed it was that perverse action by the Officer which actually kept Paul and Steven in any proximity to one another.

I am very pleased to confirm that Paul’s case for unlawful arrest has recently been successfully concluded for a sizeable award of damages plus his legal costs. But this case is a salutary reminder of the lengths to which the Police are prepared to go in order to dispute a legitimate claim – even in the face of clear and compelling body camera evidence to the contrary. It gives us significant pause for thought to reflect on the degree to which the Police were able to get away with wrongful denials of liability in the past when the objective evidence of their own body cameras was simply not there to testify against them.

I will always fight my client’s corner, but I am grateful for the extent of body camera footage now available to help make that fight fairer.

My advice, if you have suffered a wrong at the hands of the Police, is to take immediate steps, for example by registering a complaint or pursuing a Subject Access Request, to ensure that all body camera evidence is preserved. It could prove absolutely crucial.

Names have been changed.

In a number of recent blog posts I have had to highlight the disgraceful treatment which people experiencing episodes of mental ill-health, or suspected episodes, can suffer at the hands of a Policing Profession which often seems to default to treating mental ill-health, including conditions as common as depression and anxiety, as if it were a crime. Today’s blog concerns yet another shocking example of this.

“We’re here to help you”

In December 2018, my client Allon, a successful businessman, was experiencing some family problems which put him in a distressed state of mind. He is a man of entirely good character who had never had any adverse interactions with the Police. 

On the evening in question Allon had a telephone conversation with his mother which caused him some distress and resulted in him sending her a message indicating that he might take an ‘overdose’ of his prescription medication and did not care whether he woke up in the morning or not.  After sending this video to his mother, Allon took approximately 3 pills with a small amount of whiskey and fell asleep in his car.

He awoke in the early hours of the morning of the following day.

Unaffected by the small amount of medication and alcohol that he had taken, and feeling hungry, Allon drove to a nearby Service Station in the hope of finding something to eat there.  It was then his intention to go and stay with his father.

Unbeknownst to Allon, his mother had notified Hertfordshire Police about the family’s concern for Allon’s whereabouts and well-being and two officers, PC Wild and PC Daly, were dispatched to locate Allon and his vehicle.

The Police Officers duly located Allon’s car parked on the Petrol Station forecourt of the Service Station.  Allon was at that time inside the forecourt shop perusing the shelves with a view to buying a sandwich and a bottle of water.  He was behaving in an entirely unremarkable manner and was looking forward to seeing his father.

Owing to the time of day there were no other customers in the shop, therefore when PC Wild entered the shop – having noted Allon’s car on the forecourt – he must have naturally assumed that Allon was the man he was looking for.

PC Wild approached and asked Allon how he was, to which Allon replied that he was “Okay, not too bad, not too good” and asked how he could help the officer.

PC Wild asked Allon to confirm that it was his car parked on the forecourt, which Allon did.

Perplexed by this line of enquiry Allon asked PC Wild “Is there a problem? Am I under arrest?” to which PC Wild replied, “There’s no problem and you’re not under arrest.”

PC Wild then said he would like to speak further with Allon, but did not supply the purpose of this request.

Allon, who just wanted his privacy respected, said he did not wish to speak with the officer any further.

PC Wild replied, “If I want to talk to you, you have to talk to me.”

Allon replied that he knew his rights and that if he was not under arrest he did not have to speak to the officer, and explained that he was simply attempting to buy a sandwich. 

Unnerved by this encounter, Allon now decided that he would in fact leave the shop without buying anything and accordingly told PC Wild that he was going back to his car.  In all of his communications with PC Wild, Allon had been polite and calm.

Allon then exited the shop through the sliding double doors.  However, without saying anything, PC Wild followed closely behind Allon and then grabbed Allon from behind as he was walking out onto the forecourt. 

Shocked and confused Allon pulled away from PC Wild’s unexpected grip and backed away from him holding his arms out in front of him in a non-threatening manner.

However, the second officer, PC Daly, who had remained out on the forecourt, now approached at a rapid pace training his taser gun upon Allon.

I will pause here to remind readers that the only purpose of the officers’ encounter with Allon was to check on his welfare – and indeed they had now clearly seen him alive and well and behaving in an entirely normal manner. They were expressly not there to arrest or question him in relation to any criminal offence – and yet now began to behave as if that was exactly what they were doing – escalating to unprovoked physical force and the production of a potentially lethal electro-shock gun within a matter of minutes. 

Allon showed the officers his hands, in which he was holding only his mobile phone, and stated they were putting him in a position of stress, duress and alarm.  However, PC Daly continued to train the taser upon Allon, giving him no choice but to cross his arms across his body in a defensive stance.

Allon begged PC Daly to lower his taser, but the officer refused to do so.

Confronted with this inexplicable level of violence, Allon began to back away across the forecourt, and was pursued by both officers.  When Allon then came to a halt, with his back to a wall – PC Daly, without warning, tasered him. 

Thanks to his quick reflexes, Allon was able to use his arm to slash away the wires which connected the taser barbs to the gun.  He was therefore able to escape the full force of the electric shock which the officer had intended to inflict upon him.

In a state of understandable distress, Allon now approached PC Daly in order to remonstrate with him.  At no point, however, did he use any force against PC Daly and nor did he threaten to do so.

A taser gun delivers a brutal electric shock to a person’s body, generally causing them to lose control of their limbs and collapse helplessly to the ground like a puppet with its strings cut – a collapse which is not only accompanied by the excruciating, albeit transitory, pain of the electrocution but which also carries with it the real risk of serious injury if, for example, a taser victim’s head smacks against a wall or the ground.

Allon had escaped such a fate – but PC Daly’s next move was to further raise the stakes of violence by discharging his taser in drive-stun mode directly into the side of Allon’s neck. This is a use of the taser weapon where the barbs are not launched and instead the electric current is discharged into the victim through direct contact between the weapon and the victim’s skin.

PC Wild now joined in the assault – striking Allon’s legs from behind with his baton and shouting aggressively at him “Get down!”

Allon was scared by the violence being unleashed against him and was experiencing increasing amounts of pain. Owing to the time of night, there did not seem to be any other people in the vicinity and Allon had no idea why he was being savagely attacked in this manner.

The two officers continued to push and pull Allon, and beat him with a baton, causing Allon to cry out in fear and confusion “What the fuck is wrong with you…..?”

Having beaten Allon face down to the ground after multiple baton strikes and use of the taser, the officers pressed their body weight down upon Allon. In desperation, Allon tried to prop himself up off the ground with his right arm, but was pushed back face down on the ground by PC Daly who shouted “Get on the fucking floor!”  Allon was now being pressed down into the ground by the officers’ body weight and was struggling to breathe.

At or around the same time, the officers sprayed Allon in his face at close range with PAVA, an anti-personnel incapacity liquid.  Allon later described how this made his eyes and ears feel as though they were on fire and how he could now barely see. He felt as though he was going to lose consciousness and experienced further pain to the back of his left leg. Allon also felt the officers handcuffing his hands tightly behind his back and bending his left thumb and wrist in the process, causing him yet further injury.

Allon heard one of the officers asserting that they were here to “help” him; but everything they had done up to that point was the diametric opposite. PC Daly now informed Allon that he was being “detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act for your own safety.”

Only now did the officers begin to relent and move Allon up into a kneeling position which at least enabled him to breathe more easily.  Mentally and physically traumatised, Allon was then permitted to stand up. He remained in handcuffs, the officers’ prisoner, as numerous other police units began to arrive at the scene.

Shell-shocked by what had happened to him, Allon told the officers “I was just trying to sort my head out – and you beat me, you tasered me and you maced me.”

To which PC Wild replied: “But you sent your mum some videos didn’t you?”

Hearing this, Allon understandably protested: “Yeah – and I woke up, didn’t I? And I’m trying to get some fucking water and sort my head out – and I come outside and get fucking maced, electrocuted and beaten by the Police.”

The extent of the injuries which Allon suffered as a result of this “welfare check” can be seen in these photographs:

Detention under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983

Allon’s left wrist started swelling up and he realised he had lost sensation in his left thumb.  He asked the officers to loosen his handcuffs, but this request was refused. 

With numerous other officers now in attendance, Allon’s car keys and mobile phone were confiscated from him, and he was then placed in a police van and taken to a nearby hospital.

Allon requested that he be allowed to make a phone call to a family member or solicitor, but the request was refused, and the officers informed Allon that he could not speak to anyone “Under Section 136”.

This was a reference to the power under which the officers were claiming the right to detain Allon (and also, presumably, the right to have tasered and beaten him black and blue).  Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides as follows –

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

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

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

                …

(1C) Before deciding to remove a person to, or to keep a person at, a place of safety under subsection (1), the constable must, if it is practicable to do so, consult—

(a)a registered medical practitioner,

(b)a registered nurse,

(c)an approved mental health professional, or

(d)a person of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.]

(2)A person [removed to, or kept at,] a place of safety under this section may be detained there for a period not exceeding [the permitted period of detention] for the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a registered medical practitioner and to be interviewed by an [approved mental health professional] and of making any necessary arrangements for his treatment or care.

Section 135 of the Mental Health Act defines a “Place of Safety” in the following terms-

(3B)

(6)In this section “place of safety” means residential accommodation provided by a local social services authority under [F15Part 1 of the Care Act 2014 or] [F16Part 4 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014] F17. . . , a hospital as defined by this Act, a police station, [F18an independent hospital or care home] for mentally disordered persons or any other suitable place F19….

It has always been my view that at no point during his encounter with the Police had Allon ever met the definition of “appearing to be suffering from a mental disorder requiring immediate care or control” and therefore the use of this draconian power, to take into custody an otherwise entirely law-abiding citizen, was completely unjustified. However – if the power had been properly exercised- its ultimate purpose (for the care of the apparently mentally disordered individual) is so that the Police can take the person to get treatment at an appropriate venue i.e. a Mental Health Hospital.

In Allon’s case the Police were unable to take him to a Mental Health Hospital at first, because, in view of the extent of the injuries PCs Wild and Daly had inflicted upon him, it was clear that Allon required immediate assessment in an Emergency Department.  As any of us would, Allon felt deeply ashamed and humiliated being led into a busy A & E Department in handcuffs.  He knew that anybody seeing him would assume he was a criminal – and a dangerous criminal at that.  This could not have been further from the truth.

It was only after Allon had received emergency medical treatment, including an x-ray of his now badly swollen left hand, that the Police finally took him to a Mental Health Hospital where he was assessed by a doctor who found that there was “No evidence of mental health disorder and no current risk identified” and accordingly immediately discharged him.

Shell-shocked Allon was now at last free to return home, having been wrongly detained for over 14 hours, but he would be trapped for much longer by the mental and physical anguish which this brutal incident had inflicted upon him. 

Suing the Police

The first step which Allon took to seek justice for what had happened to him, was to lodge a formal complaint with Hertfordshire Constabulary.  As is usual however, his complaint fell on deaf ears.  The Professional Standards Department produced a report which not only fully exonerated their officers, but which adopted a lecturing/hectoring tone towards Allon which, frankly, added insult to injury. Apparently closing his eyes to the plain evidence of the CCTV footage, the Investigating Officer falsely suggested that Allon had been “advancing” on PC Daly when the taser was first discharged. The Complaint Investigator then went on to place all the blame upon Allon, writing “[Allon]…needs to take responsibility for his actions, in that he went missing from Surrey, sent concerning suicidal messages to his mother, and allegedly consumed substances and did not comply with officers when they requested to speak to him.” No misconduct was found on the part of either officer, and no ‘organisational learnings’ were identified.

Once again, on reading this Complaint Investigation Report, I was left with the distinct impression that Police Professional Standards Departments have as their primary, albeit unspoken, mission statement the dismissal of as many complaints as possible, a fact betrayed by the partisan, pro-Police tone of much of their report writing.  PSD very often come across as nothing more than the cheerleaders of their Force’s frontline Officers.  And cheerleaders, of course, support their team whether right or wrong.

I then assisted Allon in appealing the complaint outcome to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) who, regrettably but again not unexpectedly, endorsed the original police decision.

However, free of the shackles of the dysfunctional police complaints system, I was now able to assist Allon in really bringing the fight to the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire, through the means of civil court proceedings.

The High Court and the County Court are forums in which the Police do not judge the Police and very different outcomes can therefore be achieved than through the biased and inefficient complaint system.

Having reviewed the evidence of this incident, including the CCTV footage from the Service Station which Allon had swiftly taken steps to obtain before it was overwritten, I advised Allon that he had a strong claim against the Police in respect of both unlawful detention and assault and battery.

In my opinion, there were simply no reasonable grounds for PCs Wild or Daly to suspect that Allon was ‘mentally disordered’ or ‘in immediate need of care and control’ within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983.

When the incident began, approximately 12 hours had elapsed since Allon had sent the text messages which had caused his family members some concern, and when the Police Officers encountered Allon it was clear that he was calm, controlled and simply making a reasonable attempt to buy a sandwich.  What the officers then did to him – apparently because he refused to have an extended conversation with one of them – was totally egregious and unjustified.

PCs Wild and Daly had quite literally unloaded upon Allon the full extent of the weaponry and uses of force that were available to them i.e. hand to hand combat, taser discharge, baton strike, PAVA spray and handcuffing. I repeat again, that this was an incident which both officers knew to be a welfare check on a vulnerable man.

Notwithstanding the mistakes made by PCs Wild and Daly on the night of the incident itself, Hertfordshire Constabulary as an institution then had multiple opportunities to put things right – either by upholding Allon’s justified complaint or making an offer of settlement in response to the detailed pre-action letter of claim which I sent on his behalf.

Sadly, Hertfordshire failed to take either of those opportunities – instead maintaining a strenuous denial of liability regarding all aspects of the claim and making no offer of compensation, nor word of apology, whatsoever.

As a result, Court proceedings had to be initiated, to which the Police responded with a detailed defence.

However, I continued to press my client’s case with determination, making it clear that Allon and I would see this matter all the way through to trial if necessary and, shortly before the fourth anniversary of this terrible incident, Hertfordshire Constabulary finally offered to settle Allon’s claim for £70,000 damages plus his legal costs.

One wonders what the lawyers who advised the Chief Constable to settle this claim for that level of damages were able to see in the evidence, that the supposedly ‘impartial’ Police Complaint Investigator and then IOPC reviewer had apparently been unable to see when they chose to absolve PCs Wild and Daly from any criticism?

I am very proud to have been able to achieve this accountability and restitution for Allon, who showed great personal fortitude and bravery in seeing his case through to victory despite 4 years of rejection, obstruction, delay and manoeuvring by the Police. But when one reflects upon the extreme force used upon an entirely non-criminal subject and compounded by the almost naked prejudice of the Police complaint system, one is still left with a bad taste in the mouth:  as if you’d just been PAVA-sprayed at point blank range in the face, in fact. Allon deserved so much better than this and so does the whole of our society, but the Police seem fundamentally unwilling to even acknowledge their mistakes, let alone learn from them.

I will certainly continue to play my part to try and change that.

As I write this, news has just broken of the sentence passed against David Carrick, the self-proclaimed “untouchable” who committed 85 offences, including rape, sexual assault, and false imprisonment whilst a serving Metropolitan Police officer between 2003 – 2020. His despicable crimes blighted the lives of at least twelve women and now he will, hopefully, spend the rest of his life behind bars.

But this second monster of the Met, after Wayne Couzens, is just one of hundreds of officers who have now been accused of predatory, abusive, and misogynistic behaviour. It looks like a reckoning is occurring, but we have to ask why it was at the cost of a young woman’s life? It was only Couzens’ rape and murder of Sarah Everard in March 2021 which seems to have burst the bubble of complicity which existed in the Police profession, the tolerance of an abhorrent culture of toxic masculinity and the wilful failure of the Police to police themselves. Protecting comrades has been the watchword of the Police, instead of protecting the public – at the cost of lost and ruined lives.

Only yesterday the City of London Police became the latest to announce a huge increase in the number of misconduct allegations made against their officers; a rise of 190% in the last 9 months, apparently driven by internal reports made by colleagues against their colleagues. These cases include “police perpetrated domestic abuse, sexual misconduct, misogyny and violence against women and girls.” The City of London Force attempted to ‘spin’ this statistic to its benefit by proclaiming that it demonstrated “staff awareness of the standards of professional behaviour and trust in the force to appropriately investigate such allegations”, but that latter comment is particularly telling – revealing the truth that prior to the revolution in Police accountability that we are witnessing, sparked by the outrage over Sarah Everard’s abduction and murder – most officers either thought misogynistic and abusive behaviour by male officers was ‘no big deal’ or were too frightened for their careers to report it.

When:

– the Metropolitan Police Commissioner announces that he has ordered a review of 1,071 Police officers and staff over allegations of sexual offences or domestic violence over the last 10 years “to make sure appropriate decisions were made”, and

– HM Inspectorate of Constabulary reports that “unsuitable” men being allowed to join the Police is “widespread” to such an extent that a review of hundreds of officers revealed that about 10% should never have got through the vetting process,

we can see the terrible extent of the problem: a problem that must have been in plain sight for Police officers themselves for decades, but which they chose not to see.  These officers are the very people specially trained and empowered to root out the criminals amongst us.

As a result of these catastrophic failures, one of my clients was groomed and raped at the age of 13 by a Police officer who should never have been vetted as fit to serve.

Another of my clients was made pregnant by the Police officer who had arrested her only weeks before – but when she reported this matter, even after her child’s paternity was confirmed by DNA testing, the Police Force in question excused their officer on the basis that the officer claimed the sexual encounter had taken place whilst he was ‘off duty’.

This list could continue and would make grim reading.

No matter what the pious words we now hear from Police leadership, it is an inescapable truth that all Chief Constables, past and present, bear responsibility for the Police culture in which predators, misogynists and abusers were able to prosper and which allowed Police officers more lives than a cat when it came to allegations of crime and misconduct – until  the dawn of that horrible day when the Police, as an institution, finally looked at themselves in the mirror.

Reform is finally coming, but what a price has been paid for it.

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

Iain has previously written about the power of an apology for Claimants who have been wronged by Police forces. Even when admitting fault and paying compensation to Claimants, Police forces have no legal obligation to apologise nor could any Court force them to. However, to many Claimants an apology is worth more than any compensation they could recover. That was certainly the case for my clients David and Jessica experienced in June 2021. At the time they both lived at 22 Greensleeves Road in Sussex. At the time Jessica was 5 months pregnant with twins, the couple’s first children.

That night David and Jessica were asleep in the top bedroom of their flat when they were awakened by the sound of someone forcing entry downstairs through the front door. David immediately rushed down the stairs to confront the intruders and protect Jessica and their unborn children.

David found himself confronted by several Police officers shining torch lights, shouting, and pointing Tasers at him. The officers briefly searched the flat and then left after realising they had the wrong address.

The incident left David and Jessica highly agitated and distressed. David was deeply concerned for Jessica and their unborn children and called 999. The operator recommended that David summon a Police medic to assess Jessica, thankfully both Jessica and the babies were fine.

Sometime later that night a senior officer in charge of the operation attended the premises. The officer explained that the Police had intelligence that a suspected murderer was hiding in a flat on the same street and officers had planned to raid that flat to arrest the suspect. The address that the suspect was hiding in was 26 Greensleeves Road, however due to an administrative error 22 Greensleeves Road had been put on Police paperwork instead. The officer apologised to David and Jessica and said that someone would be in touch to repair the front door.

David later established that after leaving their home, the officers then entered 26 Greensleeves Road to search for the murder suspect. Due to the mistaken raid on David and Jessica’s home, the real suspect had been alerted to the Police presence in the street and escaped onto the roof, where he remained in a standoff with officers for several hours.

Afterwards David did not return to work for several days both due to the shock of the incident and in the expectation that someone from the Police would attend to replace the premises’ door. After several days David and Jessica left the premises to go and stay with Jessica’s parents for approximately two weeks as they no longer felt safe in their own home.

As a result of this incident both David and Jessica suffered psychological trauma and had to be prescribed sleeping tablets by their GPs.

On behalf of David and Jessica I submitted a claim to Sussex Police for trespass, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite accepting that a mistake had been made and acknowledging the apology of the senior officer on the night, Sussex Police denied liability asserting that the officers had lawfully entered David and Jessica’s home using powers under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Section 17 states:

17 Entry for purpose of arrest etc.

• Subject to the following provisions of this section, and without prejudice to any other enactment, a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose—

…

            (b) of arresting a person for an indictable offence (ie murder).

Yet further, Sussex Police refused to provide a written apology stating that one was not needed as the senior officer on the night had already done so. Notwithstanding this denial, Sussex Police did offer a £1,000 “gesture of good will”.

However, the Police denial of liability was clearly unsustainable given that the officers had raided the wrong address due to their own mistake. As the officers had no power to enter any address other than the correct one, any actions they committed, such as threatening David with a Taser, whilst in David and Jessica’s home was also unlawful.

I therefore had no hesitation in advising David and Jessica to reject the Police’s offers and commission medical evidence from a psychological expert. After examining David, the expert in his report highlighted the following:

“He (David) said that after a while they received an offer of £1000 from the Police, without any apology or acceptance of liability and he found this very insulting and it made him even more angry.”

After disclosing the medical reports and following further negotiations, Sussex Police ultimately agreed to pay David and Jessica a combined settlement of £14,000 plus their legal costs. The Police also finally agreed given a written apology to David and Jessica:

“As a Force, we always do our utmost to ensure that any information we act on is accurate, but unfortunately on very rare occasions we get it wrong. Attending your address was one of those occasions, and for that we are truly sorry.

I appreciate and understand that our interactions would have caused you significant distress as entirely innocent parties.

It is hoped that compensation, together with this letter, can bring you closure.

I wish you and your family well for the future and thank you for bringing this to our attention.”

Had Sussex Police apologised immediately on presentation of the claim they could have saved David and Jessica from further anguish. However, I am pleased to say that with the formal apology that I was able to obtain for them David and Jessica were able to put this terrible event behind them and enjoy being the parents of their newly born twins.

Should the Police ever come knocking down the wrong door, you know who to call.

(The names and address of my clients have been changed.)

My client Leon is a black man who lives and works in Manchester; he is approximately 5ft 10in tall and of stocky build. Although this generally goes without saying, I will highlight here the fact, the relevance of which will soon become clear, that Leon, like most of us, is in possession of hands at the end of both of his arms…

One morning in May 2022, Leon, who is a Civil Servant, was working from home when several officers of Greater Manchester Police knocked on his front door.

On opening his front door, my client was asked for his name which he confirmed in full. The Officers then stepped into Leon’s flat, grabbed his left arm and handcuffed him, whilst simultaneously advising him that he was under arrest for robbery. Leon was in a state of shock; he had committed no criminal offence and immediately remonstrated, to no avail. The officers told Leon that everything would be sorted at the Police Station.

Leon was allowed to collect a few possessions (his phone and wallet) and was then escorted to a marked police van parked outside.

Leon had lived in the flat for approximately 10 months and was mortified at the thought of what his neighbours would think if they saw him being paraded like a handcuffed criminal.

After a 10 – 15 minutes delay, Leon was transported to Pendleton Police Station. Upon arrival, there was a further delay because the Police Station was said to be at capacity.

Leon again questioned why he had been arrested and furthermore why the Officers had deemed it necessary to handcuff him, given the fact that, despite his shock, he had been entirely calm and compliant with their instructions. One of the officers replied that Leon was “a big lad” and the officer did not want to “get decked”.

The Officer, a white man, then added, “I thought it would be like the Green Mile”, referring to the Hollywood movie featuring a large, strong black man who is a ‘death row’ prisoner. When Leon realised what the officer was saying he was deeply offended, considering the officer’s ‘joke’ to be not merely inappropriate but, frankly, evidence of shameless racial stereotyping.

After further delay, my client could hear the Officer talking on the radio. Unbeknownst to Leon, it seemed the penny had just dropped for the Police. The Officer now asked Leon to put his hands up. Leon questioned why, but the Officer simply insisted, “Just show me your hands.” Leon complied. The Officer now shook his head and advised that they had received “further intelligence” and as a result he was satisfied that Leon was not the wanted person after all and that he could now be immediately released.

The Officer removed Leon’s handcuffs and offered to drive him home. It was during that journey back to Leon’s flat that the Officer opened up about what he had apparently just discovered; that the suspect they were after had only one hand. Leon was flabbergasted by this information. The Officer’s final comment, on dropping Leon back off home, was that this was a “CID fuck up”.

Although the whole incident had lasted less than an hour, for Leon the mental trauma of this event was much more long lasting, leading him to consult his GP about anxiety. Leon was left feeling apprehensive whenever he heard a van outside his house concerned that it might be the Police to arrest him another fool’s errand. He also felt anxious when seeing Police Officers when out and about.

In the aftermath of this incident Leon contacted me for expert advice and assistance and I was very happy to act for him. It was clear that he was an innocent man who had suffered a terrible experience as a result of a hotch potch of incompetence, unprofessionalism and racial stereotyping on the part of Greater Manchester Police.

Greater Manchester Police’s initial response to the claim was to deny that Leon had been wrongly arrested – stating that they initially had reason to believe he was the “real suspect”, although it was subsequently established that he wasn’t – and it was asserted that Leon had been treated appropriately throughout and that the Officers had had “a good rapport” with Leon.

I required Greater Manchester Police to provide me with the evidence which they were now asserting had given their Officers an initial reasonable suspicion to arrest Leon and from this I noted that the Police were searching for a black man, with no left hand, who had robbed a Discount Booze shop. Although the offender’s name was reported to the Police as ‘Leon’ no surname was given, there was nothing else to link him to my client other than the fact that they were both black men and, of course, there was one rather important descriptor of the offender which the Police omitted to acknowledge when arguing that their Officers had formed a reasonable suspicion my client was the real suspect i.e. the fact that Leon has two hands.

It seemed to me from my review of the evidential material, that Leon had been identified simply because he was a black man with the same first name as the suspect (not an uncommon name) and lived in the local neighbourhood. My client has no criminal record and his details were obtained by the Police through a “voter check”.

It also seems, crucially, that the four Officers who were despatched to Leon’s house that day were not told in advance of the key distinguishing characteristic of the man they were looking for i.e. the absence of a left hand.

I brought Court proceedings on behalf of Leon and obtained and disclosed to Greater Manchester Police a medical report detailing the extent of the psychological impact this incident had had upon Leon, notwithstanding its short duration. I am pleased to say that after further negotiation GMP then backed down and agreed to settle Leon’s claim for damages for wrongful arrest in the sum of £5,000.

Casual racist attitudes were, in this incident, married to ‘Keystone Cops’ levels of incompetence; what we witness here as the arrest of a black man on the apparent basis of his black name only, and notwithstanding the fact that GMP knew they were looking for an extremely distinctive individual with only one hand. It is appalling that none of the four Police Officers who were despatched to pull Leon out of his home and take him into custody had apparently been given that most basic piece of information about the suspect.

Leon and I hope that by our highlighting of this catalogue of errors, Greater Manchester Police will learn to do better and next time not intrude into and abuse the life of a innocent man.

In my recent review of the year 2022, I drew together important themes from across the hundreds of Police misconduct cases which I and my colleagues John Hagan and Aidan Walley handled in that year. Many of those key issues came together in one particular claim against Merseyside Police which is the subject of today’s blog  post – the pro-Police bias of the Complaint system; the Police officers’ ‘code of silence’ when it comes to supporting their colleagues; the Police’s problem with apologising; and the importance of upholding the integrity of our homes against Police violence and abuse of State power.

This is the story of how I won £50,000 damages for an innocent man whom Merseyside Police Officers first brutally assaulted and then attempted to frame for the ‘reverse crime’ of assaulting them. 

It illustrates at one and the same time both the robust health of our civil justice system – in particular the role which Jurors can help to play in re- balancing the power disparity between a private citizen and an entire Police Force – and yet also that unhealthy Police culture whose reflex is not only to look the other way when Officers commit crimes but also to unrepentantly defend and uphold those Officers – no matter what the cost to either the principles of justice, or the public purse. 

Police ‘Welfare’ Visit Results in Snapped Arm

The incident in question occurred in June 2017.

My client, John Kennedy is a man of entirely good character who has for many years suffered from mental health issues, principally centred around episodes of anxiety and depression which can cause him to have thoughts of suicide/self-harm.

John lives alone and on the evening in question posted a message on Facebook indicating that he intended to take an overdose of Diazepam tablets.  He was distressed because of a family bereavement. As a result of the Facebook post, one of John’s friends contacted Merseyside Police at around 01.29am to report concerns for John’s welfare.  Let us pause here to note the very important point that John was not being reported for committing a crime – the Police were being requested by a friend to check on John’s welfare because it was believed he might self-harm.  Sadly however, the authoritarian tendencies of many Police Officers seemingly cause them to adopt the same attitude in conducting welfare visits that they would adopt when kicking down the door to arrest a suspected criminal… 

John was first visited at 06.34am by two Police Officers whom he spoke to at his front door, after they had tried to force entry.  John denied their request for entry and asked the Officers to leave him in peace; this pair of Officers respected John’s wishes and left him on the basis that they had seen that he was safe and well (now some five hours after the initial report).

However, at around 12.50pm on the same day (i.e. just over six hours later) John, who was asleep in bed, was roused by loud knocking on his door.  As he looked from his bedroom window he saw two different, male Officers outside – now known to be PC Hughes and PC Price of Merseyside Police.

John went downstairs but did not want the Officers to come in.  His account of what followed is that the front door was jammed but one of the Officers kicked it open and both Hughes and Price, entered John’s address contrary to his wishes. The officers would later say that they were relying upon their power under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 to enter the premises in order to “save life or limb” – notwithstanding the fact that John was up and about interacting with the officers and clearly not in any state of injury.

John was upset at the Officers’ intrusion into his house and made repeated requests that they leave immediately.  However, despite the fact that it was clear that John was well and not in any immediate danger to life or limb the Officers refused to leave and instead remained on the premises.

When John tried to leave his living room to go to the lavatory PC Hughes physically stopped him and pushed him on a nearby settee, where John knocked against the television set.

Again, his request for the Officers to leave his house was ignored.

PC Price then set off to perform a search of the premises and John was now finally permitted to leave the living room.  He used the lavatory and went into the kitchen to get water. 

With John’s mental health issues severely aggravated by the conduct of the Officers towards him  – John in protest brought a glass of water and some further Diazepam tablets back to the living room and consumed them in front of the Officers. 

PC Hughes then, suddenly and without warning, grabbed John by both arms and tripped him up causing him to lose his balance.   John was then thrown face first onto the settee and pushed down with considerable force into the cushions, which restricted his breathing.

Trapped helplessly on the couch by the Officer, John felt weight pressing down into his back (which he believes to have been PC Hughes’ knee) and then felt his left arm being twisted behind his back and being pulled upwards away from his body. At the same time John felt his arm being bent inwards at the elbow.

John then felt sudden and excruciating pain in his left arm, and simultaneously heard a loud ‘popping’ noise.  John tapped on the couch with his free right arm and it was only now that PC Hughes appeared to appreciate the extent of the injury that he had just caused to the young man whose welfare was the whole purpose of the Police visit to the house.

PC Hughes now released his restraint grip on John, who slid from the couch onto the floor in a state of shock and agony to his arm.

PC Hughes, having broken John’s left arm, realised that it was now necessary to call an ambulance. John was taken for emergency treatment at the Royal Liverpool Hospital.  He was assessed at the hospital, and it was established that he had suffered a fracture to the mid shaft of his left humerus, and he was discharged home on the understanding that he would have to return in a few weeks for an operation.

John was with his mother and brother when he left the hospital building at around 7pm that night, but if he thought he had had a bad day already things were sadly now about to get even more bizarre and nightmarish.  For as John left the hospital, he was approached by different Officers of Merseyside Police and told that he was under arrest for assault on PC Price – and who indeed initially attempted to handcuff him despite the fact that he had a broken arm in an obvious plaster cast.  The Officers desisted in this attempt following pleas from John’s mother and brother – but it is another example of how Police Officers so often default to handcuffing suspects without any thought as to whether that degrading and painful use of force is actually necessary.

John was then taken into Custody at St Anne Street Police Station – humiliated, scared and deeply traumatised.  John, of course, had no prior experience of being in Police Custody, or being incarcerated in a cell and he became so distressed that he tore at the cast on his arm causing sufficient damage to it that he had at one point to be returned to the hospital under Police escort for the cast to be reapplied.

The following day John was interviewed in the presence of a Solicitor and then charged with assaulting PC Price in the execution of his duty contrary to Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996.  He was then released on bail with the terrifying prospect of a criminal conviction hanging over his head to compound his physical injuries and mental distress.

Once again, I will remind my readers that PCs Hughes and Price had been sent to check on John’s welfare.  They had found him fit and well, if a little disgruntled, but otherwise safe at home – and had left him with a broken arm and a significant aggravation of his mental anxieties. Surely this was the twisted reverse of what the Police were supposed to be doing that day?

Magistrates Court proceedings – Exoneration

PC Hughes and PC Price then produced statements in support of the criminal prosecution of John.  In their statements the officers falsely stated that John had become ‘aggressive’ and then intentionally injured PC Price by driving his shoulder into PC Price’s chest in what was described as a ‘rugby tackle’ manoeuvre.

This was simply not true.  John had indeed been upset by the Officers’ entry into his house and then their refusal to leave – but he was not aggressive and had not threatened violence towards either Officer and, in particular, had not assaulted PC Price. 

It was my opinion, when I reviewed the evidence, that the charge that John had assaulted PC Price had been manufactured by the Officers as a ‘smoke screen’ to deflect attention from PC Hughes’ own unjustified and unlawful assault upon John – which had resulted in the fracture of the young man’s arm in such terrifying circumstances.

On 27 November 2017, following trial at Sefton Magistrates Court, at which both PC Hughes and PC Price gave evidence, John was acquitted of assaulting PC Price.

He left the Court an innocent man – but would now face a 5-year battle to secure true justice in the face of every obstacle that Merseyside Police could throw at him.

Taking the fight to Merseyside Police

After his terrible injury, John required an operation which involved inserting a metal plate and pins into his left arm to fix the fracture. This left him with a long scar down his arm, which served as a constant reminder of what the Police had done to him, as well as persistent symptoms of stiffness and aching in his arm.

The extent of John’s injury can plainly be seen on the initial x-ray:

The extent of his scarring is shown below:

Injury caused by a Merseyside Police officer assault

With my assistance, John – in the aftermath of his not guilty verdict – raised a formal complaint with Merseyside Police Professional Standards Department.

After an internal investigation, Merseyside Professional Standards Department, in a result which starkly contrasts with that reached independently by both the Magistrates Court and later the County Court on the same questions of fact, resolved every dispute by favouring the account of PCs Hughes and Price over that of my client. In dismissing John’s complaint on all grounds the investigating officer DC Smith wrote as follows :-

• “Although the Complainant sustained a fractured shoulder, I cannot find any evidence he was assaulted unlawfully.  The accounts from the Officers and the Complainant when he was interviewed by the Police all support that the Police acted lawfully in restraining the Complainant so as to prevent him from causing further harm to himself.”

• “Considering the evidence and the accounts given, Constable Price believed he had been assaulted and that the arrest was lawful, therefore not constituting false imprisonment.”

• “I can find no evidence of the charging evidence being malicious.” 

Merseyside Police would later insist on this piece of self-marked homework i.e. their own investigation into themselves being included in the County Court “trial bundle” when they were fighting John’s subsequent compensation claim against them, no doubt hoping that it would help sway the opinion of the Court in their favour.

It was also notable that the Complaint Investigation failed to censure either officer for failing to activate their body cameras, despite their own account of John’s escalating aggression towards them. This is yet another example of how Police body recording should be mandatory in any conflict situation with the public – for the safety of all concerned and the capturing of criminal actions – whoever is committing them.

After the rejection of John’s complaint, I commenced County Court proceedings on his behalf against the Chief Constable, who would be deemed vicariously liable if John’s allegations against PCs Hughes and Price could be proved in court. I also obtained expert medical evidence proving that John had sustained an oblique/ spiral type fracture to his left humerus which was compatible with a twisting/ bending force being applied to his arm and that, as the fracture was ‘displaced’, this indicated that significant force had been applied.

In response, Merseyside Police argued that the fracture had been caused by John actively resisting PC Hughes’s ‘restraint technique’, as he was ‘taken down’ onto the couch.

County Court proceedings – Vindication

The Police threw all the resources which they could into fighting John’s court claim – filing a detailed Defence and requiring John to be assessed by their own Orthopaedic and Psychiatric experts – with the legal battle culminating in a five-day Trial before Judge and Jury at Liverpool County Court in the summer of 2022, during which John was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the Police barrister and PCs Hughes and Price both attended to give evidence against him.

I am pleased to confirm however, that the truth of my client’s account was recognised by the Jury whose responses to the questions which were put to them at the conclusion of the evidence and legal arguments were as follows –

Question 1

Has Mr Kennedy proved so that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes forcefully, violently and excessively extended and rotated Mr Kennedy’s arm so that it fractured?                    

ANSWER: Yes

Question 2

Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that that Mr Kennedy intentionally shoulder barged PC Price?                                                                                  

ANSWER: No

Question 3

Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes informed Mr Kennedy that he was under arrest for assaulting a police officer as soon as was practicable?      

ANSWER: No

Question 4

Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes informed Mr Kennedy that he was under arrest for assaulting PC Price at 14:50 hours?                               

ANSWER: No

Question 5

Have the police proved that it is more likely than not that PC Hughes believed it was necessary to arrest Mr Kennedy for the purpose of questioning or to prevent injury to himself or others?           

ANSWER:  No

On the basis of the Jurors’ findings the Judge ruled in favour of John in regard to all aspects of his claim i.e. the verdict of the Court was that John had not only been unlawfully assaulted and wrongfully arrested but that PC Hughes and PC Price had, with malicious intent, attempted to get an innocent man convicted of a criminal offence.

Following the conclusion of the Trial, which was intended to address liability issues only, leaving the assessment of damages open to a later date, Merseyside Police at long last opened settlement negotiations and I am pleased to confirm that in November 2022 the claim was settled by agreement for the payment of £50,000 damages to John, plus his legal costs. 

“My Constable Right OR Wrong”

I noted with interest the fact that during the Trial PC Hughes was invited by his barrister to address the Court as to what would happen if he (PC Hughes) was found to have ‘fabricated evidence’.

The officer’s response was that he would “be sacked and receive a prison sentence.”

I very much felt that this was the Officer deliberately playing up to the Judge and Jury in an attempt to elicit their sympathy – and that what he was saying did not reflect the reality of the handling of Police complaints which almost always seemed to be conducted with the aim and ethos of exonerating/excusing the Officer if at all possible.

It is this attitude of “My Constable right or wrong” – we might call it a form of twisted, internal Police Force Patriotism – which has led to very much that is wrong in the state and culture of Policing today and unfortunately my fear that it remains alive and unwell in Merseyside Police were confirmed when, after the conclusion of the Trial, I took up PC Hughes on his offer (as it were) and wrote to Merseyside Police Professional Standards urging them to re-open the complaint investigation. I pointed out that a Jury had found that PCs Hughes and Price had caused the malicious prosecution of an innocent man by means of false witness statements, compounded by their having twice endorsed those statements whilst under oath at Court.

In response, Merseyside Police remained entirely unrepentant, refusing to reopen the complaint and, indeed, proudly beating the drum for their Officers when the story about John’s case was broken by Jonathan Humphries of the Liverpool Echo with Deputy Chief Constable Ian Critchley choosing instead to praise both officers for their “incredible selfless work” in “saving someone’s life.”

I consider this yet another depressing example of a chronic problem; the wilful refusal of Police hierarchies to properly scrutinise and punish Police misconduct.

Courage and Perseverance

John’s case is an example of how courage, perseverance and hard work can culminate in the victory of one man against the resources and determination of an entire Police Force.

The officers who visited John’s house on the night of this incident were there to ensure his welfare only; he is a man of exceptional character, who had never been accused of any criminal offence. Yet the officers behaved towards him with disrespect and aggression, culminating in them shattering the sanctity and safety of John’s home by breaking his arm and then bringing false charges of assault against him.

John had to face the terrible stress of not only incarceration in a Police cell and an interview under criminal caution, for an offence for which he could have been sent to prison, but also two trials at which Merseyside Police marshalled the sworn testimony of multiple officers and the expert advocacy of lawyers in an attempt first to wrongly convict John (at the Magistrates Court) and then to strenuously delay and deny his legitimate claim for compensation (at the County Court). In between the two trials John also suffered the further slap in the face of Merseyside Police completely dismissing his complaint about these events – a decision which the verdict of the jury at Liverpool County Court last summer now reveals to have been entirely wrong.

In the face of all of this adversity however, John never gave up and justice has now been done. I hope his example will inspire others to hold the Police to account for such gross acts of abuse of power.

Regular readers of this blog will know that one of its most important themes is that with power comes responsibility and I make no apologies for frequently returning to that topic. Highlighting and holding to account those who deliberately, recklessly or incompetently misuse their special authority is one of the key underpinnings in maintaining a fair society which has properly accountable institutions. 

Today’s subject, on that theme, concerns the reckless misuse of those powers that are granted to Police Officers to ‘break’ the normal rules of the road in an emergency response situation.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 exempt emergency vehicles from:-

• Observing speed limits
• Observing Keep Left/Right signs
• Complying with traffic lights (including pedestrian crossings)

However the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Road Policing cautions Police drivers as follows:-

“The law as defined in statute by the Road Traffic Act 1988, prohibits dangerous and careless driving.  This applies to Police Officers as well as the public.  Police Officers must exhibit the care and skill of a competent and careful driver, the standard by which an Officer’s driving is judged”.

And furthermore:-

“Even where a statutory exemption exists, an Officer must always give due regard to their driving manner and behaviour which should not put other road users or members of the public at risk which cannot be justified”.

Furthermore, Police drivers receive training based on “Roadcraft: The Police Driver’s Handbook” – considered to be the “bible” of best practice in emergency driving, and this handbook contains the following key guidance-

• “Most drivers seeing or hearing the warning of an approaching emergency vehicle will try to give way to you but the use of warning equipment does not give you the protection or right of way. You may take advantage if other road users and pedestrians give way to you – but only if it is safe to do so.”

And-

• “Police drivers can use statutory exemptions from speed limits but you must be able to stop safely within the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road. During an emergency response, never compromise safety in order to save time. It is far better to arrive later than not at all.”

And-

• “When you pass red signals, you should treat them as a STOP and/or GIVE WAY signs. Do not proceed until you are sure that the way is clear, that no other road user will be endangered and that no other driver will be forced to change speed or course to avoid a collision.”

Circumstances of the accident

On an evening in September 2020 a telephone call was received by West Mercia Police highlighting concern for an individual’s safety.  The caller requested that a welfare check be carried out as the woman in question had threatened to take her own life. 

The incident was deemed to require a ‘Grade 1 emergency response’ and two officers, including PC Edward Wood, were dispatched to deal with the matter in a marked Police car displaying blue lights. PC Wood was driving. 

The Police car being driven by PC Wood proceeding at high speed along the A38 and entered the A38/Birmingham Road junction against a red traffic light signal and there collided with a Chevrolet motor car which was at the time making a right-hand turn from the A38 towards Birmingham Road, with the benefit of a green traffic light signal.

The collision was so forceful that the driver of the vehicle containing my client later stated that he felt “very lucky to be alive” as his car was spun around and knocked onto its side by the force of the collision.

My clients, who I will call Joseph and Rebecca for the purposes of this blog post, were passengers in the Chevrolet – which was upended by the force of the impact and rolled up to three times before coming to a halt, balanced on its side.  Both of my clients, along with their friend who was driving the car and who had to later be cut loose by the fire brigade, had the terrifying experience of ‘coming round’ trapped and injured in an upended vehicle. Joseph, in particular, was bleeding heavily from a deep laceration to his head but managed to extricate himself from the wreck. Ambulance staff were quickly on hand.

My clients have both acknowledged that they feel extremely fortunate to have been able to ‘walk away’ from such a devasting accident; sentiments I am sure you will agree with when you see the following photographs of the crash scene-

Both Joseph and Rebecca have, however, suffered psychological trauma in addition to their physical injuries – particularly being haunted by the thought of how close they came to losing their friends, or their own lives, that night; and that is not so easy to walk away from.

Retrieval and analysis of telematics

The Police car involved in this incident was fitted with two telematics devices (a Siemens IDR unit and an Artemis unit). 

The telematics data proved incontrovertibly that PC Wood was driving his motor car at a speed of 69mph on approach to the junction. The speed limit at the junction where the collision occurred was only 40mph. 

The Police car was still travelling at 69mph only 11-13 meters from the point of impact, or 0.4 seconds prior to the collision.  Typical ‘stopping distances’ at a speed of 70mph – per the Highway Code – are 96 meters, with a thinking distance of 21 meters.

Subsequent Police investigations based on the available mechanical data indicated that the impact speed of the Police vehicle was likely to have been in the region of 66mph. No wonder it caused such catastrophic damage, and we can only be thankful that this did not result in loss of life for any of the five people in the two vehicles.  

As the IOPC (Independent Office of Police Conduct) investigation into this accident later stressed:-

“Emergency Response drivers are responsible in law for their actions.  The statutory exemptions do not afford such drivers any protection against compromising safety and the objective test of driving standards would be considered against that of a competent and careful driver as set out by statute.”

The Duty of Care of Emergency Drivers

Police training does not give Emergency Response Officers ‘carte blanche’ to drive through a junction against a red traffic light at whatever speed they see fit – a Police driver is supposed to treat the junction as a give way and be aware of other vehicles which may not have fully appreciated his direction of travel or speed of approach.

Police driver’s Roadcraft training injuncts them to continually risk assess the situation and adopt a speed of approach that will enable them to stop, if necessary, particularly when proceeding through traffic lights. The duties of good observation and the ability to stop are paramount. As the handbook directs – “Your speed should allow you time to stop should an oncoming vehicle suddenly present itself in your vehicle’s path.”

The use of warning equipment i.e. emergency lights and sirens does not give Police drivers automatic ‘right of way’. The lights and sirens are a request for other drivers to give way to the emergency vehicle, and one which most drivers will comply with if they are aware of it, but activating emergency lights does not empower Police Officers to drive as if they were in an ‘action movie’ nor does it negate the ordinary rules of the road in terms of responsibility towards other vehicles.

Sadly, PC Wood failed to obey these precepts and a terrible collision occurred as a result.

I am now pursuing a claim for compensation on behalf of Rebecca and Joseph, and full liability for PC Wood’s negligence has been admitted by West Mercia Police.

Officers responding to an emergency call must avoid driving in such a reckless way that they not only fail to arrive at the emergency but also create a separate, life-threatening emergency in the process.

Please contact me for advice if you have been injured in a collision with a Police vehicle on an emergency response.

My clients’ names have been changed in this blog.

Update

I am pleased to confirm that, upon presentation of full details of their injuries and losses, West Mercia Police agreed out-of-court settlements of £24,000 for Joseph and £19,000 for Rebecca plus their legal costs.

I thought I would begin this year’s blog posts with a reminder, drawn from a Judgment handed down recently at Bradford County Court in favour of my client Syed Ahmed, about how the requirement for an arrest to satisfy the statutory ‘necessity’ criteria as well as grounds of reasonable suspicion of an offence, is such an important safeguard of our civil liberties.

The facts in this case were as follows:

My client Mr Ahmed brought a claim against West Yorkshire Police for false imprisonment, trespass to the person (i.e. assault and battery) and trespass to goods arising out of his arrest and detention on 26 September 2018.  There was little dispute between the parties at the Trial of this matter as to the facts of the incident.

In summary, Mr Ahmed was driving home through Bradford when he was pulled over by a Police vehicle being driven by PC Boyle.

After my client had pulled over as directed by the Officer, PC Boyle approached and ordered Mr Ahmed to get out of his own car and to sit in the Police car.  When Mr Ahmed questioned why this was necessary PC Boyle put his arm through the car window and attempted, but failed, to pull the keys from the ignition. 

PC Boyle continued to demand that Mr Ahmed left the car – threatening to arrest him for obstructing Police if he failed to do so.  Mr Ahmed continued to refuse to leave his vehicle, questioning the Officer as to what lawful power he was relying upon.   PC Boyle replied that he was acting under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act.

Mr Ahmed provided his driving licence to PC Boyle on request, but continued to refuse to exit the vehicle or give the Officer his keys, as he did not think this was necessary and he did not believe the Officer’s request in this regard to be a lawful one. 

At this point PC Boyle then opened Mr Ahmed’s car door and placed a handcuff upon him.  These interactions were all recorded on Mr Ahmed’s mobile phone, as follows:

Other Officers arrived at the scene following PC Boyle’s request for ‘backup’ and PC Boyle informed Mr Ahmed that he was now under arrest on suspicion of obstructing a Police Officer.  My client protested the legitimacy of this and asked PC Boyle how he was defining ‘obstruction’ given that he had stopped when requested and provided his driving licence.  He also expressed concern that in trying to remove the car key from the ignition PC Boyle had damaged the car. 

Police Officers now forcibly removed Mr Ahmed from his car and applied the second handcuff and placed him in the rear of the Police vehicle.  My client complained of pain to his back and arms.

PC Boyle then checked Mr Ahmed’s details and then informed him that he was de-arrested and that a Summons would now be issued in relation to the manner of Mr Ahmed’s driving.  The Officer stated he had originally intended to simply inform Mr Ahmed that he was speeding, but because of his attitude he was now giving him a ticket. 

Mr Ahmed’s period of detention was fortunately fairly short – approximately 10 minutes.  However on return to his own vehicle, my client could not get his car to re-start as the ignition was not working.  He called his cousin, a vehicle mechanic who was close by and able to attend and assist in getting the car started; Mr Ahmed subsequently established that the ignition barrel required replacing and he believed that this was due to damage caused by PC Boyle’s actions as described above.

Mr Ahmed was subsequently summonsed to Court for careless driving in March 2019.  He pleaded not guilty to this offence and the matter was discontinued prior to going to Trial. 

With my assistance, Mr Ahmed instituted County Court proceedings against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police for false imprisonment (i.e. wrongful arrest) arguing that his arrest was not based on an honest and/or reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and furthermore that PC Boyle had not in any event given proper consideration as to whether such an arrest was necessary in the circumstances.  Our argument was that even if an objectively reasonable suspicion existed in PC Boyle’s mind that he was being obstructed in the execution of his duty by Mr Ahmed (in the context of Mr Ahmed’s refusal to exit his car) the decision to arrest him was in the circumstances not a proportionate and lawful exercise of the Officer’s power. 

Necessity for Arrest

The relevant test is set out in Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. 

Specifically, Section 24 (4) PACE requires that an arresting Officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to effect the arrest.  The reasons for which an arrest may be necessary are exhaustively listed at Section 24 (5). 

Furthermore, PACE Code G requires all Officers using the power of arrest to first consider if their objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means.

In particular:-

• The Officer is required to examine and justify the reason or reasons why a person needs to be taken into Custody at a Police Station.

• In considering the individual circumstances, the Officer must take into account the situation of the victim, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the suspect and the needs of the investigative process. 

The most commonly relied upon of the necessity criteria is that given at S.24(5)(e) PACE which is – “to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question”.

Examples of what this would mean in practice are provided at Code G (para 2.9) as follows:-

• It is thought unlikely that the person would attend at the Police Station voluntarily to be interviewed;

• The person has made false statements and/or presented false evidence;

• The person may have the opportunity to steal or destroy evidence;

• The person may have the opportunity to make contact with co-suspects or conspirators;

• It is believed the person may intimidate, threaten or otherwise make contact with witnesses.

The Trial

The Trial of Mr Ahmed’s claim took place between 17-20 October 2022.

After hearing all of the witness evidence and legal argument, the Jurors ruled in favour of the Police on the question as to whether PC Boyle ‘honestly believed’ that Mr Ahmed was obstructing him in carrying out road traffic checks and that PC Boyle honestly believed it was reasonably necessary to handcuff Mr Ahmed, prior to his arrest, to prevent Mr Ahmed from either assaulting him or driving away.  The Jurors did however reject the Police assertion that Mr Ahmed had unlawfully assaulted PC Boyle by grabbing his body armour. 

The Jury’s decision on those points was not the end of this matter, however.  The Jurors role in civil claims is to make determinations on questions of fact – in this case whether or not an assault had taken place and whether or not PC Boyle honestly (i.e subjectively) believed it was necessary to handcuff and/or arrest my client. 

It was now for the Judge to address the legal (rather than factual) question as to whether, regardless of PC Boyle’s own subjective belief, his actions against Mr Ahmed were objectively reasonable and necessary. 

The Judge did conclude that it was objectively reasonable for PC Boyle to form the view that Mr Ahmed had obstructed him in the execution of his duties. 

However, the Judge was now required to turn her mind as to whether the arrest was objectively necessary.  The great importance of the ‘necessity criteria’ as a safeguard to civil liberty was reflected in the comments which the Judge, Ms Recorder Davies made at paragraph 63 of her Judgment –

In applying this test, I take account of the fact that necessity is more than simply ‘desirable’ or ‘convenient’ or ‘reasonable’. It is a high bar to tighten the accountability of a police officer. Whilst I have been told, and accept, that PC Boyle is an operationally experienced officer, to uphold the necessary safeguards to protect the Claimant’s liberty, his decision requires careful scrutiny.

In addressing this question the Judge cogently noted the following important points of evidence:-

• The Claimant was in his vehicle with the door open, filming the exchange on his mobile phone, and his keys were no longer in the ignition.

• The Claimant offered PC Boyle his driving licence and then handed it over to him and invited him to check it. 

• The road where the incident took place was a relatively narrow dead-end street and the likelihood of the Claimant escaping (given that he would have had to performed a 3 point turn to facilitate such a ‘getaway’) was low.

• PC Boyle escalated the situation and failed to ask the Claimant any of the Road Traffic Act questions. 

The Judge went on to conclude –

73. Immediately prior to the arrest PC Boyle had the licence which was all that he needed to perform his checks. PC Boyle said that he would not run the checks until he had the Claimant’s keys. However, I find there was no legal power to require this, nor any other objective justification for his position. The Claimant declined to hand over his keys but I find he was entitled to do so. He continued to dispute whether PC Boyle had a “criminal suspicion” on him and whether PC Boyle was entitled to open his car door.

76. It is right that the Claimant remained vocal until his arrest. However, when analysing the nature of the Claimant’s challenges to PC Boyle, he was urging the officer to carry out the necessary checks. He was engaging with the officer and proffered his driving licence without being asked. He had complied with the request made to pull onto Prince Royd Road the only request he was challenging was the requirement to leave his vehicle or hand his keys over. These are both powers which the Divisional Court makes clear an officer does not have without a further ground for suspicion that an offence had been committed. In this instance, PC Boyle arrested the Claimant as he had a suspicion that he was obstructing a police officer but the obstruction according to PC Boyle was that he was failing to permit him to carry out the necessary checks. This is circuitous reasoning. The Claimant had caused his vehicle to stop for a reasonable period of time by the point of the arrest, to enable the checks to be carried out. Therefore, applying the objective test, it was not reasonable for a decision maker, in the position of PC Boyle, to have reached the view that the Claimant was potentially going to cause physical injury or damage to property. Therefore, although PC Boyle initially had a discretion to arrest the Claimant, I reach the view that it was simply not necessary.

As a result of this finding, the arrest was not objectively reasonable and Mr Ahmed succeeded fully in his claim for unlawful arrest/false imprisonment, receiving compensatory damages and legal costs.

Recorder Davies further found that it was not objectively reasonable for PC Boyle to hold the belief that the Claimant was going to drive away, hence was not reasonable to apply handcuffs to him, nor to subsequently pull the Claimant’s handcuffed arm on two occasions – the Jury having already found that no assault occurred to PC Boyle – and hence Mr Ahmed’s claim for damages for assault and battery was also successful.

The purpose of the Judge’s objective review of Police actions, particularly here with regard to the necessity grounds for arrest, is to protect the public and safeguard liberty. Recorder Davies discharged her duties diligently in that regard, and I trust that PC Boyle and his colleagues will learn a salutary lesson from this about the lawful limits of their power.

In fact, I would say that learning that lesson is an absolute necessity.

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!

As the end of another year rapidly approaches, I think we are all naturally inclined to pause – as much as we can amidst our busy lives – to reflect on the personal and professional journeys we have undertaken over the last 12 months.  I would therefore like to use this week’s blog to take a look back at some of the most notable cases in which I have been involved this year and to reflect on what they meant to me and to my clients.

Shining A Spotlight on Unlawful Stop & Search

Because ‘stop and search’ is a lower-level power than an actual arrest, it is liable to be more frequently used, and hence abused. It is a power designed to keep our streets safe, but at the same time it can, if wrongly used, be a cause of fear and danger in itself, and I am pleased to have been able to win justice for many people this year against whom this power was misused or lazily invoked. Such Police misuse of stop-and-search powers is particularly a problem when coupled with racial profiling –  for when Police carry out unjustified searches of young, ethnic minority males they are fuelling a vicious circle of distrust between such young men and the Police, which is entirely counter- productive to fighting crime. One of the most satisfying results which I achieved in this area was covered in my blog of 27/05/22 – in which I described how I won an apology and compensation from the Met Police for their unlawful search and handcuffing of a mixed race child – my client “Daniel”, who was aged only13 when this mistreatment occurred.

I was equally proud to achieve justice for my client Zac Sharif-Ali, whose story was covered in the Guardian newspaper in August. Zac, a young black man, fought a decade long legal battle against the Met after he was viciously assaulted by PC Duncan Bullock whilst out walking his dog in a public park. The Met were made to pay Zak damages of £30,000 but showed little true reflection or remorse upon their officer’s actions and offered only the most lukewarm of apologies.

Let us hope that Police leadership’s admission of the problem of racism in policing (see the joint statement of the National Police Chief’s Council and the College of Policing in the 2022 Police Race Action Plan) is not merely ‘public relations’ lip-service, but a true commitment to deep-seated cultural change.

Safeguarding Children from Arrest

In the case of ST v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police – in May of this year, the High Court sent an important message about the principal of safeguarding children from arrest except in cases of the utmost necessity, a principle which I was able to uphold on behalf of my 14 year old client “Harry”, as highlighted in my blog of 30/09/22.

Harry had been arrested on suspicion of a sexual offence against another teenager. As discussed in my blog, whilst the offence in question was a very serious one, there was no danger of immediate or continuing harm to the alleged victim, given the lapse of several months since the event was said to have occurred and this matter could and should have proceeded by way of a voluntary interview, thereby preserving Harry’s dignity and minimising the huge amount distress and anxiety caused to him and his parents.  Furthermore, had the Police actually carried out full and proper enquiries with the alleged victim first, this matter could have been dealt with without Harry being subject to any Police interview at all, let alone arrest and detention, as the investigating officer herself concluded “there was no imbalance of power or threats…the CPS would not criminalise children for this.”

I trust that the Police Forces involved will take the lessons of these cases to heart and learn how to better protect the welfare of children in the future, especially to avoid their  ‘adultification’ by unnecessary arrest.

Pressuring the Police To Improve Standards

Certainly not all cases which I handle arise out of active Police malice or aggression; many, sadly are caused by sloppy mistakes, or what we might call ‘schoolboy errors’ if their consequences weren’t so serious, such as-

• Lax investigations leading to legitimate vehicles being mistaken for clones and their owners subjected to midnight arrests or violent ‘stinger’ ambushes;
• Another wrongful arrest arising from a Court summons being sent to the wrong address;
• A data error leading to bailiffs pursuing an innocent person;
• British Transport Police informing the Disclosure & Barring Service that my client had a Reprimand (Youth Caution) for the making of ‘an indecent photograph on a child’, when in fact all he had on his record was a Reprimand for a minor criminal damage offence, committed when he was 15.

By bringing claims in relation to such gross errors, together my clients and I can hold the Police to account for misuse of their powers and encourage them to reform their practices and focus on the necessary staff training and attention to detail which will help to prevent future incidents of people having their lives turned upside down by something as ‘simple’ as a typo…  

Questioning the Integrity of the Police Complaint System

In June of this year, I followed up on the story of my client Bryan Allden (for whom I won damages of £358,000 after a brutal Police baton attack) by reporting how the officer who attacked Bryan, PC Paul Knowles,  had finally – though only indirectly – been served his just desserts and expelled from West Midlands Police, after he committed a data breach could have jeopardised a murder trial. The fact is, however, that the Police complaint system had already failed my client and the public by allowing Knowles to remain a Police officer after his 2015 assault against Bryan – despite the IPCC (forerunner of today’s Independent Office of Police Conduct) having found that Knowles had a case to answer for misconduct (and observing that the Officer’s overhead, downward baton strike upon Bryan could easily have caused fatal injuries). In fact, PC Knowles had ultimately received only the half-hearted sanction of ‘Management Action’ in the form of being sent on a First Aid refresher course for what he did to Bryan. This is a classic example of how too many Police Officers get too many second chances, as a result of a habitually toothless complaints and misconduct regime, enabled by a ‘watchdog’ in the form of the IOPC which is all too often a ‘poodle.  

As Baroness Louise Casey stated in October of this year, at the time of publication of her interim report into the Met’s failing misconduct procedures – “There are moments when I have looked at the cases with people I’ve listened to and I have wondered what exactly would constitute gross misconduct in order to get them out of the force”.

Breaking the Police Code of Silence

In June , I highlighted the continuing problem of the  “Police Code of Silence” which is a counterpart to the prejudiced Police complaints process and is the reason why, after my client Ben Joynes was headbutted in broad daylight by PC Mark Knights of Derbyshire Constabulary, in the presence or vicinity of no less than 5 other officers, it took Anti- corruption campaigner Rob Warner of Crimebodge to initiate a criminal prosecution of PC Knights – with no help from either the Police or CPS.

Having successfully settled Ben’s claim for damages for a substantial sum of money, I felt compelled to make the point that this case wasn’t just about the actions of one rogue Officer but rather the complicity through inaction of all the other Derbyshire Officers who witnessed what PC Knights did to Ben, but who then failed to intervene whether to assist my client, to arrest PC Knights himself or even to report PC Knights’ conduct to their Professional Standards Department. None of the five other Police Officers who were present at the scene of this incident took any action against PC Knights at the time, nor subsequently reported his conduct, and the two of those officers who attended the Magistrates Court Trial refused to be drawn into criticism of their colleague.  As I wrote in my blog, Ben’s faith in the rule of law and trust in the Police was severely shaken by PC Knights’ brutal treatment of him, and this of course impacted him in a psychological way that was worse than his physical injuries. This psychological impact could have been averted if other Officers had come to Ben’s assistance and the handcuffs that day had ended up around PC Knights’ wrists, rather than Ben’s.

As my blog of 11/11/22 also demonstrated, this is a very prevalent problem which is unlikely to be banished overnight – Whilst PC Neville Bridgewood, was found guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court of assaulting my client, the disturbing fact is that there were four other Police Officers present – all of whom apparently ‘looked the other way’ and couldn’t recall important details about the incident. Throughout the Trial these officers seemed as reluctant as PC Knight’s erstwhile colleagues to comment as to the lawfulness of the use of force by their fellow officer. On an even more sinister note, the judge concluded that PC Bridgewood had tried to make sure that his colleague’s body camera footage was not before the Court (by Bridgewood effectively asking his colleague to destroy the footage). 

What is most concerning is that Bridgewood apparently thought he would get away with this frankly criminal request.

Victims, lawyers and journalists must continue to make noise, until this code of silence is broken.

Pushing Back against Authoritarian Tendencies

A number of significant cases which I brought against multiple Police Forces in relation to abuse of their powers during the initial Coronavirus lockdown of 2020 came to a head this year, including that which I covered in my blog of 05/08/22 – £30,000 damages awarded to my client Desmond Acquah, a black British army veteran. 

“What am I supposed to do, fly to my bedroom after work?” was Desmond’s memorable retort to Hampshire Officers as they wrongfully assaulted and imprisoned him when he was trying to make his way homeafter a night-shift on the railways.

As I commented in my blog, it is true that the Police had suddenly been required to regulate an emergency ‘curfew’ under the auspices of hastily, and in some respects inadequately, drafted legislation – but those very factors should have led Officers to proceed with care and caution in order to ensure that they did not exceed the limits of their powers. Sadly, all too many officers appear to have relished exercising their new ‘lockdown’ muscles, rushing in where angels feared to tread and overlooking the purpose of the legislation, which was not about unnecessarily criminalising normal activities, but simply about keeping people safe.

Officers aggressively demanding the personal details of law-abiding citizens – as they did with Desmond – is an infringement of democratic values and a step towards an authoritarian ‘papers please’ state. Many Police Officers seem to be of a mindset which draws them towards such overreach of power, and it takes brave people like Desmond to stand up to them and teach them a lesson – through the proper use, rather than abuse, of the law.

Desmond’s case was also a prime example of another disappointing and perplexing tendency in Police misconduct claims: the decision of the Chief Constable to refuse Desmond’s offer to settle for a significantly lower sum of damages, if that payment was accompanied by an apology. However, rather than saying sorry for this abuse of power – and attempted criminalisation of a heroic key worker – the Chief Constable was prepared to put public money where her mouth should have been.

Sorry That the Police Can’t Say Sorry

Such a Police refusal to apologise – or, what is perhaps worse, their disingenuous dressing up of an excuse in the thinnest veneer of apology – is a very common theme of the ‘emotional’ response which Police Forces often show to Claimants, displaying the bruised and rather aggressive pride of institutions with egos.

As one of my clients, Brett Chamberlain, succinctly commented at the conclusion of his successful claim against Devon and Cornwall Police – “Funny how they’re not too fussed about dishing out £5K but a letter of apology is just too much to ask…there is little to no chance of reforming the Police when they can’t even admit their mistakes in a relatively trivial case.  That’s why guys like you do a great job of holding them to account…”. 

The Police could make things so much easier for themselves and everyone else, by issuing early, forthright and genuine apologies.

Assisting Victims of Sexual Violence and Misconduct

In my blog of 11/02/22 I explained how I helped a victim of rape to sue the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service for damages of £40,000 after both of those organisations were complicit in the negligent release of my client’s home address to the very man who had raped her. A severe and shocking case from which the Police Force concerned and the CPS have hopefully both learned important lessons. There is no sensitive data which needs more carefully protecting than the personal information of victims of sexual violence who have put their trust in our law enforcement institutions.

Sadly, many women who consult me having suffered sexual abuse are victims of Police Officers themselves. One such was my client “Laura” a domestic violence victim for whom I was able to recover damages of £10,000 after she was sexually harassed by the Suffolk Police Officer appointed to deal with her case.

It does seem that barely a week has gone by this year without multiple news stories about Police Officers charged with sexual offences – usually the targeting of vulnerable women, often domestic violence victims, whom the Officer has come into contact with and who he marks as ‘easy prey’ for his own sexual gratification.  This form of abuse of power is frankly endemic in our Police Forces and all too many women who call 999 risk inviting emergencies into their lives in the form of abusive/exploitative Officers – wolves in sheepdog’s clothing.

Educating people about their rights

I hope that my blogs throughout the year have also helped to educate people about their civil rights, and encourage them to seek legal advice if they think those rights have been infringed.

This year I have written about how to sue the Police if you are detained under Section 136 of the MHA, or if as a victim of Police brutality you are subsequently convicted of a crime committed around the same time, and are faced with a Police denial of liability under Section 329 of the CJA.

Other essays have highlighted how the Police may not in fact have the right to enter your house under Sections 17 or 18 of PACE which they claim to have when they force their way in through your front door…

Of course, every case turns on its own particular circumstances; and my blogs are illustrative of matters which might lead you to seek formal legal advice; they do not of course constitute exhaustive advice in themselves on all aspects of such issues.

Protesting Against Police Abuse of Strip-Search Powers

Another sadly common form of Police abuse of power, and an issue about which I feel extremely strongly is that which was the subject of my blog of 02/02/22 regarding my client Yvonne Farrell, who was interviewed by BBC Newsnight.

The Police have powers to strip-search detainees on ‘welfare grounds’ in order to identify/ remove items with which they might harm themselves or others. All too often, however, Custody staff use this particularly degrading and humiliating act of battery as a ‘punishment’ designed to pressure a person to provide their personal details, or to silence their (often highly legitimate) complaints .  In my opinion it is a low level form of torture, cynically and brutally enforced to break a person’s spirit – and many of my clients, who are quite properly indignant because they know they have been wrongfully arrested, are further victimised by this practice.

Thankfully, justice can be won – as it was for Yvonne and many others for whom I have acted.

And Upholding  “An Englishman’s Home Is His Castle”

The principle enshrined in that saying ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’ is in my opinion one of the foundational tenets of British justice and liberty – the right of a person in the privacy of their own home to be safe from unreasonable interference and intrusion by the State, whether ancient or modern. I am frequently called upon to uphold that principle by seeking restitution for clients who have suffered what can frankly be called ‘home invasions’ by Police Officers; and two of the most notable examples of this type of case on which I reported in 2022 involved Englishwomen defending their castle…

In February I discussed the case of my valiant client Hannah Currie who suffered a brutal attack upon her home when a gang of officers forced entry at multiple locations and used force against her, including threatening Hannah with a taser whilst she was holding her baby son in her arms all on the basis of bogus ‘welfare’ concerns. West Mercia Police subsequently admitted liability for trespass to land, wrongful arrest and assault and battery against Hannah and agreed to pay her £20,000 damages.

In October, Nottinghamshire Police paid £40,000 for the invasion of my client Sharon’s home. In this case, the Police took the side of a bailiff in a minor civil debt dispute. The lead officer, Sergeant Flint shouted at Sharon “Give me your keys or I’ll spray you” – before he and his colleague forced her to lie on her front on her living room floor, prised her house keys from her terrified grip and handcuffed her. All of this apparently so that PS Flint could then invite the bailiff to – “Come on in and help yourself to whatever”.

Sharon’s case was also yet another stark example of our dysfunctional Police complaints system. Investigated for gross misconduct arising from these events, Sergeant Flint was actually twice dismissed from the Force – and twice reinstated, ultimately being allowed back into uniform by the Police Appeals Tribunal and sanctioned only with a ‘final written warning’.  This ineffectual process lasted for some four years, further traumatising Sharon who had to attend multiple misconduct hearings, during which she was subject to cross-examination that made her feel like she was the one who was on Trial and pulling her from emotional pillar to post. 

Yet further, at no stage did Nottinghamshire Police offer any apology to Sharon, notwithstanding the fact that by the end of the process the Force themselves apparently wanted to see the Officer sacked…

Out With the Old, and In With The New

“You have to come to the conclusion there must be hundreds of people that shouldn’t be here, who should be thrown out.  There must be hundreds who are behaving disgracefully, undermining our integrity and need ejecting”

– Sir Mark Rowley, Met Police Commissioner, October 2022. 

In the fight for justice against Police misconduct I am one player in a bigger team which includes other lawyers – including my brilliant colleague John Hagan –  journalists, medical experts, judges and jurors and – most importantly of all – those brave members of the public who are the victims of Police violence and abuse of power and who are nevertheless prepared to go round after round against the Police until they achieve the ‘knockout’ blow.

It is the courage and determination of my clients which I would most like to highlight and salute at this time of year.  It goes without saying that none of my work would be possible without the trust, bravery and determination of these men and women and it is a pleasure for me to work with you all to hold the Police to account and help thereby to maintain the health of our liberal, civil democracy and the British principles of liberty of the person and fair play which are at the heart of it. 

The battle will continue next year – but am I being optimistic when I sense that there may finally be winds of change blowing through our Policing institutions?

There has never been a time when Police misconduct issues have been more in the spotlight nor higher in public awareness than they are now – which is as a result of a number of shocking scandals and tragedies, combined with the modern prevalence of video recording technology and the admirable work of civil rights journalists and professional bloggers, amongst whose numbers I am proud to place myself.

Our Country’s previous ‘top cop’ Cressida Dick claimed that rogue and criminal Officers in the Met were just a few ‘bad apples’ and presided over a stagnant culture of racism, authoritarianism and toxic masculinity with a misconduct and complaints system so inefficient and pro-Police that it was an active part of the problem, rather than being anything close to a solution. 

Now however, the new Commissioner of the Met – Sir Mark Rowley appears to have a much more realistic and honest attitude about the state of health of the biggest Police Force in England and Wales to such an extent that I recently commented – In this season of Christmas Carols, I find the #Met Police chief singing from the same hymn sheet as me: “The Met is harbouring hundreds of racists, misogynists and convicted criminals who cannot be fired due to weak misconduct procedures.”

Of course, it is the year to come which will begin to show us whether Sir Mark is paying more than merely lip service to these problems.

Furthermore, regardless of the best intentions of Police brass, it remains the case that there are structural political problems which impact on Police integrity, quality and performance – as highlighted this week by a former occupant of Sir Mark’s hot-seat, Lord Hogan- Howe, who during a House of Lords debate warned that the current Tory administrations reversal of previous Tory cuts to Police manpower risked letting the wrong people in the door through the ‘inevitable’ poor vetting and lowering of standards which rapid recruitment surges were likely to cause/ encourage.

Reform of Policing culture recruitment, training, supervision and misconduct practices are long overdue, and must begin with giving us Professional Standards departments which will zealously and impartially investigate civilian complaints against Police officers, rather than being fronts for the Police Federation.  Perhaps the current coterie of Chief Constables, in response to public outcry and justified outrage are going to finally start Policing the Police and genuinely aim to deliver the 21^st Century Police Force which we all deserve.

Regardless as to whether they do, I will certainly do my part to bring that about – as I know that thousands of you will as well.

Happy New Year to you all.

The case of my client Tariq Stanley deservedly attracted a lot of media attention in its aftermath, the facts being quite stark and shocking. As reported by The Guardian this week, Tariq, an insurance underwriter, was minding his own business in his BMW car, parked outside his flat in London in April 2020, when Metropolitan Police Officers approached him for a drugs search, announcing that they could “smell cannabis”. No cannabis was ever found but Tariq, despite co-operating with the search, was needlessly manhandled and handcuffed by the gang of officers whose use of force caused Tariq to suffer a significant soft-tissue injury to his left wrist, as they unnecessarily forced his hands behind his back, and for which he later required hospital treatment.

To add insult to injury, the officers then arrested Tariq for purportedly “obstructing a drugs search” – although the reality was that he had done no more than verbally protest about the gratuitous use of handcuffs, despite his compliance. As a black man, Tariq felt understandably targeted by the officers because of his race, given the absence of any other reasonable explanation for their behaviour. As Tariq told the Guardian-

“It is still my belief that they saw me and their first instincts were negative racial thoughts rather than neutrality and that’s the mindset they need to get rid of if they want to move forward.”

Feeling that he was being abducted, Tariq was taken by the officers to Plumstead Police Station where he was detained overnight for a period of over 9 hours – spending the majority of the time locked in a cell, apart from a visit to hospital, where it was necessary for his wrist to be x-rayed, such was the severity of the injury the Police had inflicted upon him.

During his time in custody, Tariq suffered considerable mental trauma: he had a panic attack and was forced to undergo a strip-search. All of this, just like the initial handcuffing, was completely unnecessary, the evidential review officer concluding a few hours later that there was no evidence that Tariq had obstructed the search at all.

Tariq should never have been searched, should never have been handcuffed and should certainly never have been arrested. As a result of what the Police did to him, he was left with a hand so badly injured he had to wear a splint upon it for 8 weeks. Far worse, however, were the far- reaching mental effects which this horrible experience had upon Tariq. He lost his self- confidence and became unusually fearful ; he sold his ‘dream’ BMW because of the bad memories of the event which seeing it brought back.

Tariq felt humiliated and degraded by what the Police had done to him, dragged down into a pit of stereotypes by their brutal actions. Without any thought, they had changed his place in the world overnight and it would take a long time for him to overcome his anxieties and regain his self- confidence.

What Justice In the Police Complaint Process?

At an early stage in Tariq’s case the mighty IOPC (Independent Office of Police Conduct) washed their hands of this matter – as they do with the vast majority of complaints – and delegated the complaint investigation to the Met’s own Professional Standards Directorate.

The subsequent Professional Standards investigation purported to find that–

• there was NO evidence that Tariq was a victim of racial profiling
• there was NO evidence that he was searched unlawfully
• the force used by the officers upon Tariq was entirely lawful and, indeed, “demonstrated restraint and control by the officers”
• Tariq’s arrest was entirely lawful
• appropriate medical care was provided whilst Tariq was in custody.

In other words, the complaint was comprehensively rejected on ALL grounds and as far as those officers tasked with the crucial responsibility of ensuring the professional health of the Metropolitan Police and guarding against abuse of power were concerned, all was well with the world and what had happened to Tariq could presumably happen to him again – and he would have no grounds for complaint.

I have long made clear my view of the ‘whitewashing’ ethos which predominates in the complaint handling culture of all of our Police Forces, and the Met is certainly no exception to this.

It is a sad truth that the Professional Standards departments of our Policing institutions have through actions which speak far louder than words, consistently demonstrated themselves to be ‘on the side’ of the officers under investigation rather than the public who are complaining of misconduct. What a very different attitude the Police take in response to a complaint about one of their own, as opposed to a complaint of criminal behaviour against a citizen. It is almost as if the Professional Standards units of our Police Forces are little more than branch- offices of the Police Federation: Union reps whose job it is to cheer-lead and protect their ‘members.’

Tariq’s case is yet another example of how broken the Police complaint system is, and the proof of that is in the outcome which I have been able to achieve for him through the far-more impartial institution of our Courts.

In response to Court proceedings, and notwithstanding the apparently ‘robust’ conclusions of their PSD, the Met have now agreed to settle Tariq’s claim on the following terms-

• Compensatory damages in the sum of £22,500;
• Payment of legal costs; AND
• A written apology from a senior officer at the Met to Tariq, addressing the unlawfulness of their officers’ conduct against him.

It is that apology which means far more to Tariq than the monetary compensation, and hopefully it will go a long way to enabling him to obtain closure over these events and fully move on with his life; but it begs the question, what did the PSD officers fail to see that the Met now apparently fears a Jury will see?

Why was the apology which Tariq undoubtedly deserves, not offered to him in response to his complaint, at the earlier, unforced stage when it would have meant far more and gone a long way to mitigating Tariq’s suffering and sense of injustice?

Is the time approaching when we will have to take the task of investigating Police complaints entirely out of the hands of the Police themselves, because comrades simply can’t be trusted to police comrades?

In the meantime, if you have been let down by the Police complaints system, please contact me for expert assessment, advice, and assistance.

The responsibilities of frontline Policing of our communities do not, of course, only encompass reports of crime and misdemeanour – they also involve the Police responding to welfare concerns, often in relation to mental health issues, that have been raised by a person’s family or friends.  Sadly, on all too many occasions during my decades of practice in claims against the Police, I have come across cases in which the Police treat welfare concerns as if they were reports of a crime and default to their ‘arrest’ playbook – behaving towards the individual whom they are there to help, and whose interests should absolutely be paramount in the situation, with the same level of aggression and violence as if that person was suspected of a criminal offence.

A stark example of this was the treatment which my client Mark underwent at the hands of the Metropolitan Police in 2019. 

Mark has since his childhood, suffered from a mental health condition called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which, amongst other things, causes him to suffer severe anxiety and distress if he perceives that his personal/home environment is contaminated.  Mark also suffers from chronic back pain.

As at the Spring of 2019, Mark was living at his parent’s home address, in London.

Late one evening, Mark was home alone and was in his bed reading, prior to going to sleep.  He heard a knock at the front door and the doorbell rang.  Mark got up to investigate.  Given the late hour, Mark was dressed only in a t-shirt, boxer shorts and fabric slippers.

To his alarm, Mark then heard the front door open. Mark assumed that someone was breaking in and saw three to four uninformed Police Officers standing in the downstairs hallway.  Mark remained at the top of the staircase, in view of the officers.

The Officers informed Mark that they wanted to come in and have a ‘chat’ with him to see if he was all right. It is now known that the officers had been called by a relative of Mark, who stated that she was concerned for his health. There was absolutely no suggestion that any criminal offence had been committed, however, and when the Police arrived Mark was evidently fit and well (and simply disturbed by them in the act of going to bed).

Mark became very anxious and distressed and advised the Officers to leave. The Officers refused to do so. The Officers asked Mark to come downstairs several times.  Mark refused and repeatedly requested that the Officers leave. One of the officers stated that they had entered the house under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE 1984) because they thought that Mark was injured. Mark assured them that he was fine, and repeated his instructions for them to leave, explaining that their presence in the house was aggravating his OCD.

After about three minutes of conversation, PC Naylor, who was standing at the bottom of the stairs, unholstered his taser and asked Mark if he knew what the weapon was, and then threatened to use it against him. This caused Mark even greater distress and anxiety and he again begged the officers to leave him alone.  In response to Mark’s direct question as to whether the taser was going to be used against him, the officer replied “Possibly.” 

Mark now came a few steps down the stairs, and the officer aimed his taser directly at Mark.  

Mark also explained that he had a spinal condition and that he feared for his life if he was tasered. He continued to ask the officers to leave and made it clear that they were causing him great anxiety by their presence and aggravating his OCD. He asked them to put the taser away.

Mark also asked if he was being “detained”; the officers were initially evasive but then told him that he was not being detained and was free to leave. In response, Mark told them that he was going to get dressed and leave the house.

Mark made it clear that he did not want or need any medical treatment. The officers questioned Mark as to whether he had a knife and he repeatedly assured them that he did not and pointed out that they could see that his hands were empty and that he was in his underwear.

Suddenly, after approximately 20 minutes of conversation, PC Naylor without any warning charged up the stairs and grabbed Mark by his left leg and attempted to pull him down the stairs.  Mark grabbed hold of the banisters and begged the officers not to drag him down the stairs, explaining that they would aggravate his back condition.  PC Naylor took hold of Mark’s left arm and continued to try and pull him down the stairs.  As Mark gripped the banister, PC McAndrews took hold of his left arm and PC Naylor wrapped an arm around Mark’s chest. During this struggle, Mark felt what he believes was PC Naylor’s boot scraping against the side of his lower right leg, and in particular his shin.

The officers then force-marched Mark downstairs holding his arms, and into the lounge.  As they did so, PC Naylor bragged that his dangerous use of force upon Mark had been “effective”.

Mark again challenged the Officers as to the reason for their entry and exercise of their powers to detain. 

In the lounge, PC Naylor applied handcuffs to Mark’s wrists in the “front stack” position.

Mark’s family members then entered the house.  It transpired that it was Mark’s sibling who had called the Police due to concerns for Mark’s well-being and who had facilitated the Officers’ entry.

The Officers explained to Mark that an ambulance had been called and effectively kept him as a handcuffed prisoner in his own home until it arrived.

Paramedics then attended.  Mark refused to go with them in the ambulance explaining that he could self-manage his condition of OCD and did not need or want any medication.  Mark asked for the handcuffs to be removed which they eventually were, after approximately 2 hours.

Subsequently, two Mental Health Nurses attended the house. 

Mark made it clear that he would not go to hospital voluntarily.  Mark was allowed to dress, and the Police officers then escorted him to an ambulance outside.

Mark was then taken by the paramedics and two Police Officers to Hospital.

At the hospital, both Officers and one of the paramedics remained with Mark until a cubicle was available. Mark and the Officers advised that there would be a significant waiting period before he could be assessed.  The Officers asked the nurse if they could leave.  The nurse asked if Mark was a threat.  One Officer replied that Mark was not.  On that basis, the Officers left, and Mark was advised that he would be monitored by security.

Mark visited the toilet on several occasions and given that he appeared to be free to do as he wished, left the hospital and then got a train and a bus home, physically and mentally injured by this wholly unnecessary episode.

Unlawful Detention, Unlawful Force 

After I was instructed by Mark, I took steps to obtain the Police body camera footage of the incident, which I analysed and which confirmed my suspicions that this was a classic overreach of Police powers, in a scenario where the Officers responded to a ‘welfare check’ with the same aggressive demeanour and early resort to violence that they would if they were responding to a report of crime.

Whilst the Officers may have had a power to enter the house under Section 17 of PACE (in the interests of potentially “saving life or limb”) once they had done so, and had ascertained that Mark was alive and well, they should have left. Instead, they sought to assert their authority over Mark, bombarding him with questions and instructions and treating him as if he were either a criminal or an involuntary mental health patient, despite lacking any lawful authority to do so. The plain fact of the matter is that they were from that point on, unlawful intruders in Mark’s home and it is understandable how incensed he became at their total disregard for his rights.

The Police power to detain, without a Court warrant, individuals who appear to be suffering from a mental disorder did not apply here – not only because Mark was not suffering from such a disorder, but also because of the plainly obvious fact that the Police cannot exercise this power in a private residence (Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983). The officers carried on regardless of this fact, shamefully subjecting Mark to handcuffing in his own home and treating him like a prisoner to be handed over to ambulance staff. To my mind, however, the most shocking part of the whole incident was the narrowly averted tragedy I witnessed on close analysis of the video evidence – an officer grabbing Mark’s leg from below, when Mark was standing at the top of the stairs. Afterwards, the officer’s attitude was to brag about his ‘effective’ tactic, rather than to reflect on the catastrophic, if not in fact fatal, injuries he could have inflicted on Mark by potentially causing him to fall down the stairs.

The Police vigorously contested Mark’s claim, but by commencing Court proceedings against the Met Commissioner, I brought them to the negotiating table, and I am pleased to confirm that Mark’s claim has recently been settled for a significant damages award plus legal costs.

Situations like this are going to continue, however, until the Police learn that mental health concerns are not crimes, and that they do not have jurisdiction over the minds and bodies of everyone subject to such concerns, especially not in the privacy of their own homes and when the only anger the person is displaying is born out of this Police intrusion into their lives.

All names have been changed.

During this time of year, the delivery of post and parcels is at the forefront of many people’s minds…but none can have such a sting in the tail as an incorrectly addressed Court summons, which brings the very opposite of Christmas cheer to its non- recipient.

On the 9 November 2021, my client Daniel was arrested by the Metropolitan Police for driving a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed drug drive limit. He was conveyed to Wandsworth Custody Suite where he was processed.

Daniel clearly confirmed his address as “Flat 1”at an apartment block in Wimbledon, London. He was then released under investigation.

It appears that a decision was subsequently made to prosecute Daniel and a postal requisition was drawn up requiring his attendance at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on 28 February 2022. However, the requisition was incorrectly addressed to my client at Flat 4 of the apartment building.

According to the witness statement of PC Martin dated 13 February 2022, this requisition was hand-delivered to Flat 4 on 13 February 2022.

Naturally, Daniel did not receive the postal requisition and therefore did not attend Court on 28 February 2022, remaining blissfully, and innocently, ignorant of the same. However, owing to his failure to attend, a Warrant was then issued for Daniel’s arrest.

At around 2.00 am on 1 March 2022, officers attended my client’s home address and, to his shock, arrested him in respect of this Warrant.

Daniel was again conveyed to Wandsworth Custody Suite before later being transported to Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court. At Court, it was established that the address on the postal requisition was incorrect, and the Court accepted that Daniel had never received the requisition. In the circumstances, a new hearing date was fixed, and my client was released.

As a result of this elementary administrative error, Daniel had been wrongfully arrested and deprived of his liberty for a total period of approximately 10 hours.

He instructed me to pursue a claim for wrongful arrest on his behalf against the Met and I am pleased to report that I have recently concluded the same for a damages payment of £5,000 plus legal costs.

I trust that the Met will learn the necessary lessons from this case: what might be a minor ‘typo’ in the hands of somebody else, can in the hands of the Police become the instrument of a person losing their liberty and Court time and resources being vastly wasted. Absolute attention to detail is required when people’s liberty is at stake.

Thankfully, Daniel will now be receiving something far more pleasant in the post…

The name of my client has been changed.

I have recently settled claims on behalf of a client whom I will identify by the name of “David” who suffered wrongful arrest on no less than three occasions in a space of three weeks owing to mistakes made and the monitoring of his electronic tag by the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) – indeed, the very same basic error repeated on three occasions.

As I highlighted in a blog in September 2021, the day-to-day monitoring of electronic tags (EMS) is something which has been out-sourced to the private company Capita, who were reported in a 2016 review by the University of Leeds, to be working on a ‘call centre model’ with staff who are generally lacking in probation, social work or other criminal justice sector training or experience. Reflect on that as you read David’s story…

The Electronic Mistake Service

In June 2021 David appeared before Liverpool Crown Court and was convicted of several offences.  In addition to a suspended custodial sentence, David was also sentenced to an electronically monitored curfew requiring him to stay at home daily from 1600h to 0800h for three months.

On the 15th and again on the 16th July 2021, David fell into breach of the curfew, for a total time of approximately 15 minutes.  These breaches should have been reported to the Probation Service as breaches of David’s sentence, with the Probation Service then to determine the appropriate level of response.  However, EMS erroneously reported these breaches directly to Merseyside Police as breaches of court bail causing police officers to attend David’s home on 18th July and arrest him for “breach of bail”.

David was conveyed to his local Custody Suite, notwithstanding the fact that he was suffering from an illness and vomited in the police car, and on reaching the Custody Suite was searched and had his fingerprints taken.

Unfortunately, David suffers from a number of mental health issues, specifically depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, and his prolonged detention in the police station (amounting to almost 22 hours) exacerbated these conditions.

David was also a carer for his disabled mother, and his detention caused them both distress as he was unable to attend to her.

After being held in a police cell overnight David was transferred to Wirral Magistrates’ Court where it was established that he was not in breach of any bail conditions and furthermore that the Probation Service had not requested David’s arrest for breaching his sentence.

He was therefore released from Court after some 26 hours of false imprisonment.

Repeat offenders

Unfortunately, the very same set of events reoccurred a mere two weeks later. 

On 31st July 2021 David again fell into breach of the curfew, for a total of approximately 19 minutes.  Once again, EMS erroneously reported this breach to Merseyside Police as if it were a breach of bail, causing officers to be sent to David’s home on 2nd August, where they arrested him for breach of bail. Once again he was taken to his local Police Station where he went through the entire custodial process as set out above – although this time he was much more swiftly transferred to the Magistrates’ Court, where once again it was determined that he was not in breach of any bail conditions and that the Probation  Service had not requested his arrest and hence he was immediately released, after some 4 hours of unlawful detention.

Third time’s the charm?

This was still not the end of the sorry saga, however. On 6th August 2021 David again fell into breach of the curfew, which once again EMS reported to Merseyside Police as a breach of bail rather than reporting to the Probation Service as a breach of David’s sentence.

Therefore, officers from Merseyside Police were again tasked to attend David’s home and did so on 9 August arresting him for breach of bail, again taking him into Custody where he was processed and detained for over 4 hours. Thankfully on this occasion however, David’s criminal defence solicitor was able to save everybody the time and money that would have been wasted in detaining David overnight to appear before Court the following day – by drawing the Custody staffs’ attention to the fact that that David was not subject to a curfew due to bail conditions, but rather due to a sentence and therefore that the information EMS had given to Merseyside Police was, once again, fundamentally inaccurate.

In total, across these three events David had suffered some 34 hours 24 minutes of false imprisonment and all because of a ‘schoolboy’ error which EMS (Capita) kept repeating.

Whilst it is accepted that on each of these occasions David was genuinely in breach of his curfew – albeit to a relatively minor degree – the fact is that those serving a criminal sentence are not second-class citizens but are often extremely vulnerable individuals who deserve the equal protection of our laws if their rights are infringed.  The villain of this piece is not David but rather EMS who through negligent record keeping and/or administration wrongfully caused David to be incarcerated in distressing circumstances on three separate occasions and wasted significant amounts of police and court time in doing so.

It almost beggars belief that EMS did not learn their lesson after the first such error, but instead went on to repeat it on two further occasions in such a short period of time.

I am pleased to report that I have recently recovered damages for David from EMS for each of these wrongful arrests, totalling £14,000 plus legal costs.

Perhaps that will make EMS think twice about their standards of staff training and management and supervision of offenders – or should we say thrice?

Read more about this case in the case report: Man unlawfully detained for breach of curfew receives compensation payout from CAPITA

Today’s blog post explains how I was able to help a young black man achieve justice against Avon and Somerset Police, despite not being instructed until over 5 years after the incident in question.

My client, whom I will identify as Edward for the purposes of this blog, had originally instructed other solicitors who abandoned his claim when it became too ‘difficult’, after Avon and Somerset denied liability.

I assessed the available evidence – including some short but crucial mobile phone footage of the incident which had been filmed by Edward and his partner Samantha – and confirmed that I was happy to pursue Edward’s case on a Conditional Fee (no win, no fee) basis, despite the fact that by the time he instructed me, we were fast approaching the 6^th anniversary of the incident, which is the cut off point for bringing a civil claim in respect of wrongful arrest in England or Wales.  I was able to make this apparently risky commitment to Edward’s case because of my decades of experience in assessing the evidence and merits of such claims and the confidence I have which comes from my equally long track record of success.

Had Edward waited another 6 months before instructing me then his right to pursue the claim at all would have been irrevocably lost.  What follows is the story of what happened to Edward and how he and I were able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and win his claim against Avon and Somerset Police for a substantial award of damages. 

Serve, Respect, Protect?

“Serve, respect, protect” is the slogan of Avon and Somerset Police, but during the encounter between two of their Officers and Edward on a day in May 2013, Edward was to be on the receiving end of treatment which was the exact opposite of those self- proclaimed virtues. 

On the day in question, Edward was driving his Renault Clio motor car through Bristol.  He was driving safely and within the speed limit and his pregnant partner Samantha was with him in the car. 

At around 7.00pm a marked police vehicle passed Edward’s car, headed in the opposite direction. The vehicle executed a sudden u-turn and then followed Edward’s car, before turning on its emergency vehicle lights.

When Edward saw this, he pulled in on the left-hand side of the road. The police vehicle pulled up behind.

Edward turned off his lights and wound down the driver’s side window.

A uniformed officer, PC Talbot, approached and spoke to Edward.

PC Talbot asked if Edward was the owner of the car, which Edward confirmed he was. PC Talbot then asked Edward to show him the dashboard lights (which Edward had bought from Halfords). Edward complied with this request.

PC Talbot then said that he did not believe the side lights were legal. Edward believed they were, as they were already fitted to the car when he bought it (from a dealership). PC Talbot asked him to turn them back on and after a mild protest, Edward duly did so.

Whilst Edward was speaking to PC Talbot, another officer, PC Brooks, approached the car and carried out a tint check on the side windows. Upon carrying out the check, PC Brooks told Edward that the windows were below the legal limit. Again, Edward explained that the tinted windows were already fitted to the car when he bought it from a dealership and therefore he had believed them to be legal.

As far as Edward was concerned, the two officers appeared to be looking for a bureaucratic excuse to hassle him and exert their own power.

PC Talbot now asked Edward for identification; Edward explained that he had left his wallet at home, but would be willing to produce his licence at a police station within 7 days.

PC Talbot then stated – out of the blue – that he was going to “seize” Edward’s vehicle. He reached into the car and removed the keys without Edward’s permission and walked away.

Edward was understandably frustrated by PC Talbot’s overbearing actions, but he did not swear or otherwise become physically or verbally aggressive. He simply got out of the car and turned on the video recording function on his phone. What followed next was (briefly) caught on camera – until PC Brooks used force to snatch the phone from Edward and end the recording.

Standing beside his car, Edward began recording PC Brooks. He then approached PC Brooks in a non-threatening manner, speaking in a calm tone of voice and stating that he was with an officer. He first pointed at PC Brooks’s badge number and then raised his phone to capture PC Brooks’s face. He did not ram or otherwise thrust the camera towards PC Brooks in doing so.

PC Brooks said to Edward “You don’t have my permission to film me.” Such permission was not in fact required, but PC Brooks nevertheless then grabbed Edward’s arm and attempted to take the phone from him, giving no warning or explanation to Edward of what he was trying to do.

PC Brooks accused Edward of “ramming the phone” into his face, which Edward denied. Edward maintained hold of his phone and, in so doing, was moved by PC Brooks along the pavement.

At the same time, Samantha also started filming on her phone and exited the vehicle. In a state of shock, she asked what the officers were doing.

Edward attempted to hold onto his phone, quite correctly pointing out that it was his personal property and that he was not under arrest.

In response, PC Brooks stated “Well, you’re now under arrest”. Edward was forced into the nearside rear seat of the police car. PC Brooks announced that Edward was under arrest for “assaulting a police constable”.

Edward now attempted to pass his phone to Samantha; in response, PC Talbot pushed the pregnant woman away.

PC Brooks now roughly handcuffed Edward, causing two abrasions on his left wrist and a cut to his right thumb. Upon handcuffing him, PC Brooks pushed Edward back and said words to the effect of “Sit down you black cunt” and shut the door.

The officers then drove away with Edward imprisoned in their car, in a state of shock and disbelief at how he was being treated and how things had escalated.

On their arrival at the local Custody Suite, PC Brooks provided the arrest circumstances and suggested that Edward had attempted to bite him. Edward immediately disputed this. Rather, Edward pointed out to the Custody Sergeant that it was he who had been unlawfully assaulted by the officers and he rightfully complained about the disgraceful circumstances of his arrest. He showed the Custody Sergeant the injuries he had sustained to his hands. Nevertheless, and as is par for the course, the Sergeant preferred his colleagues’ account and authorised Edward’s incarceration in a cell, pending interview under caution. The Sergeant explained he would contact the duty inspector to deal with Edward’s complaint. Edward requested a duty solicitor and to see an independent medical examiner.

In due course, the duty Inspector did indeed come to hear Edward’s complaint about PC Brooks’s and PC Talbot’s conduct. Edward also showed the Inspector the video footage he had managed to capture before the officers started to manhandle him.

After several hours, Edward was seen by a Healthcare Practitioner who recorded his injuries.

Later, Edward was taken for interview under caution. He gave a full comment interview and an account of being assaulted by the officers. He denied the allegations being made by PC Talbot and PC Brooks and, indeed, offered to have his fingernails tested for PC Brooks’s DNA.

Nevertheless, in the early hours of the morning, Edward was then charged with three offences, namely that:

1.              He had assaulted PC Brooks in the execution of his duty.

2.              He had used a motor vehicle with windows which permitted insufficient transmission of light.

3.              He had used a motor vehicle which was fitted with a device resembling a blue warning beacon.

He was then released on unconditional bail and told to attend Bristol Magistrates Court.

On his first appearance at Court in July 2013, Edward entered a not guilty plea in relation to the charge of assault, whilst pleading guilty to the minor motor vehicle offences – for which his solicitors advised him he was technically liable – and the Magistrates imposed a penalty fine of £175.

The charge of assaulting a Police Officer continued to hang over Edward’s head for a further two months however, causing him all the stress and anxiety which any of us would feel facing such a serious criminal accusation, even though we knew we were innocent.

Almost needless to say, Edward’s own complaint had by this time (after a cursory investigation, lasting less than a month) been rejected on all counts by Avon & Somerset’s “Professional Standards” Department.

In September 2013, Edward attended Bristol Magistrates Court for trial. PC Brooks had made a written statement for the prosecution in which he variously accused Edward of-

1.       Having been generally aggressive, loud, shouting and abusive;

2.       Of attempting but failing to bite the Officer (presumably to explain why there were no bite marks to be seen – despite the officer having apparently felt Edward’s “lips and teeth on my arm”);

3.       Digging his fingernails into the officer’s thumb, causing it to bleed;

4.       Of being racist because the officers were white (it was alleged that Edward had called them “white skinhead racist cunts” whereas the officers denied calling Edward a “black cunt” as he had reported)

Perhaps the most incredible part of PC Brooks’s statement, however, was his assertion that he genuinely feared that Edward was about to attack him with a ‘stun gun’ disguised as a phone; the officer first describing that object as if he were a time-traveller from the Middle Ages – “a small black box in his hand, it had an apple symbol on the back case…” – before conceding it “had the appearance of an iphone.”

During the course of the hearing, the Magistrates were played the video footage that had been captured by Edward and Samantha on their phones, and shortly afterwards concluded that there was no case for Edward to answer and dismissed the charge against him.

Victory In The Civil Proceedings

A victory in the Magistrates Court – in which the prosecution has to prove its case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – certainly does not automatically equate to victory in a civil claim, where it is far easier for the Police to persuade the Court to prefer their version of events ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ Remember that Edward’s complaint had already been comprehensively rejected and the original solicitors he had instructed had dropped his case when the Police denied civil liability.

Following my review of the evidence and the denial of liability from Avon and Somerset’s legal department, I determined that Edward did have a winnable claim in respect of not only wrongful arrest but also malicious prosecution on the basis that the Officers had falsely accused Edward of assaulting them in order to cover up their own illegal actions towards him.  I also identified that Edward was out of time to bring a claim for personal injury (whether physical or psychological) because Court proceedings in respect of such a claim should have been issued within 3 years of the incident i.e. no later than May 2016, which was, sadly, long before I was instructed. 

However, Edward was still ‘in time’ to bring claims for loss of liberty and the distress, anxiety and damage to his reputation caused by the false criminal charge – as such claims can be brought within 6 years of the relevant events, irrespective of injury.

My advice to Edward was therefore that we should issue Court proceedings in respect of the wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution claims without further delay, and that was exactly what was done. 

I then gave Avon and Somerset Police an opportunity to settle Edward’s claim through negotiation out of Court, but unfortunately, they refused to take it – maintaining their denial of liability and standing 100% behind their Officers’ accounts of what had happened – and accordingly it was necessary to serve the Court proceedings upon the Chief Constable and proceed to full blown litigation. 

Avon and Somerset filed a Defence maintaining their denial of liability and continued to fight the litigation vigorously, such that Edward’s case was placed into a trial window of April – July 2023. 

However, I remained steadfast in my support of Edward’s case, whilst Edward showed great courage in being committed to taking his case all the way to Trial despite the risk of there being a substantial legal costs order made against him should he fail. 

In the end, both Edward and I were vindicated when Avon and Somerset finally cracked and agreed to settle Edward’s claim for damages in the sum of £10,000. Apparently, they did not have as much confidence in the truth of their Officers’ accounts as they had repeatedly asserted in first bringing the prosecution, then ‘white-washing’ Edward’s complaint, and then filing a robust and combative Defence to the civil proceedings – all at great public expense.

I will note here that Edward actually offered to settle his claim for considerably less money than £10,000 – if the payment of damages was to be accompanied by a formal, written apology from the Force; but Avon and Somerset declined that offer, preferring instead to pay my client more money simply so that they did not have to apologise him. 

Frankly, this shows how institutional Police pride seems more important to many senior Officers than the responsible management of public funds – but in any event, Edward and I both agree that the way to look at this outcome was that whether they meant it or not, Avon and Somerset Police have given Edward 10,000 apologies – and in my opinion, given the appalling treatment that he suffered at the hands of their Officers, who behaved with both mendacity, brutality and quite possibly racial prejudice towards him on the day of the incident and afterwards – no more than he deserved. 

If you have suffered from misconduct at the hands of arrogant, prejudiced or unscrupulous Officers– then turn to me for expert advice and assistance; or in other words – let me serve, respect and protect your civil rights.

 All names have been changed.

A few weeks ago, in the context of the recent Casey Report, I blogged about the pros and cons of bringing a police complaint (in addition to a compensation claim), the conclusion being that the British public simply does not have the effective and independent police complaint system that it deserves. 

I began that previous blog with a quotation from the ‘new broom’ at the Met – Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley –  who had concluded that there were hundreds of people in his Police Force guilty of such ‘disgraceful’ behaviour that they deserved ejecting from the profession – however, as the case study which I will present today amply demonstrates, the pro- police bias of the complaint investigation system is such that many officers who should be at risk of losing their jobs still only end up facing low-grade misconduct charges which cannot result in dismissal. Thus does the system ‘let them off the hook’.

Ehab El-Masry’s case

(For the purposes of this blog, as it involves an ongoing misconduct case, I have changed the names of all parties including my client and the Police officer).

The incident in question happened on Christmas Day 2021 when Ehab El-Masry’s brother returned home and showed Ehab El-Masry a badge which he had found in the street, and which appeared to be a Metropolitan Police Officer’s badge (i.e a Warrant Card).  Ehab’s brother, being a good citizen, then called the Police to report what he had found and to arrange for them to come and pick it up. Mr El-Masry thought no more about this.

Unbeknownst to Ehab, it appears that after his brother contacted the Police to report having found the officer’s badge, the Police became aggressively keen on immediately recovering it – notwithstanding that it was Christmas and Ehab’s brother was actually out visiting a friend and his family.

Mr El-Masry was home alone and half asleep when he heard knocking on the door at about 1am in the early hours of Boxing Day. 

He then opened his front door to be confronted by three uniformed Police Officers, two male and one female – one of the male Officers being PC Lynch .

The Officers questioned Ehab as to whether he was his brother and when he explained that he wasn’t, one of the Officers threateningly said “We’re not going to wait for your brother all night, he needs to turn up within the next five minutes or he’ll be in trouble.”

Ehab was taken aback by the attitude of the Officers – correctly asserting that his brother had done a good deed by finding the badge and calling the Police.   The Police were instead, bizarrely, acting as if his brother had stolen it.

By this point Mr El-Masry had phoned his brother, who confirmed that he had spoken earlier to the Police to report his finding of the badge, and he was surprised that they had now turned up at this time without notice.  However, his brother told Ehab that he would immediately get a taxi and return home.

A short while later, Ehab’s brother did indeed arrive home by taxi. He collected the Police badge from the house and returned outside, where the group of Officers confronted him – and one of them grabbed Ehab’s brother stating that he was now under detention for the purposes of a search.

Ehab was shocked by the Officer’s aggressive and totally unnecessary manhandling of his brother and sought to protest – especially in light of the fact that his brother had a pre-existing injury (he had recently fractured his foot). 

However, this only caused the Officers to turn their aggression upon Ehab as well and, almost unbelievably, this scene of two ‘good Samaritan’ brothers attempting to return a lost Warrant Card to the Police at Christmas, had now turned completely upside down – with the Officers using brutal force against Mr El-Masry and his brother as if they had been caught red-handed in the act of stealing, not attempting to return, the Warrant Card.

It was PC Lynch who attacked Ehab, my client, and fortunately body-worn video camera footage (BWV) uncontrovertibly demonstrates what happened next (despite the Officer’s attempt to frame his actions in very different terms afterwards) and that footage led the Professional Standards Unit of the MPS to reach the following findings –

• That PC Lynch performed an unreasonable and unnecessary, and in fact excessive, neck/head lock upon Ehab

• That Mr El-Masry was calm and not appearing to offer any level of aggression that could justify this

• That PC Lynch ’s suggestion that he believed that Ehab was trying to grab the warrant card and steal it, is contradicted by what is shown on the BWV

• That PC Lynch handcuffed Ehab El-Masry without any objective justification and even without any attempt to communicate with/explain his intentions to my client

• That the BWV footage clearly shows Ehab shouting several times that he could not breathe whilst he was being restrained on the floor, but that PC Lynch did not give any consideration to this and continued with the application of handcuffs

• That PC Lynch ’s suggestion that he was ‘monitoring’ my client’s breathing is not in any way supported by the footage and furthermore the Officer did not provide any reassurance to Ehab or even consider getting him up from the floor in order to reposition him, rather the Officer shouted at my client and pushed him down

• That even after my client was in handcuffs, PC Lynch kept him restrained on the floor without giving any explanation as to why or what was happening, nor any consideration to our client’s welfare – for a period of some 7 minutes

• That PC Lynch ’s actions were unnecessary and excessive, especially given the fact that the footage demonstrates that Ehab was not offering any resistance – and yet PC Lynch in his response to the complaint failed to accept that there was no resistance being offered to him and rather attempted to continue to justify his unlawful actions

• That PC Lynch demonstrated a total lack of care and respect in the way in which he spoke to Mr El-Masry throughout the entire interaction and his ultimate response to my client’s complaints about breathing difficulties and pain was at first disinterest and then a sarcastic dismissal. 

In Conclusion

Despite the seriousness of the above findings reached by the Complaint Investigator, PC Lynch was charged only with misconduct not gross misconduct, and hence whatever the outcome of the misconduct process, the officer is at no jeopardy of losing his job – for only a finding of gross misconduct can justify dismissal from the Force.

Ehab El-Masry is currently pursuing an appeal to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) against this failure by Professional Standards to categorise PC Lynch ’s behaviour as gross misconduct – both in terms of the officer’s actions at the time of the incident and also, notably, in his response to the complaint investigation. The available facts demonstrate multiple failings of character on the part of PC Lynch which render him unsuitable to hold the honourable office of Police Constable, including a lack of remorse for his unlawful actions, an apparently mendacious twisting of the facts in order to justify those actions, and an arrogant, brutal and bullying use of force towards my client who was detained without explanation and made the victim of potentially life-endangering acts of assault/battery – being taken in a neck strangle hold and then held down upon the ground and thereby being prevented from breathing normally.

In light of those undisputable facts, my client feels that it is only right and proper that the panel who ultimately decide PC Lynch’s punishment should have the option available to them, under a charge of gross misconduct, of dismissing this Officer from the Force on the grounds of multiple breaches of the standards of professional behaviour in terms of use of force; discreditable conduct; duties and responsibilities; authority respect and courtesy and (in regards to PC Lynch ’s response to the Complaint Investigation itself) honesty and integrity.

Whether the IOPC will agree with our submissions remains to be seen, but experiences like this demonstrate why all too many people are left feeling that there is no real justice in the Police complaint system, and I am caused to reflect upon Baroness Casey’s recent statement:

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

The dysfunctionality of the Police misconduct system is long-standing and multi-layered, and I feel it is the responsibility of those of us with direct knowledge of these problems to keep training the spotlight upon them, or else, frankly, nothing is going to change.

All names changed.

Update

I can report that although the IOPC did not uphold Ehab’s appeal, I am pleased to confirm that, after lengthy negotiations, the Metropolitan Police agreed to pay Ehab compensation of £15,180 plus legal fees – a settlement reflecting my client’s claim for wrongful arrest. You can read what happened here.

A Police Officer assaulting someone is bad enough; that same Officer asking his colleague to lose his body camera footage of the incident is sinister evidence of how many Officers still think they are above the law and, sadly, that is exactly what came to light in Birmingham Magistrates Court last week, at a Trial in which PC Neville Bridgewood was found guilty of assaulting my client. 

The fact of this case are as follows.

On 26 September 2021, at approximately 7am, my client was returning home from a night out.  He had been drinking.  He got on a bus, but on arrival at the bus depot he could not find the money to pay his fare.  A dispute occurred between my client and the bus driver which attracted the attention of officers at a nearby Police Station. No less than 6 Police officers boarded the bus, including PC Bridgewood.

Giving judgment at the trial, District Judge Wayne was heavily reliant on the body camera footage of the one officer (PC Elwell) who had uploaded/ preserved his video of the incident. The judge noted that despite the large number of officers present they were apparently unable to recall important details, but from the footage he noted-

• PC Bridgewood spoke in a derogatory manner to my client, and made no attempt to calm the situation;
• Police allegations that my client was behaving in an aggressive manner were not born out by the body-worn footage, and there were no grounds to arrest him;
• My client did produce a £5 note so as to pay his fare;
• My client then apologised to the bus driver;
• Notwithstanding this, PC Bridgewood, without provocation or lawful cause, pushed my client to the floor, shouting at him “Fuck off home…”.
• When my client asked the PC Bridgewood why he had done this to him, the officer replied “Because you’re a fucking arsehole.”

In giving his own evidence, PC Elwell admitted that after this incident he was approached by PC Bridgewood who, evidently mindful of the incriminating footage, said “Don’t get uploading that till after 30 days.” This was to all intents and purposes a request by Bridgewood that Elwell destroy the footage – because if body camera files are not ‘uploaded’ within 30 days, they are wiped over. However, Elwell had already uploaded the footage – to PC Bridgewood’s dismay.

There were 4 other Police Officers present (in addition to Elwell and Bridgewood) one of whose body worn camera apparently had an unknown fault, and all of whom apparently couldn’t recollect important details about the incident.  It appears that throughout the trial all of the other Police officers were highly reluctant to comment as to the lawfulness of the use of force by their colleague (in a way that they presumably would not have been had my client been the Defendant). 

In convicting PC Bridgewood, DJ Wayne found that the officer had lost his temper, resulting in an unlawful use of force – and that he had tried to make sure that the footage was not before the Court.

The case has now been adjourned for sentencing, whilst PC Bridgewood will also quite rightly face misconduct proceedings and I would expect him to be dismissed from the Force.  In my view the Officer’s most heinous act was not the momentary loss of temper/descent of red mist which caused him to push my client to the floor and injure him, but the utterly disreputable and equally criminal attempt by the Officer to destroy the footage of that crime afterwards and thereby pervert the course of justice. 

It is that sort of behaviour by Police Officers, rather than momentary loss of control or acts of aggression, which really destroys the faith that our communities have in those who are meant to police and protect them.

Evidently, some Officers still think that enforcing the law means being above the law.  Whilst it is true that PC Bridgewood did not get away with this offence, the apparently casual way in which he asked his colleague to (in effect) delete evidence of PC Bridgewood’s criminal behaviour is very concerning, because the obvious conclusion to draw is that PC Bridgewood assumed that his colleague would not bat an eyelid at complying with this request.  Had that footage indeed been destroyed then Bridgewood would almost certainly have walked free from Court – or, more likely, not even faced criminal charges in the first place. 

There is a legitimate question to be raised from this as to how many Officers, with the assistance of equally corrupt colleagues who want to ‘protect’ them, are getting away with this sort of sinister abuse of power. 

The Spirit of Justice is meant to be blind; but not because the body camera footage has been destroyed.

“You have to come to the conclusion there must be hundreds of people that shouldn’t be here, who should be thrown out. There must be hundreds who are behaving disgracefully, undermining our integrity and need ejecting.”

Sir Mark Rowley, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, October 2022

In the context of the recent damning Casey report regarding the state of health – or lack of it – of the Metropolitan Police’s complaints and misconduct system, and which occasioned the extremely frank comments of the Met Commissioner as cited above,  I am sure that one of the questions which I am frequently asked as a specialist in claims against the Police is at the forefront of many people’s minds – i.e whether or not a victim of Police violence, unlawful arrest or other form of misconduct should pursue a formal complaint…

Whereas a damages claim can entitle a person to significant financial compensation for the wrong which has been done to them, a professional standards complaint cannot result in a compensation award but can lead to the officer or officers involved being found guilty of professional misconduct – and possibly even dismissed from the Police service (although I would stress that later outcome is a rare event indeed).

This is not an ‘either/or’ decision, of course, as many people do bring both a claim and a complaint against the officer who has wronged them – but there are a number of significant pros and cons effecting these two overlapping processes of justice which mean that in each and every case careful consideration must be given to whether it is right for the aggrieved individual to ‘bother’ with a complaint or not.

I will here outline some of the key considerations which go into that decision making process and will start by highlighting that whilst a wide variety of limitation dates apply to claims against the Police (see my recent blog post on that subject) in regards to complaints the Police have discretion to refuse to investigate any complaint which is brought more than 12 months after the event complained about.

The Pros & Cons of bringing a police complaint

Pros

1. Bringing a complaint is a means of ‘speaking truth to power’; it is through the exercise of our civil rights that we maintain them.

2. It is the route through which a police officer might be disciplined and/or dismissed and/or criminally prosecuted – often something which the victim of Police abuse of power ultimately wants far more than financial compensation.

3. It places on record your experience, which will be reflected in complaint statistics, properly highlighting the state of health of our Police service and public opinion of the same.

4. Your complaint may prove to be one of many which will be placed on the officer’s record over time. Multiple complaints against an individual officer – whether upheld or not – flag up that officer for scrutiny by his superiors (not always acted upon, however) and can assist other victims of misconduct in proving their cases against that officer, if he is indeed a serial abuser of power.

5. Complaint investigations can provide important evidence to assist subsequent civil compensation claims (e.g. officers’ accounts in writing or indeed in interview under criminal caution, in response to the complaint) and ensure the early and extensive preservation of all available video material (including crucial CCTV and body camera footage).

6. The complaint process can provide a useful way to ‘sound out’ the merits of a potential civil claim, by requiring the Police to provide an upfront response in writing to the incident.

7. If the complaint is upheld this can increase the pressure on the Police to agree to an early settlement of a related civil claim – though that is not always guaranteed.

Cons

1. The practical results of pursuing a Police complaint are often very far removed from the high- minded theory. The Casey report highlights how one Metropolitan officer who faced 11 misconduct allegations (including sexual harassment, assault, fraud and distribution of an explicit image of himself) remains a serving member of the Force. Since 2013, 1,809 Met officers/ staff had been involved in more than one misconduct case, but a mere 13 had actually been dismissed (0.71%). Note that these statistics only relate to complaints made against officers by other members of the Met (or their families) – and therefore do not include the far greater number of complaints made by the general public. However, they certainly map onto my own experience of representing thousands of citizens in Police complaints over the last three decades.

2. The Police complaint system has a high degree of (I am sure quite deliberate) delay and opaqueness built into it. Complainants are largely excluded from the investigatory process after initial contact and there is never a definite time-frame within which the complaint investigation must be concluded; it can literally drag on for years, adding further insult to the initial injury and leaving people with legitimate complaints feeling frustrated, belittled and disregarded. By way of example, consider the experiences of my clients Zac (whose complaint process lasted 5 years) and Sharon (whose complaint process lasted 4 years). In both of those cases, despite multiple failings being identified on the part of the offending officers, neither officer was ultimately dismissed.

3. The police still investigate the police in the vast majority of complaints and the approach of most police investigators, in my long experience, is to look for reasons not to uphold the complaint.  Indeed, in my experience, complaint investigations often seem to be operations designed to shield the offending officer from criticism.

4. The fact that a complaint is being pursued can be, and very often is, used by the Police as an excuse not to respond to a person’s civil claim arising from the same incident – causing an eventual delay of months or even years to the resolution of that claim.

5. A decision to uphold a complaint is not binding on the police in respect of any subsequent civil claim (allowing them to continue to contest the claim if they see fit) but conversely  a decision not to uphold a complaint (though also not binding on a civil court) can impact negatively on settlement of a related civil claim, being used by the Police to attempt to adversely influence a Judge and/or Jury against the Claimant/ complainant.

6. Bringing a complaint will require you (and potentially any witnesses you may have) to put detailed accounts ‘on the record’ in the form of statements and/or answers to Police questions without having the opportunity to first consider crucial Police disclosure, such as body camera footage and officers’ statements, as would happen in a civil claim.

7. The much- vaunted Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is in my experience all too often a paper tiger either unable or unwilling to either take the lead in conducting complaint investigations or, when an appeal lands on their doorstep, to overturn the findings of a biased and inadequate local Police complaint investigation. Without a truly independent and robust watchdog, the whole Police complaint system is generally flabby, inadequate, and unfit for purpose.

In the circumstances, my advice to clients is often not to incur the delay and likely disappointment of a complaint but instead to focus on bringing a civil claim, being the method by which my clients can have the type of true control over the justice process which is denied to them in the complaints system (in which they are at best often treated as no more than one witness amongst many). My advice in this regard is based on real world practicalities – because we simply do not have the effective and independent complaint system that we deserve.

That advice is not universal however; in certain circumstances it can be tactically appropriate to bring a complaint in order to ‘flush out’ the Police explanation for their actions ahead of putting pen to paper in the letter of claim. I also, of course, respect those many individuals who feel it is their civic duty to bring a complaint irrespective of the low likelihood of a positive outcome, whilst in other circumstances the misconduct is so heinous and/or obvious that a complaint is likely to result in a satisfactory finding (I stress that such cases are rarer than you would think however because of the complaint process failings which I have listed above).

The decision is ultimately yours; I will treat each case as unique and give you the best of my knowledge and experience as tailored for your particular circumstances – but the 14 points as set out above are the framework for that discussion.

If you have suffered Police misconduct, please reflect upon them, consider what outcome you are looking to achieve, and get in touch with me to discuss further. I look forward to hearing from you.

The disturbing video below shows an incident which occurred around midday on 4 December 2016 when my client Shaun Kennelly, then aged 19 years, was mowed down by an unmarked Volvo police car, being driven by PC Copland of Nottinghamshire Police.

Shaun had been spotted by the Police whilst driving in a Rover motor car in a dangerous manner; PC Copland had pursued the Rover (with his blue lights and sirens activated) and then, when the Rover had broken down near a traffic island, Shaun had fled from the vehicle, running along the carriageway.

It can clearly be seen on the video that PC Copland chose to continue his pursuit of Shaun by driving his own car at high speed, and that pursuit came to an end when PC Copland not only drove into, but over Shaun’s body, as the teenager attempted to reach the kerb. Watch what happened here:

As you can see, the front off-side wheel of the Volvo caught Shaun’s lower leg causing him to fall to the ground, face down. The wheel then ran over his upper body, including his torso, right shoulder and right arm, then it ran over the right side of Shaun’s head and mounted the pavement before coming to a halt.

Shaun can only remember part of what immediately followed as the shock and force of a car been driven over his head had rendered him semi-conscious; he can, however, remember being dragged out by his legs from underneath the car by a police officer.

PC Copland appears to have given little or no consideration to the obvious risk that Shaun might have suffered spinal injuries which could be significantly worsened by his being quickly and roughly moved; instead, having dragged Shaun out from under the car, he almost immediately set to handcuffing the young man’s hands behind his back. Shaun was then propped up into a sitting position, against the wheel of the Volvo.

It is my opinion that, notwithstanding Shaun’s own reckless behaviour, and the offence of dangerous driving he had committed, PC Copland’s pursuit of Shaun in the car was more reckless and more dangerous, risking Shaun’s death by the manner of the pursuit. The officer then displayed an uncaring attitude towards Shaun – treating him as a ‘prisoner’ when he needed first to be treated as a patient, just having had a police car roll over not only his body, but also his head.

The Police are fully entitled to use reasonable force to apprehend those suspected of a crime, but if we were to look the other way when Officers use force that is unnecessary/ disproportionate to the circumstances, then the rule of law is endangered, and it is essential that we at least have a mechanism in our civil justice system to rectify and control such abuses of power by the Police – especially if the criminal justice system is not prepared to do so.

Shaun was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital for treatment. He was in pain all over his body, especially to his legs and was diagnosed with a fractured right kneecap, an injury to his left Achilles tendon, cuts to both hips, a bruised pelvis, a cut to his left ankle, as well as a haematoma and cuts and bruising to his right eye socket and a soft tissue injury to his left shoulder. Frankly, I think his injuries could have been far more severe. Shaun was placed in a full- length plaster cast to his right leg and sent back to Police custody to be interviewed.

It is telling that the hospital records indicate that when the Police brought Shaun in for treatment, they were telling the emergency doctors that Shaun’s injuries had been caused by him first hitting the bus; however, those same records record Shaun’s protests of the truth of the matter – that the Police car had simply run him down.

Shaun was subsequently convicted of dangerous driving and driving with no insurance. He was sentenced to 12 months in custody and disqualified for 2 years and 7 months.

Subsequently, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) reviewed the incident and recommended that it be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service; the CPS were sufficiently concerned by what they saw to cause PC Copland to be charged with dangerous driving, and the matter proceeded to trial on 9 January 2019.

However, the presiding judge at Leicester Crown Court, His Honour Judge Dean, accepted the officer’s submission that he had “no case to answer” halfway through the trial, and directed the jury to deliver a verdict of not guilty on the basis that “no jury, properly directed, could reach the conclusion that he [PC Copland] was guilty of the offence [Dangerous Driving]”

PC Copland denied any intention to deliberately collide with Shaun, stating that his intention was simply to get ahead of Shaun and “block” his path, and then get out of the car to detain him on foot; he claimed not to have heard, saw or felt any impact between his vehicle and Shaun’s body, and claimed to have thought that Shaun had collided with the back of the passing bus, and that he had then fallen to the ground as the officer’s vehicle “came alongside him”.  I would describe this as dramatically different from the images captured by the bus CCTV, but in any event the only sanction PC Copland was ever to face for this incident was the very minor disciplinary black mark of “management action.”

We should pause for thought here to note, once again, how important the video evidence produced by modern ‘surveillance society’ is to cases of this nature; if we didn’t have the bus camera CCTV – would anyone have believed the convicted criminal who said a Police officer had recklessly run him over, or would the Police account of Shaun colliding with the bus have been preferred?

Following the conclusion of the criminal process, Nottinghamshire Police decided that this was not a matter of ‘conduct’ but only rather ‘performance’ and that the only sanction PC Copland should face would be “management action in the form of a reflective discussion with the Chief Constable, which included reviewing the CCTV footage” (probably over some coffee and a biscuit, might I dare add?). The Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) did not challenge this, notwithstanding that the original investigation conducted into this incident by its predecessor organisation (the IPCC) had concluded both that PC Copland had a case to answer for gross misconduct and that he might have committed a criminal offence, by the manner of his driving.

Civil Proceedings under the Criminal Justice Act 2003

In cases such as this – injuries inflicted upon individuals subsequently convicted of a criminal offence – the Police do not only have the sympathy of the criminal courts, and the fact that the law has always permitted any reasonable use of force in effecting a suspect’s arrest, they also have the additional (and possibly inadvertent) protection afforded by another piece of legislation – namely the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Section 329 of the CJA 2003 prevents anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence from bringing a personal injury claim in respect of force used against them at the time of their arrest unless the force used was not merely unreasonable but in fact “grossly disproportionate”.

The Court can only grant permission for claims such as Shaun’s to be brought, therefore, where there is evidence of grossly disproportionate force or (even more rarely) evidence that the person using the force against did not honestly believe it was necessary.

Prior to 2003, the existing law as to use of force by Police officers affecting arrests was that set out in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides that “reasonable” force may be used. I am not the only lawyer to have observed that Parliament almost certainly did not intend for S.3 CJA and S.117 PACE to be ‘replaced’ by the higher bar of “any force that is not grossly disproportionate” when it came to Police officers exercising powers of detention/ arrest, but that was what in fact has occurred in practice.

The legislation in question arose from the famous 1999 case of Tony Martin, who had been convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter, for shooting dead a 16 year old burglar; Martin was subsequently unsuccessfully sued by the young man’s accomplice, whom he had also shot during the incident.  The premise behind the Criminal Justice Act was therefore to reassure the public that people defending themselves or their property from attack would have greater security against being sued by criminals in the event that they misjudged the force they should use in the heat of the moment. In effect, however, it is not private citizens who have time and time again called upon the protection of the CJA 2003 to frustrate claims for compensation arising from life-changing injuries inflicted upon individuals subsequently convicted of criminal offences, but rather the Chief Constables of England and Wales.  

This was recognised by the Court of Appeal in the leading case of Adorian v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 18, wherein, at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment, the Court noted that S.329 “…has nothing on the face of it to do with policing” and that it had seemingly been enacted by politicians who had in mind “…what one can call the Tony Martin situation – a sudden encounter with a crime…it gives the individual a defence of honest, even if unreasonable, belief in the need for his or her act; and it forfeits the defence only if the act was grossly disproportionate. There is nothing on the face of the section or in its shoulder-note which manifests an intention to afford the police a novel protection from claims by offenders for objectively unreasonable or unnecessarily violent arrests.”

However, the Court of Appeal noted, that in the years since the legislation came into force in January 2004, it had only ever been Police defendants who had relied upon this section, cautioning “The consequences should not go unnoticed” and rightly warning that we should not compromise “the principle painstakingly established in the course of two centuries and more, and fundamental to the civil rights enjoyed by the people of this country – that an arrest must be objectively justified and that no more force may be used in effecting it than is reasonably necessary… Conscious of art. IX of the Bill of Rights 1689, we say only that there is no indication that Parliament was aware, much less intended, that what it was enacting would have this effect.”

In the years since then, this defence designed to help the ordinary person who finds themselves in over his or her head in a frightening situation where danger has sought them out, has to my knowledge remained in practice the exclusive province of the Police professional who is actively seeking to arrest somebody – but seeks to avoid accountability for ‘going over the top’. The polite words and sentiments of the Court of Appeal, and invocation of the old ghosts of British liberty and civil rights, have not dissuaded Chief Constables from regularly relying on S.329 to prevent people in such circumstances bringing a claim – creating another hurdle which they need to clear as well as the fundamental one of establishing liability – the goalposts are moved further away; it is a deliberately uneven playing field – and that is exactly what the Police sought to do in Shaun’s case as well.

People who are convicted of a criminal offence are justly punished for that offence by the sentence they receive – and the social stigma which accompanies it; they should not in addition be rendered ‘second class citizens’ with less basic constitutional rights than other people, by means of the inadvertent effects of a statute which had as its primary focus an intention to protect ordinary citizens, rather than an intention to grant ‘immunity’ from civil claims to Police officers who use objectively unreasonable levels of force upon their detainees.

Despite the strenuous opposition of Nottinghamshire Police in this case, I was successful in obtaining permission for Shaun to bring his claim at a hearing at Nottingham County Court in December 2020, and thereafter the Chief Constable rapidly moved to settle the claim for a five figure damages sum. This settlement was reflective of the fact that Shaun had got off rather lightly in terms of the long term effects of his injuries, which could have been a lot worse – but also reflective of the fact that once the artificial barrier of S.329 had been removed the Chief Constable and his officer had no place to hide from the light of full court proceedings: this was without question a grossly disproportionate use of Police force, which could have ended a man’s life in slightly different circumstances.