In April 2016, my clients Edward and his brother were arrested for attempted murder. The night before, a man had been shot outside a local pub. A witness saw the offender fire a gun from a specific vehicle carrying two men. The vehicle was subsequently identified as being used by a Mr Thomas.
By the following evening, Avon and Somerset Police established that Mr Thomas was at a particular location in Bristol. Firearms Officers attended and were given direction by the Senior Investigating Officer from the remote ‘Operations Room’.
Officers forced entry and the occupants of the premises were “called out” to find Mr Thomas. Mr Thomas was soon identified and arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.
Mr Thomas’ arrest had been planned by the Senior Investigating Officer and detailed in a considered arrest strategy. No other males were identified within this strategy.
Following Mr Thomas’ arrest, Officers entered the address to search for the firearm used and any other evidence.
The house was connected to another (via an internal door) in which my clients lived. They were at home at this time. Drawn to the commotion, Edward considered that the actions of the Officers in seeking to search both premises was unlawful in the absence of a warrant and made representations to that effect to the Officers. In fact, unbeknownst to Edward the Officers could rely upon Sections 18 and 32 of PACE having just arrested Mr Thomas.
It was at this time that the Firearms Tactical Advisor in the Operations Room directed the Officers on site to arrest “any other males of a similar age group” to the prime suspect, Mr Thomas. It was on this basis that Edward and Simon were then also arrested.
The brothers were transported to custody where the Custody Sergeant recorded and authorised detention on the basis that both Edward and Simon fitted the “descriptions of the offenders”.
A second Senior Investigating Officer had only just come on duty (and in fairness stepped in to cover “at short notice and with the minimal of briefing”) and within minutes of his arrival in the Operations Room, “the room exploded into a frenzy of activity” with the forced entry and arrest of Mr Thomas and confusion as regards the layout of the premises.
Against this background the Firearms Tactical Advisor directed the arrest of Edward and Simon. But on what basis? The Firearms Tactical Advisor’s job is to act as a communications link between the Operations Room and the Operational Firearms Commander at the scene relaying information and command decisions. He is not in a position of command and the Firearms Tactical Advisor was quick to lay responsibility for the decision to arrest the brothers on the Senior Investigating Officer. The Senior Investigating Officer in turn could not recall giving any such command and neither officer made any record of the grounds and reasons for the decision to arrest. It was clear that no Officer could argue that he had a reasonable suspicion to suspect Edward and Simon of being involved in the shooting.
This failure didn’t, of course, stop the Senior Investigating Officer in a subsequent review trying to retrospectively justify arrest on the basis that Edward and Simon had been found in the company of Mr Thomas (albeit 16 hours after the shooting had occurred!).
It was therefore evident at an early stage that the arrest of Edward and Simon was unlawful, the arresting Officer not having reasonable suspicion to arrest.
After 16 or so hours, both men were interviewed. Both denied any knowledge or involvement. As their time in custody approached 24 hours, the Investigating Officers decided that they needed more time and so sought an extension. The brothers criminal defence solicitor, Peter Denton, argued that they should be released immediately. He argued quite rightly that there was “not a shred of evidence …… that could credibly raise a reasonable suspicion that they were involved in the offence”. Notwithstanding Mr Denton’s robust replies, the custody limit was extended by a Superintendent given the “multiple lines of enquiry”
Following negotiation, I was pleased to settle Edward and Simon’s claim for £24,000 and £19,000 respectively together with their legal fees.
Read more in this blog post: BAME: Rounding up the usual suspects
You must be logged in to post a comment.