In 2019, my client Edward was pulled over whilst driving and arrested on suspicion of motoring offences.
Edward was transported to a local Police Station and ‘booked in’ before the Custody Sergeant.
Edward was wearing trainers. The Custody Sergeant informed him that he could keep his trainers on whilst in the cell if he removed the laces. It was cold and Edward had no socks on; not wanting to have to go barefoot in the cell, he compliantly removed his laces and handed them over.
Edward was then escorted to a cell by two Detention Officers. When they reached the cell door, one of the Detention Officers told Edward to remove his trainers. Edward declined to do so, on the basis that he had no socks on and that the Custody Sergeant had been content with him removing his laces.
However, the Detention Officers continued to demand that Edward remove his shoes, without making any effort to explain why. Edward requested a pair of custody slippers as an alternative, but this was also refused by the Detention Officers, as was his request to speak to a senior officer about the issue.
The officers then resorted to force. They took hold of Edward’s arms and pushed him against the corridor wall before twisting his right arm up behind his back. While Edward was restrained in this painful position, one of the officers forcibly removed his trainers and he was then pushed barefoot into the cell.
There was absolutely no need for this violence or indeed the whole degrading act of removing Edward’s footwear. Edward felt upset, hurt, and humiliated.
Edward was released from custody the following day.
Prior to his release he made a complaint to the Duty Inspector regarding the assault that he had suffered from the Detention Officers and was informed that his complaint was to be forwarded to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Cleveland Police for investigation.
PSD duly investigated and after reviewing relevant Custody CCTV footage and considering the accounts of the two Detention Officers involved, dismissed Edward’s complaint in its entirety.
The PSD report (which was barely four pages long) sought to justify the confiscation of Edward’s trainers on the alleged basis that he could have used them as weapons or that they could have been picked apart to create material for use in self-harm. However, the report singularly failed to address the fact that the Custody Sergeant had directed that Edward could keep his trainers (if he removed the laces, which he did) and the report failed to provide any justification as to why it was suspected by the Detention Officers that Edward might use his pair of trainers to self-harm or to attempt to harm others.
Edward had not been resistant or violent to the officers and nor did he have any mental health issues.
Having had his complaint rejected, Edward’s only recourse to achieve justice was to sue the Police and he duly sought my specialist assistance in doing so.
The author of the Complaint report had approached his task as if he were a student addressing a theoretical question as to possible justifications for the removal of a detainee’s footwear – but then utterly failed to consider the reality of what happened and whether the Detention Officers had such justification in the circumstances.
PSD had wilfully failed to consider whether the Detention Officers had any reasonable justification for their actions – no matter what hypothetical justifications there might have been, applicable in other scenarios – or whether those officers were, in fact, just giving vent to ‘bully-boy’ impulses.
As a result of the use of force upon him Edward had sustained injuries, in particular to his right shoulder, which caused him to have to attend hospital several weeks later because of persisting pain and he was there diagnosed with a rotary cuff injury.
Upon receiving Edward’s instructions, I took steps to obtain his Custody Record and all available CCTV footage before presenting a letter of claim to Cleveland Police.
As per the standard Police playbook, liability was denied.
There was no dispute that force had been used to remove Edward’s shoes, but the Chief Constable’s lawyers contended that force from the Detention Officers was proportionate, necessary, and reasonable.
Notwithstanding Cleveland Police’s robust denial of liability, I advised Edward that his prospects of success were good and advised him to continue with the claim and thereafter commenced County Court Proceedings against the Chief Constable.
The Police instructed senior Counsel and filed a Defence maintaining their denial of liability, and directions were set to prepare the case for trial.
Shortly before Trial, Cleveland Police caved in and settled Edward’s claim for a significant sum of damages plus legal costs.
The name of my client has been changed.
