Anthony Rippingale, at the time of event, was the 72-year-old proprietor of a vehicle repair garage and MOT centre in Cambridgeshire and lives on the same premises as the garage.
As at January 2023, he was the registered keeper of a BMW motor car, one of approximately ten vehicles he owned for his business.
One Monday morning, Anthony received a visit at his premises from two Cambridgeshire Police Officers who wanted to know who had been driving the BMW two days previously.
Anthony answered truthfully that he did not know who had been driving that particular car, as he had been away from home over the weekend and it was one of several “garage” cars, which might be used by a lot of different people, including his customers. All Anthony knew for certain at that time was that he himself had not been driving the BMW on the evening in question.
Anthony questioned the Officers as to whether the vehicle had been reported as involved in an accident or a crime; in response they confirmed it had not, but that there had simply been a report of an unknown man and woman in the car “having an argument.” At this point Anthony legitimately questioned whether the Officers had nothing better to do with their time, as he wasn’t going to waste his own looking into the answer to a question which he felt the Police had no right to be asking, in the absence of an accident or allegation of crime.
The Officers persisted in demanding that Anthony find out who was driving the car over the weekend and then, when he failed to immediately agree to do so one of the pair threatened Anthony as follows: “I’ll arrest [you] under Obstruct Police until you tell me.”
Not willing to submit to such crass bullying, Anthony replied “You do that then”, whereupon the Officer announced: “Ok, you’re under arrest on suspicion of obstructing Police, let’s go”.
The Officer now stepped into the porch of Anthony’s house, seized hold of his right arm and handcuffed him whilst the second Officer also stepped into the porch and took hold of Anthony’s left wrist.
Anthony was then led outside whilst his wife and son remonstrated about the Officers’ actions.
Anthony was taken to the Officers’ car, searched and placed into the back seat.
Shortly after Anthony had been placed in the Police car, the arresting Officer approached him and stated as follows –
“So, you are under arrest. You don’t have to talk to me, I explained that in the caution, and anything you do say I can use against you in Court. But the option is, the van is still not here. You tell us who was using the vehicle over the weekend, and we check on the female, then it’s all hunky dory. Potentially. That is another option. If that option works and checks out, I will take the cuffs off, de-arrest you and get back to work for the rest of day. How does that sound?” Anthony did not respond.
Anthony was then held prisoner in the car for about 20 minutes, until a Police van arrived and he was transferred, still in handcuffs, into the caged section at the rear of the van. Anthony has arthritis in his knees, and struggled to climb up into the van, experiencing discomfort as he did so. Furthermore, it being January, the cage section of the van was, in colloquial terms, “freezing cold”.
Anthony was then detained for a further period of approximately 50 minutes during which time the Police Officers searched his home and garage premises, claiming the right to do so under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).
All of this was unbeknownst to Anthony in his captivity in the Police van. Eventually, Anthony heard the engine of the vehicle starting up and he was driven away – but after travelling for approximately 2 miles, the van turned around and returned to Anthony’s house where he was allowed to exit the van and was de-arrested, the Officers telling him that they had had a “change of heart.”
It subsequently transpired that the reason for the Police interest in the BMW was an incident which had been reported occurring 2 days previously when a member of the public had seen a man and woman arguing and the man then getting into the BMW motor car in an apparently drunken state with the woman not wanting him to drive in that state. There was no suggestion that the man in question (who was not Anthony) had been involved in any physical altercation with the woman, nor that he had actually driven the car whilst under the influence.
Following negotiation, Cambridgeshire Constabulary agreed to settle Anthony’s claim for £7,000 together with his legal fees.
Read more in this blog post: Silence is not obstruction
You must be logged in to post a comment.