On 4 December 2015, my client Richard Hall was arrested and detained by the police.
During the course of Mr Hall’s detention in police custody, Merseyside Police officers, including PC Allen carried out a search of Mr Hall’s home address.
Upon Mr Hall’s release later that day, he viewed his home CCTV and was concerned about what she saw, believing that the search was conducted in a disrespectful and unprofessional way and that during the search PC Allen had taken a packet of crisps from his home.
A few days later, Mr Hall made a police complaint against PC Allen about the conduct of the search (“the first complaint”).
The complaint was investigated by Merseyside Police’s Professional Standards Department (“PSD”).
During the course of the investigation into the first complaint, PC Allen was placed on restricted duties.
On 11 February 2016, PC Allen was informed that he was no longer being investigated in relation to the first complaint and that the restriction on his duties had been removed.
At or around 07.30 on 12 February 2016, Mr Hall left the premises to take his children to school.
Shortly after 08.00, Mrs Hall, who was upstairs at the time, noticed a police vehicle parked outside.
The driver of the police vehicle parked outside of the premises was PC Allen. He was with a fellow officer, PC J.
Mrs Hall got dressed, went downstairs and went outside.
Upon closer inspection of the police vehicle, Mrs Hall was surprised, alarmed and upset to see PC Allen in the van (whom she recognised from the CCTV footage of the search on the 4 December).
Mrs Hall tried to attract the attention of the officers in an attempt to establish the reason for their presence.
Neither officer acknowledged Mrs Hall.
Mrs Hall returned inside and called her husband and informed him of PC Allen’s presence outside. She felt intimidated and was extremely upset.
PC Allen and PC J remained outside of the premises for approximately 3 minutes.
By the time Mr Hall returned to the premises, PC Allen and PC J had driven away.
On 13 February 2016, Mr Hall made a further police complaint and alleged that PC Allen’s conduct on 12 February 2016 amounted to harassment (the “second complaint”).
Mr Hall’s second complaint was again investigated by Merseyside Police PSD.
On 10 March 2016, PC J provided an account to Merseyside Police PSD, in which she stated that PC Allen had made the decision to park up at the premises on 12 February 2016. PC J further stated that she did not personally have any enquiries to conduct in the area that day.
On 12 March 2016, PC Allen provided an account to the PSD in which he claimed to have gone to the area to engage in high visibility patrol on 12 February 2016. PC Allen further stated that he had parked the police vehicle outside the premises as he had “finished late the night before and thought that an opportune moment to complete [his] notebook.” PC Allen confirmed that in that account that he was aware that Mr Hall lived at the premises, as he had performed a search of the premises previously.
On 21 June 2016, the investigation report into Mr Hall’s second complaint was sent to him and Mr Hall was informed that his complaint against PC Allen of oppressive conduct/harassment had been upheld and that PC Allen was deemed to require management action. In particular, it was found that it was “reasonable to believe that the only logical explanation that Constable Allen has parked outside the Hall’s home address is to either cause annoyance, in response to the complaint made against him previously by Mr Hall, or because he himself was annoyed because of the serious allegations which had bEen made against him and , the more serious ones had not been proven….”
Robert and his wife brought a claim for breach of their right to privacy. Merseyside Police disputed liability and the case proceeded to trial.
On hearing all the evidence, the Judge found that “if powers of police are used arbitrarily, without genuine cause, that engages Article 8. ……. A duty of respect is imposed under Article 8, it calls upon the Police not to carry out acts to intimidate or cause anxiety. Further, Merseyside Police have failed to show that the interference was in accordance with the law and in pursuance of legitimate and proportionate aim.”
In the circumstances, the court awarded both Mr and Mrs Hall compensation to reflect the breach of their legal fees.
Also read: Police Corruption Exposed
