Early one morning, in October 2023 my client Ryan was asleep at home when he was awoken by Police Officers knocking at the door. Answering the door wearing only his bedclothes, Ryan was arrested by PC Griffiths of Leicestershire Police on suspicion of burglary. Ryan was totally stunned and asked for further details of this alleged offence – all he was told was that it had taken place the previous evening in Narborough and that his vehicle had been involved.
Ryan was searched and handcuffed and the Officers then searched his house (where his sister also resided), claiming authority to do so under Section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
Still in a state of shock, Ryan was taken to a local custody suite, searched again, and had his DNA, fingerprints and photograph taken. He was obliged to remove his laces from his shoes, and was then locked in a cell.
After my client had been detained for over three and a half hours in Police custody, he was suddenly informed that he was going to be ‘refused charge’. He was of course relieved – but still very much in the dark about what had happened in order to cause his arrest, and why things had now changed before he had even been interviewed.
Ryan was thereafter released but remained very shaken by what had happened – and was understandably apprehensive that he might be arrested again because of some suspicion attaching to his motor car. Understandably, he wondered whether a cloned vehicle was involved.
A few hours after his release, Ryan was contacted by an officer called PS Moore, who informed Ryan that he was shocked by his arrest, that he would be raising an internal complaint about the matter, and he encouraged Ryan to complain as well.
Ryan did indeed pursue a complaint to Leicestershire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) who sent him a report in February 2024 in which they upheld his complaint and offered an apology.
It transpired that what had happened was this: following a burglary at commercial premises in Narborough, a witness had reported that an orange BMW car had been used by the suspect, but that he had been unable to get the registration number.
As there was no registration, PC Wakeham requested a search from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system for similar vehicles in the immediate area. When none were found, the area of the search was expanded to be county- wide, and Ryan’s vehicle was flagged up as possible match. Bear in mind that this was based purely on make, model and colour – not the registration plate, and the search had been stretched across a very wide- ranging geographical area.
Nevertheless, on the basis of this most tenuous of links, the decision was made to arrest my innocent client.
During the course of the complaint investigation, PS Moore, provided an account in which he explained that following Ryan’s arrest, he had reviewed the ANPR data and had noted that the last ANPR ‘hit’ for Ryan’s vehicle was a considerable distance from the crime scene, and that the pattern of hits showed that it was travelling in a manner consistent with previous journeys. Furthermore, an orange BMW of a different model – with cloned plates – had been involved in several recent burglaries, and although the manufacturer had described Ryan’s vehicle as “sunset orange” it was in fact red in colour.
Indeed, in addition to PS Moore several other Officers had voiced concern regarding the legitimacy of Ryan’s arrest. PS Moore stated to the complaint investigator that when he had called the Station, the Custody Sergeant PS King had admitted that he also had misgivings regarding my client’s arrest – and had authorised his detention nonetheless.
The PSD report concluded as follows –
“Section 24 PACE states that there must be suspicion of an offence having been committed or likely to be committed before an arrest can be made; the second part of the test is that the necessity test criteria should be met also. Both elements are required to be satisfied in order for an arrest to be made. I am not minded that there was enough for part one of the test (suspicion that [Ryan] was involved) was met. Further enquiries needed to be undertaken in respect of the vehicle and indeed, when PS Moore undertook enquiries himself, he quickly established that [Ryan] lived close by to where the last ANPR camera had picked up his vehicle and that [Ryan’s] vehicle regularly undertook the same route. There was also the opportunity to speak with [Ryan] and establish some initial facts when he first [answered] the door”.
It therefore followed that both my client’s arrest/detention and the search of his home unlawful.
Following the institution of court proceedings, Leicestershire Police agreed to pay Ryan £15,000 together with his legal costs having already secured agreement from the Police to delete all records created by reason of his arrest.
You must be logged in to post a comment.