CAUTION: THIS BLOG POST CONTAINS DISTRESSING VIDEO AND IMAGES.

In this powerful and disturbing post, I expose the unlawful detention and serious injury of a 15-year-old boy, Rocco Kirkpatrick, who was violently impaled on a metal fence by Suffolk Police officers. Yet, in a deeply troubling response, Suffolk Police’s Professional Standards Department have initially cleared the officers of wrongdoing, characterising the incident as “acceptable service” and attempting to downplay the gravity of what was plainly a Death or Serious Injury (DSI) event involving a child.

The blog post provides a forensic critique of the police complaints process, highlighting systemic bias, investigative failures, and a culture of institutional self-protection. Key failings include the refusal to interview officers under caution, the failure to take a statement from the injured child, and a reliance on implausible police narratives contradicted by CCTV evidence. After legal challenge, the case has now been escalated to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), where an independent review is underway.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Police Clear Themselves of Wrongdoing After Impaling Teenager on a Metal Fence

“No child should be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time”

– UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Shocking Police Use of Force Against a 15-Year-Old Child

The video below shows the shocking moment on 21 June 2025 when my client Rocco had his head impaled upon a metal fence post by Suffolk Police Officers who were attempting to handcuff him. What is even more shocking is that Rocco was only 15 years at the time, and the officers had neither lawfully arrested him and nor were they using stop and search powers. Rocco’s only ‘offence’ it seems was to have ‘talked back’ to an imperious officer who was attempting to disperse a much larger group of youths.

Police Professional Standards Department Clears Officers of Wrongdoing

What is not shocking, to one who has been battling the Police complaints system on behalf of clients for as many decades as I have, is that the initial investigation into this matter by the Professional Standards Department (PSD) purported to wholly exonerate the officers involved in Rocco’s injury – an injury which has left him with scarring, mental trauma and which could have proved fatal.

Attempted Deflection of a Death or Serious Injury Complaint

To compound their failings, Suffolk Police initially attempted to deflect the complaint appeal to their local Police and Crime Commissioner – despite the fact that it was clearly a Death or Serious Injury (DSI) event. I am pleased to confirm that after I challenged Suffolk PSD on this point, they have backed down and the case is now in the hands of the IOPC.

Why This Blog Has Been Published

Rocco’s mother has instructed me to publish this blog to bring urgent attention to the disgraceful conduct of the Police – whose fundamental purpose of impartially and fearlessly investigating wrongdoing, when it comes to their own Officers, is so often reversed into the polar opposite: cover-up, cowardice and excuse-mongering.

What Happened to Rocco?

The incident involving Rocco took place on the evening of 21 June 2025, during the First Light arts and music festival in Lowestoft. Rocco was attending the festival along with hundreds of other young people, and as often happens in such circumstances, the Police were called upon to deal with various outbreaks of anti-social behaviour. However, at the time of Rocco’s detention the general mood of the crowd was peaceable; indeed this is plain to see in the background of the CCTV footage – large numbers of young people are milling around amidst a Police presence but the scene is relatively calm, and there are no signs of obvious disorder.

Police Investigation Report Misrepresents the Incident

The Investigating Officer’s Report blandly records: “At 21.48 hours an ambulance is requested due to Rocco becoming impaled on a metal fence” – but nestles this brief description of the incident amongst a list of public order offences and acts of violence which had nothing at all to do with Rocco and most of which had occurred either hours earlier or hours later.

I was struck by the way in which the Investigating Officer appeared to be attempting to paint a general scene of depravity and violence and to tar Rocco with the same – ‘guilt by association’ – such as referencing an incident at 22.11 hours, when a young male sustained a deep chest wound, prompting ambulance attendance – and which occurred at the very time that Rocco was himself being rushed by ambulance to the Emergency Department. Why, we may well ask, would the Investigating Officer include this list of completely unrelated offences, if not to attempt to distract the reader of the report from the wrongdoing of the Officers involved and to obscure Rocco’s blood beneath the blood of the victims of non-Police violence?

Initial Police Confrontation With a Minor

Rocco came to the attention of the Police when he protested about the treatment of one of his friends, who was aged only 14 and who was tackled to the floor by several Officers. Police Sergeant Smy confronted Rocco, grabbing, pushing and aggressively threatening him with arrest. Rocco was then further confronted by PC Palmer, a female officer, and Inspector Freeman, a male officer, who were ordering the young people in the area to disperse, for unspecified reasons. Rocco pointed out that he and his friends were not standing in the road, and that there was no reason for them to have to move. During this conversation Rocco used the adjective “fucking” a few times – which is absolutely not a crime – and the senior Officer (Inspector Freeman) rounded on Rocco, telling him to “grow up”.

Unlawful Detention Without Arrest or Stop and Search Powers

The Officers then started to walk away, but Inspector Freeman suddenly turned back – pulling Rocco out of the crowd, after the boy made a further comment about the Police’s highhanded attitude.

Inspector Freeman and PC Palmer, then ‘escorted’ Rocco away from his group of friends, and made him stand by a metal fence, whereupon the Inspector started to demand Rocco’s personal details and stated that he was going to call Rocco’s parents to collect him.

At this point, Rocco had not been formally arrested for any definable offence, or placed under ‘stop and search’ powers, and his detention was therefore entirely unlawful. It appears to have been no more than an exercise of authoritarianism and ‘might makes right’ policing by an Officer whose ego had been infringed, by having been talked back to by a child. Mere swearing is not and never has been a breach of the peace. 

Police Admit Rocco Was Not Under Arrest

The Police subsequently stated in open correspondence that Rocco was not under arrest at the time of the incident. What then, were these officers doing to him, other than assaulting him from the moment they laid hands upon him until the moment they impaled him on a fence? (In which case, all and any uses of force upon him would in any event be unlawful and amount to acts of battery).

Whilst Rocco argued with Inspector Freeman about the Officer’s assertion that his parents needed to be called, another male Officer, PC Dilks joined the group.

Escalation Rather Than De-Escalation by Police Officers

Matters then took the tragic turn of events that can be seen on the video. Rather than de-escalating the situation, Inspector Freeman appears to have ordered PC Dilks to handcuff Rocco – an entirely illegitimate use of force against a child who was not under lawful arrest – and as the male Officers attempted to do this, the force that they were using caused Rocco to stumble/fall forward and impale his chin upon the metal fence.

Failure to Provide Immediate Medical Assistance

Rather than being given immediate first aid treatment, Rocco was marched around 100 yards away and made to sit down in a shop doorway, before an ambulance was called to address the gaping wound in his chin. Rocco was then rushed to hospital for emergency surgery.

Graphic Evidence of Serious Injury

The horrendous nature of the injury which Rocco can be seen in the following, gruesome photograph.

Police Complaint Outcome: “Service Was Acceptable”

Nevertheless, the determination of the Investigating Officer (IO) and Appropriate Authority (AA) handling the complaint brought by Rocco’s mother was that, in the weasely and bureaucratic language of the Police Complaint system, “the service received was acceptable”.

Key Failings of the Police Complaint Investigation

It is accepted by Suffolk Police that this incident was undisputedly a Death or Serious Injury occurrence (DSI), and hence was mandatorily referred to the IOPC in the first instance (and thereafter returned for local investigation).

The following catalogue of errors then occurred –

1. Special procedures should have been applied as it was clear that the allegations of unlawful detention and excessive force against a minor could potentially justify criminal and/or misconduct proceedings against the Officers concerned. Each of the Officers involved in the key events (PC Palmer, PC Dilks and Inspector Freeman) should have been interviewed under caution, but were not. This led to a total failure to properly interrogate their accounts and undue reliance being placed upon the Officers’ written statements, which appear to have been accepted without question by both the Investigating Officer (complaint hander) and the Appropriate Authority (complaint outcome determinator).

2. Equally, the Investigating Officer failed to take a direct account/statement from Rocco himself, which no doubt contributed to the one-sided tone of the Investigation Report. I would observe that if this were a criminal investigation relating to allegations that individuals who were not Police Officers had caused a 15 year old’s head to become impaled on a metal fence, whilst they were undeniably in the process of pushing and shoving him around, then the Investigating Officer would surely have made the victim’s account an essential piece of the evidential jigsaw – and yet here it was completely disregarded.

3. The AA wrongly determined that “Evidence shows the injury occurred when the Complainant’s son suddenly dropped his body weight and impaled his chin on a metal fence post, while resisting lawful restraint” –

a. In the first place there was no evidence that Rocco was “resisting lawful restraint”. The high point of Rocco’s ‘resistance’, according to the witness statement of Inspector Freeman (quoted in the report) appears to be an assertion that Rocco was “verbally resistant”. This is a common phrase of ‘Police Speech’ which is intended to give a misleading impression of resistance, and which can more honestly be translated as meaning that the subject was complaining, maybe even swearing – but was not physically fighting back.

b. There was no proper discussion within the report, nor justification provided, as to why it was alleged to be necessary to apply handcuffs to a child.

c. In my opinion, it is crystal clear from the CCTV that the Officers were using force upon Rocco from behind, when Rocco suddenly collapsed down and forwards, with his head becoming impaled on the fence post. Rocco’s bodily motion is exactly the sort of dramatic and involuntary movement one would expect from hostile force being applied to a person, and the severity of the penetration injury that he suffered from the fence post (which had a rounded, not pointed top) is consistent with that.

d. The suggestion that my client, of his own volition “dropped his body weight”, and effectively impaled himself on the fence post, is utterly disingenuous and would frankly be laughable if it was not so offensive. The Investigating Officer appears to be wilfully blind to the likelihood that what she ‘diplomatically’ describes as Rocco’s “sudden downward movement” was in fact caused by the force being exerted upon him by the Officers.

Indeed, the entire tone of the report displays pro- Police bias, a lack of desire to question the Police narrative even when it beggars belief, a total lack of interest in Rocco’s perspective and experience, and a failure to conduct the type of objective assessment of the evidence that would surely be undertaken if those being investigated were not Police Officers. The Investigating Officer is selective in her commentary upon the evidence, apparently designing it to fit a preconceived pro- Police agenda, and the Appropriate Authority shows no interest in challenging this obvious bias.

What Does This Tell Us About the Police Complaint System?

I have had recourse to write, time and time again on this blog, about the structural and cultural defects in the Police Complaints system, which render it unfit for purpose; Rocco’s case is yet another distressing example of what we might call the “passive corruption” of that system, to add to such as this and this and which frequently produces the following results –

1. Pro- Police bias and lack of objectivity (“Us v Them” mentality)

2. Hectoring, lecturing and hostility towards complainants (Victim blaming)

3. Massive delays in responding (Lack of transparency/ accountability)

4. Selective use of the evidence to fit a pre- conceived agenda: Exoneration of the officers.

5. Use of bureaucratic jargon in an apparent attempt to bamboozle complainants.

6. Misdirection of complainants to the wrong appeal body (e.g the Police & Crime Commissioner rather than the IOPC)

7. Even when there is a finding of “unacceptable service” a tendency to opt for minor/ slap-on-the-wrist punishments.

Until our Police Professional Standards departments exorcise the “Trade Union” ethos which pervades them, and which turns most of their investigators into advocates for the officers under complaint, rather than champions of the public, these problems are bound to persist.

In the meantime, experienced actions against the Police solicitors such as myself, can highlight the most egregious examples of this corruption – and help our clients to overturn it.

What Can Be Done About It / What Happens Next?

The IOPC are now required to live up to their name and conduct an independent review of the evidence. I have already urged them to quash the findings of this report and direct a fresh investigation into this matter.

The Police will undoubtedly be resistant to that, but I have a track- record of success in getting the IOPC to engage their powers to override local Police decision making in such matters, as evidenced by the cases of my clients Shane Price  and Scott Barratt,  whose cases you can read about by clicking on the links.

Public faith and confidence in the Police is grievously undermined by self- serving “white-washes” such as this investigation. We can only trust that with the IOPC’s intervention, this will be put right, but in the meantime, I will be bringing a separate civil claim on behalf of Rocco against the Chief Constable, seeking substantial damages for the brutal injuries inflicted upon him.

Watch this space.

How you can help

My aim with this blog is to provide clarity, guidance, and reassurance to those who may feel powerless in the face of unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article useful, please consider leaving a 5 star review. Your support not only greatly encourages me to continue writing, but also helps ensure that others in need of specialist advice can find their way here. Every 5 star review makes a real difference. Thank you!

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

Update: 28 January 2026

Rocco’s mum, Jade, and I were interviewed by the BBC. You can read their report on the BBC website here and watch the Look East news report below:

Unlawful arrest claims often turn on a critical question that many people do not think to ask at the moment they are detained: were the Police legally entitled to arrest me in the first place? In this blog post, I explain why a Police officer’s failure to provide sufficient information at the time of arrest can render that arrest unlawful, even where the officer otherwise had reasonable suspicion. As a solicitor specialising in actions against the Police, I regularly encounter cases where this basic legal safeguard has been ignored.

Contrary to popular belief, an arrest is not invalid simply because an officer fails to “read you your rights” or give the standard Police caution. Instead, the true legal requirement is found in Section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which mandates that a person must be told both that they are under arrest and the specific grounds for that arrest. As this post explains, “grounds” means more than naming the offence—it requires clear, non-technical details such as when and where the alleged offence occurred, so that the arrested person can understand why their liberty is being taken and respond immediately if there is a mistake.

This article demonstrates how breaches of Section 28 PACE can form the basis of a successful claim for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. If you or someone you know has been arrested without being properly informed of the legal and factual grounds, this post explains why that failure matters—and how, in both ancient common law and modern statute, the remedy remains the same: to sue.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Can the Police Lawfully Arrest You Without Properly Explaining Why?

Last week on this blog, I addressed one of the questions that is most frequently put to me – about whether or not the Police are right to say that civil claims against them must be “put on hold” pending the resolution of an associated disciplinary / misconduct complaint.

The answer is that they’re not – but that you may well be best advised to await the complaint outcome before proceeding, in any event. My role as an expert in suing the Police is to help you make the wisest decision, on the individual facts of your case.

This week, I will address one of those questions which I think people don’t ask themselves enough, when they are arrested – have the Police given me sufficient information to make my arrest, and the deprivation of my liberty, legal?

Do the Police Have to “Read You Your Rights” for an Arrest to Be Legal?

Miranda Rights vs the UK Police Caution: A Common and Costly Misconception

It is a common misconception amongst the public on both sides of the Atlantic (probably because of TV dramas causing the hybridisation of British and American law in the popular imagination) that a Police arrest can be invalidated if the Officer does not read the suspect their “rights”; what are known as “Miranda” rights in the US and what, here, is the statutory “Police caution” in the form of words set down in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Code C (para 10.5)

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

Why Failing to Give the Police Caution Does Not Invalidate an Arrest

The important thing to be aware of is that this ‘caution’ is the notification of your right to silence (in subsequent interview), and although a failure to say it to you might have implications for any future criminal proceedings, that failure would not invalidate your arrest.

The Real Legal Requirement for a Lawful Arrest: Section 28 of PACE Explained

What Information Must the Police Give You at the Moment of Arrest?

However, there is crucial information which must be given in UK law to those being arrested, immediately upon arrest unless extreme circumstances (such as an immediate escape attempt!) prevent this, and without which the arrest is invalid, your detention unlawful, and you can sue for damages.

The provision of this information to the arrestee is mandated by Section 28 of PACE in the following terms:

Information to be given on arrest

(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest.

(2) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.

(4) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious.

(5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed—

(a) that he is under arrest; or

(b) of the ground for the arrest,

if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given.

Why “Grounds for Arrest” Means More Than Naming the Offence

Legal and Factual Grounds for Arrest: What the Law Actually Requires

“Ground of Arrest” is not just the name of the offence for which you are being “nicked”. It is short but specific details which would, for example, allow a person being arrested for an assault to know who it was he was alleged to have assaulted and when.

This is not only so as to enable the arrestee to understand why they are being deprived of their liberty, it also serves the very practical purpose of allowing them the immediate opportunity to assert their innocence and/or to spontaneously offer any alibi which they might have.

Taylor v Thames Valley Police: The Leading Case on Grounds of Arrest

This principle was cogently enshrined in the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Taylor v Thames Valley Police [2004] EWCA Civ 858:

Lord Justice Clarke ruled as follows:

• The underlying rationale of this approach is that a person is entitled to know why he is being arrested… “the arrested man is entitled to be told what is the act for which he is arrested.” (Paragraph 21)

• The question is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case, the person arrested was told in simple, non-technical language that he could understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest. (Paragraph 26)

When Vague Arrest Grounds Make Detention Unlawful

In Taylor itself, simply telling the Claimant that he was under arrest for violent disorder would not have been lawful. The arrest was only lawful because the officer specified the location (Hillgrove Farm) and the date (18 April).

This was contrasted with Murphy v Oxford (CA, 15 February 1985), where an arrest was held unlawful because the individual was only told he was suspected of burglary in “Newquay”, without being told which premises or when the offence was alleged to have occurred.

Using Section 28 PACE to Win a Claim for Wrongful Arrest

A Real Case Study: Compensation for Arrest Without Proper Grounds

Some years ago, I represented a man who was wrongly suspected of being involved in the rape of a young woman in his local area. He had been misidentified by a witness (not the victim herself) on the basis of CCTV footage and was arrested by Derbyshire Constabulary at his home address.

Whilst his innocence was established in due course, my client could not succeed in a claim for wrongful arrest on the basis that the Police initially had reasonable suspicion, owing to the witness identification. His actual innocence did not retrospectively invalidate that suspicion.

However, it became clear that upon his arrest, my client had only been informed of the type of offence – “rape” – and no details as to when, where or against whom it was said to have been committed.

This breach of Section 28 of PACE allowed me to secure a substantial award of damages and costs. The judge acknowledged that my client was “denied the opportunity to give his account straight away.”

To my mind, this was no exploitation of a loophole, but fair restitution and a moral victory for a man who had endured the ordeal of being arrested for a rape he had not committed.

An Ancient Common Law Right Reinforced by Modern Statute

I have written many times before about how much that is good in modern civil liberties law owes its origins to the ancient traditions of the Common Law.

The rules governing arrest in Section 28 of PACE are no exception. I leave the final word to Viscount Simon in Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573, quoted with approval in Taylor:

“A citizen is entitled to know on what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is seized… The matter is one of substance… a person is, prima facie, entitled to his freedom.”

In Old Times and New: When the Police Get It Wrong, the Answer Is to Sue

How you can help

Behind each of my blog posts are countless hours of experience, research, and reflection on real cases. If you’ve benefited from reading this, or if you simply want to support the fight for accountability and justice in the crucial arena of civil rights and Police abuse of power, I would ask you to post a 5 star review. Each review not only supports me, but also makes it easier for others in need of no- nonsense expertise to find this site. Thank you for taking part in that effort.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

If you believe you may have been the victim of Police misconduct, please contact Iain Gould here for advice.

Many victims of police misconduct ask the same question: can you sue the police while a police complaint is still ongoing? As a solicitor specialising in actions against the police, I regularly advise clients who are frustrated by the slow, complex and often protracted police complaints process.

In this blog post, I explain that there is no legal rule preventing civil claims against the police from running alongside an ongoing misconduct investigation. Despite what police lawyers frequently assert, there is no statute, case law or Civil Procedure Rule that imposes an absolute bar. Civil proceedings can lawfully proceed in tandem with police complaints, unless the police can demonstrate real prejudice—which is rare.

That said, in many cases, waiting for the complaint outcome can strengthen a civil claim. Police investigations often force early disclosure of evidence, and the rejection of a legitimate complaint can support a claim for additional damages.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Can You Bring a Civil Claim against the Police While a Police Complaint Is Ongoing?

As this is one of the questions which I am most frequently asked as an expert in actions against the Police, I thought it would be helpful to post the answer here, for the benefit of all readers – whether prospective clients or not.

The Reality of the Police Complaints Process

I have had recourse, time and time again, to share on this blog my frustrations with the delays, inadequacies and systemic bias of the Police complaint system.

I therefore fully understand why people who have suffered from Police misconduct are keen to get on with suing them, when the complaint process is dragging on (and on, and on).

Why Police Complaints Can Take Years to Resolve

Police complaints can, quite literally, last for years – especially if either the complainant or the officer complained about exercises their ‘rights of appeal’ at the initial end of the process (what we might call the “Misconduct Merry-Go-Round”).

The Myth: “You Cannot Bring a Civil Claim While a Complaint Is Ongoing”

Lawyers representing Police Forces will assert very frequently, as if it were a legal commandment chiselled on tablets of stone, that they cannot respond to civil claims whilst a complaint investigation is ongoing, so as not to prejudice the outcome of the complaint process or any potential disciplinary or criminal proceedings against the officer(s) arising therefrom.

There Is No Legal Bar to Parallel Civil Proceedings

However, those same Police lawyers are never able to produce a case citation to back up this position, because, quite simply, none exists.

There is also no rule in the Civil Procedure Rules or law on the statute books which would prevent civil proceedings running in tandem with misconduct proceedings – and potentially being concluded first.

The Police could apply to “stay” civil proceedings pending resolution of the complaint process – but would have to show that they or the officer(s) concerned would suffer real prejudice in the alternative, which I strongly suspect they would fail to do. Most of the time, the arguments of prejudice to the complaint or misconduct process that they raise are purely hypothetical.

Misconduct Panels Are Not “Biased” by Civil Claims

Yet further, any misconduct panel should be quite capable of insulating itself from any alleged ‘bias’ arising from the civil claim.

The professionals who constitute that panel will be fully aware of their obligation to reach an independent decision, uninfluenced by the outcome of any adjacent or related civil claim.

Criminal Proceedings and Civil Claims: The Limited Exception

There is authority that criminal proceedings should take primacy over civil proceedings where both are on course for an imminent trial, and it would generally not be appropriate for the same evidence to first be heard in a civil court (Jefferson v Bhetcha 1979 1 WLR 898) but even then, proceedings can still run “in tandem” up to the point of trial – and the criminal proceedings have to be actual or imminent, not merely a future potentiality.

In short, therefore, the answer to the question is “Yes, you can bring a civil claim against the Police whilst a Police complaint arising out of the same incident is ongoing”. There is no legal bar to doing so; certainly not an absolute bar.

The Strategic Answer: Waiting May Strengthen Your Claim

However, the longer, and more nuanced answer, which I generally give to my clients is this: allowing the Police to complete their complaint investigation before presenting your civil claim can be tactically advantageous not least because the investigation report will often require the Police to place a lot of their cards on the table, in terms of statements and other evidence, before you have to show your own hand.

Furthermore, until the outcome of the complaint process is known, you might well take the view that the insult and injury you have suffered as a result of the complained about acts of Police misconduct – and until you know whether the officers involved are going to be punished or get off scot-free, it may be premature to value your claim or consider settlement terms.

In particular, the obstruction of a legitimate Police complaint can itself provide strong grounds for claiming aggravated damages in civil proceedings.

Just Because You Can Commence a Claim Against the Police, Doesn’t Mean You Should

In other words, just because you can push on with a civil claim whilst your Police complaint is being investigated does not mean that you should.

Playing the waiting game, allowing the Police to state their case first, and taking a fuller view of the long-term impact of the Police’s wrongdoing is often the best and preferred option – although I will always tailor my advice to the specific facts of each individual case and the needs of my clients.

How you can help

For many years, I have relied on the strength of this blog, my case results, and the recommendation of my clients – not expensive advertising designed to ‘game’ search results – to build awareness of my work. If you believe this site provides valuable information and an insightful perspective, please help me continue by leaving a 5 star review. Your review plays a vital role in ensuring that those in need can find the right solicitor for their case. Thank you!

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

If you believe you may have been the victim of Police misconduct, please contact Iain Gould here for advice.

This blog post explains how I won significant compensation for a man who was arrested by West Midlands Police under a Crown Court Warrant which had already been dealt with. 

After this particularly depressing form of ‘déjà vu’ occurred, I was able to use a combination of laws both ancient and modern – the common Law doctrine of false imprisonment and the modern provisions of the Human Rights Act – to help him recover £9,000 compensation, together with his legal costs, despite the fact that his detention did not last for more than 15 minutes.  

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

What powers of arrest do the Police have?

Police Constables in England and Wales have three main powers of arrest- 

• An arrest for “Breach of the Peace” – deriving from the traditions of the Common Law, this is the ‘oldest’ Police power and it allows for a person to be temporarily deprived of liberty in order to stop ongoing violence (or the threat of such violence in the immediate future). 
• An arrest based on the individual Officer’s own personal suspicion that you have committed a statutory criminal offence, utilising the powers granted to them by Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (abbreviated as PACE).
• An arrest in compliance with a Court Order, such as a Crown Court Warrant. See below an image of such a Warrant (with my client’s personal details redacted).

It is generally harder to sue the Police for wrongful arrest if they have arrested you under a Court Warrant, rather than under the common law or PACE. If they arrest you using their own powers under S.24 PACE they have to be able to justify your arrest on the grounds of – 

• Reasonable suspicion that you have committed the offence; and   
• One of the statutory grounds of ‘necessity’ for arrest  (as it is presumed that some allegations of crime can and should be investigated without the arrest of the suspect). 

I have explained the basis of both of those ‘limbs’ of a lawful arrest at length in previous blog posts, which you can read by following the links above. 

Similar provisions of objectively reasonable suspicion and necessity (to prevent a renewed breach) also apply to the common law power to arrest for a breach of the peace.

When it comes to an arrest under a Court Warrant, however, the Police are, quite literally, able to claim that they are “just following orders”. 

The Constable’s Protection Act of 1750 provides that Officers cannot be found liable for enforcing an Arrest Warrant issued by the Court.  In such circumstances they do not need to provide evidence of reasonable suspicion or necessity to arrest – they can simply rely upon the warrant to do their thinking for them.

The Constables Protection Actis therefore a shield which has been relied upon by the Police down the centuries to defeat claims for wrongful arrest.  

What neither the principals of the traditional English Common Law, nor the modern provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (which was enshrined in UK Law in 1998 by means of the Human Rights Act,) allow is for the same Warrant to be used to arrest the same person twice. 

When the Police are themselves the source of the problem, the Constables Protection Act can be circumvented. You can read here about one of the previous occasions when I have been able to help a client successfully sue the Police after a Warrant arrest, utilising my many decades of legal experience and expertise.

My latest case study of this type of claim, follows below. 

How A Failure to Update Police Records Led to Wrongful Warrant Arrest

My client Michael is a French citizen living in the UK.  He is of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity. 

On 6 September 2023, Michael failed to attend Birmingham Crown Court and a Warrant was issued for his arrest. 

On 10 June 2024, Michael surrendered to Birmingham Crown Court and was bailed.  

Thereafter, on 13 June 2024 the Court emailed West Midlands Police (WMP) to state that the Warrant could now be removed from the Police National Computer system (PNC).  Police Sergeant Allin of West Midlands Police replied on the same date to state

“The PNC marker will have been removed when [Michael was] arrested”. 

Evidently, however, Sergeant Allin was wrong. The PNC had not been updated and the direct result of the Police’s failure to update their records, combined with Allin’s incorrect assumption, was the wrongful arrest of my client 3 days later. 

On the afternoon of Sunday 16 June 2024, PC Lake and PC Rashid of West Midlands Police gained entry to my client’s home via the back door. 

My client emerged from the bathroom, to be shocked by the sight of PC Lake ascending the stairs with his taser gun drawn. The Officer, having reached the landing at the top of the stairs, trained his weapon directly at Michael.  

Conscious of the itchy trigger fingers which Officers can have in such situations, my client was immediately compliant and allowed himself to be handcuffed – despite realising that there must be some kind of mistake.   

Michael queried why he was still “wanted”, and when PC Lake explained it was for failing to attend Court in September, Michael explained that he had emails on his phone which would prove that the matter had now been dealt with.

Initially disregarding this information, the Officers led Michael outside and detained him in a Police car, before returning inside and subjecting his house to an extensive search for unspecified reasons.

After the house had been searched, PC Lake returned to the Police car and carried out radio checks which established that the Warrant had indeed been withdrawn because it had already been dealt with. Michael was then released from the handcuffs, but not before his wrists had become sore.  

Further distress and humiliation was caused to Michael by the fact that both during and after his detention the Officers questioned whether the ‘nice’ detached house that he had been found in, was really his own – and then actually decided that they needed to prolong his detention on the basis that he could not be allowed to return into a property which “might not” be his.  

PC Lake’s intrusive questioning continued with the Officer asking Michael if he could prove occupancy of the premises by reference to a ‘Landlord’s’ details or a ‘bill’. 

Michael was extremely aggrieved, suspecting that he was being treated this way because he was a black man with a foreign accent.

The Officers eventually conceded that they had no power to detain him and, somewhat reluctantly it seems, let Michael go.  Michael was also conscious that a large part of his ordeal had taken place in the sight of several of his neighbours. 

Why I was able to help Michael win £9,000 for 15 minutes detention

Following a referral from his criminal defence solicitors the Johnson Partnership, recognising my expertise in this type of matter, Michael instructed me to recover damages for his unlawful arrest on a no win, no fee basis.  

I was able to help him in the following ways – 

• Firstly, I analysed the evidence in order to establish whether blame for Michael’s wrongful arrest and false imprisonment lay with the Court or the Police.
• Secondly, having identified that it was the Police, I presented a detailed letter of claim, seeking damages for false imprisonment, trespass to land, assault and for violation of Michael’s right to private and family life (as enshrined under Article 8 of the ECHR) – and in response to which the Police admitted liability.
• Thirdly, I advised Michael how his claim for damages could be maximised, notwithstanding the presumption set by the leading case law authority of Thompson and Hsu v The Commission of Police of the Metropolis [1997] EWCA Civ 3083 that compensation for unlawful detention lasting less than an hour should not exceed £1,000 (updated for inflation).

In particular, in Michael’s case I was able to identify the following factors which could entitle him to receive a significantly higher award of compensation – 

• The threat of the taser constituting an assault upon him (even though it was not fired – he was entitled to compensation for the fear that it would be).

• The interference with his bodily integrity caused by his handcuffing – even if the bruising to his wrists was only transitory.  
• The extent of the psychological impact upon him, utilising medical expert evidence to establish the long term ramifications of this gross invasion of his privacy. 
• The rude behaviour of the Officers – and in particular the disrespectful comments made regarding his habitation of the house –  opening the door to an award of aggravated damages.  
• The Officers’ unlawful search of his property whilst he was being detained in the Police car. 

As a result of all of these factors, I was ultimately able to secure for Michael a highly satisfactory settlement of £9,000 plus legal costs, despite the fact that, looked at purely from a ‘stopwatch’ point of view, the whole incident had only lasted 15 minutes. 

As a solicitor who has represented thousands of clients like Michael down the years, I fully appreciate how distressing the aftermath of even a short period of wrongful arrest can be and how destabilising of a person’s general happiness and wellbeing is that feeling of one’s liberty and home being carelessly or callously trodden on by the Police.

If the long arm of the law has overreached against you – whether, like Michael, you have suffered an unlawful arrest for a warrant that has already been dealt with, or for any of the other multitude of “Police abuse of power” sins which I have over the course of 15 years been addressing on this blog, please don’t hesitate to contact me for expert advice and assistance. 

At the start of this year, I vow to keep on fighting for my client’s rights as I have for all those years gone by; in that respect, I can promise the Police their own, unpleasant, form of déjà vu – when I come knocking on their door. 

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

I write this blog because I believe passionately in justice and in making specialist legal knowledge freely available. If you value and support that mission, I would be very grateful if you could take a few minutes to leave a 5-star review. Every positive review helps those searching for the right advice to find this site and hence the help they deserve. Thank you for supporting this work.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

If you believe you may have been the victim of Police misconduct, please contact Iain Gould here for advice.

Wrongful arrest due to administrative error remains a serious and under-reported problem within the criminal justice system. In this blog post, I explain how something as simple—and avoidable—as a postal summons being sent to the wrong address can lead to an entirely innocent person being arrested. As a solicitor specialising in wrongful arrest and police misconduct claims, I highlight why accurate postal delivery of court documents is not a minor procedural issue, but a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and due process.

The case concerns my client Gaynor, who was wrongly arrested after police acted on a court summons that had been sent to an incorrect address. Despite her immediate protestations of innocence, she was searched, detained and taken to court cells, where she remained for several hours before the error was finally acknowledged. The experience was particularly distressing given the serious intrusion into her home, dignity and private life.

In the final section of the blog, I explain how I secured £12,000 compensation plus costs for Gaynor, after rejecting the police’s initial attempts to under-settle the claim. I outline why compensation for wrongful arrest is not assessed purely by the length of detention, but also by psychological harm arising from vulnerability and humiliation. This case stands as a clear warning that “admin accidents” by the police and courts can have devastating consequences—and as reassurance that with robust legal representation, victims of wrongful arrest can hold public authorities to account and obtain meaningful redress.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Wrongful Arrest Caused by Court Summons Sent to the Wrong Address

At this time of year, thoughts often turn to the importance of correct postal delivery – of purchases, presents, correspondence and cards reaching their correct destinations in time for Christmas. Whilst other countries, in this increasingly electronic age, are beginning to end their national postal services for letters, the Royal Mail remains an important artery of communication in our society – and never more crucial than when the messages it is conveying relate to criminal justice matters.

As a solicitor with decades of experience in claims for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, I know how crucial it is for the Police to have systems in place to ensure that letters conveying Court summons are sent to the correct address – and how frequently basic human error allows the ‘wrong address’ to slip through the net, and a person to be subject to the ordeal of arrest through no fault of their own.  

Case Study: Wrongfully Arrested After a Court Summons Was Sent to the Wrong Address

My client Gaynor lives at Number 25 Christmas Close in Barnsley.One morning in April 2024 she was awoken by the sound of Police Officers banging loudly on her front door. Dressed in her pyjamas, Gaynor answered the door and allowed the officers in – having no idea what they were there for. Within seconds, she was informed that she was under arrest for failing to attend court.

Gaynor’s pleas that she knew nothing about any court summons were ignored; her phone was seized, she was searched and then allowed to dress before being taken straight to Doncaster Magistrates Court, where she was detained in the Court cells.

After several miserable and confusing hours in the cells, Gaynor, who has mobility problems and uses a walking stick, was made to walk up two flights of stairs from the cells into the Court room, with difficulty and discomfort – only to be told that it was all a mistake: the Court Summons had been sent to an incorrect address (23 Christmas Close) and it was accepted that Gaynor had known nothing about it. She was released – 20 miles from home – her liberty restored, but understandably incensed by what had been done to her.

Why the Arrest Was Unlawful: Failures Before and After the Arrest

I accepted instructions to act on behalf of Gaynor on a no win, no fee basis. It was clear to me that fault lay with the Police twice over – in the issuing of the original letter to the wrong address, and then failing to do due diligence before intruding into Gaynor’s life and arresting her, i.e by first checking that the letter on which they were relying for the arrest had indeed been correctly posted.

Liability for Detention in Court Cells Following a Wrongful Arrest

In response to the letter of claim which I submitted on behalf of Gaynor, South Yorkshire Police quickly admitted liability – but that is, however, only half of the battle. What is crucial is to ensure that an appropriate amount of compensation is paid to the victim of a wrongful arrest: too many Police Forces try to under-settle such claims, and too many lawyers let them get away with it. Indeed, in this case the initial offer which the Police made was a paltry £1,000. I had absolutely no hesitation in advising Gaynor to reject this. Even when the Police subsequently increased their offer of damages to £5,000, I knew it was far from enough.

How Compensation for Wrongful Arrest Is Properly Assessed

My promise to my clients is that big or small, I will always fight their claims to the last penny of appropriate compensation.

As I have written about before, the duration of a person’s loss of liberty is not the only measure of the impact a wrongful arrest has upon their lives. Gaynor may ‘only’ have been detained for 3- 4 hours, but she had suffered a violation of her home and the humiliation of being ‘pat down’ searched – which are injuries to the mind, if not to the body. Respect for our personal integrity and the sanctity of our homes is enshrined in both the English Common Law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Police sought to minimise the amount of damages they had to pay to my client by arguing that they were not liable for the duration of time she spent in the Court cells: I strongly pushed back against their argument. Had Gaynor received the postal requisition correctly, she would have attended Court freely at the appointed time, and would not have been banished to the ‘cell block.’ That detention flowed directly from the Police’s error, even if they were not the ones actively detaining her at that time.

I was also able to pursue on Gaynor’s behalf a claim for breach of the Data Protection Act by the Police (given that they had sent her Summons to another person’s address) which would entitle her to additional damages, and I commissioned a report from an expert psychologist to provide evidence of the impact of the whole incident upon Gaynor’s mental health.

Finally, I also set out a detailed case for aggravated damages on the following basis –  

1. The treatment that Gaynor received was a gross affront to her personal dignity and liberty. Not only was the original letter mistakenly sent to her next door neighbour, but she was acutely conscious that her neighbours generally would have witnessed her being taken away under arrest – and perhaps assumed that there was no smoke without fire.  
2. My client was vulnerable and was caused additional suffering due to her physical/mobility limitations. 
 
3. She experienced the degradation of being imprisoned in a cell; as a person of entirely good character, this incarceration was entirely alien to her.  
4. Had the Court not noticed the police’s error, Gaynor could have been wrongly convicted of an offence that she did not commit (failing to attend Court) a thought which haunted her afterwards, and caused her significant distress and anxiety.

 Outcome

I am pleased to confirm that I and my team, including solicitor Alex Nelmes, have recently settled Gaynor’s wrongful arrest claim for £12,000, plus legal costs.

Sadly, postal errors like this are going to continue to occur, and if they happen to you, contact me for the best representation and advice. No one’s liberty should be at the mercy of such “admin accidents.”

(NB My client’s address has been changed – but you might have spotted that!)

Client Testimonial About Iain Gould, Actions Against the Police Solicitor

I will leave you with the words of the review which Gaynor kindly wrote at the conclusion of her case, but before I go – let me wish all readers of this blog all the very best for the festive period: and I hope all your letters to Santa reached their destination! 

“Brilliant firm

Court summons sent to wrong address, police turned up approximately 09 30 arrested me transported me to Doncaster police station where I was detained for about 3 hours before appearing in Doncaster crown court, After viewing all CCTV footage the judge decided there was no case to answer and I was released without charge 20 miles from home, prior this i attempted to contact the investigating officer for almost 4 months with no response, I have never been in trouble nor have a conviction of any sort the whole episode was extremely traumatic, I am also registered disabled and had my partner (who works nights) not been at home I don’t know what I would have done. Thanks again lain for everything you have done and Alex as well.”

How you can help

Week after week, I post on this blog, in order to share my knowledge and experience so that people can better understand their rights and options. If this blog has helped you, or if you believe in the general importance of holding the police to account, please take a moment to leave a 5 star review. Your review is more than just feedback – it is a way to guide others towards expert representation when they need it most. Thank you!

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

If you believe you may have been the victim of Police misconduct, please contact Iain Gould here for advice.

Wrongful arrests for alleged breaches of bail conditions continue to expose serious failings within the criminal justice system. As a solicitor specialising in police misconduct, unlawful arrest and false imprisonment claims, I regularly represent individuals whose liberty has been wrongly interfered with due to inaccurate court records, electronic monitoring failures and police delay. In this case study, I explain how my client Lauren was unlawfully arrested and detained despite her bail having lawfully ended following sentence at Nottingham Crown Court.

This blog post details how bureaucratic errors by the Court Service, the Electronic Monitoring Service and Derbyshire Constabulary combined to deprive Lauren of her freedom for 17 hours. Although her bail conditions had automatically ceased at the conclusion of her trial, failures to process court paperwork, update EMS systems and amend Police National Computer records resulted in an entirely unjustified arrest for an alleged breach of bail. Drawing on my extensive experience in actions against the police and public authorities, I unravel how these systemic failures occurred and why they amount to unlawful detention.

I also explain how I successfully secured £10,000 compensation plus costs for Lauren on a no win no fee basis, holding Derbyshire Constabulary accountable for their role in this wrongful arrest.

This case highlights the importance of specialist legal representation in police misconduct and false imprisonment claims, particularly where state bodies seek to dismiss such incidents as mere “mistakes”. If you or someone you know has been wrongly arrested, falsely imprisoned or accused of breaching bail conditions, this case demonstrates how expert legal action can restore accountability—and vindicate the fundamental right to liberty.

The Background: Conditional Bail and Electronic Tagging

In June 2023, my client Lauren was remanded in prison for 2 months in relation to a charge of assault against her ex-partner.  In August she was released from prison having been granted conditional bail by Nottingham Crown Court. As a condition of her bail, Lauren was required to observe a night time curfew at her mother’s address, the curfew being monitored by an electronic tag which she had to wear. 

On 26 September 2023, Lauren’s case came to trial.  She was found guilty, but receiving only a suspended sentence, was not required to return to prison. Naturally, Lauren’s bail conditions also automatically ceased upon the conclusion of the trial. 

Wrongful Arrest for Alleged Breach of Bail

 Nevertheless, on 1 October 2023 PC Gibson of Derbyshire Constabulary arrested my client for an alleged ‘breach of bail’, said to have occurred on 26 September 2023.

 As Lauren’s bail conditions had been a night time curfew, as oppose to a geographical exclusion zone, this arrest was manifestly incorrect – but deaf to Lauren’s pleas, the Officer took her to a nearby custody suite, where she was detained overnight.

“A Mistake”: How the System Fails the Wrongly Arrested

 The following morning Lauren was escorted by the Police to Derby Magistrates Court, but was advised by her solicitor outside the Court room that there had been a ‘mistake’ and that she was going to be immediately released.  She had, however, been unlawfully detained for the previous 17 hours. 

I have written many times before about how the slow-moving wheels of Court Service and Police bureaucracy can combine to unnecessarily endanger people’s liberty. 

What never ceases to surprise me, however, is the lack of interest which the key agencies of the criminal justice system show in upholding civil justice.  The Court will blandly inform a wrongly arrested person in this scenario that there has been a mistake – but will offer no explanation as to where the blame lies or how proper compensation can be obtained for what is one of the most serious wrongs that can be committed against any person in a democratic society – the unlawful deprivation of their liberty by the blundering or overreaching power of the State.  

Effectively, the wrongfully detained person is kicked out by the Court onto the kerb side and left to figure out for themselves what went wrong and who should pay for it.  This is where the assistance of an expert solicitor such as myself can prove invaluable. 

Who Is Responsible for Wrongful Arrests and Detention?

 I took Lauren’s case on a ‘no win no fee’ basis and presented claims on her behalf against the Ministry of Justice (which is responsible for the actions of the Court Service), Capita Plc (operators of the Electronic Monitoring Service), and Derbyshire Constabulary. Initial pursuit of claims against all three was necessary in the face of the wall of silence which otherwise confronted Lauren, and in order to obtain the various evidential records which would allow us to piece together exactly what had happened. 

It turned out that what had happened was the following – 

• ‘Order End’ paperwork was received by EMS from the Crown Court at 3.12pm on 26 September 2023.  However, it was the policy of Capita Plc not to process any orders or amendments received after 3pm until the following day.  Note that Capita have now been replaced by Serco as the operators of the EMS system – but I am not holding my breath in anticipation of anything changing on the front of accuracy/urgency.  
• Accordingly, when at 9pm on 26 September the system registered Lauren as being “out past curfew” (because, following the conclusion of the trial she had returned to her own home address), EMS responded by issuing a “Breach Notification” to Derbyshire Police at 10.20pm.  
• The following day, 27 September, the EMS system was finally updated to show that Lauren’s bail conditions had been cancelled. Evidently, however, this did not prompt EMS to rescind the Breach Notification issued the night before. 
• Nevertheless, Lauren would still have avoided her unlawful arrest, had Derbyshire Police updated their own records correctly.  The Court had sent notification of the sentence and cancellation of the bail conditions to the Police via email on 26 September.  
• ‘Unfortunately’ – a descriptor chosen by the Police themselves – the Police National Computer (PNC) was not updated to show that Lauren had been sentenced until 5 October 2023 – a completely unacceptable 9 day delay. 
• The combined result of the EMS delay and the Police delay in updating their records was PC Gibson’s erroneous arrest of my client on 1 October. 

Compensation for Wrongful Arrest and Unlawful Detention

 I am pleased to confirm that I was ultimately able to win Lauren ample compensation in the sum of £10,000 damages, plus her legal costs, from Derbyshire Constabulary. 

 Sadly, however, given the frequency with which I am consulted by people who have suffered exactly this form of wrongful arrest, there seems to be no structural change in sight to the frequently lackadaisical approach to liberty adopted by the agents of our criminal justice system.

 Nobody’s right to freedom, should end up in somebody else’s ‘to do’ pile.

My client’s name has been changed.  

My Client’s Testimonial

Once again, my client had been left to deal with the fallout of serious institutional failure, bounced between agencies who were quick to acknowledge a “mistake” but slow to accept responsibility. What turned Lauren’s case around was her resolve to challenge what had happened to her, and her trust in me to pursue accountability where none was being offered. Despite the familiar resistance from the authorities, persistence and careful review of the evidence led to a clear admission of liability and a substantial settlement. I was proud to secure justice for Lauren after such a needless deprivation of her liberty, and I am pleased to let her have the final word of this post through the Trustpilot testimonial she kindly wrote following the conclusion of her case.

Iain has been absolutely amazing in my compensation journey, always keeping me updated on everything and always having the best communication. Would definitely recommend to everyone. 10/10. Very happy :)

How You Can Help

My aim with this blog is to provide clarity, guidance, and reassurance to those who may feel powerless in the face of unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article useful, please submit a 5, yes 5 star review. Your support not only greatly encourages me to continue writing, but also helps ensure that others in need of specialist advice can find their way here. Every 5 star review makes a real difference. Thank you!

Wrongful arrests for alleged breaches of bail conditions are alarmingly common. As a solicitor who specialises in actions against the police, unlawful detention and claims against the Ministry of Justice, I regularly act for clients who are wrongly arrested because State bodies fail to update or accurately record bail conditions. 

In this blog post, I explain how I secured £13,000 compensation (plus costs) for my client after he was wrongly arrested and detained for over 52 hours—not due to police misconduct or EMS error, but because the Crown Court itself failed to update his curfew variation. This case highlights a troubling pattern of Ministry of Justice negligence, bureaucratic delay and breaches of personal liberty that I believe the public needs to understand. 

If you or someone you know has experienced a wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, an Electronic Monitoring Service error, or an unlawful bail breach allegation, this case study shows how such injustices can be challenged—and rectified. 

My Mission as a Personal Liberty Solicitor

 Most people know what a Personal Injury solicitor is. Far fewer realise that there is a specialist branch of civil litigation dedicated to defending the rights of individuals who have been wrongly arrested, unlawfully detained, or mistreated by the police, courts or other State authorities. 

After three decades specialising in actions against the police and claims against the Ministry of Justice, I have come to describe my role not simply as a lawyer, but as a Personal Liberty Solicitor. My work both builds upon and strives to support the two fundamental pillars of any democratic society:

• Autonomy of the individual; and
• Accountability of State authorities. 

My commitment is simple: I will always fight to obtain the maximum compensation for my clients, however long or complex the case may be. 

Unlike many other lawyers who are, frankly, less passionate about their work and/or less confident due to their not having my wealth of experience, I am not looking for a ‘quick buck’ or a too- easy win.  I don’t see my clients as commodities, but each and every one as deserving individuals – as I think the cases I have now been reporting on this blog for over 15 years, amply demonstrate. 

One of the individuals who I have most recently been able to help was my client, Paul Jones. Paul had suffered one of those all too common wrongful arrests for breach of bail about which I have blogged on many previous occasions – although on this occasion the culprit was not the Police or the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) – but the Crown Court itself (to be sued in the name of the Government Department which controls it, the Ministry of Justice).

The Ministry of Injustice: How A Crown Court Error Led to A Wrongful Arrest

Prior to the events in question, Paul was under criminal investigation and was on conditional bail, which included a tagged 7pm – 7am curfew, operated by the Electronic Monitoring Service. However, this condition was varied by the Crown Court on 28 June 2021 to become a 7pm – 3.15am curfew, to accommodate a change in my client’s employment commitments.

Notwithstanding the Court Order, Paul was then reported for breach of bail by EMS on both the 1^st and 2^nd July 2021, as if his old bail conditions were still in place.

 On the basis of those reports, on the morning of Saturday 3 July 2021, Officers of the Metropolitan Police came knocking on Paul’s door and arrested him for breach of bail.  He was handcuffed and taken into custody, with the Officers’ deaf to his pleas as to the true circumstances and detained (over the weekend) until the morning of Monday 5 July 2021, when he was conveyed, again in handcuffs to the local Magistrates Court.

Shortly after lunchtime, it was determined that Paul was not in fact in breach of his bail conditions, and he was at last released from custody.

Thus did Paul experience, as so many before him have, who have been caught up in the slow moving wheels of incompetent Court bureaucracy, that ‘evil twin’ of the Long Weekend; wrongfully arrested on a Friday or Saturday they have to cool their heels in a Police cell for several days, waiting for the lights to come back on (both literally and metaphorically) in the Court on Monday. 

Building the Case

 After Paul instructed me, on a no win, no fee basis, I quickly identified that the Crown Court was at fault for failing to immediately update EMS as to the change in my client’s bail conditions. They had two clear working days in which to ensure that the relevant databases were updated following the decision on 28^th June 2021, but failed to do so, leaving EMS in the dark as to the change of conditions and thereby causing EMS to issue a ‘breach’ notification to the Police. Neither EMS nor the Police could have known that my client’s conditions had been varied, owing to the Court’s tardiness in updating records which should be of the highest priority, pertaining as they do to a person’s liberty – and valuable Police time.

Owing to the Court’s negligence, Paul suffered a galling loss of liberty of over 52 hours.

 In response to the letter of claim which I advanced on behalf of Paul, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) put forwards – without any admission of liability – an offer of settlement in the sum of £6,560. I had no hesitation in advising Paul to reject this offer, as being far too low.

When the Ministry of Justice failed to increase this offer, I brought civil Court proceedings on behalf of my client. You might have thought this would be enough to get the MOJ to ‘pay up’, but common- sense does not always dictate the actions of Government departments, which frequently fail to shy at throwing public money away in an attempt to frustrate legitimate claims by other members of the public. The MOJ’s Defence to our claim consisted of 146 paragraphs of substantial pleading, prepared by a highly experienced (and no- doubt highly expensive) barrister of 30 years call, Mr Timothy Holloway. 

Breaking-Down the MOJ’s Defence

 Rather than admitting the fault that was plainly theirs, the MOJ ran a vast raft of arguments against the claim, including the following – 

1. Claimed a defence of Crown or judicial immunity pursuant to Section 2 (5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; 
2. Cited case law in support of its position (particularly the interplay and relationship between judicial and administrative actions), including the case of Quinland v Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh and Others [2002] EWCA Civ 174; 
3. In relation to the statutory definitions of the Data Protection Act 2018 – 

i. Denied that they were a ‘controller’ or ‘processor’ of data in the circumstances of this case; 

ii. Denied that a Court Order is ‘data’; 

iii. Denied that my client was a ‘data subject’ in any relevant sense; 

iv. Asserted that even if they were a controller or processor of relevant data in the circumstances then it would not be liable; 

v.  Placed reliance upon the exemptions provided by Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018 for those acting in a judicial capacity, averring that ‘judicial’ should be interpreted as including the administration of the Orders of the Court. 

4. Denied that any duty of care of common law was owed to my client, 
5. Denied any assumption of responsibility by the Court to ensure that the records within its possession/control were accurate/up to date, or to take reasonable steps to ensure my client was not exposed to an unnecessary risk of unlawful arrest 
6. Denied that my client’s alleged losses were foreseeable or proximate to the alleged breaches of duty 
7. Averred that it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose the duties of care alleged in the circumstances in that – 

i. The imposition of a duty of care in the circumstances would conflict with the Court’s public duty and/or have a tendency to discourage the due performance of the Court’s functions; 

ii. That the imposition of such a duty of care would probably lead to a diversion of public servants from their duties, contrary to the interests of the general public; 

iii. The imposition of a duty of care in the circumstances would have unforeseen consequences and repercussions in “limitless different scenarios”; 

8. Averred that the claim for aggravated and exemplary damages should be struck out; 
9. Disputed the statement of value and sought to limit my client’s claim to damages not exceeding £5,000. 

Owing to my expertise in this field of litigation I was confidently able to advise my client that the MOJ’s claim of “judicial immunity” did not in fact apply to administrative errors by Court staff, and that the case law fully supported our definition of the matter as a breach of the Data Protection Act, as well as a violation of Paul’s right to liberty, as protected by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and enshrined in UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998. 

Delivering Damages 

A less experienced solicitor or a litigant in person might have quailed at the complexity of the Defence, and perhaps cashed in their chips when the MOJ’s next offer of £9,500 (inclusive of legal costs, so in reality worth far less than its face value to my client) was made, after several months of further litigation, but I did not. Instead, I utilised my litigation skills to ensure that the case was allocated to the multi- track (reserved for the most important civil cases) and continued the claim until the MOJ finally agreed to pay Paul fair compensation of £13,000 plus his legal costs to be paid separately. 

My Client’s Testimonial

 The MOJ had tried to throw their weight around, but my client and I had punched back with equal weight. It was Paul’s patience, determination and trust in me that allowed me to carry the case through to such a successful resolution. I was proud to get this result for him, and I am proud to let him have the last word of this blog in the terms of the Trustpilot review which he wrote of me afterwards:

“The process of my case was complex. I was offered 3 offers, all 3 offers was rejected with the guidance & support of Iain & the 4th was accepted at court because of the professionalism & knowledge Iain has. As a result he was success in receiving the maximum amount in court. My whole journey has been 5* I’ve been contacted / updated throughout the process. The passion he has for helping he’s clients is beyond words. I would highly recommend Iain Gould to any one that needs a solicitor! Thank you Iain.” 

My client’s name has been changed.

How You Can Help

Behind each of my blog posts are countless hours of experience, research, and reflection on real cases. If you’ve benefited from reading this, or if you simply want to support the fight for accountability and justice in the crucial arena of civil rights and Police abuse of power, I would ask you to post a 5 star review. Each review not only supports me, but also makes it easier for others in need of no- nonsense expertise to find this site. Thank you for taking part in that effort.

Adding Value: this is a blog post about how I was able to assist the victim of an unlawful Police home intrusion to substantially increase her damages after she had initially started off pursuing the claim without legal representation.  

When Natalie first consulted my firm in August 2024 she eloquently summed up her experience of trying to claim compensation from South Wales Police (SWP) as one of “going round and round in circles”.  The Police had first offered Natalie £105 and had then increased this to £400 – still an entirely derisory amount, and an example of how Police lawyers will try to take advantage of the naivety of the general public: our adversarial justice system puts no obligation on them to play fair. Thankfully, Natalie then turned to me for advice. 

Natalie and her partner Sarah were asleep in bed when they were awoken by the horrendous sound of their front door being smashed open by a battering ram, shouting and men running up the stairs towards their bedroom (the first one to come in sight being in ‘plain clothes’ and thus not obviously an Officer); the burglars turned out to be the Police, executing a search warrant – at the wrong address.  

After reviewing the facts of the case and agreeing to represent Natalie and her partner on a “no win, no fee” basis, I added significant value to their claims by identifying the following breaches of the law for which compensation could and should be sought over and above the ‘property damage’ and distress which Natalie had claimed thus far – 

• Trespass to land.
• Breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (i.e. the right to private and family life).
• False imprisonment (i.e. the loss of liberty which falls upon any individual during a Police search, when the Officers assume ‘command’ not only over the land, but also the people within it by giving them orders/restricting their freedom of movement – in the case of Natalie and her partner they were required to ‘move’ from their bedroom into the downstairs living room.
• Assault (which is not restricted to physical contact alone, but which includes the apprehension of force – and few of us would fail to have a visceral reaction to the sight and sound of strangers in our home). 

Within minutes, the Officers involved in the raid had clearly realised their mistake, and indeed had started apologising to Natalie and Sarah, but that did not assuage the impact of those initial terrifying moments, which had left Sarah hyperventilating. 

The Police did board up the hole where Natalie’s front door had been that day, but it was several months before the door was properly replaced by her landlord. A smashed door, lying on the ground completely off its hinges, as Natalie’s was, is the physical tip of the psychological iceberg in cases like this; a symbol that can be captured on camera of all the damage that can’t be – the mental trauma and violation of the sanctity and safety of the home, every person’s most intimate refuge. Nails and plywood don’t come close to fixing it. 

My client Natalie’s experience of the raid can be read here in the interview that she subsequently gave to the BBC. 

Just as much as an Englishman’s, a Welsh woman’s home is her castle.  It was confirmed that South Wales Police Professional Standards Department had deemed the incident “Not acceptable” and were providing “Individual and team learning”to the Officers involved “In an attempt to avoid future incidents of a similar nature”; but any satisfactory conclusion of this matter would also involve acceptable compensation – which is something the Police were far from offering at this stage.  

Even after my firm became involved, SWP sought to buy off Natalie’s claim for £750 and Sarah’s claim for £1,000, offers which I advised my clients to reject without hesitation. 

To further bolster Natalie’s claim, arrangements were made for her to be examined by an independent medical expert in order to prove the extent of the psychological impact of the incident. SWP were being extremely combative about that aspect of the claim, maintaining that Natalie and Sarah had not been ‘detained’ when they manifestly had been – and suggesting that because one of my clients could be heard on the Police body camera footage laughing and joking with the Officers at the end of the incident that meant it was all really ‘no big deal’, completely overlooking the fact that a woman might well use laughter and apparent bonhomie to mask her own fears and deflect the threat posed to her by the squad of strange men who had violently entered her home in such circumstances. 

When South Wales Police failed to provide a timely response after Natalie’s medical evidence had been submitted, I further escalated matters by authorising the institution of civil Court proceedings on behalf of Sarah and Natalie.  

In response, the Police admitted liability for all aspects of the claim, save for assault. 

I am pleased to report that not long after the first Case Management Hearing was listed in the Court proceedings, I was able to conclude Natalie’s claim for £10,000 damages and Sarah’s claim for £4,000 damages, plus their legal costs.  Natalie was very happy to be able to conclude the matter on these terms, reflecting on how the Police’s initial offer to her had been a mere £400 and therefore that the combined settlement I had achieved for her and her partner represented a 3,500% increase in damages. That hugely increased sum of money also represents for my clients, most importantly, the emotional riches of empowerment, accountability and ‘taking back control’ of your life. 

That is what I am proud to call, adding value. 

The name of my client here identified as “Sarah” has been changed.

I write this blog because I believe passionately in justice and in making specialist legal knowledge freely available. If you value and support that mission, I would be very grateful if you could take a few minutes to leave a 5 star review. Every positive review helps those searching for the right advice to find this site and hence the help they deserve. Thank you for supporting this work.

Last week I blogged about some of the many clients whom I have helped to successfully sue the Police after they were originally accused of assaulting or obstructing a Police Officer and first had to go through the trauma of a prosecution and threat of a custodial sentence.

My message was that whilst a “not guilty” verdict is an essential precursor, in such a scenario, to a claim against the Police, this does not, in itself, equate to a guarantee of victory in the civil courts, where the burden of proof is now upon the civilian as the Claimant, rather than the Police witnesses and Prosecution lawyers, and different legal tests and rules of evidence apply. I am an expert in helping people turn the ‘negative’ finding of “not guilty” in the criminal courts (negative in the sense that it is not actually a positive declaration of innocence, but rather a failure by the Prosecution to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”) into a positive finding of liability in their favour in the civil courts – a declaration that personal rights have been infringed. 

The Burden & Standard of Proof 

The key legal principles to bear in mind in all of these cases are the following – 

• The Burden of Proof: The person who asserts something bears the burden of proving it. In the Criminal Courts, this is the Prosecutor on behalf of the Crown. In the Civil Courts it is the civilian Claimant, or in other words – Me on behalf of You.
• The Standard of Proof: In the Civil courts the standard you must reach is not proving something “beyond reasonable doubt” (as is the case in the Criminal courts) but only that it is more likely to have happened than not happened i.e “the balance of probabilities”. Scientific certainty is not required, and here legal battles can be won not necessarily in black and white, but shades of grey. 

What about when it is the Police Officer who has been Acquitted – of Assaulting You?

 I am also frequently consulted by people who have suffered injustice, not through being prosecuted themselves, but in seeing a Police Officer who assaulted them found “not guilty” by judges and juries in the Magistrates or Crown Courts. I am able to show my clients how the different legal tests applied by the civil courts can be used to deliver what this time would be a reverse, rather than ‘mirror’ outcome. 

The rarity of Officers being prosecuted for assaulting civilians in the course of their duties, is compounded by the frequency with which such prosecutions fail, aided and abetted by reluctant prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police are, of course, natural allies, not opponents), jurors mesmerized by “brass buttons”, and unsympathetic judges. 

The fact that an Officer has been found “not guilty” of criminally assaulting a person offers the Police no additional defence if that person then chooses to sue them. Whilst a criminal conviction carries probative weight in civil proceedings – the absence of a conviction does not, no matter with what plaudits a “cheerleading” judge in the criminal courts might have discharged a Defendant. A not guilty verdict leaves the underlying facts untouched, for fresh consideration and assessment in the civil courts – either way. 

Notable examples of my work in this type of case, include the following –

• My client Owen Andrews  Owen was one of those night- time revellers who all too frequently suffer contempt and violence from aggressive Officers hyped up on their own authority. Special Constable Gillon sprayed my client in the face with PAVA gas whilst Owen was lying helplessly on his back, and Merseyside Police Professional Standards charged their officer with common assault: but the Judge at Manchester Magistrates Court apparently saw things very differently, praising SC Gillon’s “reasonable and proportionate” use of force and criticizing my client’s “attitude towards authority” – words which stung Owen more deeply than the burning PAVA spray. Unfazed by these findings, I helped Owen win justice, including a formal apology and over £22,000 damages, in a civil claim.
• In the case of Shane Price, the Lincolnshire Police Inspector who assaulted my client, a man of Romany Gypsy heritage, in an apparent “road rage” attack was at first shielded and supported by his fellow officers and then, even when he was prosecuted because of the existence of independent video footage of the assault – had his naked aggression re- classified as “self- defence” by the presiding judge at Nottingham Magistrates Court. I took Shane’s case on and fought the Police almost all the way to a second, civil trial before they caved in and agreed to a £100,000 settlement. 
• My client Shaun Kennellywas a teenager when PC Copland drove his car over his head after a reckless pursuit. Copland was prosecuted, but the Judge at Leicester Crown Court found that “no jury, properly directed, could reach the conclusion that he was guilty of the offence [of dangerous driving].” So Copland had no case to answer in the Crown Court – but he did in the County Court, where I was able to secure a five- figure damages award for my client.
• The case of Scott Barratt is ongoing, but I have already succeeded in overturning a Lincolnshire Police Professional Standards Department attempt to exonerate PC Kirkwood, who had mistaken my entirely innocent client for a bicycle thief, forced him onto his hands and knees at taser point and then deliberately kicked him in the face (breaking Scott’s nose) with the words “Fucking bastard!”. In that case, the prosecution of PC Kirkwood had floundered long before the Crown Court Judge saluted the Jury’s “not guilty” verdict with his own declaration that it had been “simply unfair” to have “dragged” the poor Officer through the Courts – for the Crown Prosecution Service had chosen not to call my client, the victim, as a witness, in a bizarre act bordering on self- sabotage. Following the Officer’s criminal acquittal, Lincolnshire PSD produced a report which endorsed Kirkwood’s actions in similarly glowing terms – but I was able to persuade the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to intervene, and the Officer will now face a Gross Misconduct hearing.  

It can be hugely demoralising to see the officer who assaulted you walking free from court, his reputation apparently not just unblemished but burnished in the eyes of some – but that doesn’t have to be the end of the story; don’t let Judicial praise of the “not guilty” Officer be the final word. Let me show you how civil justice can be used to secure a fair outcome in the final analysis, and help restore your faith in our system.

My aim with this blog is to provide clarity, guidance, and reassurance to those who may feel powerless in the face of unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article useful, please consider leaving a 5 star review. Your support not only greatly encourages me to continue writing, but also helps ensure that others in need of specialist advice can find their way here. Every 5 star review makes a real difference. Thank you!

The huge rush of relief which accompanies a “not guilty” verdict in the Crown or Magistrates Court, or the notice that an ongoing prosecution has been discontinued, will often leave the accused ultimately unsatisfied; after the ordeal which they have been through, many people who have been wrongly accused of a crime want, quite understandably, to seek restitution for their initial arrest and the psychological torment they have been put through in the meantime. 

Acquittal does not necessarily equate to a valid claim against the Police. The test of “reasonable suspicion” of an offence, which justifies a Police Constable to arrest, being a considerably less stringent one than the test of proving it “beyond reasonable doubt”, which a Crown Prosecutor must satisfy in order to convict. Suspicion means just that – belief that lacks proof; though it should be accompanied by an honest and reasonable belief that proof could be found. In most cases, a third party allegation of an offence will provide the Police with suspicion enough to justify an arrest, and the legality of that arrest will not be undermined if ultimately sufficient proof cannot be found. 

However, if your prosecution was driven, not by the malicious or mistaken assertion of a third party, but the false testimony of the Police themselves i.e a case in which it is Police Officers who are the alleged victims of the offence, and who are the primary witnesses called by the Prosecution – then the chances are that you will have a valid civil claim following a “not guilty” verdict, and you should instruct an expert in claims against the Police such as myself, to assess the evidence and advice on the best way forwards. A Police defence of “reasonable suspicion” in the face of a claim for wrongful arrest, can be defeated by proving that the arrest was based on the false testimony of one of their own. 

But the abandonment of a prosecution is not an admission of wrongdoing by the Police, nor is a “not guilty” verdict a finding of liability against them. In bringing a civil claim for compensation the responsibility is now on you as the Claimant to persuade the Court that your case is the more probable one; this is what is known as the “burden of proof” and why in my opinion you need an expert solicitor at your side to shoulder that burden.   

Here are some notable examples from amongst the hundreds of clients whom I have helped to secure justice in the form of compensation, following an acquittal in the criminal courts or a “dropping of the charges” prior to trial, in relation to the following types of offence –

• Assaulting a Police Constable 
• Assaulting an Emergency Worker 
• Obstructing a Police Constable in the Execution of their duty  
• Resisting Arrest.

Found Not Guilty At Court

 My client John Kennedy faced the nightmare situation of a Police ‘welfare visit’ turning into a brutal assault upon him – John left with a severely fractured arm by the two Officers who were supposedly there to ensure his well- being, but he was the one who was prosecuted for assaulting them. Read here about how I was able to help John win justice in the civil courts, and £50,000 damages, following his acquittal in Liverpool Magistrates.   

Likewise, my client Mark for whom I won £17,000 damages after Teeside Magistrates found him not guilty of assaulting a Police Officer who had burst into his and his young son’s hotel room.   

My client Cedric brought a successful claim for £20,000 damages in the aftermath of the “not guilty” verdict delivered by a Jury at Winchester Crown Court, in relation to an alleged assault upon an emergency worker (PC Castle of Dorset Police).   

My client Richard recovered £17,500 as a result of his civil claim against Humberside Police; Richard had been forced to go all the way to trial, only for the Magistrates to determine that he had “no case to answer” after hearing the evidence of the Police Officers against him. 

My client Edward, a young black man won £10,000 damages. He was found by Bristol Magistrates to have “no case to answer” in respect of charges of assaulting a Police Officer; but the fact that even after this verdict, Edward’s original actions against the Police solicitors abandoned his claim – which I then took on instead – shows both that a victory in the criminal courts does not automatically equate to a victory in the civil courts, but that I have the expertise to help my clients deliver such a ‘double- whammy’ to the Police.   

My client Amir had to suffer all of the stress and tension of being prosecuted and going all the way to Snaresbrook Crown Court,on charges of “assaulting an emergency worker” (PC Hussain of the Metropolitan Police) only for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide to offer no evidence against him on the very morning of the trial – leaving him not so much exhilarated as strangely deflated, denied the chance to clear his name in Court. Thankfully, I was able to take on Amir’s claim and secure damages of £22,500 for him from the Met, which gave him the sense of satisfaction he deserved.   

The same experience had befallen my client Ben. Ben was arguing with his partner in her home when officers of Greater Manchester Police, who had been called to attend an entirely separate matter, unnecessarily intervened and ended by beating Ben up on the living room floor, including spraying him with CS gas at point- blank range and knocking one of his teeth loose. Ben was subsequently charged with “resisting arrest” and with assaulting three of the officers who had in fact assaulted him. The case was pursued all the way to trial at the Crown Court – only for the CPS to offer no evidence, leading to “not guilty” verdicts being entered on all three counts. Despite this ‘surrender’ at the Crown Court, the different legal tests which apply to civil claims (where as I have noted above, the burden of proof is upon the Claimant, not upon the Police) meant that GMP denied Ben’s claim for compensation, and we had to take them almost all the way to trial in the County Court before they agreed a payout of £30,000 damages for my client.  

Acquittal is therefore often not the end, but the beginning of a journey to full justice. If you have had to fight to clear your name against wrongful charges brought against you for assaulting or obstructing the Police, or if you have seen an Officer who assaulted you walk free from Court, share your story with me and let’s see if together we can take the fight to them.

Behind each of my blog posts are countless hours of experience, research, and reflection on real cases. If you’ve benefited from reading this, or if you simply want to support the fight for accountability and justice in the crucial arena of civil rights and Police abuse of power, I would ask you to post a 5 star review. Each review not only supports me, but also makes it easier for others in need of no- nonsense expertise to find this site. Thank you for taking part in that effort.

The majority of the Police Officers in England and Wales are employed by one of the 43 territorial Police Forces named after the ‘shires’ into which the country was traditionally subdivided for the purposes of local government e.g. Leicestershire, Kent, Norfolk, Devon and Cornwall – along with broader entities designed to reflect the biggest urban conglomerations such as West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside – and of course the Metropolis itself. I have successfully sued every single one of these 43 Police Forces. 

Despite their regional designations, the Policing powers of each Force are not geographically limited, and Forces often mount joint operations together. The powers and privileges of an Officer of Lancashire Constabulary do not disappear when he crosses the line into a different county.

The Police Constables of each specific territorial Force are all, ultimately, ‘Police Constables of England and Wales’, answerable to the Home Office. An off duty Metropolitan Police Officer, travelling on a train through Hertfordshire, can put himself on duty and exercise the full powers invested in him by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) if he detects, or believes he has detected, a criminal offence taking place.   

But this is not the case with every type of Police Officer. There are also a wide variety of ‘Special Police Forces’ whose Officers,  despite the title and uniform they bear, are not full Crown Constables but – in reality – glorified security guards employed by, and answerable to, those Companies or Corporations which own/run a specific location or type of infrastructure, most commonly a transport hub. These Police Officers are invested with the powers and privileges of full Constables only for the specific purpose of policing and protecting their particular infrastructure. Generally, they are not allowed to exercise their powers beyond the geographical boundaries of that infrastructure. 

For example, the Port of Dover Police, as with many other ‘Harbour Cops’, are funded by the owners of the Port and derive their powers from the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, which originally limited their jurisdiction to land owned by the Harbour Board, and extending in a one mile radius beyond. 

This presented a problem when, in 2011, the Custody Suite operated by Kent Police in Dover closed, meaning that anyone arrested by the Port of Dover Police needed to be transported to the next nearest Custody Centre in Canterbury – and as this meant going further than a mile away from the Port, any such arrest became unlawful once the boundary was past. A specific piece of legislation – the Marine Navigation Act 2013 – was required in order to fix this problem, extending the jurisdiction of all Port Police Forces to the territorial area in which they were located (e.g. Kent, in the case of the Port of Dover Police) but only for the purposes of Port Policing matters, and not wider law enforcement – and no further than that one regional area. 

So, if you have been subject to arrest by a Police Officer who does not work for one of the territorial Forces (all of whom are listed here) then it is always worthwhile checking the extent of their jurisdiction. For when Private Policemen conduct themselves like Public Constables, that way lies abuse of power and infringement of civil liberties.   

Who are the Mersey Tunnels Police (MTP)?

If you believe you have been wronged by a ‘normal’ Police Officer, who works for one of the 43 territorial Forces of England and Wales, then the correct Defendant to name when you sue them is the Chief Constable of that particular Force (who is answerable to the Crown in the person of the Home Secretary).

If you are bringing a claim arising out of the actions of a Mersey Tunnels Police Officer, then the correct Defendant is the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. 

Mersey Tunnels Police are responsible for the policing of the two road tunnels (“Queensway”, also known as the Birkenhead Tunnel, and “Kingsway”, also known as the Wallasey Tunnel) which connect Liverpool to the Wirral Peninsula. These tunnels were opened in 1934 and 1971 respectively and are both toll roads.

Mersey Tunnels Police Officers derive their powers from Section 105 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980 (as amended by the Local Government Act 1985) which, at paragraph 1, states as follows (my emphasis ) –  

 “The county council may appoint any of their officers or servants to act as law enforcement officers for the policing of the tunnels, the approaches and any marshalling area.”

 Paragraph 3 of the same section clarifies that it is only when so acting that those law enforcement officers “shall have the powers and privileges of a Constable.”

 The above legal framework was succinctly summarised in the following “Force Orders” document issued by Mersey Tunnels Police on 1 May 2005 – 

• “Officers of Mersey Tunnels Police act in the capacity of a citizen outside of jurisdiction, and if they come across an arrestable offence whilst on duty, but off jurisdiction, are required to notify Merseyside Police, who will allocate an officer to deal with the incident.”

 These geographical limitations were further, explicitly, acknowledged in the Partnership Agreement dated 5 August 2014 between Mersey Tunnels Police and Merseyside Police as follows – 

• “The jurisdiction of Mersey Tunnels Police is limited to the Mersey Tunnels, the approach roads and Marshalling areas.”
• “The officers have no right to act or to exercise powers for the purpose of dealing with any incident outside of the areas specified [above].” 

Those who are given power and authority over others are naturally inclined to exercise and extend it, whether deliberately or not, pushing the boundaries of their power wider in terms of scope, types of activity, level of force, or range of operations (which can of course include geographical range): this is sometimes known as the doctrine of “Mission Creep.” 

Under the County of Merseyside Act, Mersey Tunnels Police have power over those using the tunnels themselves, the marshalling areas for vehicles using or intending to use the tunnels (e.g on the Toll Plaza around the pay barriers) and their direct ‘approach roads’ – the canyon- like dual carriageways which feed traffic to/ from the tunnels and the M53 motorway and other A- roads. These approach roads are demarcated by signs stating “Start [or “End”] of Mersey Tunnel Byelaws.” 

But what about the multiple ‘ordinary’ road bridges which cross over the approach roads and above the marshalling areas, on both the Liverpool and Wirral sides of the river  – are these within the jurisdiction of MTP? 

Mission Creeps

As a rule of thumb, you can think of the officers of the ‘Special Police Forces’ as being privately funded security guards who provide policing services in particularly defined locations and/or for particularly defined purposes. However, the uniforms that they wear, and the fact that many of their recruits are former ‘ordinary bobbies’ from one of the Home Office Police Forces, can lead these officers to behave exactly as if they were fully- empowered Police Officers, and that was at the root of the problem in the case which I will be addressing in this blog. 

One day in November 2020, my client Brian was on the section of Oakdale Road which is carried by a bridge above the Kingsway Tunnel’s approach road ‘cutting’. Oakdale Road is an ordinary residential road through the suburb of Wallasey, consisting of a single carriageway and pedestrian pavements on either side. There is no public access from Oakdale Road to the tunnel, or its approach road, below. As an ordinary public road, and not part of the tunnels estate, it is naturally the case that the Mersey Tunnels byelaws do not apply to Oakdale Road, and its only association with the tunnels is that it overlooks them. 

Brian had taken his car to a local garage for minor repairs and went for a walk in the area near to the garage whilst the work was being completed. He was expecting a phone call from the mechanic to notify him when the work was complete. During his walk, Brian stopped on Oakdale Road, overlooking the Kingsway Tunnel entrance, and was reading on his mobile phone, awaiting the call from the garage. This was during the time of Covid but Brian was entirely alone, there were no other people in the vicinity, and he was not conceivably causing any danger to ‘public health.’ 

However, a Mersey Tunnels Police vehicle now pulled up in Brian’s vicinity and an MTP Sergeant exited the vehicle, and approached Brian, demanding to know what he was doing out in “Lockdown.” 

Brian informed the Sergeant that he was awaiting a phone call. The Sergeant demanded his address; my client declined to provide this and queried whether he was being detained. The Sergeant replied that he was not. 

Accordingly, Brian crossed to the other side of the road and the Sergeant made no attempt to stop him, but was now joined by another vehicle containing two MTP Constables. 

From across the road, Brian requested the officers’ details, as the Sergeant approached him again. My client queried why he was being bothered by the officers, and the extent of their jurisdiction. The Sergeant replied that he had approached Brian because he was “in breach of the Coronavirus Regulations” and told him to return home. 

When Brian asked to simply be left alone, the Sergeant then threatened to arrest him if he refused to go home or leave the area as he was “causing a danger to public health” – despite the fact that as with so many of these ‘Coronavirus conflicts’ the danger of infection caused by close proximity of persons was solely being caused by the Officers who were surrounding, intimidating – and threatening to lay hands on a harassed member of the public. 

Brian now walked away along Oakdale Road, whilst the Sergeant radioed to his control room, stating that if Brian returned he would “lock him up”. When asked by control what offence the Claimant was suspected of committing, the Sergeant replied “Section 24 breach of Public Health”. 

Shortly afterwards, Brian, who was exasperated by the ongoing attentions of the officers, walked back down Oakdale Road, on the other side of the road, and when challenged by the officers called over that he was taking exercise. 

Then, as Brian continued to walk away from the officers along Oakdale Road, the Sergeant chased after my client and, coming up from behind him, took hold of his left arm. 

Brian was placed in a state of shock by this sudden assault; and although he was in no way fighting back, the two Mersey Tunnels constables ran over to ‘follow the leader.’ The three officers handcuffed Brian, applying considerable force to his arms as they did so, causing him pain. The Sergeant told Brian to “stop resisting” but had not at this point actually told Brian that he was under arrest, or for what offence – making this a prima facie unlawful arrest – even if it had been carried out by Police Officers within their proper jurisdiction. But remember – Officers of Mersey Tunnels Police act in the capacity of a citizen outside of jurisdiction. 

Brian felt his arms being twisted and pulled by the officers, and one of them bending his left middle finger, causing him acute pain. Whilst this was ongoing, the Sergeant belatedly informed Brian that he was being arrested for “breaching Coronavirus Regulations”. With both of his hands now in handcuffs, Brian complained that the cuffs were hurting him, to which the Sergeant threatened to take Brian to the ground “if you resist.”   

Alarmed by the officers completely over-the-top behaviour, Brian tried to explain that his car was being repaired, that he was awaiting a phone call from the garage, and that it was too far to walk home. However, the Sergeant interrupted this explanation and said that Brian had been back to the bridge two or three times “recording down” and that they were aware that there was a “demonstration” on that day. My client had no knowledge of any ‘demonstration’ and offered to show the officers his phone, to prove that the only recording he had taken was of his initial interaction with the Sergeant. 

With a calmer head now perhaps beginning to prevail on his shoulders, the Sergeant began to de- escalate matters. He used his Body Worn Camera (which had captured the above events) to document an injury to Brian’s wrist, caused by the cuffs, and then released my client from those cuffs. Unfortunately, this did not free Brian from the pain which was now spreading down his hand into his fingers. 

Brian was then taken to the Sergeant’s car – still under arrest – and made to sit in the rear seat. At this moment, Brian’s phone rang – it was the call from the garage he had been waiting for all along. 

The Sergeant now informed Brian that if he provided his details he would be released. Just wanting to go, Brian reluctantly did so and was then “de-arrested” and allowed to leave – walking off in the direction in which he had been heading when the Sergeant had accosted him.

Brian had been detained against his will by the Officers for approximately 15 minutes, and the force used upon him left him feeling physically and mentally shaken. 

Furthermore, throughout the length of the interaction between my client and the officers, as described above, several other members of the public passed along Oakdale Road on foot, but none of these people were approached or challenged by any of the three officers as to what their business being ‘out’ might be. 

Following the Incident, one of the MTP Constables involved completed a Conflict Management Monitoring form, which contained the following outline of the incident –

“We were asked … to attend Oakdale Road bridge as a male was loitering on the top of the bridge. On arrival SGT  was already at scene speaking to the male. The male was refusing to listen to SGT. After a number of attempts to ask the male to leave the area, SGT told the male he was under arrest, and attempted to put handcuffs on his left wrist. The male was asked numerous times to stop resisting. The male eventually stopped when he was told that he was going to be taken to the floor. He was then put into the back of SGT’s police vehicle. The male then agreed to leave the area if he was de-arrested.” 

The Sergeant also completed a Conflict Monitoring form in which he admitted that my client was “not assaultive outwardly towards us”.  

Advice and Analysis

When Brian consulted my firm for legal advice, we quickly agreed to represent him on a no win, no fee basis.

Leaving aside for a moment the nature of these officers (Mersey Tunnels Police – not Home Office constables), there were obviously strong grounds for a claim for unlawful arrest to be brought on behalf of Brian –

• There were no reasonable grounds to suspect that Brian had committed, or was about to commit, an offence contrary to the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (“Covid Regulations”) or any other laws relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
• Brian’s conduct did not pose any discernible risk to public health such as warranted his arrest. He was standing quietly, alone, outside, minding his own business and even wearing a face covering when he was approached by the officers. 
• The arrest was not reasonably necessary in the circumstances for any of the prescribed reasons pursuant to Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. 

As it happened, however, Brian was already aware of the limited jurisdiction of MTP, and having reviewed the evidence I agreed with his initial belief that the Officers had no power to police this bridge in the first place, whether to enforce Coronavirus regulations or any other law – this was not land that formed part of the Tunnels, approaches or marshalling areas.   Accordingly, absent jurisdiction, my client’s arrest was ipso facto unlawful. 

What had happened here, to cause the Officers oppressive and excessive conduct, was in my opinion, a ‘perfect storm’ of mission-creep policing caused by the twin elements of the ‘Coronavirus curfew’ (which had enabled the authoritarian impulses of many Police Officers) and the natural (though unlawful) impulses of a “Special Police Force” to push at the limitations of its power, and to try and extend the physical remits of its jurisdiction.

It subsequently transpired that MTP were, on the day in question, on the lookout for “anti- Lockdown” protestors believed to be intending to travel through the tunnels in order to assemble in Liverpool city centre. That seems to be what drew them to my client on the bridge – perhaps they had a fanciful notion that Brian was there to film a convoy of protestors? This was the very definition of “ultra vires” mission creep. Stopping a busload of potential protestors who were actually attempting to drive through the tunnel would have been one thing – interfering with the lawful business of a solitary citizen on an adjacent but ‘out of jurisdiction’ road, was quite another.  

What Did Mersey Tunnels Police Try to Argue?

In response to the claim which we presented on behalf of Brian, Mersey Tunnels Police initially strongly stood their ground, arguing that the proximity of Oakdale Road bridge to the tunnels themselves, including the fact that their officers regularly used the bridge when entering/ leaving the tunnels estate (there is a private road from the bridge which connects to the Toll Plaza below, but to which public access is forbidden), meant that their officers had a “reasonable belief” that the bridge lay within their jurisdiction and that it would be “impractical” for them to fulfil their function of maintaining the safety and integrity of the tunnels if they could not operate as police officers on a bridge that passed directly over the tunnel approaches. 

Quite rightly, however, the law does not allow the statutorily defined powers of any Police Force to expand on the basis of the “beliefs” of its rank-and-file or wishes of its leadership; Police jurisdiction is not equivalent to “right of way” arguments based on years of usage, nor is it a variant of the arrest powers prescribed by PACE which can be legally deployed when there are ‘honest and reasonable’ (but mistaken) beliefs by an Officer as to the commission of an offence. 

The jurisdiction of Mersey Tunnels Police was a black and white matter – for all the attempts of these particular boys in blue to turn it into a ‘grey area.’ Ironically, the case I was arguing on behalf of my client had the support of Merseyside Police themselves in the Partnership Agreement – which jealously preserved the ‘real’ Police Forces prerogative over the rest of Merseyside – including those bridges which happen to run over the tunnel approaches. 

If Mersey Tunnels Police want to change that, they will need an Act of Parliament – and it ill- became them to attempt to short-circuit the law by bamboozling the civil courts, in the context of this claim, though that, for a long time, was what they attempted to do – pleading a lengthy Defence, refusing to settle and serving statements from numerous officers, including the Chief Inspector of the Force (the highest ranking MTP Officer – equivalent to a Chief Constable elsewhere, though his bailiwick is considerably smaller). 

Why Didn’t They Back Down?

Despite the fact that Brian clearly had a very strong case, MTP declined the opportunity to settle the matter amicably, outside of court, and instead we had to issue court proceedings on behalf of Brian. MTP certainly seemed very happy to blow the public’s toll money on fighting a case they should have agreed to ‘shake hands on’ at the earliest opportunity … but when it comes to civil litigation, Police Forces of all sizes often seem to let their hearts rule their heads. This seems to be born out of an almost “Trollish” animosity towards that very public they are supposed to be serving – should the public claim or complain about them.

Brian’s case was listed for trial, when only days before the Pre- Trial Review, MTP finally agreed to settle his claim for substantial damages plus legal costs. 

Thankfully, my client knew his rights from day one in this matter, but not everyone would – and the Police frequently misrepresent the extent of their powers (e.g whether or not they have a power to detain you – Home Office or not…). 

When it comes to Special Police Forces, with special jurisdictions, take special care – in the form of expert advice from myself or my colleagues. 

My client’s name has been changed.

For many years, I have relied on the strength of this blog, my case results, and the recommendation of my clients – not expensive advertising designed to ‘game’ search results – to build awareness of my work. If you believe this site provides valuable information and an insightful perspective, please help me continue by leaving a 5 star review. Your review plays a vital role in ensuring that those in need can find the right solicitor for their case. Thank you!

When, as an expert in civil claims and actions against the Police, I was first approached by my client Jon earlier this year, he very neatly summarised his problem as follows –

“I was arrested and locked up overnight for a breach of bail, namely a curfew. I did not have a curfew included in my bail.  So, Northumbria Police falsely imprisoned me.  My solicitor at the time spoke to the Judge in the morning and both confirmed that I had not breached any bail conditions whatsoever.  I was released.  Northumbria Police have refused my initial request for compensation and I don’t know what to do next.”

I was very happy to assist Jon in his predicament. Jon’s bail conditions were that he had to wear an electronic tag – with the purpose of the tag to ensure that he did not enter an ‘exclusion zone’, he was not subject to a night-time curfew. In other words, his movements were geographically but not time restricted.

As Jon had stated in his initial enquiry, he had pursued matters in his own right, by way of a letter of claim to Northumbria Police – but they had denied liability.

Everything Jon had told me in his initial approach was correct – in April 2023, whilst he was subject to Court bail with an electronic GPS tag, he was visited at his home one evening by officers of Northumbria Police who arrested him for allegedly failing to abide by a curfew – deaf to my client’s remonstrations that he was not under any curfew. Jon was then detained overnight in police custody before being transported to South Tyneside Magistrates Court in handcuffs – only to be released almost immediately upon the morning session of the Court being convened, when it was quickly confirmed that his bail conditions did indeed have no curfew attached.

Whilst it was understandable that Jon should have sought compensation for his loss of liberty from those who had arrested and detained him – Northumbria Police – my experience in such cases taught me to look for another culprit, namely EMS, the Electronic Monitoring Service who were responsible for fitting Jon’s tag, monitoring its data and reporting any breaches to the police for follow up/enforcement.

Who are EMS?

As at June 2024, according to Government statistics, over 20,893 individuals in the UK were subject to one form of ‘electronic monitoring’ or another.

Electronic monitoring tags are worn by individuals subject to various criminal justice orders e.g as a condition of bail, probation, a suspended sentence or community order, or immigration bail. They use a variant of the same GPS technology which powers a ‘Find my iPhone app’ or an air-tag in your luggage, so as to allow the Electronic Monitoring Service to check a person’s location at any given time or even, in some cases, monitor for the presence of alcohol in their bloodstream.

The EMS contract is ‘franchised’ out by the government to private suppliers.

Prior to May 2024, the Electronic Monitoring Service was outsourced to the well-known private venture company Capita. Since that date EMS has been operated by Serco Limited who are involved in similar public-private partnerships in the Criminal Justice sector including running a number of private prisons and providing prisoner transport on what we might call ‘the Court run.’

How I Was Able To Help

Here, and not for the first time in my experience, EMS seemed to have ‘hallucinated’ a breach of Jon’s bail conditions, which did not in fact exist. They were responsible for then raising a false breach report to the police, which the police followed up in good faith. The police, by arresting and detaining Jon, might be able to hide behind the “reasonable belief” of an offence which underpins their arrest powers under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and which was based on the incorrect information fed to them by EMS.

As Northumbria Police Legal Services put it in their letter rejecting Jon’s claim – “Northumbria Police were entitled to believe that the information provided to them by the EMS service was accurate.” Meanwhile, EMS themselves had not detained my client, and so could not be sued for wrongful arrest/false imprisonment.

I advised Jon that EMS could, however, be pursued under Article 5 on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as enshrined in UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998, as it was their actions which had caused Jon to be improperly deprived of his liberty (through the unwitting agency of Northumbria Police).

My investigations revealed that there had been a temporary curfew imposed upon my client requiring him to remain in his residence between the hours of 5pm and midnight for the first two days of his bail, in order to allow for his tag to be fitted – in other words, to ensure he would be home when the EMS operative arrived with the equipment. Once the tag was fitted, however, there was no continuing curfew – yet several days later Jon was arrested in the circumstances described above. What should have been blindingly obvious to EMS was that if they were relying on tag data (as they were) to claim that Jon was breaching his curfew – that in itself showed that the curfew was no longer effective, because the tag was in place. Instead, too much data, combined with too little common sense, led to Jon being wrongfully deprived of his liberty.

Jon had been seeking justice for his wrongful arrest for over 2 years when he first approached me; I am pleased to confirm that just over 3 months later, I was able to secure a full admission of liability from Capita/EMS for him, and I have recently settled his claim for damages in the sum of £5,750 plus his legal fees.

I am sure Jon would be the first to agree that his is a perfect example of how even the most apparently straightforward claims can prove to be anything but – and that all those who have suffered infringement of their civil rights and liberty can benefit from the right advice and the right representation – from the right solicitor.

In fact, I will give Jon the last word in this blog post, from the review that he kindly posted on Trustpilot-

“I searched for a solicitor but found that the solicitors in my area showed little interest in my situation. I then came across Iain on a Google search. This man was incredible from the very start. He replied very quickly to my initial message. I cannot recommend this man highly enough. I hope I’m never in this situation ever again but if I am Iain is the man I will call. He is honest, transparent, fair, trustworthy, professional and empathetic. He doesn’t judge and takes immense pride in fighting for justice and accountability. If Iain gets to see this, I want to publicly thank him for helping me with my case. I would recommend Iain without hesitation to anyone who has been unfortunate enough to have been treated unfairly by police etc.”

My client’s name has been changed.

I write this blog because I believe passionately in justice and in making specialist legal knowledge freely available. If you value and support that mission, I would be very grateful if you could take a few minutes to leave a 5 star review. Every positive review helps those searching for the right advice to find this site and hence the help they deserve. Thank you for supporting this work.

Arrested for Failing to Attend a Court Hearing You Knew Nothing About?

There’s a hoary old trope in detective stories which holds that criminals are always drawn back to the scene of the crime.

In this week’s blog post I will reveal how that adage was apparently at the heart of some real- life “Keystone Cops” policing, as my client was arrested for failing to attend Court… after a Summons had been sent, not to her home address, but to the stretch of road where she’d been arrested. 

What is a Postal Summons?

 A Postal Summons, also known as a Postal Requisition or Notice of Criminal Charge, is the means by which the Police notify a person of criminal charges against them, if they are not charged “in person” at the Police station. The Summons sets out the date on which the person must attend at Court to enter a guilty or not guilty plea to the charge. Should they fail to attend, the Court will almost automatically issue a warrant for their arrest, and so the next thing through the wanted person’s front door will not be a letter – but the boots of Police Officers. 

The obvious fallibility in the Postal Summons system is this – what if the notice is sent to the wrong address? What is your right of redress when you are arrested for failing to attend a Court hearing you genuinely knew nothing about? 

What Happened in this case?

 In October 2022, my client, Maria (name changed for this blog post) was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs. She was then released under investigation. 

In the early hours of the morning of 15 December 2023, Metropolitan Police Officers attended Maria’s home address with a warrant for her arrest for failing to attend Court in March 2023.

 Maria was not home, and the officers left.

 Maria subsequently self-presented on the 27 December 2023 at Charing Cross police station.

 Maria was then arrested for “failing to attend Court”. Following process, she was detained in a cell and transported to Westminster City Magistrates’ Court in handcuffs.

 At Court, it was ascertained that the Summons had been sent, not merely to an incorrect address, but actually no address at all, rather the location of Maria’s arrest on the A406 Westbound in Finchley. 

On that basis, Maria was immediately released. 

I obtained a copy of Maria’s Summons, and it doesn’t take much rocket science to identify the problem (redacted to remove her actual name and DOB) –

A Reminder of your Rights: What to do if this Happens to You

After the harrowing experience of her arrest, Maria consulted me for expert advice and I offered her representation on a no win, no fee basis and prepared a succinct and effective letter of claim against the Met.

 I am pleased to report that I have recently settled Maria’s claim for damages for her unlawful arrest in the sum of £4,350, plus her legal costs.

 This extreme example is thankfully an outlier in terms of crass stupidity, with both Police and Court staff apparently putting bureaucracy where their brains should be; but it is not unique in my experience. In 2021 I wrote about the case of my client Tony, who was arrested by Merseyside Police at his actual home address after they had posted a Summons to the location of his Stop-and-Search –“Street Record, Green Lane, Tuebrook, Liverpool, L13 3DB”.  

Much more regularly, less obvious mistakes leading to equally unjust outcomes occur, generally involving the Police posting the Summons to a person’s old address, and I’m pleased to be here to be able to offer assistance if this happens to you.

I can help guide you past the provisions of the Constables Protection Act (which grants immunity from suit to Police Officers enforcing an Arrest Warrant), utilising the Human Rights Act, Data Protection Act and the many twists and turns of the law of civil wrongs (also known as tort law) – including negligence and misfeasance in public office – and ensure that when the Police do admit liability you get the maximum amount of compensation you are entitled to, given the unique circumstances of your case. 

Read here about some of the many clients whom I have helped recover substantial damages after they were arrested for failing to attend Court hearings which they could never in fact have known about because of the summons/ postal requisitions being sent to the wrong address –

• £20,000 Damages for Postal Summons Address Error Arrest 
• £8,000 Damages After Court Summons goes to Wrong Address   
• How I helped a client claim compensation after a postal summons error 
•  Damages For Court Summons Sent to Wrong Address 
• Wrongly Addressed, Wrongful Arrest
• Hell After Holiday: Wrongful Arrests at the Airport

I am proud that throughout the many years I have been blogging on this site, it’s success has been organic, not paid for by advertising campaigns in order to “game” the Google and AI rankings. If you value my site and my regular postings, you can be a crucial part of its ongoing success by giving a positive review. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

An innocent driver detained by Police after a ‘stinger’ was deployed against his car was denied compensation, until he turned to me for help and advice.

In April 2023 my client Will was driving his own vehicle through his home neighbourhood in the West Midlands.

He had just reached a road junction when a stinger device was suddenly thrown in front of his vehicle by West Midlands Police Officers, puncturing all four of his tyres and causing the car to come to a complete stop. 

What are Stingers?

Stingers, also known as road spikes, are a form of device used by Police and Paramilitary organisations worldwide to enable them to immobilise target vehicles. They are a belt of spikes capable of being quickly whipped out across the road, which then rip and puncture the tyres of the moving vehicle, bringing it to an immediate and violent halt. They are an extremely serious use of force which should never been deployed lightly – but in my experience are frequently misused by the Police against innocent drivers.

When the Police use these devices to ‘crash’ the wrong car, they should pay for the consequences; but they will usually seek to avoid doing so, unless you have an experienced legal professional on your side. 

A Police ‘Ambush’

Already in a state of shock and confusion, Will now found Police Officers surrounding his vehicle and he was ordered to remove the keys from his ignition and place them onto the dashboard – which he did.

Officers then extracted Will from the vehicle and placed him into the rear of a Police car.  In request, Will provided his personal details which officers proceeded to check in police systems.

One of the officers then queried whether Will knew a particular individual – and he replied honestly that he did not.

After approximately 20 minutes, still essentially entirely in the dark as to why any of this had happened, Will was told he was going to be released and that he should contact West Midlands Police Legal Services, though merely to recover the cost of replacing his tyres.  The officers then left.

Will, however, was going nowhere immediately – owing to the damage to his tyres his car could obviously not be driven and he was therefore forced to call for a recovery vehicle and have it conveyed to his home address.

Will was then put to further expense getting his tyres replaced.  He is a self-employed roofer and this expense and inconvenience impacted significantly upon his job – as well as the mental trauma of what he had just gone through.

As had been suggested by the officers at the scene, Will did subsequently contact West Midlands Police Legal Services – only to receive a letter from them some three months later refusing his claim. The letter of denial stated that the deployment of the stinger against Will’s vehicle “was authorised on intelligence”, but did not in any way explain what that “intelligence” was or provide any disclosure of documentary evidence in support.

It was in those circumstances that Will then approached me for expert legal advice and assistance.

Stinger Mis-deployment Admission

In response to the letter of claim which I wrote on Will’s behalf, West Midlands Police made the following admission –

“Having reviewed the matter it is apparent that a suspected drug dealer had contacted WMP to report that his girlfriend had damaged his vehicle.  However, the details that he provided (for reasons unknown) were that of [the Claimant’s] vehicle.

As a result of this information and the caller’s links to drug dealing the decision was taken to deploy the stinger device and stop the vehicle.  It is of course accepted that [the Claimant] was an innocent party and that his vehicle details had been erroneously provided by the caller.”

From the information available, my client believes that the suspected drug dealer referred to by West Midland Police was the boyfriend of one of his neighbours, and the call from him to the Police occurred several days prior to the stinger attack on Will’s vehicle. My client himself had no involvement in that earlier incident.

In pursing this claim, the evidence uncovered uncontrovertibly demonstrated that the police had not done their “due diligence” in investigating this matter –

• Police database searches carried out prior to the day of the stinger attack showed that my client’s vehicle had no link to the suspected “County Lines” drug dealer and that it was insured in my client’s sole name and he was the registered keeper.

• My client himself had no links to criminality whatsoever.

• My client is a young white man in his mid-20s, and the suspect the police were looking for is older, black and of a significantly larger build.

Why the drugs suspect initially reported the wrong registration number we can only speculate – but a modicum of common-sense and investigative effort if applied by the police to ‘join up the dots’ in this case would have saved everybody involved a lot of time, trauma and trouble.

I am pleased to confirm that what Will rightfully recovered at the end of the case was £6,500 damages, plus his legal costs.

This was far more than just the cost of his punctured tyres – because civil liberties are much more expensive than that.

My client’s name has been changed.

I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review to get the word out. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

I use the example of a young man twice wrongly profiled as a “shoplifter” to discuss the rights of innocent shoppers who are assaulted/ detained by security guards and how you can win damages if this happens to you. 

This week’s blog post addresses misbehaviour in the un- policed world of private security; where the hunt for “shoplifters” all too often results in vigilante in-justice being meted out to innocent shoppers.

Both of the examples given below befell the same person, who I suspect was wrongly targeted because of his age and appearance. To Security Staff that age-old cry of corrupt law- enforcement: “Round Up The Usual Suspects”: generally means – give the youths in “hoodies” a shakedown.

Asda:  Assault & Detention by Security Guard

In the first incident, in November 2023, my client Connor, then 17 years old, was shopping in Asda at Trafford Park, Manchester.

On his way to work, he called into the store to purchase some chocolate, which he did from a cashier operated till, paying with his phone. Having done so, he made his way through the exit, carrying the chocolate bars in his hand, with his hoody up and his ‘ear bud’ headphones in as he was listening to music.

Connor was about halfway across the foyer when, without warning he was confronted by a man of Asian appearance, dressed in black. Although it is now known that this man was an Asda security guard, my client at first thought that he was being mugged and turned away as the security guard lunged towards him.

The guard grabbed Connor’s right arm and the back of his jacket and shouted, “Criminal”. His actions caused my client to drop some of the chocolate bars on the ground, and the guard then seized the other chocolate bars from Connor, and held them to his chest, whilst maintaining a grip on the boy’s arm.

Connor and the Security Guard then wrestled with one another, as my client sought to retrieve his goods, the guard shouting “Get out criminal” several times. Connor broke away, took his mobile out of his right sided pocket and began to record what was happening. 

In a classic bad cop – or ‘wanna-be’ cop move – the Security guard now tried to grab my client’s phone, lunging at Connor and striking him in the face whilst doing so. Literally adding insult to injury, the guard’s repeated accusations “You are a criminal!” were causing other shoppers to pay attention and naturally causing Connor a great deal of shame and embarrassment.

Faced with Connor’s insistence that he had paid for the goods, the Security Guard asked for the receipt, my client explained that he had just used ‘Apple Pay’ on his phone. The Guard now said, “Go criminal, go” and collected the chocolates that his assault upon my young client had caused to become scattered on the floor.

Connor then walked back into the store to speak to the staff member who had served him. He explained what had happened to him and asked her if she could do something about it. She first went to speak with the Security Guard and then, when she returned, confirmed that Connor could replace the items which the Guard had effectively stolen from him. The Guard himself was unrepentant, however, only complaining to Connor about a scratch which he claimed Connor had caused to his hand during their tussle.

As a result of the incident, my client suffered bruising and discomfort to his right cheek. When he got into work, one of his colleagues asked about the marks on his face, causing him further embarrassment.

Assault by B & M Security Guard  

The second incident occurred in February 2024, when Connor was visiting a B&M store in Manchester. He was wearing a black jacket, black cargo pants, trainers and carrying a ruck sack. Was he once again wrongly ‘profiled’ because of his age and apparel?

This time, Connor wanted to buy snacks on his way to an afternoon tuition session at a local college, and unwittingly entered the B&M premises via an open “exit” door.

As Connor walked through the store, he looked in his pockets for his payment card. Upon realising he had actually forgotten it, he decided to leave the store. At no point had Connor touched or handled any goods, as he realised he had forgotten his card before he had picked up any items.

To exit the premises, Connor walked through the till area and out of the main exit. At no time was he approached, spoken to or challenged by any member of staff or security personnel.

Connor walked about 80 yards to a nearby McDonalds, located on the same retail park. Here, he intended to pay for some food using an app on his phone.  

As my client was standing in McDonalds, busying himself on his phone, he was suddenly and without warning grabbed from behind by a large bald male. The male did not identify himself but demanded to see inside Connor’s bag. He instinctively refused, as he had no idea who this person was, as they had not identified themselves and had just grabbed him.

As Connor was already holding his mobile phone, he pressed the record button, given the intimidating and confusing situation with which he was now presented. The male replied, “Don’t take a picture of me, you little shit” and continued to demand that Connor open his bag.

Connor attempted to move away, but the male blocked his way to the door stating that he would not allow Connor to leave. The man started to push Connor around, and when Connor asked him to take his hands off him, the man replied, “What are you going do about it?”

All would now become clear, for Connor was, once again, the victim of a “Mall- Cop” with delusions of grandeur and the demeanour of a bully. The man informed Connor that he represented B & M security. Connor replied that he was a minor (he was indeed still only 17) and the security guard replied “I don’t give a fuck”. Connor remonstrated that the man had assaulted him.

Connor decided to leave the McDonalds, without having purchased his food, pursued by the Security guard, who again demanded to see inside Connor’s bag. My client refused but said that if the guard called for the police, he would happily let them search his bag. The Security guard now announced that he had called the police. Although Connor had college lessons to attend that afternoon, he now proceeded back to the B & M store, keen to ensure that the Police got the true story – not a pack of lies.

On arrival, Connor asked the Security guard for his SIA badge details, which the guard refused to provide. Connor then left the store to wait outside for the police to arrive.

Some time later, two marked police cars entered the retail park. The Security guard spoke to a female officer through her open car window. The other police car pulled up nearby.

The female police officer approached my client, who gave his full account and allowed a search of his ruck sack – which of course contained only his college work. The female officer took his details.  Two officers went into the B & M store and when they returned a few minutes later Connor showed the officers the video footage of the Security guard’s aggressive behaviour on his phone. The officers’ response?  “Take it up with B & M”.

Some time after these events, Connor was contacted by B & M and was informed that the Security guard involved in the incident had been dismissed; I consider that to have been an appropriate outcome, and the aisles of B&M safer for shoppers as a result.

How Much Did Connor Secure for These False “Shoplifting” Accusations?

Following these events, I was instructed by Connor and pursued civil claims against both ASDA and B&M.

I am pleased to confirm that both claims have recently been concluded, with Connor receiving £6,000 damages from Asda and £3,160 from B & M, together with his legal costs.

The Lessons To Be Learned

What are the key lessons to be learned from incidents like this?

• For Shop/ Security staff – That the powers they have in “shoplifting scenarios” are no more than any of us are allowed under the law of “Citizen’s Arrest” and are absolutely dependant on objectively reasonable suspicion that an act of theft is being committed. Prejudiced assumptions based on a person’s appearance are, unsurprisingly, not constituents of a lawful suspicion.

• For Shoppers –

• That even a short-lived detention like those which Connor faced when he was being manhandled by the Asda Security Guard or being blocked by the B&M Security Guard constitute “false imprisonment” for which additional damages will accrue over and above the act of assault/ battery itself and any injuries inflicted.  

• And that “An Englishman’s Shopping Bag Is His Castle” as we might put it: Security Staff do not have any of the powers to search a person or their property which the Police are allowed under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)  i.e they cannot conduct a “Stop & Search” upon you in any circumstances.

• For All – get the right legal advice from expert specialist practitioners such as myself.

Connor can testify that lightning did indeed “Strike Twice” : But it was ultimately the violent Security Guards and their employers who got the shock.

My client’s name has been changed.

I have over 30 years experience in taking action against the police. This blog post took several hours to write. I hope you found it of value and entertaining and if you have, please spend a few minutes of your time to post a 5 star review. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!

An armed Police vehicle stop results in a man being accidentally shot in the hand; although the Police deny negligence, significant damages have now been recovered. 

Armed Police Stop 

One evening in the summer of 2022, my client Luke was a front seat passenger in a Vauxhall Astra motor vehicle driven by his friend Ray.  Two other men were also passengers in the car. 

Suddenly and without warning, the vehicle was subject to a forced stop by armed Metropolitan Police Officers, with Police vehicles blocking the road before and behind Ray’s car. 

The officers were investigating a serious crime, and the vehicle my client was travelling in was linked to that offence – but what happened next was completely unjustified. 

One of the firearms officers surrounding the vehicle told all of the occupants, including Luke, to put their hands out in front of them. Luke and his companions complied – but then as another firearms officer approached, he accidentally discharged his SIG MCX Carbine into the car, in a sudden flash of light. 

The bullet from the officer’s gun went through the rear driver’s side door of the car and then hit the middle finger of Luke’s right (dominant) hand, fracturing the bone and causing him immediate severe pain, shock and bleeding.

 As Luke was forcibly extracted from the vehicle and was handcuffed to the rear, he was aware that he had been shot but struggled to comprehend what had happened. 

Under Arrest – in the Emergency Department

 Luke was then placed under arrest – but taken straight to hospital, rather than custody. When the doctors attended upon him, he was advised that he might actually have to have his middle finger amputated, which caused him great distress, though thankfully that did not transpire. 

Whilst Luke was being treated by the Plastic Surgery Department, the Police made a (mandatory) referral of the incident to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC), as this was a DSI – Death or Serious Injury –  incident. 

IOPC Investigation

The Officer who had fired the gun subsequently confirmed that he had actually been intending to “stow” his weapon behind him, prior to extracting the driver from the car, when it had gone off: 

“I have moved my left hand from the pistol grip, at the same time moving my trigger finger back to the selector lever to place the selector lever to safe at which point a single gunshot has been fired.” 

The Officer went on the state that at first, startled by the unexpected noise of the shot, he did not realise it was his own gun that had been fired. Thankfully, matters did not escalate from there, as could have been the case if other Officers had thought that the shot had come from inside the vehicle.

The IOPC investigation exonerated the firearms Officer of any professional misconduct but went on to conclude that the following areas of “learning” should be considered (noting that the Officer in this incident was left-handed): 

• To ensure that left- handed users of the SIG MCX Carbine were made aware of the possibility of their magazine releasing unintentionally when their carbines are stowed behind them, due to the magazine release catch being on the side of the weapon that touches their back.
• Consider identifying alternative models of the SIG MCX for left- handed users.
• Ensure an effective maintenance programme is in place to confirm that all weapons used by Police Officers are in a serviceable condition. 

The Civil Claim: An Act of God – or PC Plod?

Despite the fact that the word “accident” should give no-one room to hide behind when it comes to shooting someone with a gun, the Met Police nevertheless sought to do so –  denying liability, despite admitting that the officer had not intended to shoot, and that therefore could have no possible justification, even subjectively, for what he did. 

I was forced to bring civil court proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the Defence which the Met’s legal team advanced was as follows – Despite admitting the “unintentional discharge” of the weapon, and that this was an “accident”, they sought to assert that this was a “non- negligent act.” 

In all my decades of litigation experience, I have never come across such a bizarre argument. It was almost as if the Police were trying to argue that the firing of the gun was a spontaneous event – an act of nature or of God; whereas in fact it was an act of human clumsiness, which could have so easily had catastrophic consequences, and which clearly met the definition of “negligence.”   

As it was, although Luke had not lost his finger, he was left with a deformed middle finger-tip  and pain on gripping/ pinching with that finger –  likely to prevent him from working in heavier manual jobs, and for which a joint fusion operation is now required – as well as the mental scars of this event.   

I am pleased to confirm that notwithstanding their denial of liability, reason has prevailed, and the Met have recently agreed to settle Luke’s claim for £22,500 damages, plus legal costs. 

The bullet could have gone anywhere; it could have even more seriously injured Luke, or even killed him; it could have hit another officer or an innocent member of the public. Sadly, as regular readers of this blog will be aware, this ham-fisted accidental discharge of a lethal firearm at a compliant suspect is not a unique event. 

Spotlights must, I believe, be shone upon events like this because there can be no room for error when lives are at stake and the concessions we have made to dispensing with the traditional UK model of unarmed policing (as opposed to an American model) must be themselves rigorously policed to ensure that only the elite carry lethal weapons, and that they are held to account when ‘mistakes’ occur; not least because another lesson of this blog is that the Police do not always target the right vehicle in forced- stop scenarios.   

On this occasion, it was a finger; next time, it could be a head.

Names have been changed.

The purpose of this site is to educate people about what I consider to be the fundamental rights which uphold our civil society. If you value what I am doing here, please show your appreciation by posting a 5 star review on TrustPilot. Every 5 star review which I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you! 

I was recently approached by an investigative journalist at the BBC who was writing a report on“the apparent rise in the police raiding wrong addresses” and seeking insight from me, in view of my expertise in that area of law.  

I told him that I believe that the ‘apparent increase’ is not because the Police used to be better at this activity and made less mistakes in the past, but because people are now more aware of their rights and their entitlement to make a claim for what can be very shocking ‘home invasion’ events. In other words, Police data showing an increase in claims/ complaints would indicate more people taking action rather than more incidents occurring. I would attribute this to increased media coverage of Police misconduct cases generally (always to be welcomed) and the work of specialist solicitors such as myself in highlighting the problem. 

An example in point would be the following exchange on the “Mumsnet” forum fromFebruary2024, in which the victim of just such an act of Police trespass into her home was seeking advice. Police broke into my home – any advice? | Mumsnet 

Her account was as follows: 

“To provide a brief overview, around 5 am, a group of 10-15 officers forcefully entered my residence, breaking down two doors in the process. The entire incident unfolded in the presence of me and our four children, making it an extremely traumatic experience. Following the entry, my husband was arrested upstairs and brought downstairs (in handcuffs). we were detain upstairs. Downstairs my husband was asked his name and to confirm our address. It was at this point that the officers realized they had mistakenly targeted the wrong address. Subsequently, my husband was uncuffed, and the entire team of officers vacated our premises. The damaged doors were boarded up, and we were advised to file a claim. While we have received payment for the doors, we are now seeking further redress for the trespass, violation of privacy, arrest/detainment, trauma. Our youngest child is 8 years old, and our eldest is 14. I would like to inquire about what aspects I can seek compensation for and at what estimated value.” 

One of the replies to this enquiry encapsulated what I suspect was a common misunderstanding in the past – “I would be surprised if you will get any money for this, no matter how terrifying it was. It was a dreadful mistake but a mistake nonetheless…” 

Thankfully, however, they were corrected by the next poster, who queried “Honest mistake or carelessness?” and pointed the original enquirer to my blog.  

Getting the Best Advice 

I am proud to be part of the information eco-system which is helping to ensure people both know their rights and how to enforce them; and in the long run, it can be hoped that the increase in such claims will force the Police to get their house in order, and lead to less of these nightmarish events plaguing the lives of innocent families.  

One important caveat I would add, however, is to make sure that your claim is handled by a real expert in this field of law, such as myself. The increase in publicity about bungled Police raids has tempted many law firms who are not specialists to advertise for this type of work and clients who go with such firms (whose experience is generally rooted in accident claims rather than actions against the Police/ Human Rights law) risk having their case as badly mishandled as the original Police operation was. I have recently had to ‘rescue’ a family from Merseyside who were wrongly advised by their original solicitors that the maximum amount of money they would receive would be the cost of replacing the door which the Police had sawed open… They were presenting the claim in entirely the wrong way, but since I became involved Merseyside Police have both admitted liability and apologised to my clients and a substantial settlement will follow in the near future; one that will buy them more than just a new front door.  

I will write about the full details of that Merseyside case once it is concluded, but in the meantime, read about some of the many other cases in which I have assisted clients whose homes have been broken into by the Police. To call them ‘mistakes’ minimises their horrendous impact on people’s lives and is not an excuse I will ever let the Police hide behind.  

• £57,000 damages for a family in Reading, raided by Police whose warrant was for ‘next door’
• £41,000 damages for a Cheshire family “burgled” by the Police 
• Substantial damages awarded to a Derbyshire family after Police came looking for an address which didn’t exist 

How you can help me

I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!