Category: Police claim comments

How I Won £22K Damages & a Police Apology For A Wrongfully Arrested Student

Picture of a handcuffed man being taken into a police van.

My name is Iain Gould. I am a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, I have 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 unlawfully arrested by the Police, please contact me here for advice.

I have previously blogged about the case of my client Patrick, a student who in the course of an ordinary night out with friends in a busy city centre, was subjected to an unlawful arrest for “Drunk and  Disorderly” behaviour, in the context of the dysfunctional police complaints system. 

I am pleased to confirm that having initially succeeded in getting Merseyside Police’s rejection of Patrick’s complaint overturned, I have now gone on to secure not only a formal apology from the Police to my client but a settlement of his claim for damages in the sum of £22,250.  

A Lawful Search turns into an Unlawful Arrest

Outside a night club in Liverpool, Patrick was approached by several Police Officers, including PC Barry.  Patrick was informed that the officers wanted to search him for drugs; despite knowing that he had not been taking and nor was he in the possession of any illegal drugs, Patrick complied with the search, and nothing was found.

So far there was nothing untoward or out of the ordinary; the officers were carrying out a fairly routine “policing the night time economy” operation.

However, despite the negative search results, the officers continued to detain Patrick, with PC Barry demanding Patrick’s name, date of birth and address – information to which he wasn’t actually entitled. 

Patrick, who was studying for a degree in computing, rightly questioned why he was still being detained and explained that he hoped to pursue a career in national security and that he was concerned that PC Barry’s actions  were “fucking up” his future. His concern was understandable: PC Barry was effectively creating a ‘digital fingerprint’ for Patrick in the Police database, and whilst this was going to be associated with a negative drugs search result – some future employers might suspect that there was ‘no smoke without fire.’  

Once the search was over, PC Barry continued to tell Patrick that he was still “detained” for the purposes of the officer obtaining Patrick’s personal details – no such power existing, this was an unlawful detention from the off, although the Officer no doubt presumed that most members of the public wouldn’t know that, and would instead ‘obey the uniform.’ As it happened, Patrick did comply – telling Barry his full name, DOB and most of his address, albeit at the same time expressing his concerns as above. Indeed, he was actually in the middle of checking his student accommodation address when the impatient Officer arrested him for being “disorderly.”

Rather than allow Patrick to go about his lawful business as soon as the search was completed – which is what the law required – PC Barry falsely represented that Patrick had to give his details so a record could be made; in fact the opposite is true. Only one party is obliged to give their details to the other for the purposes of a stop/ search, and it is the Police Officer, not the member of the public.  

Whilst being detained under these false pretences, Patrick did comply with the Officer’s unlawful data-harvesting request, whilst expressing disquiet about it and lightly peppering his comments with the ‘f’ word (used only as an adjective, not an accusative).  Declaring that Patrick was under arrest for “Drunk and Disorderly behaviour”, PC Barry escalated his initial unlawful detention of my client. Patrick – in a state of shock – was handcuffed, marched to a police van and transported to a Custody Centre, where he spent the night in the cells.  

For doing what? Mere use of swear-words is simply not a criminal offence.  

Picture of letters from Merseyside Police.

Can a Community Resolution be Rescinded?

The following morning, after a miserable night in the cells, Patrick had to undergo the dehumanising experience having his fingerprints and a DNA sample taken, and being photographed  – the marks of shame of a criminal suspect which are particularly outrageous to the feelings of an innocent person who has been wrongfully arrested.

The next morning, Merseyside Police persuaded Patrick to accept a Community Resolution Order (CRO).

A Community Resolution is a form of quasi- caution and does require an admission of the alleged offence. Although not a formal criminal caution or conviction (and so not appearing on a person’s Police National Computer profile), Community Resolutions are recorded in local Police records for the purposes of “intelligence” and so can be taken into account in regards to future criminal investigations, or disclosed to employers if an enhanced Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) check is required. So, they are not to be taken lightly.  

In the stressful situation of Custody, Patrick agreed to the CRO – understandably, he just wanted to get home – but on reflection later that day, and particularly on watching back his friend’s mobile phone footage of the incident, Patrick (quite rightly) concluded that he had not committed the alleged offence – and telephoned PC Barry himself to complain about this.  

I will just pause here to add a reminder of how helpful that mobile phone footage was to Patrick – an objective log of what had occurred, when he might have begun to doubt himself. Whenever possible, phones should be used to record situations in which the Police are stopping or challenging you – they are our shields against abuse of power. 

Unsurprisingly, PC Barry’s attempt to ‘scare’ Patrick away from retracting his agreement to the Community Resolution – something he was perfectly entitled to do, albeit with the consequence of potentially facing criminal prosecution in the Magistrates Court instead – if there was any substance to the underlying allegation of an offence.  

Patrick, however, quite rightly rejected the Community Resolution, determined to maintain his integrity and prove his innocence in court if need be – and the Police backed down and did not pursue the matter further.  

Patrick having consulted me, I agreed to take on his claim for unlawful arrest on a no win, no fee basis, and also to assist Patrick with his complaint against PC Barry.  

Out of Order : How do you prove that the Police have wrongly arrested you for “Drunk and Disorderly behaviour”.

Under Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967,  the offence of Drunk and Disorderly behaviour requires the arresting officer to have reasonable suspicion that –

1. A person is drunk AND  

2. Is behaving in a disorderly way AND

3. Their conduct is occurring in a public place.

Do note that third element – the offence simply cannot be committed if the person in question is on private land. You can read here about a case in which I successfully sued Hertfordshire Police on behalf of a client arrested for Drunk and Disorderly behaviour on private land (in that case, the exterior concourse of an apartment block). 

In Patrick’s case, there was no doubt that his interactions with PC Barry were occurring in a very public place – and Patrick would be the first to admit that he had drunk several pints and was a little ‘merry’ –  but mere drunkenness is not a justification for the arrest.  Disorderly behaviour is required, and merely using the ‘f’ word as an adjective is not disorderly conduct – even if it makes a blushing Police Officer’s ears burn.  

In this context, disorderly conduct is defined by the Crown Prosecution Service, in accordance with decades of case law, as such obvious acts of anti-social behaviour as –

  • Violent or threatening behaviour;
  • Disrupting a lawful assembly of people;
  • Rowdy, disturbing behaviour such as making unreasonable noise at night and continuing to do so after being asked to stop;
  • Shouting abuse and obscenities and thereby causing alarm.

What it does not encompass is the low-level, everyday use of swear words in conversation, arguing with or questioning a Police Officer’s behaviour whilst intoxicated.   Yet that was what Patrick was effectively arrested for.

When I saw the video evidence, I had no hesitation in advising Patrick that he would ultimately be successful in his claim for wrongful arrest, because the Police would be unable to demonstrate any disorderly behaviour on his part.

Notably, indeed, Patrick’s complaint that PC Barry’s (unlawful) harvesting of his data in this context was “fucking up” his hopes for a career in national security, was nothing compared to the language being used by one of the other Police Officers who could be heard on the mobile phone footage of the incident shouting at a by-stander “Stop being a fucking dick head, now fuck off!”

After I had successfully appealed to the Police Complaints Adjudicator at the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside (OPCC), the original rejection of Patrick’s complaint was overturned and, at the second time of asking, Merseyside Police Professional Standards Department provided the following truly honest and accurate assessment of the situation –  

“Whilst [Patrick] accepts that he is intoxicated and he is in a public place, I do not believe, from what is shown on body worn footage that his conduct amounted or met the definition of behaving in a disorderly manner and discretion could have been afforded to avoid an arrest.  

It is further noted that the behaviour of an individual that could be seen in the background of the footage is far more problematic in displaying further signs of disorderly behaviour than [Patrick], and yet [the other individual] is not stopped or questioned further regarding his behaviour …………  in summary, the grounds to conduct a search was sufficient, however any subsequent actions including the detention and arrest were unreasonable.”

It was determined that it was necessary for PC Barry to “receive learning” in relation to his powers of arrest.

Over the course of the next 12 months, with my expert assistance through the civil claims process, Patrick went from this situation –  

1. The mental trauma of a wrongful arrest

2. Having his data associated with both the “stop and search” and the arrest

3. Having his legitimate complaint completely rejected.

To this –  

1. Having his complaint against the Officer upheld

2. Receiving a letter of apology from the Deputy Chief Constable

3. Receiving a formal admission of liability for wrongful arrest and assault

4. Obtaining expert evidence to establish and quantify the psychological harm caused by this incident

5. Winning £22,250 damages (over three times the amount first offered by the Police), plus his legal costs

6. Deletion of all data associated with his unlawful arrest from Police computer systems.

It is the attitude of officers like PC Barry which is that the heart of the problem here, and which leads to so many unlawful arrests for this type of offence.  Policing the ‘night time economy’ should not permit authoritarian menacing of innocent, intoxicated revellers – but all too often it is seen to by Police Officers who take the name of an offence in vain (“drunk and disorderly conduct”) in order to assert power over somebody who has done nothing more than give them a bit of lip or refuse their unlawful demand for details – or, in other words, infringed the officer’s inflated ego.

Annoying an impatient officer is not a criminal offence – but PC Barry tried to turn it into one under the false label of “Disorderly Conduct”.  

My client’s name has been changed.

Post script 

I write this blog to provide clear, reliable guidance for those facing unlawful police conduct—an area that requires real expertise, nuance and appreciation of the unique features of each case, not the volume-driven approach of large personal-injury firms. As such firms move into this field with heavy advertising and high-volume case handling, flooding the market, it becomes harder for people in genuine need to find truly specialist advice.

If this blog has helped you, or if you believe informed, principled voices shouldn’t be drowned out by mass-marketing firms, please consider leaving a 5, yes 5-star review. Your support helps ensure that those searching for accurate, specialist guidance can actually find it.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

If you believe you may have been unlawfully arrested by the Police, please contact me here for advice.

Breach of Bail, Breach of Rights – But Who’s To Blame?

Photo of an electronic ankle tag.

This week’s blog concerns my client Vincent, and another illustration of how finding the culprit who is legally liable to compensate you for a wrongful arrest can be complicated, even when the underlying facts are straightforward. 

Vincent was on bail, one of the conditions of which was to not enter a specified “exclusion zone”, and this was being monitored by an electronic tag which my client had to wear at all times, and keep charged. The Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) were responsible for reporting any breaches to the Police.   

In April 2024, Vincent was arrested by the Police for allegedly breaching his bail conditions by having twice entered the exclusion zone. Whilst he was in custody, a technical third ‘breach’ occurred, because the electronic tag ran out of power – this is known as a “battery breach” although in the circumstances, Vincent clearly had a good excuse for that! He subsequently appeared before Bolton Magistrates’ Court, where all three ‘breaches’ were dealt with, and thereafter fully abided by his conditions. 

My client was therefore startled to receive an early morning home visit by Police Officers, at his home address in Greater Manchester, in May 2024. The Officers arrested him for the same three “breaches of bail” as before (including the “battery breach”). 

Vincent’s protests that he had already been arrested and dealt with for these breaches (and that the third had only occurred because he was in custody for the first two) were ignored, with the normal mix of disinterest and inflexibility which accompanies officers on a ‘mission’ like this. 

On the Custody Record which was opened for Vincent at Bolton Police Station, the circumstances of arrest were stated to be as follows: 

“WM [Wanted Male] on PNC [Police National Computer]  for breach of court bail.  Failed to comply with electronically monitored exclusion zone.  EMS [Electronic Monitoring Service] battery not charged.” 

Vincent was processed and then incarcerated in a cell for several hours before being transported to Ashton-under-Lyne Magistrates’ Court in handcuffs. 

It was not until mid- afternoon that my client appeared before the court, whereupon the mistake was identified and he was immediately released. 

Photo of letters from the Electronic Monitoring Service.

Vincent was clearly the victim of a miscarriage of justice, but who was to blame? The Police have the power to arrest in such circumstances under Section 7(3)(b) of the Bail Act 1976 and can themselves avoid liability in such cases, if they can show they were exercising their power of arrest in regards to facts which, though mistaken, they reasonably believed to be true – 

“A person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings and is under a duty to surrender to the custody of a court may be arrested without a warrant by a constable if the constable…has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has broken any of those conditions.” 

The potential culprits in this matter were therefore – 

  • The Magistrates Court staff (i.e the Ministry of Justice) who had dealt with Vincent’s breach of bail hearing in April.
  • Greater Manchester Police, who had carried out the May arrest.
  • EMS, the Electronic Monitoring Service. 

GMP rapidly denied liability, relying, as expected, on the provisions of the Bail Act. They stated that on the day of my client’s arrest in May, the PNC was still showing Vincent as “wanted” and there was no indication that the bail offences had been dealt with. 

A further complexity was also added to the picture, as GMP revealed that they themselves knew nothing about the initial arrest in April – it turned out that the officers on that occasion had come from Lancashire Constabulary. 

Remember that our system of county- based regional Police Forces (with their roots in the traditional ‘shire’ system of local government going back to the Middle Ages) means that if the Police do you wrong, there is no central government Defendant with whom the ‘buck stops’. You must identify and sue the Chief Constable of the particular Force whose Officers are at fault. 

I would suggest that having a system whereby the Home Office bears ultimate responsibility for all torts and breaches of the law by Police Officers of any Force would likely lead to a considerable saving of time and legal costs – as the ‘phoney wars’ waged by Police Forces trying to blame each other, to the frustration of the Claimant in cases like this – could be simply and neatly avoided. But this blog is about the law as it is; not how we would wish it to be. 

Photo of letterhead from Lancashire Police.

In a similar fashion to the Police, EMS is not, in itself, a central entity which can be sued – it is the name of a government franchise which is contracted out to private bidders, and it is the private company which must be sued directly. In this case, Vincent’s original arrest in April had occurred when the EMS contract was held by Capita Ltd – but by the time of his second arrest in May, the service had been transferred into the hands of Serco Ltd. 

This is a case, therefore, in which letters of claim had to be presented to not one, but five potential Defendants – the Ministry of Justice, GMP, Lancashire Police, Capita and Serco. 

The full picture then had to be assembled out of the ‘jigsaw pieces’ of the various documents disclosed by EMS and the Police in response to the claim, and as a result of that evidence it became clear that fault lay with the original arresting Force, Lancashire, for failing to update EMS and the PNC correctly, after the breach of bail hearing in April. 

I am pleased to confirm that I have now settled Vincent’s case for a payment of £3,000 damages, plus legal costs. 

If you have suffered a wrongful arrest in similar circumstances, please contact me for expert advice and representation – I will guide you through the maze of case-law, legislation, and multiple, often obstructive Defendants, to win the compensation to which you are entitled. If in breaching you for bail, they’ve breached your rights, leave it to me – I’ll find out who’s to blame. 

My client’s name has been changed. 

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!

Should You Fear Police ‘Revenge’ If You Make A Complaint?

Image of a Merseyside Police car

When they first consult me, some of my clients are concerned that by pursuing a complaint or claim against the police, they will suffer reprisals.

In response, I advise that as a solicitor who has specialised in this area for more than 30 years, I have come across only one case in which clients suffered direct victimisation from an officer bent on revenge in response to a complaint – and even then it was my clients who had the last, and longest, laugh.  

My clients, husband and wife Richard and Michelle Hall lived in St Helens, Merseyside with their children.

On 4 December 2015, Mr Hall was arrested and detained by Merseyside Police officers.

During the course of Mr Hall’s detention, PC Allen and other officers carried out a search of Mr Hall’s home address.

Upon Mr Hall’s release later that day, he viewed his home CCTV and was shocked by what he saw, believing that the search was conducted in a disrespectful and unprofessional way, and that PC Allen had helped himself to a packet of crisps from the Hall’s home, which he was munching as he discharged his criminal justice functions. (Watch the CCTV footage on the Liverpool Echo’s website.)

A few days later, Mr Hall understandably filed a complaint against PC Allen (“the first complaint”).

The complaint was investigated by Merseyside Police’s Professional Standards Department (“PSD”).

During the investigation, PC Allen was placed on restricted duties and was also interviewed.

On 11 February 2016, PSD informed PC Allen that he was no longer being investigated, and that the restriction on his duties had been removed. One of the investigation findings was that whilst PC Allen had been eating crisps during the search, he had not stolen them from the Halls.

The following morning, at around 7:30am, Mr Hall left the house as usual, to take his children on the ‘school run.’

Then, shortly after 8:00am, Mrs Hall, who was now alone in the house, noticed a police vehicle parked outside.

The driver of the police vehicle parked outside of the premises was none other than potato- based snack food fan, PC Allen. He was with a female officer, PC John.

Mrs Hall got dressed and went outside, surprised, alarmed and upset to see PC Allen in the van (whom she recognised from the CCTV footage of the search on the 4 December).

Mrs Hall tried to attract the attention of the officers to establish the reason for their presence. Chillingly, neither officer acknowledged Mrs Hall.

Mrs Hall returned inside and called her husband to inform him of PC Allen’s presence. She felt intimidated and was extremely upset.

PC Allen and PC John remained outside of the premises for approximately 13 minutes, before driving away before Mr Hall got home. The officers seemed to have had no legitimate business in the road.

As a consequence, on 13 February 2016, Mr Hall made a further police complaint, alleging that PC Allen’s conduct on 12 February 2016 amounted to harassment (the “second complaint”).

This was again investigated by Merseyside Police PSD.

On or around 22 February 2016, the investigation report into Mr Hall’s first complaint was sent to him, informing my client that his first complaint had not been upheld and/or that there was no case to answer, except for Mr Hall’s allegation that PC Allen had failed to leave a copy of the search record at the premises, prior to leaving, which was upheld. PC Allen was deemed to “need no more than words of advice regarding the importance of documenting all items any damage caused and the correct process regarding the completion of the PCE 10 search record”.

On 10 March 2016, PC John provided an account to Merseyside Police PSD, in which she stated that PC Allen had made the decision to park up outside the Halls’ home on 12 February 2016. PC John further stated that she did not personally have any enquiries to conduct in the area that day.

PC Allen himself provided an account to PSD in which he claimed to have gone to the area on 12 February to engage in a “high visibility patrol”. PC Allen further stated that he had parked the police vehicle outside the premises as he had “finished late the night before and thought that an opportune moment to complete [his] notebook”. PC Allen confirmed in that account that he was aware that it was Mr Hall’s home address.

On 21 June 2016, Mr Hall received the investigation report into his second complaint. He was informed that his complaint against PC Allen of oppressive conduct/harassment had been upheld and that PC Allen was deemed to require management action. In particular, it was found that PC Allen and PC John had been tasked to respond to another job whilst they were parked outside the Hall’s home but had failed to do so immediately. The following was also stated in the investigation report:

“…It is…reasonable to believe that the only logical explanation that Constable Allen has parked outside the Hall’s home address is to either cause annoyance, in response to the complaint made against him previously by Mr Hall, or because he himself was annoyed because of the serious allegations which had been made against him and, the more serious ones had not been proven…”

In the circumstances, I advised Mr and Mrs Hall to bring a claim against Merseyside Police for breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – the right to respect for private and family life, or, in other words the sanctity of the home as a ‘safe space.’

This may not have been an ‘invasion’ of an English man’s castle (as that old common law adage puts it), but it amounted in my opinion to a ‘siege’ which deserved to be firmly censured.  

Merseyside Police denied liability and the case proceeded to trial in June 2018. You can read more about the legal basis for the Article 8 claim in my original blog post on this case.

When giving evidence at trial, PC Allen maintained that he had a legitimate reason for parking up outside the Hall’s home address; that he was in the vicinity carrying out high visibility patrol. He claimed that he was aware of, and had experience of, people living in the area defrosting/ demisting their cars on driveways by leaving their cars unattended with their engine running, and that such vehicles were “easy pickings” for opportunistic car thieves.  As he drove around he ‘remembered’ that he had not completed his pocket notebook from the previous day.  In the circumstances, he decided to pull up, “electing a safe place …… to stop”.  By sheer coincidence, it was immediately outside of the Hall’s home address! 

Having so parked up, and having completed his pocket notebook entry, PC Allen went on, he observed a man delivering papers. As he did so, the man left his engine running and so PC Allen advised him he was committing an offence. PC Allen obtained the man’s personal details and carried out a radio check to ensure he was insured. He was, and so PC Allen gave him some ‘words of advice’ and allowed him to continue. Thereafter, the officers were passed a job over the radio; PC John attempted to access the database via her laptop but couldn’t get a connection, and so the officers returned to the Police Station.

On review of the evidence available, it was established that, at that morning’s briefing, there had been no tasking for a ‘high visibility patrol’. Yet further, enquiries with the Police Intelligence System revealed only one theft of a motor vehicle in the area. There was simply no evidence that such thefts were an issue or ‘high priority’.

In the circumstances, it was clear to me that PC Allen had deliberately parked up outside the Hall’s home address a day after being told that Mr Hall’s first complaint had been resolved to send them a message: “I’m not going to forgive and forget.” It was an act of revenge, and one that caused an innocent family considerable upset.

Her Honour Judge Sykes agreed and in Court ruled as follows:

“In my judgment, if powers of police are used arbitrarily, without legitimate cause, that engages Article 8.  The Claimants’ submit that this case is analogous to covert surveillance. I agree that this is an appropriate analogy.  A duty of respect is imposed under Article 8, it calls upon the Police not to carry out acts to intimidate or cause anxiety.  I am satisfied that Article 8 is engaged.  I am also satisfied that the Defendant has failed to show that the interference was in accordance with law and in pursuance of legitimate and proportionate aim”.

Both of my clients received compensation awards, an order for their legal costs to be paid and a declaration by the Court that their Article 8 rights had been violated.

Here’s what Richard Hall kindly said on case conclusion…..

Had a complaint against Merseyside Police and went to see Iain. Iain was very direct and to the point but this guy knows his stuff and we won on the 26th June 2018 with a Breach of Article 8 of my human rights, so no matter how trivial your complaint or issue is with Merseyside police or any other force, always put a call in to Iain first to get the correct advice.

I can offer no absolute guarantee that the individual officer or the Force generally will not seek ‘reprisal’ for a claim or complaint, but I can say that such action is extremely rare, and even more so when the person claiming or complaining is doing so with the benefit of legal representation (remember that Mr Hall had brought his first complaint before instructing me). Most officers who are the subject of a claim or complaint just want to forget about it – not to go out and cause further trouble for themselves. In this respect, PC Allen is a salutary lesson – his petty act of revenge meant that Merseyside Police, not the Halls, were the ultimate losers in this case.

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!

Trigger Happy Taser Cops Strike Again?


I was not shocked, if you’ll excuse the pun, to read the news this week that two Sussex Police Officers who tasered a wheelchair- bound 92-year-old amputee had escaped criminal conviction. A common theme of this blog is how often the criminal courts seem to hold Police officers committing acts of violence to a lower standard than those of members of the public; either out of inherent pro- police bias or because the judge and/or jury think that the misconduct charges which will follow afterwards, and the potential loss of a Police career is ‘punishment enough.’ We can only speculate, but there certainly is evidence that a Police uniform is armour against the criminal convictions that would settle upon a civilian who perpetrated the same level of force. 

In this particular case, PCs Stephen Smith and Rachel Comotto attended at a care home in June 2022, in response to reports that Donald Burgess, a 92-year-old wheelchair user with only one leg, had picked up a food knife and was threatening to ‘stab’ staff members. It is now known that Burgess was delirious owing to a urinary tract infection. PC Smith used PAVA spray and his baton against Burgess, whilst PC Comotto fired her taser gun at him, all within 1 minute 23 seconds of the officers entering the old man’s room. Burgess was taken to hospital after the incident, where he contracted Covid, and died 22 days later.  

The officers will now face a gross misconduct hearing, which I expect will result in their being dismissed without notice. I also expect that, notwithstanding the ‘not guilty’ verdicts, Sussex Police will move swiftly to settle any claim for damages being brought on behalf of Mr Burgess’s estate.   

The really concerning feature of this incident, as far as I am concerned, is the speed with which the Police violence escalated – and particularly the use of taser after only a minute and a half. All too many Officers armed with tasers deploy the weapon as if it were a toy gun, and they were playing a game of ‘cops and robbers.’ To my mind, there was no justification for such an obviously vulnerable and extremely elderly person to be tasered in circumstances like this. Taser must not be used as a short-cut to resolve a conflict, when other options are reasonable alternatives (such as negotiation and hand-to-hand restraint techniques, in which Police Officers are well- schooled).

Not every knife- wielding suspect is Jack the Ripper. Mr Burgess deserved help and compassion, not harm. 

Read here about some of the cases I have brought for clients who are the victims of unjustified taser use – 

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!

Immigration Offences: My Wrongfully Arrested Client Wins £20,000 Damages

Whilst issues surrounding the proper regulation of immigration to the UK are understandably the top of the political agenda we must never let such concerns derogate the rule of law; due process, accountability and the restraint of police power being, after all, one of the beacons that draws other people to this country, and why we are proud to live in it. 

In this week’s blog post I will recount the story of my client Cedric, an American citizen, who suffered assault and wrongful arrest at the hands of Dorset Police, after being accused of “immigration offences”. 

Cedric is a US citizen of African American decent and was a vulnerable individual, with a history of mental ill health, in particular anxiety.  

Between 2017- 2019, Cedric was living in the UK, with his English partner and their daughter.  He played basketball for a semi- pro team but was not allowed to work. 

Then, in 2019, Cedric’s relationship with his partner came to an end. Thereafter, Cedric agreed with the Home Office’s Voluntary Returns Service that he would voluntarily return to the US, as although he had entered the UK lawfully, he had now overstayed his visa. It will be remembered, however, that as 2020 began the Covid Pandemic was beginning to grip the world, and massively restrict domestic, let alone international, travel. 

In October 2020, Cedric’s sister assisted him in booking a flight to return to the US via Canada, due to depart from London Gatwick on 11 November 2020.  At this time, Cedric was living in Bournemouth, Dorset. 

On 31 October 2020, Cedric was arrested whilst smoking a joint of cannabis by officers of Dorset Police, including PC Castle, and taken to Bournemouth Police Station. Whilst he was in police custody, Cedric explained that he was due to leave the UK on 11 November. He was thereafter given a conditional caution for the drugs offence and released.

 However, following Cedric’s release from custody, PC Castle attended his home address on a further three occasions, and Cedric began to see the Officer’s actions as amounting to harassment. 

 Unfortunately, Cedric’s 11 November flight was then cancelled due to restrictions relating to Covid 19, temporarily preventing transit into Canada. 

Accordingly, on 11 November 2020, Cedric emailed the Voluntary Returns Service notifying them about the cancelation of his flight, and that he was waiting to find out what the next available flight out would be.  

Later that same day, PC Castle and a PCSO once again attended at my client’s home address.

PC Castle asked Cedric if he was not flying out that day – Cedric explained that his flight had been cancelled and offered to show the Officer his emails in proof of this (from his phone).

 As the conversation about Cedric’s departure from the UK continued, PC Castle stated that he needed to speak “Right now” to the member of staff at the Voluntary Returns Service with whom Cedric was dealing (Charlie). 

Cedric was becoming increasingly anxious about PC Castle’s conduct and protested that he had done “Nothing wrong” – the situation with the cancelled flight of course being entirely out of his control, and perfectly understandable in the context of the ongoing global pandemic. 

 Cedric continued to cooperate with PC Castle – by showing him his emails, including the contact telephone number for Charlie – but at the same time was becoming increasingly anxious and distressed and his distress was only heightened when PC Castle announced “In a moment I’m going to have to arrest you”.  

PC Castle then stepped into the building, grabbed hold of my client and told him that he was under arrest “on suspicion of immigration offences”.  

PC Castle then pushed Cedric backwards and began to take him down to the ground.  A struggle ensued as Cedric tried to get away from the Officer, but PC Castle tripped my client with a ‘leg sweep’ and pinned him face- down on the floor. In the course of his fall, my client banged his head on the floor, and would later be diagnosed with post- concussion syndrome. 

Underneath the Officer’s body weight, Cedric was struggling to breathe and told PC Castle this, but the Officer’s reply was simply to inform my client that he was further under arrest “on suspicion of assault police”. 

PC Castle then began to handcuff Cedric, causing Cedric considerable pain by pulling on his arm at which Cedric protested that the Officer was breaking his arm. 

Aggressively shouting at my client to “stop resisting”, PC Castle then punched Cedric several times to his head and body, causing him further injury. 

Cedric asked for an ambulance, repeating that he was struggling to breathe to which PC Castle commented “Your lungs are open”. 

With his hands now handcuffed, and still on the ground, Cedric was in considerable pain, and briefly lost consciousness. 

Other Officers arrived at the address, and Cedric was brought to his feet in handcuffs, in a state of real physical and mental distress. Indeed, owing to Cedric’s injuries the Officers’ first port of call with him was not a Police Station, but rather the Royal Bournemouth Hospital.  

When Cedric was eventually taken to Bournemouth Custody Suite, the circumstances of his arrest were recorded in the custody record as follows – 

“DP [detained person] was at an address being checked by police for lawful purposes.  The arresting Officer had knowledge that the DP was due to leave the UK due to overstaying and should have left the country during the early hours. While the Officer was establishing the full circumstances, it is alleged that the DP became violent and assaulted the arresting Officer…”.

 Cedric was in pain all over his body, especially from his wrists which were ‘raw’ where the handcuffs had been, and was feeling very anxious and dizzy. He felt further humiliated and degraded by being required to remove his clothing and submit to a ‘strip search’ examination, before being taken to a cell.

Whilst my client was detained in the cell, PC Castle wrote a statement of events in which he wrongly alleged that, on being told he was under arrest for immigration offences, Cedric had pushed PC Castle in the chest, with both hands, in an attempt to escape. He went on to paint a false picture of Cedric as a violent aggressor, and the initiator of the violence, rather than its recipient.  

When Cedric was brought out of his cell for interview he gave his own side of the story, explaining that PC Castle had “Beat [him] up for nothing”.  

Thereafter, Cedric was charged with Assaulting an Emergency Worker (PC Castle), contrary to Section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018; using threatening or abusive words or disorderly behaviour, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and assaulting PC Castle with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of himself for an offence, contrary to Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was thereafter released on police bail.

The following day, Cedric attended Poole Hospital, for treatment for the injuries he had sustained in this incident and had to return to hospital again 4 days later.

In January 2021, Cedric appeared at Poole Magistrates Court where he pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all of the charges that had been made against him. 

The trial was originally listed for July 2021, with a time estimate of 2-3 days, but it did not go ahead – another cancellation almost certainly attributable to the ongoing effects of the Covid pandemic.

In December 2021, with Cedric still awaiting the re-listing of his trial, PC Castle completed a further witness statement in which he expanded significantly upon his original account, including making a number of references to his being aware of and relying upon the law as laid down in “Section 24 of the Immigration Act”, purporting that his knowledge and understanding of that Act had governed his interactions with my client on 11 November, and arguing the legality of his arrest of Cedric by reference to that legislation – despite the fact that he had made no mention of it whatsoever in the witness statement he had written on the actual day of the incident. PC Castle’s contemporaneous statement had referred only to his arresting Cedric for “immigration offences” – a suspiciously vague phrase, almost tantamount to telling someone that they are being arrested “for crime.” 

Whether this was an act of supreme recollection, or retrospective fabrication, on the Officer’s part I will leave it to you to decide. What is crucial, however, is the very fact that this statement was written reflects the recognition by the Police that the law of our land requires Officers to specifically identify the power of arrest that they are using, and the grounds for it, and to have an honest belief that offence has been committed – because otherwise society is on the slide to the kind of authoritarianism in which Police fit the law to their actions, rather than their actions to the law. 

Cedric’s trial eventually took place at Winchester Crown Court in March/April 2022 over the course of 3 days, during which PC Castle and other Officers gave evidence against my client – but he was nevertheless acquitted by the jury of all of the charges against him.  

Cedric ultimately returned to the US in July 2022 – the duration of my client’s stay in the UK having been effectively extended for the best part of two years as a result of the Criminal Justice process put in motion by PC Castle’s wrongful arrest of him. 

None of this had been necessary from an immigration point of view – my client had been cooperating with the Voluntary Removals Service and if it wasn’t for the intervention of first Covid and then PC Castle, would have returned to the US long before July 2022. 

What a perverse scenario Cedric had found himself in, and had to suffer through during those years – he was a victim of police violence, but was accused of being the aggressor; he was told he was an immigration ‘overstayer’, but was then detained against his will in the UK, in order to answer charges which the police had trumped up against him. 

After Cedric consulted me, I assisted him in bringing Court proceedings against the Chief Constable of Dorset Police, seeking damages for wrongful arrest, assault and battery and malicious prosecution. 

Through my evidence gathering, detailed analysis of that evidence, and legal arguments, I was able to build a case for Cedric which ultimately resulted in the police throwing in the towel before having another round with my client in the courtroom – despite the fact that in the civil Courts it is far easier for the police to justify an arrest and prosecution than securing a conviction in the criminal Courts because the two cases are judged by very different standards and criteria.  This is why I will always explain to my clients that an acquittal in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court of offences which they say the police have falsely brought against them, is very much only a first step to winning civil damages – not a foregone conclusion.

I am very pleased to confirm that I have recently settled Cedric’s claim for damages from Dorset Police in the sum of £20,000, plus legal costs. The level of damages reflects the significant Police wrongdoing in this case. My client’s injuries and loss of liberty were made all the worse by the dishonesty which had corrupted the whole process against him from start to finish. 

As I said at the start of this post – I think we can all agree that the UK needs a proper, fair and robustly policed immigration system; however, that cannot excuse misconduct on the part of Police Officers who commit those acts of misrepresentation and bullying authoritarianism which are – or should be – foreign to the principles of UK democracy and Peelian “policing by consent”.

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!

Izhar v Thames Valley Police (Part 2): Key Points for winning a claim against the Police

Last week I wrote about the case of my client Mo Izhar, whose claim against Thames Valley Police was won at trial in Oxford County Court. This week I will highlight some of the Judge’s key findings, and what I consider to be the key lessons to be learned from this case, if you want to win a claim against Police.

Key Lessons to be learned from this Case

It was notable during this Trial, how the barrister acting for the Police suggested, in the course of his cross examination of my client, that it was somehow a dirty or provocative trick by Mo to want to record the interaction on his mobile phone – as if protecting your rights to sue the Police, in an encounter which the Police have themselves initiated against you, is some subspecies of anti-social behaviour which should be frowned upon.  Indeed, I suspect that a lot of barristers who conduct such a line of cross- examination at Trial are hoping that the Judge at least privately agrees with them. The barrister cast aspersions upon Mo for wanting to film the encounter, repeatedly using the word ‘sue’ as, I suspect, a dog- whistle intended for the ears of those members of the Judiciary who think that the emergency services should have special protection from “ambulance-chasers”….

The bottom line is that it is healthy for society that people make claims against the Police when they believe their constitutional rights have been infringed; no one should be abashed or ashamed about that, and indeed, I am pleased to confirm that this particular tactic by the Police barrister fell on deaf ears in this particular Court. But consider this: the Judge found that Mo was “Not confrontational, evasive or abusive” and should not be criticised for merely not being as cooperative as the Officers wished him to be; the Judge (HHJ Andrew Davies) also found that one Officer had repeatedly called Mo “a dick” in “an unfortunate exchange of words” – but how difficult would it have been for my client to prove those facts in the absence of video testimony? Would those important findings by the Court have simply fallen away through the gaps in the evidence left by the Officers’ mutual “attrition of memory” without those undeniable recordings?

  • If you know or suspect that other public cameras may have recorded the incident – for example, as Mo’s case, and another notable case of mine which involved even greater Police violence on a petrol station forecourt – then take early and prompt steps, as Mr Izhar commendably did, to contact the local authority or business which controls those cameras and get a copy made for your own personal use. 
  • If the Police have detained you, whether by actual force or by verbal ‘command’ without formally arresting you – then always challenge them as to what the basis of their detention of you is, and if it is for the purposes of a search of yourself or your vehicle, insist upon them complying with the GOWISELY rules, in terms of the information which they are duty bound to provide to you and the written record of the interaction confirming their identity, thereby ensuring that there is an appropriate ‘paper trail’ evidencing the encounter and requiring the Officers to immediately justify their actions and hindering any future ‘reframing of the narrative’.
  • Ask the Court to scrutinise the Officers’ actions not only through the lens of basic, compensatory damages but also aggravated and/or exemplary damages– i.e. those discretionary categories of damages which are designed to actively punish the Police for their conduct or to reflect the injury to a person’s feelings caused by the manner in which an unlawful detention or assault is carried out and also to allow the Court to reflect its disapproval of high-handed, oppressive, unprofessional and unconstitutional policing. That proved to be the case here, with the Judge making a significant award of aggravated damages in favour of my client, stressing his disapproval in particular at the Officers’ attempt to deny that a search had been carried out, and then in their apparent attempt to annoy my client by drawing out the process of producing the necessary paperwork, thereby causing Mo a “justifiable sense of outrage” at his treatment.  
  • Remember how often Police Officers ‘jump the gun’ by treating the driver of a car whose plates have been cloned with the assumption that he is the criminal, rather than the victim of crime (which is actually the more likely scenario, on the basis that cloned vehicles used for the purposes of crime will be driven less frequently than legitimate vehicles used for lawful, everyday purposes) and can and should be criticised for that.  

HHJ Davies found that the mere suspicion that my client’s vehicle might have been cloned did not in the unfolding circumstances of the encounter amount to objectively reasonable grounds for a suspicion that Mo’s car might have contained prohibited articles as defined in Section 1(7) of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE),   and for which the Police, at least retrospectively, claimed they had been searching for – “an offensive weapon or an article made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence…”

And this, of course, is exactly as it should be. The Police should not be allowed to take away our liberty – even for 10 minutes – or invade our privacy – even if the trespass committed is to a car glovebox or boot rather than our bedroom or office – without a reasonable suspicion of a specific crime and certainly not on a mere whim or hunch, or even a glance taken the wrong way – borne out of an Officer’s arrogance and self-satisfaction in his own power.

  • Also remember how often in any Police encounter, the member of the public is handcuffed almost automatically or by default  –  a mentality of apply the cuffs first; think about what power we have to do so later, which is without lawful justification.

Here, the Officers of Thames Valley Police claimed reliance upon Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 –  “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime…” – which the Judge dismissed on the basis that it was wholly unclear to him what crime the use of force was intended to prevent, and that this resort to the ‘general power’ conferred by Section 3 was nothing more than an “attempt to seek out a legal power” in circumstances where none existed, because there was no actual apprehension of any specific offence.

The Police also sought to rely upon a purported power under the Common Law to use force in the ‘detection of crime’, but the Judge dismissed their suggestion that the Police have any more right to manhandle people under the common law than the common citizen does, and referenced the classic judgment of Robert Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374  –

“If a Police Officer restrains a man, for example by gripping his arm or his shoulder, then his action will also be unlawful, unless he is lawfully exercising his power of arrest. A Police Officer has no power to require a man to answer him…accepting the lawful exercise of his power of arrest, the lawfulness of a Police Officer’s conduct is judged by the same criteria as are applied to the conduct of any ordinary citizen of this Country.”

In other words: Unless there is some specific power being justifiably used, any use of force going beyond normal contact to attract attention amounts to an assault.

At the end of the day, the law outranks us all – but Police Officers do not.  It is unfortunate that the hierarchical nature of policing and its tribal pride all too often spill over into precisely these forms of civil rights abuse.

As my client’s barrister, Una Morris of Garden Court Chambers, quite correctly put it at the conclusion of this case – suing the Police for violation of fundamental constitutional rights is about money, but it is also, crucially, about public vindication; and in this case, Mo has won both. 

Watch Crimebodge’s video here.

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!

Police Sergeant demoted after punching detainee in the head

Here is yet another example of how, rather like computer- game characters, Police Officers who misconduct themselves and perpetrate assaults or actions which if carried out by a ‘civilian’ would probably be considered criminal, are effectively let off the hook by only having to face professional sanctions – in this case a demotion for Hertfordshire Constabulary Police Sergeant Peter Glover to the rank of Constable.

Glover was found to have committed gross misconduct by using force which was neither “necessary, proportionate or reasonable” when he punched a detainee three times in the head, whilst the detainee was on a bed in a cell at Hatfield Police Station, in February 2023.

The disciplinary panel censured Sergeant Glover’s “failure to make any attempt to de-escalate” or to give any warning before his “unexpected” use of force began.

In relegating Glover to the rank of Constable, rather than dismissing him – which I would argue was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances – the panel said that Glover was not “fundamentally unfit” to be an Officer, but that he had “fallen short with regards to judgment and management in a supervisory role”.

To my mind, the offence that the Officer committed which would have been serious even were he only a Constable in the first place, was all the more aggravated given the responsibility he had not only for leadership and setting the tone for his colleagues, but his duty to proactively ensure the safety and wellbeing of detainees in Police custody – many of whom are in a very vulnerable state due to consumption of alcohol, mental health disturbance or other factors.  

Sadly, all too many Officers seem to forget their duty of care and rather than acting as custodians of the welfare of detainees, they fall all too easily into the role of callous and bullying jailors.

Out of Bounds? Police Escort Man to Premises, then Arrest Him for Going There

I have blogged on numerous occasions about wrongful arrests which have occurred as a result of mistakes made by the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) – otherwise known as the ‘Electronic Mistake Service’.  I have represented many people who have been unfairly deprived of their liberty whilst under the electronic ‘surveillance’ of an ankle tag, despite fully complying with the terms of their licence or bail conditions.  However, I have not previously represented a client whose arrest occurred in quite such farcical circumstances as those which feature in this week’s blog – and with the farce being supplied not by EMS themselves, but by the Police. 

My client Anthony was on Court bail, subject to a condition not to return to the apartment block where he lived (as the incident involved a dispute with one of his neighbours).  This condition was monitored by an Electronic GPS ankle tag, operated by EMS. 

Some electronic tags are designed to enforce a timed curfew – and an alert will be triggered by EMS if they detect that the subject has been outside of his home address after a certain time in the evening. In Anthony’s case he had no such daily curfew, but what is known as ‘GPS Zone Conditions’ i.e forbidding him from entering a defined geographical area known as the ‘exclusion zone’. In Anthony’s case, the exclusion zone was around his apartment block. As a result, Anthony took up residence at his parent’s address.  However, his bail conditions did permit him to return to his flat, if he was, by prior arrangement, in the company of Police Officers.

In due course, Anthony did indeed attend his flat in the company of Police Officers in order to collect some of his possessions. Everything passed off normally/ peacefully.

A few weeks later, Anthony was minding his own business at his parent’s house, making a cup of tea for a builder, when Police Officers stormed into the house, took hold of his arms and forced him onto the ground, striking him in the back in the process, and then tightly handcuffing him to the rear. 

The Officers then informed Anthony that he was under arrest for breaching his bail conditions.  Anthony was stunned and did not know what they were talking about – a situation not helped by the fact that the Officers initially told him the wrong date for the alleged breach of bail.  Furthermore, during the course of the arrest, one of the Officers had pressed his ‘panic’ button, causing further Officers in marked Police vehicles to come racing to Anthony’s parents’ address, adding further to his distress and embarrassment.

Anthony was conveyed to a local Police Station, and on being produced before the Custody desk was informed that the correct date of his alleged breach of bail was – you’ve guessed it – the very day he had attended his flat with a Police escort as described above. Anthony made strenuous representations to this effect and the Custody record was subsequently updated with the following entry –

DP [Detained Person] was brought into custody following a reported EMS bail breach as documented by EMS.

DP explains that the time and dates given he was escorted to the property by police for purposes of facilitating a Prevent Breach of the Peace [PBOTP]. A check of Storm [Police computer logs] confirms that this is the case; the DP has requested PBOTP to collect belongings and disclosed his conditions to officers a the time, officers have booked and facilitated a PBOTP at the address on those occasions. Storm incidents…confirm. This is allowed by his conditions. Detention is therefore not authorised.

I have contacted EMS to advise them of this.

Shortly thereafter, Anthony was released and conveyed back to his parent’s house by Officers.

That may have been the end of the incident as far as the Police were concerned, but it wasn’t from Anthony’s point of view: he later had to attend A&E in regards to the injuries sustained to his back, arms and wrists during his arrest, and the psychological impact of the incident persisted even longer – for during the following months, whilst Anthony remained under the same bail conditions, he was frequently on edge, anxious and fearful that the same ‘bolts from out of the blue’ might fall on him again, no matter how compliant he was with his conditions.

Indeed, I have recently blogged about the deeply unsettling effect which a wrongful arrest caused by Police incompetence or malice can have upon a person’s mind, persisting long after their liberty is restored.

My subsequent enquiries on Anthony’s behalf established that the fault here did indeed lie with the Police and not the Electronic Monitoring Service.  Anthony had done everything right in securing the agreement of the Police to attend his previous home address, and only going there at the arranged time with a Police escort – but the Police had nevertheless made him a victim of what can only be described as their ‘doubly whammy’ negligence. Firstly, they had failed to notify EMS that they would be escorting Anthony to the premises on the day in question and then secondly, when EMS had issued the subsequent ‘breach’ alert, the Police had failed to correlate the date and check whether it was actually a breach before sending a squad of Officers to seize my client – a check which evidently took the Custody Sergeant only a matter of minutes to perform when prompted.

Despite the fact that Anthony’s detention lasted for only 50 minutes, I am pleased to confirm that I have recently been able to settle his claim for the sum of £5,000 damages plus legal costs, to properly reflect the distress, aggravation and embarrassment inflicted upon him by this regrettable incident. 

The circumstances were indeed farcical, but it was no laughing matter. Technology should be used to aid human brain cells – not to lazily bypass them.

My client’s name has been changed.

What is Abuse of Position for a Sexual Purpose (APSP)?

“Abuse of position for a sexual or improper emotional relationship or purpose” is a term of jargon used in modern day Policing to describe an age old problem – the exploitation of ‘damsels in distress’ by so called ‘knights in shining armour’.

Decades ago this problem wasn’t properly recognised within the Policing profession – or, perhaps was recognised by an Officer’s superiors, with a wink and a nod. Twenty years ago an Officer could get a ‘slap on the wrist’ for impregnating a woman whom he had arrested only weeks earlier and whilst she was still under criminal investigation. Nowadays, however, the ethical boundaries surrounding this sort of behaviour have been rigorously defined and are properly implemented, and many Officers who commit Abuse of Position for a Sexual Purpose will be the ones who are facing imprisonment.

Here is an APSP Policy recently published by Surrey and Sussex Police. Similar guidance documents exist across all of the Forces of England and Wales.

APSP Policies apply not only to Police Officers but also Special Constables, Police staff and Police volunteers. 

As is stated in the Surrey and Sussex Policy linked to above, the importance of these guidelines cannot be underestimated –

“The professional relationship between a member of the Police service and public depends on trust and confidence.  Police Officers and staff members who display sexualised behaviour towards a member of the public who they have come into contact with through their work, undermines the profession, breaches trust, exploits a power imbalance, is unprofessional, and may constitute a criminal act” (1.3).

The Policy goes on to define Abuse of Position for a Sexual Purpose (APSP) as –

“Any behaviour by a Police Officer or a Police staff member, whether on or off duty, that takes advantage of their position as a member of the Police service to misuse their position authority or powers to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with any member of the public”. 

Note the phrase – ‘any member of the public’.  This form of Police corruption is not defined as being confined to those who are specifically victims of crime or who have pre-existing mental or emotional vulnerabilities. Abuse of Power for a Sexual Purpose is quite rightly regarded as serious corruption and those Officers who have committed it, even if they do not face criminal charges – which would generally be in the form of a prosecution for Misconduct in Public Office, or are perhaps prosecuted but found not guilty in the criminal Courts – are likely to nevertheless face Gross Misconduct proceedings and scarcely a week has gone by in recent years without multiple cases of this nature making the news headlines. 

I have represented dozens of women who have been subjected to this particularly invidious form of abuse of power and have recovered tens of thousands of pounds of compensation on their behalf by suing the Police for Assault and Battery, Harassment, or under the law of Misfeasance in Public Office,  which is the civil ‘counterpart’ to the criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office.  You can read about the stories of some of the women whom I have helped in previous ‘chapters’ of this Blog –

  • Kate, who won £25,000 from Merseyside Police, after she had reported a man who was sexually exploiting young women and girls, and was then hersef subject to a campaign of sexual harassment by text message from the investigating Officer, DS Stubbs;

Misfeasance in Public Office is a civil tort (i.e. wrongful act by one person toward another) for which compensatory damages can be recovered if the following criteria are satisfied (as defined in the case of Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3) [2001] UKHL 16 –

  • The perpetrator must be a public officer;
  • The perpetrator must have acted in the purported performance of their public duty or must have exercised a power or opportunity made available to them as a public officer;
  • The perpetrator must have acted unlawfully and with either deliberate or reckless malice;
  • The perpetrator’s conduct must have caused the victim loss or damage.

Most cases of Police Officers/ staff members exploiting their role or knowledge of a person’s case to groom or seduce them into a sexual relationship (or attempting to do so), will fit the definition of this tort, if, as is so often the case, the Officer’s actions ultimately result in psychological harm to their target.

As the Surrey and Sussex Police policy makes clear, abuse of position for a sexual or improper emotional relationship, covers more than outright sexual intercourse or sexual touching, and includes lewd communications, unnecessary contact, suggestive messages on social media and asking members of the public whom officers have met in the course of their duties on a ‘date.’ It also covers the ‘preparatory’ work of a would-be exploiter or predator, such as ‘researching’ potential targets using social media or Police computer systems and databases.

I will also echo here the ‘warning signs’ of inappropriate, exploitative Police behaviour, which are cited in the APSP policy, but which I have sadly seen in the real world on so many occasions, during my handling of such cases –

  • The perception of a police officer or staff member as a ‘knight in shining armour’, often manifesting as ‘gushing praise’ of the officer;
  • Unexpected visits or ‘welfare checks’ from a certain officer or staff member;
  • A domestic abuse investigation ‘steered towards’ a low- level of quick resolution (for often the knights in shining armour are not only focused on getting the victim into bed, they will also callously neglect the criminal case they were supposed to be investigating in the first place, thereby causing a double dose of harm to the woman);
  • Flirtatious behaviour, including use of ‘nicknames’ or ‘pet’ names and the classic “kisses on the end of messages – xx” a ‘casual’ affectation with an ultimately corrupt and sinister purpose;
  • On a similar basis, the use of “emojis” and other informal, unprofessional means of communication;
  • Contact or visits from the officer or staff member when they are off duty;
  • Presents, gifts or letters from the officer or staff member.
  • Continued or renewed contact after an incident or case is closed.
  • The provision of an officer’s personal mobile phone number to a victim or witness of crime.

As you will have seen from reading this blog, and my many other case reports on this subject, I have a great deal of expertise in representing those who have suffered from Police Abuse of Power for a Sexual Purpose, in circumstances ranging from ‘remote’ contact and text-message harassment all the way up to full-blown sexual seduction and exploitation. It is, in my opinion, one of the worst forms of Police corruption, but thankfully in the modern era, its victims do not need to suffer in silence. If you or someone you know requires help or advice in this area of law, please make contact with me via this website.

Police abuse of stop and search powers

Many may think that ‘stop and search’ powers are too easily open to abuse by bigoted, or even simply bored Police officers with too much power and too much time on their hands.

Stop & search data recently released for England & Wales covering March 2020 – March 2021 (i.e the height of the Covid pandemic and period of the two national lockdowns) showed a rise of 24% to almost 700,000 instances compared with the previous year. Eyebrows might legitimately be raised at the apparent discrepancy between far less people being on the streets, crime dropping and yet the number of searches increasing – suggesting that the rise had more to do with Police officers with time to spare and an inclination to fill that time with the exercise of their powers, rather than there being objectively reasonable grounds for the search in each individual case; this is borne out by the fact that whilst the number of searches rose, the percentage of such searches resulting in an arrest fell from 13% to 11%.

The same statistics also continue to demonstrate the strikingly disproportionate use of the power against Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups (BAME people). 32% of all stop and searches for the year 2020-21 were of BAME males aged 15- 34,  despite that cohort only comprising 2.6% of the population as a whole. 

Here is one of the many stories which lies behind such statistics; albeit that this event took place in the previous year (2019- 20), it tells an age old and continuing story of the interface between authoritarian tendencies, ingrained racist assumptions, and a disrespect for the law they are supposed to be upholding when it does not facilitate such impulses, amongst many Police officers. 

My client Tyrone is a young Black man in his early 20s who resides in the greater London area.

In December 2019, Tyrone was a front seat passenger in a car being driven by his friend Steven, who is also Black. 

The two young men drove past a Police car on Sanderson Road, shortly before turning into the driveway of 94 Sanderson Road, where Tyrone lives with his mother. Tyrone and Steven alighted from the car, and started to walk towards the house; it was raining hard.

The Police car, for reasons unknown but which can be guessed at, had followed Tyrone and Steven’s vehicle, and now pulled up outside the house, and two Metropolitan Police officers, PC Connolly and PC Burns, jumped out. Shortly afterwards, a third officer, PC Gordon, also got out of the car. Tyrone firmly believes that if the Police had seen a car containing two white men, they simply would not have followed it in this fashion, but sadly experience has taught him that the Police “hold negative stereotypical beliefs and assumptions about young black men, namely that they carry knives, sell drugs and/or are involved in gang activity.” 

PC Burns accused ‘whoever had been driving the car’ of speeding; it was clear he did not know which of the two it was. In any event, Tyrone immediately disputed this false accusation; they would have had no reason to speed in such close proximity to Tyrone’s house (being about to make a tight turn onto a driveway which already contained another vehicle), and furthermore it was raining and the road had speed bumps.  Tyrone had no doubt that the officers had concocted the ‘speeding’ allegation in an attempt to give a gloss of legitimacy to their actions. 

PC Burns then asked Tyrone “Where do I know you from?”

At this point, Tyrone realised that he vaguely recognised the Officer from an incident that had occurred two months before, when he had been stopped and searched on the street, and then taken to a Police Station and subjected to a further strip search.

Before waiting for an answer, PC Burns declared – “You’ve been nicked before, I’ve arrested you before.”Tyrone asked, “For what?”  and PC Burns asserted that he knew Tyrone’s face.   Tyrone legitimately felt that he was the victim of racial profiling.

PC Burns then asked if Tyrone was the owner of the car.  Tyrone explained that it was his friend’s and that his friend had been driving – which Steven confirmed. 

Tyrone then told the officers that he was now “at home”and asked Steven to knock on the door so as to alert his mother as to what was going on.

PC Burns, apparently no longer interested in the supposed motoring offence, then declared that he was detaining Tyrone “under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act” and proceeded to demand that Tyrone give him his hands, and handcuffed him to the front. 

Simultaneously, PC Connolly had detained Steven and had likewise placed him in handcuffs.

Tyrone’s mother now emerged from the house and Tyrone called out to her “Oi, mum tell these lot, tell them, tell them.” (i.e that he did indeed live at this address). Understandably, Tyrone’s mother was in a state of shock and anger at what was unfolding on the driveway of her house. 

PC Burns now stated that Tyrone was being detained “under section 1” of PACE, but failed to give any specific details of what the grounds for the search were, or indeed what the object of the search actually was, under that power.

Tyrone again protested that he was at his home address.

Both Tyrone and his mother were now verbally, and correctly, challenging PC Burns as to his search grounds. PC Burns maintained that that he and his colleagues had“Seen these males drive at a very high speed …….., there’s a lot of knife crime around here at the moment and they jumped out of the car very quickly.” It was the vaguest of excuses – and left unspoken was what was almost certainly the determining factor in this incident – the skin colour of my client and his companion. 

PC Burns then searched Tyrone, and whilst he did so, Tyrone’s mother asked the Officer to explain why her son – who was offering no physical resistance – had been handcuffed. PC Burns falsely accused Tyrone of having been “aggressive” and also complained that “he was talking quite loud to me” before further asserting, apparently without any objective basis, that he thought Tyrone had “weapons” on him. 

When his search of Tyrone proved negative, PC Burns then announced that it was necessary to search Steven’s car and started looking for the car keys, apparently believing that they had been put through the house letterbox.

Tyrone’s mother disputed that the keys were in the house and stepped into the hallway of her home, where PC Burns followed uninvited.  The keys were not located.

Tyrone’s mother was understandably indignant at the officers heavy handed and unlawful actions, and advised PC Burns that she would be filing a complaint and, again, pointed out that the Officers were on private property.

The officers continued to wilfully ignore this fact and,discovering that it was actually unlocked, proceeded tosearch Steven’s car.

Finally, after approximately 20 minutes, PC Burns released Tyrone from his handcuffs, though not before injury had been caused – Tyrone’s hands were painful and sore. 

Worse than that physical discomfort however, was the degrading emotional impact of this event upon Tyrone, who later described being left feeling “worthless, frustrated, angry and disappointed…I feel that my words and version of events which is the truth carries no weight against theirs. Under these circumstances I do not and cannot trust the Police.”

Nothing further had been said about the alleged motoring offence (speeding) which was apparently the reason for the officers interest in the two friends in the first place; only adding to suspicions that this was, all along, a bogus justification. 

Tyrone’s mother subsequently lodged a complaint on his behalf. Following investigation, it was admittedthat the stop and search had been unlawful (albeit that the Complaint Report padded out that admission with a variety of ‘excuses’).

What Powers Do The Police Have Under Section 1 PACE? 

Under the heading “Power of constable to stop and search persons, vehicles etc”, Section 1 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides as follows- 

(1)A constable may exercise any power conferred by this section—

(a)in any place to which at the time when he proposes to exercise the power the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission; or

(b)in any other place to which people have ready access at the time when he proposes to exercise the power but which is not a dwelling.

(2)Subject to subsection (3) to (5) below, a constable—

(a)may search—

(i)any person or vehicle;

(ii)anything which is in or on a vehicle,

for stolen or prohibited articles, any article to which subsection (8A) below applies or any firework to which subsection (8B) below applies] ; and

(b)may detain a person or vehicle for the purpose of such a search.

(3)This section does not give a constable power to search a person or vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles, any article to which subsection (8A) below applies or any firework to which subsection (8B) below applies. 

(4)If a person is in a garden or yard occupied with and used for the purposes of a dwelling or on other land so occupied and used, a constable may not search him in the exercise of the power conferred by this section unless the constable has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that he does not reside in the dwelling; and

(b)that he is not in the place in question with the express or implied permission of a person who resides in the dwelling.

(5)If a vehicle is in a garden or yard occupied with and used for the purposes of a dwelling or on other land so occupied and used, a constable may not search the vehicle or anything in or on it in the exercise of the power conferred by this section unless he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that the person in charge of the vehicle does not reside in the dwelling; and

(b)that the vehicle is not in the place in question with the express or implied permission of a person who resides in the dwelling.

‘Prohibited articles’ are defined later in the same Section of PACE as including “offensive weapons” (as one would naturally assume), and this was indeed the reason belatedly provided by PC Burns for his detention and search of Tyrone – but the crucial restriction on such a search power (even where reasonable grounds do otherwise exist) is that it cannot be exercised on the grounds of a private dwelling, or in any vehicle parked thereon, unless the person being searched, or who is in charge of the vehicle, either doesn’t live in the house, or is not a guest of one of its inhabitants. 

Commentary

Section 1 of PACE thus makes it entirely clear that people cannot be lawfully stopped and searched under that power if they are at the house where they live (which includes, of course, any private land attached to the house, such as a garden or driveway), or are a guest of its residents. But PC Burns, as with all too many of his Policing colleagues, chose to put the arbitrary exercise of his own authority way ahead of small matters such as the letter of the law, despite being repeatedly advised by Tyrone and his mother as to the truth of the situation. 

To racial profiling, and a search lacking any proper grounds, was therefore added trespass to land, and an apparent contempt for that age old maxim “An Englishman’s home is his castle” – which emphasises the importance of preserving the privacy and integrity of our homes from intrusion by the State, and which was the very legal ethic which Sections 1(4) – (5) of PACE are enshrining.

But perhaps Tyrone and his family were not English enough in the eyes of the Metropolitan Police, for that principle to apply to them?

As Tyrone wrote in his complaint- “From the beginning I informed the Police that I was at my house, despite this they chose to ignore that statement. Even when my mum came out and it was obvious that I lived at the house, they continued to search me and the private land that I was on, citing S1 PACE. This is despite them knowing or being expected to know as Police officers that S1 PACE was not applicable in that circumstance. I consider this to also be discriminatory and that the Police knew that their actions were unlawful, but chose not to apply the law correctly to me as I am a young black male, I believe they would not have treated a white male at his house under the same circumstances, in the same way and that they would have acted in accordance with the law.”

“I feel that the Police can treat me as they want and get away with it and my rights are deliberately ignored because they will cover up their true actions, make false allegations and not apply the law correctly towards me…”

I believe Tyrone was correct about this, on multiple grounds-

·         The first reason given by the officers for stopping Tyrone and his friend was that their car “shot off so quickly”

· When PC Burns placed Tyrone in handcuffs he had not attempted to deliver any of the requisite “GOWISELY” information regarding the grounds & purpose of the search, other than to very generically state that Tyrone was “detained under Section 1 of PACE” – this was entirely insufficient as the object of the search (e.g a weapon) has to be specified.

·         In any event, Tyrone had already, and repeatedly, made it clear to the officers that he was at his home address – but they continued regardless, supremely indifferent to this crucial fact. 

·         Tyrone knew his rights, and repeatedly questioned PC Burns as to what he was being searched for – the officer however continued to hide behind the “Section 1 PACE” mantra without providing any further details (making it sound as if the officer wanted to search Tyrone for a copy of the legislation…)

·         Then, when Tyrone’s mother asked the same question – about the grounds/ purpose of the search – PC Burns replied that he would explain the grounds after he had finished the search (revealing that he didn’t know what he was looking for, and was evidently hoping the search would prove self- justifying, and give him the grounds he lacked to lawfully carry it out in the first place…)

·         Finally, after yet further questioning by Tyrone and his mother, PC Burns specified “weapons” as the object of the search. It was quite clear that all the officer had to go on was an assumption based on racial stereotyping, rather than a suspicion based on individual behaviour. 

The Police in response to Tyrone’s complaint made the following concessions to him, all borne out by the irrefutable evidence from the officers’ body cameras –

·         You are clearly within the grounds of the dwelling, as is the vehicle in question. 

·         You identify the dwelling to be your home and do so on more than one occasion…reinforced by your mother. 

·         Officers, nevertheless, continue to search both yourself and the vehicle for weapons. 

·         The driving matter is overlooked and forgotten about. 

·         Officers failed to tell you why you were being searched, and what they were looking for.

The Complaint Investigation report also, however, did its best to excuse and exonerate the officers as far as possible, and dismissed any suggestion of discrimination on the part of PC Burns, despite statistics showing that of the 27 stop and searches which that officer carried out between March – September 2020 a staggering 89% were of “IC3” category individuals i.e black people – across a variety of London boroughs, none of which, according to Census data, had a Black population exceeding 45% of the total population.

In regards to the key issue of the officers blatant disregard for the fact they were on private land, the following ‘explanation’ was offered, which would probably make most political spin-doctors blush- 

“It is possible that the officers have become distracted by a combination of factors which could include behaviour of detained persons, evasive answers to questions [in fact it was PC Burns who was evading my client’s legitimate questions!], challenging authority to conduct enquiries…and inclement weather, but what they fail to notice is that they are within the confines of a dwelling from the moment they began speaking to you until the conclusion.” 

Note the typically defensive language used, clearly designed to excuse the officers unlawful conduct as much as the complaint investigator is able to – he grants the officers the excuse of ‘innocence’ – stating that they ‘failed to notice’ the house whose drive they were standing on (and which PC Burns actually entered!), and ‘forgot’ about the driving offence which was their only stated reason for their intervention in my client’s life in the first place. This is palpable nonsense, and any reasonably independent assessor of the complaint would surely have concluded that the officers knew full well that their actions were unlawful – but rode rough-shod over the law regardless, whether out of arrogance, authoritarianism, racism, or some combination of all three of those vices. 

The fact that stop and search increased during Lockdown is a symptom of an unhealthy policing culture and all too often, Police officers ‘reasonable grounds and reasonable suspicion’ are both no more than skin deep. 

I am pleased to report that I have recently recovered significant damages for Tyrone (for false imprisonment, and assault and battery), and have also received a settlement offer for his mother (for trespass to land) although her case presently continues: but what statistics and stories like this show is that we need culture change within, not just compensation from, the Police to remedy such persistent acts of injustice and whilst Police complaint investigators routinely continue to allow Police officers who abuse or misuse stop and search powers to wiggle off the hook without a misconduct charge – that change is never going to happen.

All names have been changed.

Continue reading “Police abuse of stop and search powers”

Police Search Warrant – Unlawful Entry Part 3

So far, I have explored circumstances where the Police have obtained a Search Warrant following application to a Magistrate and the Police have then either attended the wrong house (Part 1) or alternatively, have raided the right house but on the basis of faulty intelligence (Part 2).

What about situations where the Police have obtained a Warrant on the basis of up-to-date  and accurate intelligence and then raided the address identified in the Warrant but where they have then failed to execute  the Warrant correctly (and in accordance with Section 16 of PACE)?

Section 16 of PACE states as follows;

(1)    Execution of warrants.

A warrant to enter and search premises may be executed by any constable.

(3)    Entry and search under a warrant must be within three months from the date of its issue.

(3a) If the warrant is an all premises warrant, no premises which are not specified in it may be entered or searched unless a police officer of at least the rank of inspector has in writing authorised them to be entered.

(3b)No premises may be entered or searched for the second or any subsequent time under a warrant which authorises multiple entries unless a police officer of at least the rank of inspector has in writing authorised that entry to those premises

(4)    Entry and search under a warrant must be at a reasonable hour unless it appears to the constable executing it that the purpose of a search may be frustrated on an entry at a reasonable hour.

(5)   Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present at the time when a constable seeks to execute a warrant to enter and search them, the constable—

(a)shall identify himself to the occupier and, if not in uniform, shall produce to him documentary evidence that he is a constable;

(b)shall produce the warrant to him; and

(c)shall supply him with a copy of it.

(6)   Where—

(a)the occupier of such premises is not present at the time when a constable seeks to execute such a warrant; but

(b)some other person who appears to the constable to be in charge of the premises is present,

subsection (5) above shall have effect as if any reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person.

(7)   If there is no person who appears to the constable to be in charge of the premises, he shall leave a copy of the warrant in a prominent place on the premises.

(8)   A search under a warrant may only be a search to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.

Where the Police have executed a warrant, it is therefore necessary to check very carefully whether there has been compliance with the criteria.  In R v CC of Lancashire ex P Parker  the Court of Appeal decided  that the wording of S15(1) was such, that any non-compliance  would render the whole search unlawful.

In 2007, I successfully concluded a claim on behalf of my client David Khan against West Yorkshire Police.  I helped establish that he had been the victim of an unlawful arrest and assault by police officers employed by the force and he recovered £15,000 in compensation as well as a full apology.

Several years later, David contacted me again. In the early hours of the morning on 6 January 2012, David had been at home preparing  to shower whilst his two children were asleep in bed.  As he closed the bedroom curtains, he saw a bright light from outside shining directly into his bedroom.

David peeped through the curtains and saw what he thought were police officers armed with machine guns approaching the side of his home which is situated in a cul-de-sac.

He started to feel anxious and worried that he was about to be subjected to another wrongful arrest and assault.  He therefore went out onto the hallway and stood at the top of the stairs. From outside David heard a voice shout words to the effect of “Resident of number 24, come outside”.  David  made his way downstairs, unlocked and opened the door.  He could see a number of police officers pointing guns at him but did  not know why they were there.

Given that the police were armed, David did not want there to be any suggestion that he was in possession of a weapon and therefore placed his mobile phone on the floor and then stepped outside and stood in the front yard with his arms held up above his head.

Once outside, David also realised that a police helicopter was above the house.

David could see that there were two armoured police vehicles parked in front of the gates to his driveway and that the road was blockaded in both directions. He could also see that there was an armed officer leaning on the wooden fence of the adjacent premises. There was a third officer stood by the pillar to the gates who was also pointing a firearm towards him.

David was asked if he was ‘Richard Kimble’.  In response David said that he was not and that his name was David Khan and gave his date of birth.

Richard Kimble was his ex partner’s brother.  Richard had never lived at the premises and to the best of David’s knowledge had never used the address for any reason.

The officer asked David who had been looking out of the bedroom window.  David told the officer that it had been himself. The officer repeated his question and he repeated his reply.

The officer  then asked him if there was a child in the house and it then occurred to David  that he was referring to his younger son who was upstairs and who had obviously been awoken by the commotion.  As a result David told the officer that it was his son who was at the bedroom window.

The officer told David  to shout up to his son and tell him to come downstairs.  David did as he was asked and his son made his way downstairs and outside.

David then told the officer that his daughter was also upstairs in bed and he was told to go into the house slowly and call her downstairs.

During this discussion with the officer David noticed that the officer had a photograph of  Richard Kimble and that he appeared to realise David was not the person he was looking for.

David returned  into the house and went upstairs to his daughter’s bedroom. Fortunately, at that time she was asleep and had not witnessed events outside. He woke his daughter.  She was understandably dazed and disorientated and did not realise what was going on.  He told her that the police were outside wanting to speak to him and that they were armed with guns.

David’s daughter  became instantly upset and started to cry. She thought that David would be beaten up by police again as during the incident which led to David’s previous civil claim against the same police force.  David told her that everything would be alright but that she needed to come downstairs with him.  He took his daughter downstairs and both went outside and joined his son.

David was then searched by an armed police officer at the rear of one of the police vehicles  that was parked near his driveway and was then told to make his way towards a police vehicle parked a few metres away and to take his son and daughter with him.

The situation was extremely frightening and embarrassing.  Neighbours who had  become aware of the presence of the police had come outside to see what was going on.  It seemed as though the whole street was outside.

David and his two children sat inside the police van, still in shock and in the dark as to why the police were even at the premises.

There was no police officer in the vehicle with David and the children and the door was kept slightly open. David felt shock, apprehension and concern for his children’s welfare whilst his daughter sat on his lap, crying. They were kept in the van for about 30 minutes.

During this time, firearms officers performed a preliminary search of the house to ensure no one else was in the house and that it was safe for other officers to conduct a full search.

Eventually, the van door opened, David and the children were told they could go back inside if they wished.

By this time, the armoured police vehicles had left the scene, as had most of the police officers.

As they went back into the house, the only police officers remaining were two CID officers in plain clothes.

The officers told David that they would be carrying out a search of the premises.  They explained that they would be starting the search in the children’s bedroom so that the children could go back to bed once the search was finished.

One of the two police officers remained with David and the children in the lounge while the other carried out a search upstairs.

As and when the officer had finished searching the children’s bedrooms, the children were allowed back upstairs and went back to bed. The search lasted for about an hour. At this point, the officer said to David “This is a copy of the search warrant”.

Prior to the officer saying this there had been no mention that the police officers were in possession of a search warrant. Further, no copy of the warrant was shown to David prior to this moment.

The officer produced a document and requested that David sign it to confirm that nothing had been seized by the police.  David signed this document and a copy of the search warrant was then given to him.

The police officers then left the premises.

It transpired that two serious armed robberies had been committed at 02:21 hrs and 04.39 hrs on 4 January 2012.  In each case a gun was used and discharged.  Enquiries showed that the robber had used a particular motor car. At or about 5pm on 5 January 2012 a police officer identified Richard Kimble as a man shown on CCTV getting into that same motor car on 3 January 2012.

Officers applied for and secured  an ‘out of hours’ search warrant to search Mr Kimble’s last known address, namely David’s home address for firearms/ammunition.  This had been falsely given to the police by Richard as his home address when he was stopped in October 2011 and without David’s knowledge or permission.

David was at first concerned that the police raid was some form of ‘pay back’ because he had previously brought a successful civil claim against the force but in truth, the police decision to obtain and execute an armed search warrant was entirely legitimate.

So

  • Police were at the right address as detailed in the warrant.
  • Police intelligence clearly linked the offence to the house (even though David and his children were entirely innocent).

BUT, on close inspection, the police had failed to comply with the terms of Section 16; on David’s account, the officers had entered his home address without producing any search warrant to them and without supplying a copy rendering their entry unlawful since contrary to Section 16(5) of PACE.

It was on this discreet point that West Yorkshire Police subsequently admitted liability and my clients went on to recover substantial compensation for trespass, false imprisonment and assault.

As Parts 1, 2 and 3 show, it is imperative that for the police to establish a lawful entry/search of premises, they must

  • Get the right house.
  • Ensure the intelligence upon which they secured the warrant is up to date and as reasonably accurate as can be, and
  • Comply with the provisions of Section 16 of PACE.

“An Englishman’s Home is his Castle ?”

Reflecting on this case, I am very happy that I was able to secure compensation for David and his family after this highly distressing incident – but also I am conscious that some might think the award of compensation was only due to a ‘technicality’ i.e the family’s entitlement to damages did not arise in this case because of wrongdoing on the part of the West Yorkshire Police but purely because the officers involved failed to give David the search warrant at the start of the process, rather than the end. Had they given it to him at the beginning, the search would have been entirely lawful and no right to compensation would have arisen for David or his children.

Nevertheless, I think it is quite correct that David brought this claim, and it is absolutely right to hold the Police to account to the strictest ‘letter of the law’ when they are claiming entitlement to enter and search a private home, going through all of a family’s personal possessions and  in the process – effectively – holding the family (including children) captives and shattering the sense of peace and security that we are all surely entitled to feel in our homes – particularly children.

I wrote in my last blog on this subject about the importance of the Human Rights Act, enshrining the right to Privacy and Family Life, but of course the concept that a person’s home is their private space and is not to be infringed lightly by the forces of the State is far older than the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights – it is one of the fundamental tenets of ‘British Liberty’  long upheld by the Common Law of England & Wales before the HRA was even dreamt of, and summed up by the famous expression “An Englishman’s home is his castle.” That is why it is quite correct that the modern law governing search warrants, as set out in PACE, sets strict guidelines with which the Police must comply before any entry into a private home can be deemed legal. To allow the Police to ‘get away’ with these strict guidelines, such as in this case a failure to produce the warrant for the person whose home was being ‘invaded’ by them, would be to remove an important safeguard  upon the power of Police officers as agents of the State, upsetting the balance between the rights of individuals and the power of government. We must not allow our fundamental liberties to be chipped away in this manner, and if the Police wish to exercise an extraordinary right – to come armed into your family home, and turn it upside down (often both emotionally and physically !), go through your private belongings – well then, they must be held to an extraordinarily high standard of behaviour, including the fair transparency required by the production of the warrant to the homeowner as an absolute condition before a legal search can go ahead.

As a former Prime Minister of this country, William Pitt the Elder, said in 1760 –

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the King of the England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

Long may the law continue to uphold these admirable sentiments, in their modern context, and I am sure Mr Pitt would be the first to cheer the safeguards and protections to all of our ‘cottages and castles’ built into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

(All names in this blog have been changed apart from the name of an Eighteenth Century Prime Minster)

The Price of Justice

I was pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on Channel 5 last week regarding the case of my client Ivan Martin in the documentary series “Where there’s blame, there’s a claim”.

I think it was understandable that the programme concentrated on the level of damages awarded to Ivan, and the other victims of serious personal injury claims (including the horrific Alton Towers roller coaster crash) who were featured in the episode, as obviously there is widespread interest in the amount of money people can recover in such cases, but I would like to take this opportunity to stress that pounds & pence are far from being the be- all and end- all in these claims, particularly in actions against the police which I handle, as opposed to negligently caused accidents. The victims of police misconduct have very often suffered not as a result of an unintended ‘mistake’ (no matter how catastrophic) but rather quite deliberate conduct – such as the misuse of police powers of arrest or a deliberate assault (in Ivan’s case, being shot in the back with a taser gun in his own home) and have then seen this wrong against them compounded by the officers involved – often as a team or institutionally – trying to deny my client justice by telling quite deliberate lies about their conduct,  lies which if believed might result in a criminal conviction and even incarceration – such as the threat Ivan faced when, after being shot by the Officers who came to his home, he was then prosecuted for allegedly assaulting them!

The victims of car crashes or other accidents will first go to hospital to receive treatment, before commencing their fight for compensation, which may or may not be straight forward. My clients will frequently first – after their visit to hospital for injuries inflicted upon them by the Police – have to face prosecution in the Magistrates or even Crown Court on false charges of resisting arrest, obstructing or even assaulting a constable. Only after they have dealt with months of stress and worry, and have cleared their names in the Court, can they bring their own case against the Police in the civil courts.

My clients also often have to go through a lengthy and demoralising process of pursuing a complaint with the relevant Police Force’s professional standards department, resulting most commonly in what feels to many of them distinctly like a ‘whitewash’ of a report – exonerating the investigating officer’s colleagues, and turning blame back onto my client – only to see the same Police Force admit liability/ speedily settle the claim once civil proceedings are commenced, begging the question of the honesty and integrity of the original complaint investigation. Very rare indeed is the apology any Force will offer for the misconduct of its Officers no matter how heinous.

All of this is why I want to stress that whilst compensation in terms of the monetary award of damages is important, the sense of justice being done is always my client’s priority. I think this is in danger of being lost sometimes in media coverage of civil claims which focus only on the amount of “compo”. Indeed, the very title of the Channel 5 series runs the risk of belittling the stories of the deserving people portrayed within it. Yes, we live in a capitalist society where “money makes the world go round” – this is true about everything – jobs, politics, science and medicine – but it does not mean that we only work for money. There is nothing indecent or opportunistic in pursuing a compensation claim after you have been injured or wronged any more than there is in expecting to be paid for the job you do, but in both cases it is about far more than that. We work because we can derive great pride and personal satisfaction from our achievements, irrespective of how much we are paid for them; likewise my clients pursue claims not with pound signs in their eyes, to “grab the money” but for those incalculable but absolutely important things which would otherwise be denied to them – vindication in the eyes of society; self- pride and self- worth; being able to hold to account those invested with special powers over the rest of us, which is absolutely crucial in any liberal democracy; the sense of a wrong being righted and justice being done by the Courts, without which a civil society cannot function, and would run the risk of breaking down into anarchy; to get a fair and proper hearing of their legitimate grievances; to be believed.

This is why I have clients who are prepared to risk exposure to substantial costs in order to pursue a claim where the damages might be only a fraction of that amount – because they are not looking at this ‘claim’ in economic terms but as a matter of principle; they want the feeling of justice won, not money.

This is why another of my clients said these words to me at the conclusion of a very long running and hard- fought case, resulting in a successful outcome at trial after years of stressful litigation –

“thank you so much for believing in me, you’ll never know how much that meant. Without people like you willing to offer support to those who have been wronged, justice would not be possible. The fact you believed in me offered me comfort and gave me the strength to challenge the inappropriate behaviour by people in power, who should be respectful, show integrity and protect. All of which were disregarded in my case causing me 5 years of considerable difficulties and greatly impacted upon my mental health. This not only affected me but also my family. You have now given me the opportunity to put this behind me and continue with my life from where it had stopped 5 years ago. I will always be forever grateful and long may you continue to ensure justice prevails for others who face similar challenges. ”

And this is why Ivan Martin, in his Channel 5 interview wanted to make clear what his priority was in pursuing his claim. Getting that sense of fair play; of those to blame being punished, not a claim rewarded. I will leave the last words to him –

If I was in a job and I done something wrong, there would be consequences for me, so why should they get away with it? I know the rules, they know the regulations, we both should be singing off the same hymn sheet. They do something wrong, consequences for them, end of.

New Criminal Offence: Shopping Whilst Black

By Iain Gould, solicitor

I have just concluded two cases that were due for trial this month.  In both cases, my clients had been arrested in similar circumstances whilst seeking to establish their ‘consumer rights’

In both cases, each  police force had robustly denied liability forcing my clients to issue court proceedings and press for trial.  Only on the eve of  trial was settlement agreed a five-figure award of compensation plus legal costs in both cases.  Of significance,  both clients are black men.

Arrested for complaining about a pair of shoes?

My first client Mr M had recently purchased a pair of trainers from a well-known national Sports Shop chain which transpired to be faulty.  Along with his wife, he returned to the store with the trainers, the original box and receipt, hoping to receive a refund or credit note.

Mr M spoke to an assistant and then the manager.  The manager  refused to provide a refund or credit note. He advised my client that the trainers could only be returned if they had not been worn or if they had a manufacturing fault. Mr M  was of the opinion that if that was the policy adopted by the Store then such was plainly unlawful, and he forthrightly told the manager ‘That’s BS’.

Mr M and the manager argued about consumer rights and the Sale of Goods Act. My client said the shoes should be returned to the manufacturers.

Mr M was told to leave the store. He refused to do so unless a refund was given.  My client was warned in terms that the store’s security staff would be called.

Two security guards then attended. They asked Mr M to explain his position, which he did calmly. The guards refused to intervene.

Mr M returned to the counter and told the manager  that he would not leave the store until a refund or credit note was proffered.

The manager responded, ‘I’m not talking to you any more, I’m not interested. That’s it’. The Police were called.

Two police officers of West Midlands Police then attended the store. They were PC K and PC A.  They spoke to the manager who told them that he didn’t wish to make any complaint against Mr M. Rather, he just wanted Mr M to leave the store.

Mr M spoke to PC K and explained his position. Whilst he did so, three other officers attended the store.

PC K pointed out to Mr M that this was a civil dispute and that Mr M would have to take it to Court. Mr M advised PC K that to go to Court for a dispute over trainers costing £40.00 would be impractical.

Exasperated,  my client then decided to leave the store and said to his wife, ‘Forget it, love, let’s go’. As Mr M proceeded to walk away, PC K obstructed his path, put his hand up and pushed my client who immediately stepped back and asked why the officer had assaulted him.

PC K then told Mr M that the police required his details so as to effect an arrest.  At this, PC K sought to seize hold of Mr M’s arm. Mr M pulled his arm up so that the officer could not restrain him. A second officer then sought to intervene. Both officers then pushed  Mr M up against a glass counter. PC K said, ‘Take him to the floor’.

Mr M shouted in response, ‘Get the fuck off me’. Mr M was held, pinned down by the two officers using their body weight, across the counter. CCTV footage of the incident showed the  two officers pushing Mr M against the counter.

Mr M was then pulled away and, as a result of the officers’ continuing use of force upon him, felt his legs go from underneath him. He fell to the floor face down with his arms underneath him. Various officers sat astride him, holding him down.

One officer, whom Mr M believes to have been PC K, was shouting, ‘Release your arms’ but Mr M was unable to do so because of the weight/pressure of the other officers, which they continued to use against him.

The other officers began to get off Mr M and simultaneously PC K punched Mr M as hard as he could’ (as he later admitted) to the right shoulder. Mr M was able to release his arm from under himself whereupon his arms were seized and he was handcuffed to the rear by PC A.

Whilst being handcuffed, PC K pushed  my client’s face down onto the floor, which caused  an injury to the right side of Mr M’s forehead.

Other officers assisted Mr M to get to his feet. Mr M was then escorted from the store to a nearby police vehicle and thereafter transported to Sutton Coldfield police station.

The custody record in respect of the ‘Circumstances of Arrest’ indicated;

‘Officers were called to a report of a male and female acting aggressively within the store. Upon arrival at the store, spoke to the store manager who stated that he had been approached by the person in custody in the store who was making a complaint about a pair of trainers. he explained to the person in custody that it was not a manufacturing fault with the item. he claimed the person in custody became verbally aggressive towards him and he felt threatened by his manner. He was happy for matter to be dealt with by prop crime recording. Spoke to person in custody, tried to ascertain his details to carry this out. However he became agitated and tried to walk past me and refused his details. I put hand up in front to prevent him from leaving and then he accused me of assaulting him and refused details. Arrested for section 5 public order for original matter. became rigid and obstructive and refused to comply. Was taken to floor by the counter and struck twice with closed fist on back’.

Mr M was taken to a cell and sometime later also arrested for resisting a constable.   Again, the Custody Record recorded the circumstances of arrest: “During the original arrest, the person in custody became violent and had to be restrained by force”.

Mr M was later interviewed in which he gave a detailed account, denying any criminal behaviour.  Towards the conclusion of the interview, the interviewing officer explained to Mr M  that instead of arresting him, the matter could have been dealt with by an apology, that is why officers were trying to obtain his details.

After a lengthy period of detention, Mr M was released on bail. Upon answering bail several weeks later,  my client was charged as follows;

Words/behaviour-harassment alarm distress; used threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby Contrary to section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986.

 And

Resisting or obstructing a constable contrary to Section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996.

 Mr M later attended Court as required and pleaded a not guilty.  Some 4 months later, Mr M attended Court for the trial.

At the trial, PC K  gave evidence on oath against Mr M to the effect that;

(a)  Mr M had, when asked for his name and address told PC K to ‘fuck off’;

(b)  PC K had given to Mr M a reason for the arrest and for its necessity;

(c)  PC K informed Mr M about resolving the issue by ‘Local Resolution’.

Following evidence, the Magistrates retired to consider the issues. After consideration, Mr M was acquitted.

Shortly after his arrest, Mr M lodged a complaint.  By reason of sub judice, the Police refused to investigate  his complaint until he conclusion of criminal proceedings.    As is so often  the case , the complaint was the subject of  what was in my opinion a poor and lack luster investigation, the conclusion of which was that no officer was culpable of misconduct.

My client did not realise that he could take a civil action against the Police for his arrest and prosecution until several years later following telephone contact.  I agreed to represent him and brought proceedings just in time.

At the time of the incident, Mr M had been employed as a security guard. This brought him into frequent and respectful contact with the Police and made him aware at all times of the need to act reasonably and within the law.

Notwithstanding the passage of time, Mr M had good recall of the incident and presented as a calm and reliable witness and his wife.  Notwithstanding the very different factual accounts of the incident provided by the Police Officers,  I felt that my client’s account was more likely to be believed than the officers.

Irrespective of the different factual accounts, what struck me was that ultimately  this was a dispute over a £40 pair of trainers and the actions of the Police were wholly disproportionate to that dispute.  Quite simply they had made a mountain out of a  molehill.

White Staff Member, Black Customer, Guess Who Gets Arrested?

This suggestion of excessive use of power/force was also evident in the case of my second client, Mr Mc.

Mr Mc had recently purchased a car wax product for £15.00 which he considered to be of poor quality.  He  attended the store and spoke with the manager and asked to exchange his purchase The manager told Mr Mc that the store policy did not allow an exchange once a product had been opened.

Mr Mc had read up on his consumer rights and was of the opinion that he had a statutory right to take another product of equal value to that which he had purchased.  Mr Mc selected another car wax and proceeded to walk out of the store. He left his receipt and the item he had previously purchased on the counter.

The manager informed Mr Mc that he would call the police.  My client replied that he should call the police. Mr Mc was no abusive to the manager at any stage.

After 1 or 2 minutes, Mr Mc returned to the store.  He anticipated that the police would be able to resolve the dispute and decided to await their arrival.

When Mr Mc re-entered the store, the manager was on the phone.  Mr Mc asked the manager , “is that the police?” which the manager eventually confirmed.  Mr Mc told the manager that he would await the arrival of the police.

While Mr Mc was waiting at the till area for the police to arrive, he saw the manager dispose of a piece of paper in the bin under the counter.  Mr Mc asked the manager if the paper was his original receipt, which the manager denied.

Mr Mc was concerned that the receipt was his only proof that he had previously purchased the item from the store. Without his receipt, he would not be able to prove to the police that he was entitled to an exchange.

Mr Mc asked the manager where the original receipt was.  The manager replied that he did not know. In the circumstances, my client walked around the till area and began searching through the bin for his receipt.

The manager did not ask Mr Mc to step away.  He remained with my client behind the till before walking away and leaving Mr Mc searching the bin.

Mr Mc then moved from behind  the till area to the side of the counter.  He was joined  by the manager.  At this point,  Mr Mc had noticed the original receipt  inside the purchase bag which had been moved to the side of the counter.

PC H of the Metropolitan Police arrived at the shop at this time. PC H immediately walked directly towards Mr Mc at a brisk pace.  As he did this, he said “Right, you’re under arrest, put your hands together”.

Mr Mc was perplexed at this.  He immediately presented his hands above his head, palms facing outwards in a stance of ‘surrender’.  Mr Mc asked the officer why he was being arrested.

In response, PC H pushed Mr Mc backwards.  With handcuffs in his hand, PC H grabbed hold of Mr Mc’s arms and hands and attempted to handcuff him.

Mr Mc was forced backwards  against the wall.  He still had his hands up by his sides in a non-threatening, passive stance.  Mr Mc did not know the reason or grounds upon which he was being arrested.  He repeatedly asked PC H to tell him why he was being arrested.

PC H said, “Stop resisting, put your hands together and bend down on the floor”. PC H restrained Mr Mc by holding his arms.

PC H refused to explain the grounds or reason why he was detaining and/or arresting my client.

At this point, PC H suddenly drew out his baton.  Mr Mc asked PC H why he had deployed this weapon and explained that he just wanted to talk with the officer.

Suddenly, PC H then struck Mr Mc with his baton on the lower thigh, just above his knee. At no stage had Mr Mc been violent, aggressive or threatening towards PC H.  There was no reason for this use of force. PC H then struck my client in the same place again with the baton at which point, Mr Mc instinctively struck PC H back with his left hand causing.   Mr Mc did this to defend himself from PC H.

PC H then tackled Mr Mc to the floor and he was restrained  on the ground.

At this point, two other officers entered the shop and assisted with restraining Mr Mc.

Mr Mc was handcuffed and transported to Chiswick police station.

At the police station, Mr Mc was strip searched and placed in a cell.

Mr Mc was later interviewed.  He provided a full account and repeatedly asserted during the interview that PC H would not tell him why he was being arrested, despite repeatedly asking and that he had punched PC H instinctively in self-defence.  Eventually, Mr M was released on bail on condition that he later return to the police station.  Mr Mc was subsequently informed that no further action was to be taken against him.

Once again, Mr Mc lodged a complaint within a few days of his arrest.  Once the Met Police had decided to take no further action against him, the complaint was investigated.  Once again, the complaint was dismissed.  This time, Mr Mc lodged an appeal to the IPCC.  Unfortunately, following what appeared to be to the IPCC upheld the original be a fairly cursory review investigation decision finding that “PC H’s account that he was unable to hold sufficient conversation” with my client when he entered the store was satisfactory and instructed me to act for him.

My client’s only redress now was to bring a civil claim.  Following review, Solicitors acting on behalf of the Met denied liability.  So as to advance the claim, I then issued Court proceedings on behalf of Mr Mc for damages for both false imprisonment and assault and/or battery.

As part of the criminal investigation, some (but not all) of the store’s CCTV footage was secured.  Although there was no sound, the footage verified my client’s account and showed in my opinion unreasonable behaviour by the Police Officer.

The footage showed that upon arrival, PC H  immediately attempted to detain my client with almost no dialogue before PC H attempted to handcuff Mr Mc.  This does not support PC H’s assertion that Mr Mc was aggressive and/or uncooperative.  In fact, the footage showed Mr Mc clearly adopting a submissive gesture with his hands up and palms facing outward.

Once again, the Police Officer’s reaction to a relatively trivial consumer dispute was heavy-handed and completely unnecessary. In both of those case when met with a black man who did not become immediately completely submissive but who tried to set out his version of events in a reasonable manner, the Police Officers involved responded with pure and naked aggression.

It is hard to imagine that the skin colour of my client was not a factor in each case.  We know, for example that black and ethnic  minority people are three times as likely to have taser guns deployed against them by the Police, and by reasonable analogy this presumably applies to other forms of violence as well, for which clear statistics are not so readily available.

At their least both of these matters were minor disputes over in one case a pair of shoes with £40 and in the other a bottle of car wax worth less than that which ended up taking tens of thousands of pounds of tax payer’s money in the time and costs of prosecution, complaint and civil claim and  which could have been diffused and resolved by a few polite words on behalf of the officers included.  Instead the officers jumped to the conclusion and to physical violence almost immediately “seeing red”.

Or should that be “seeing black”?

 

 

The Untold Story of Police Detention

Iain Gould solicitorBy Iain Gould, solicitor

According to a recent report, hundreds of people have killed themselves shortly after being released from police custody in England  & Wales over the past 7 years.

The Human Rights watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said that it had “unearthed serious gaps” in the care of people who had been arrested and taken into custody. Over the past 7 years, 400 people in England and Wales have killed themselves following release from Police custody. Almost all the deaths happened within 48 hours of release.

David Issac, Chairman of the Commission, said “When the state detains people, it also has a very high level of responsibility to ensure they are safely rehabilitated back into their communities, particularly those who may be vulnerable”.

The Home Office acknowledged that while the figures showed a slight fall in the last year, every death in or following police custody “represents a failure and has the potential to dramatically undermine the relationship between the police and the communities they serve”.

Much effort has been made in recent years to reduce deaths in Police custody but in my experience, little consideration is given to the welfare of individuals following their release from custody.

Many of those arrested will undoubtedly feel high levels of shame and social exclusion because of what they have been accused of, for example sex offenders. In my experience however, several will experience similar emotions simply because of the very fact of the arrest and their treatment by the arresting and/or detaining Police Officers.  This is especially true for those who are innocent, of good character and who perhaps  are not what the law terms  “a person of customary phlegm” or normal fortitude, i.e. they have a history of anxiety and depressive symptoms and are therefore at risk of a further depressive episode in the course of their  lifetime.

It is difficult for those of us who haven’t personally experienced it to comprehend the sense of utter dismay felt by an innocent person upon arrest and detention.  You are brought into a custody suite through doors with special locking devices and presented to the Custody  Sergeant. There, you are advised of the reasons for your arrest in very brief terms, stripped of your possessions, interrogated as regards your personal health and welfare and then led to a cell for an indeterminable  length of time. The cell is a bare room with bars on the window, a wooden bench, and a lavatory possibly not maintained to the highest hygienic standard.  There is a small grating in the door and you are obviously locked in, and very much alone, in a totally alien environment.

You’ve got no shoes on by this time and your belt has been taken away and so have all your possessions including your watch and phone – you no longer feel in control of yourself, you are under somebody else’s control and authority.

This is clearly an intensely stressful and depressing situation to find yourself in.  Most people can cope with such an experience but for some, those without ‘customary phlegm’, their resolve may not be so robust.

I recently concluded a claim on behalf of an elderly gentleman of exemplary character from Brighton who I will call Brian.  He was accused of assaulting another man some 7 weeks earlier.  Police Officers attended his home address and invited him to attend the Police Station which he did the following day ‘for interview’.  Upon arrival, he was formally arrested and held for several hours during which time he was interviewed.  He was released on Police bail, and upon his return was again locked up for several hours, re-interviewed and finally charged.

The subsequent prosecution brought against him failed (it was discontinued shortly before trial).

I am satisfied that Brian was entirely innocent.  Notwithstanding this and the fact that Brian was confident he would be acquitted at trial, Brian found the fact of arrest to be overwhelming and his life turned upside down.

Having taken lengthy instructions and intimated a claim against Sussex Police, I commissioned a report from a Psychiatrist  to comment upon my client’s experience and impact on his life.

What follows are extracts from the Psychiatrists report;

PC Brown came from the back and arrested the Claimant.  They took him through to the custody suite. There they ‘processed’ him, as they put it.  Everything seemed to be numb.  He felt that it could not be happening.  It was surreal.  He was going through the motions. 

In the meantime, his solicitor had a meeting with PC Brown.  His solicitor then spoke to the Claimant and told him what the accusation was.  He was told that they  were prepared to offer him a caution.  The only further detail was dates and the detail of the allegation which was that he had ‘head-butted’ someone. They did not identify the victim. 

Then they interviewed him.  They talked about the area where the assault occurred.  He admitted that he did frequent the area.  In the latter part, he was shown two photographs of the injured party.  He could not see any injuries and he did not recognise the person.  PC Brown said that he matched the description (although subsequently they found out that he did not).  He was then put in a cell.  He was in and out of the cell during the night. 

Then it was suggested  that he should take part in an identification parade.  In order to confirm his innocence, the solicitor suggested that he should participate.  This involved having his photograph taken. It was as the Claimant was about to leave that he saw the details of the alleged assailant on a document in his solicitor’s hand and pointed out that the description did not match him. 

On 25 August he was taken back to the police station and charged.  On this occasion he was put in a cell for longer as his solicitor had not arrived. They laughed when they charged him.  He did not think that it was very funny. 

Initially everything seemed a bit of a blur.   He was still going to work.  His faith in the system was such that he believed that it would resolve itself.  So up to December 2010 he continued to work. Then he realised that he was not coping and things were getting on top of him. 

He then went downhill.  All he could do was watch television.  He was not doing any housework. His personal hygiene was being affected. 

His sleep was dreadful.  He would nod off during the day as he was so exhausted.  He would sleep for only short periods and then wake churning it all over in his mind.  His appetite was all over the place.  He was referred to a dietician.  His libido became non-existent.  His concentration was dreadful.  He could easily wander off.  Sometimes he would forget what he was doing and go and do something else. 

He is better but he still gets a physical feeling inside when the doorbell rings – his stomach twists.  He thought that he had overcome the problem with police cars.  When they were on holiday in Spain a police car pulled up and he found himself trembling, he felt a knot in his stomach and he thought that they were coming for him again. 

His sleeping pattern is still not good.  There are times when he falls asleep exhausted and then wakes in the middle of the night wide awake with his mind rushing over all sorts of things.  At the weekends if he does not have work, he wakes at the normal time but he feels too tired.  He still feels quite lethargic.   It is now an effort to do anything.  His libido is getting better but it is helped by tablets.  He has not recovered his interests. 

When he is asleep, he has occasions when things flash though his mind such as police cars or police officers or something to do with being enclosed in  the cell and not being able to get out.  The main thing is feeling trapped, enclosed and unable to get out.  He has sometimes woken from such experiences with a start and quite clammy and sweaty. 

Anything official, he does not trust.  He cannot shower any more as he is having panic attacks.  He has not flown anywhere as they shut the door on the passengers.  He sleeps with the bedroom door open. 

Whenever he sees a police car he thinks they are coming to get him again.  He gets this awful feeling in his stomach.  He feels that they want to do him harm and not help him.

 It is almost every night that he has dreams about the incident as it is not behind him yet.  He then referred to “the shutting of the cell door and the dank coldness, blank concrete walls”.  He referred again to how seeing a police car or a police officer or police community support officer can trigger ‘it’.  By ‘it’ he means that his stomach knots and he has a feeling like almost the opposite of goose bumps over the whole of his body and it feels terrible.  This happens a couple of times a day.  It can take half an hour or more to recover.  It may involve walking in the opposite direction to the stimulus. 

I asked if he had changed.  He said that he had been avoiding social events, meetings and in particular anything  confrontational in case people think that he is a bad person, “I automatically think that they may think I am a bad person.” 

If someone disagrees, he thinks that he has done something wrong whereas previously he would stand his ground.  He does not have the confidence that he had previously.  His confidence is less than zero. 

He is afraid that no one will believe him.  He is held back from saying things that we know are correct.  He would have an opinion previously but he does not have one now.

 Previously he enjoyed his work.  Now it is a chore.

 3 months after  the initial arrest, the Claimant attended his General Practitioner complaining of anxiety and panic attacks.  He was having episodes of swearing and shallow breathing.  When taking a shower he felt as though he was being smothered.  He had palpitations.  His sleep was disturbed by panic attacks.  The general practitioner prescribed anti-depressants. (He continued to see his GP on a regular basis until he was referred to his local community mental health team).

Brian’s therapist subsequently reported as follows –

Before 2010, Brian saw himself as a principled man, who helped everyone and used to interact widely with other people. Since the trauma, he said this had altered his self-identity where he now sees himself as incompetent, weak and bad.

In a later session, the therapist reported that – I provided psychoeducation about the memory in PTSD, and attempted to normalise his experiences.  He described himself as a law-abiding and principled man, who had a strong sense of right and wrong. The trauma has jeopardised his sense of identity and shattered his world, what his identity is – and the people he expected to keep him safe, had not done so.

At present validation is very important to Brian, he fears not being believed by others still and this had led him to imagine that people will accuse him or expect the worst of him.

Fortunately this was a case where, with the help of his partner, his GP and his local Community Health Team, Brian was able to get back on his feet.  After 6 months of treatment, my client’s therapist referred to him as having improved immeasurably. However, it is a salutary  insight into the kind of trauma which people  experience when that cell door is closed upon them, and how many need time, help and the right support to  escape  from the feelings their imprisonment has burdened them with – long after the cell door is physically unlocked, many people remain mentally trapped and isolated within it and those whose cry for help  is not heard or who lack the right support may indeed take extreme action to escape those feelings.

Despite rejecting his complaint, following my intervention, Sussex Police admitted liability for false imprisonment. This was a case in which there was simply no need to arrest  and incarcerate Brian, as he had voluntarily attended for interview and therefore his arrest and detention was unlawful and his claim settled for £30,000 which reflected his period of unlawful incarceration, his psychiatric  injury and lost earnings whilst incapacitated.  Brian was in my opinion fortunate to receive the support that he did otherwise he too could have been one more number in that deeply sad statistic with which  I opened this blog.

Contact me for help with your actions against the police using the form on this page.

 

Choosing the Right Lawyer (Part 1)

This is a guest post by my colleague and fellow specialist in civil actions against the police, John Hagan.

When instructing a lawyer to represent you in a claim against the police it is very important that you appoint someone who has the specialist knowledge and breadth of experience necessary to achieve regular success in what can be a complex area of litigation.

There is a certain overlap between claims against the police and general personal injury cases, but I would urge you to beware of putting your case into the hands of a personal injury solicitor, who deals day-to-day with accidental injuries, and who may only be ‘dabbling’ in the area of Actions Against the Police.

Rather, you need a police misconduct claim specialist, and I am pleased to say that I have a 20 year track record of success in these cases.  The experience that this has given me and my specialist team in assessing and analysing police claims means that unlike other lawyers who are less experienced, we do not prevaricate.

If I think you have a good case then I will tell you so, and I will push ahead with the case as swiftly as possible.  Equally if I believe your case will not succeed I will tell you that as early as I can and I will tell you it straight, and I will not allow the limitation period for your claim to be used up by any faint heartedness or hand wringing on my behalf.

I would like to demonstrate these points by reference to two cases which I have recently settled for £20,000 and £15,000 damages respectively.  Both cases involved hard-fought legal battles against West Midlands Police, but I was always confident that we would be successful and was prepared to see both cases through to trial if necessary.   Prior to my involvement, as you shall see, both of my clients had in fact consulted other solicitors who, in my opinion, did not have the relevant experience or knowledge to properly analyse and progress the claims as a result of which both clients suffered from delay, indecision and eventually rejection by their solicitors who – WRONGLY – told them that their claims would not succeed…

The case of Ezeji Jackson 

My client Ezeji Jackson is a black man who was stopped by the police in 2011 on suspicion of drink driving.

As Ezeji exited his car outside his home address he was approached by 7 police officers who questioned him in a hostile and aggressive manner and almost immediately laid hands on him.  Mr Jackson attempted to talk to the officers in order to explain his point of view ie that he did not believe he was over the limit (although he accepts that he had had an alcoholic drink) and that he did not believe that he had been driving dangerously.

Ezeji was a man of good character who worked long hours for the NHS as a mental health care assistant and he was shocked and upset by the immediately hostile attitude of the officers who confronted him.  He was completely outnumbered by the 7 police officers and denied displaying any violence towards them whatsoever – the truth of his account in this regard is surely borne out by the fact he was not charged with any offence of assaulting a police officer and nor did any of the officers involved in his arrest end up with as much as a scratch upon them.

Mr Jackson, on the other hand, suffered far worse than a scratch.  Given that the officers had almost immediately laid hands upon him and had not properly attempted to talk or reason with him, Ezeji tried to pull away from their grasp in order to avoid being handcuffed.  The officers moved in on my client and although what happened in the next few seconds differs between the accounts of Mr Jackson and the police officers, the end result was the same. My client felt a sudden pain in his upper left leg which caused him to scream out in agony, and which felt to him as if someone had kicked him from behind with extreme force.  All of the officers involved in fact denied kicking Ezeji’s leg, but six of them admitted that they had simultaneously laid hands on him (three men on either side of my client) and had pulled him to the ground.

My client was left lying on the ground face down, with a cut to the right hand side of his face and enormous pain in his upper left leg.  My client’s femur, one of strongest bones in the body, had in fact been broken as he was manhandled to the ground by the police.  As a result of this extremely serious injury my client had to undergo two operations and was unable to work, unpaid for the majority of his time off work, for nine months. He and his family suffered considerable financial hardship as a result.

My client initially instructed a firm of personal injury solicitors. That firm subsequently went out of business and in March 2013 Ezeji’s case was transferred to a second firm of personal injury solicitors, who agreed to take his case on a ‘no win no fee basis’.

This second firm subsequently wrote to Mr Jackson in October 2013 advising him that, in their opinion, his prospects of succeeding in the claim were less than 50%.

This decision was said to be based on the following factors:-

  • That the incident had been investigated by the West Midlands Police Complaints Department who had found that the officers involved had no case to answer in regards to assault.
  • That it was Ezeji’s word against the statements of seven police officers who were all arguing that the use of force against him was reasonable and required in the circumstances.
  • That Mr Jackson had been convicted of having been driving whilst over the limit on this occasion.

This was extremely disappointing news for Ezeji to receive.  The second firm of solicitors did correctly advise Mr Jackson that the limitation period for his claim would be the third anniversary of the incident ie September 2014.  If Court proceedings were not issued by that date, then the right to proceed with the claim would effectively be lost as the limitation period in English Law for a claim involving personal injuries is three years from the date of the incident.

This meant that Ezeji now had less than 12 months in which to find a third firm of solicitors, and one willing to act despite the second firm’s rejection of the claim.  Many would be disheartened by being left in such a situation, but fortunately, Mr Jackson got in contact with my firm and instructed us to investigate and pursue his claim.

As Police Claims Specialists we soon determined that Ezeji’s case had merit and we agreed to act on his behalf by way of a ‘no win, no fee’ retainer.

How was it that we were able to come to the CORRECT determination that Mr Jackson’s case in fact did have greater than 50% prospects of success, and why were we not dismayed by the same factors that had put the second firm of solicitors off the case?

Police Complaint

The rejection of our client’s police complaint by the West Midlands Police was known by us to be a ‘par for the course’ in that the vast majority of successful claims in which we represent clients start off with disciplinary complaints being rejected, and then go on to result in an award of damages being made to the Claimant.

There is a simple reason for this and it is that the complaint process is not independent but is handled by an Internal Disciplinary Investigation Team within the police force concerned, whereas a civil claim for compensation will go to Court and be heard by an entirely independent judiciary.

Long experience has taught me that the Police Internal Complaints Procedure is not fit for purpose, and that its agenda often seems to be to attempt to brush complaints under the carpet, with police officers, perhaps naturally, inclined to take the side of other police officers (colleagues in the very force with which they serve) and to favour the accounts of officers on almost all occasions over those offered by the victims of police misconduct.

In my opinion therefore, the second firm of solicitors had put far too much weight on the rejection of our client’s complaint by the police.

The number of police witnesses

Over the years I have represented many clients in successful claims where it is their word alone against that of one or more police officers and I know that it is not simply a numbers game of adding up the witnesses on each side.

We carefully assessed Ezeji’s evidence and concluded, I believe quite rightly, that he would come across as an honest and credible witness.

We carefully analysed the statements of the seven officers involved and noted that whilst all the officers denied delivering or witnessing any kicks or strikes to our client’s leg, none of them were able to offer any alternative explanation as to how he came to sustain such a severe fracture to his upper leg.  The officers accounts in regards to how Mr Jackson came to injure his leg were extremely vague and in certain respects contradictory.  All of the officers denied either striking or holding the Claimant’s leg as he was taken to the floor by the combined efforts of six police officers, but could offer no explanation as to the fracture of his leg.  Furthermore, despite the officers accounts of a violent struggle with a muscular and well built individual, none of the officers had sustained any injury whatsoever (as highlighted above).

Two of the officers alleged that Ezeji was flailing or waving his arms aggressively prior to any attempt being made to handcuff him, but the other five officers present did not apparently see this.

One of the officers stated that Ezeji fell to the ground in an uncontrolled manner, whereas the other officers described our client being lowered to the ground whilst being held by several of them.

Three of the officers described hearing a snapping or popping sound as Mr Jackson was being overpowered and before he was lowered to the ground.  The statements of the other four officers however did not say anything about this.

I also crossed referenced the officers’ statements with the accounts given by the police to the doctors at the hospital where Ezeji was transported by ambulance from the scene of the incident.  In those records it states:-

“According to police, was being restrained on front, legs crossed behind him and then forced him to flexion at knees.  Then sudden crack/pain”.

I noted that this account was completely contradictory of the accounts given in the police officers statements, none of whom talk about the Claimant’s legs being flexed whilst he was restrained on the ground.

So by utilising my experience of cases of this nature, and by a careful and detailed analysis and comparison of the evidence, I was able to come to the conclusion that simply because it was the word of seven men against one did not mean that the police would be exonerated.

Conviction for drink driving

Of course the fact that Ezeji was convicted of having been driving on the night of the incident whilst over the legal blood alcohol limit did present a real problem for the case.  I was not proud of my client for having committed this offence, albeit that he had no prior convictions, and he was clearly in the wrong when he committed that offence – however that did not justify the behaviour of the police towards him, and specifically he did not deserve to end up with a severely fractured leg leaving him with permanent pain and scarring as a result of his actions.

The fact of my client’s conviction presented a legal obstacle which it is likely that a solicitor who is not experienced in police misconduct claims, might consider insurmountable.

Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 prevents a claim for assault being brought by a person who suffered the assault whilst in the process of being arrested for the commission of an offence for which he was subsequently convicted (in this case drink driving).

The only way this hurdle can be overcome is to demonstrate to the Court that the assault suffered by the injured person was grossly disproportionate or that the police officers carrying out the assault did not believe that it was necessary in order to prevent the commission or continuation of an offence or to apprehend the person who had committed the offence.

Again, drawing on my experience of similar cases where I have had to deal with the obstacle presented by Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act before my client’s case can proceed to trial, and also by reference to my detailed analysis of the evidence, I was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for the Court to grant Mr Jackson permission to proceed with his claim and to reach a finding that in all the circumstances the police officers acts in causing a fracture to his upper left leg were grossly disproportionate given that:-

  • The offence which he was suspected of having committed had already come to an end.
  • The threat posed by Ezeji was minimal given that he was not armed with any weapon, he was outnumbered 7-1 by the police officers who were in attendance, and on the evidence of those officers he did not strike or land any blows upon any of them with any part of his body.
  • That none of the officers involved in Mr Jackson’s arrest were injured in any way, whereas Ezeji sustained a fracture necessitating multiple hospital operations and a 9 month absence from work.
  • There was nothing in Mr Jackson’s medical history or records as considered by the Orthopaedic expert who I appointed to prepare a report in his case to suggest that Ezeji was a particularly vulnerable individual who suffered from any medical condition which would have pre disposed him to suffering fractures more easily than any other person in the general population.
  • A leg fracture in the circumstances of this arrest, is a highly unusual injury to be sustained and spoke in itself of disproportionate force being used.  The femur is manifestly one of the longest and strongest bones in the body, and a fracture of the femur, is by common knowledge, an unusual injury to sustain.

Other crucial evidence

In a general personal injury claim there may be only limited classes of documents to obtain, eg hospital records and, if the accident occurred in the course of someone’s employment or at a public place, an accident report form.

In claims against the police numerous documents are generated relating to the arrest of the individual client and the actions of the police officers both before and after the arrest, in the form of computer logs, audio recordings, Custody Suite CCTV footage, interview tapes, police officer notebooks and statements, force medical examiner records etc.

Again, having a solicitor with the appropriate experience to identify all the different categories of document that should be produced by the police in a case such as this, and making sure that none have been overlooked (or deliberately withheld) is crucial.

I sought and obtained from the Defendant disclosure of the Association of Chief Police Officer’s ‘Use of Force’ manual which was the training manual used by West Midlands Police in regards to ‘take down’ techniques at the time of the incident in 2011.  This helped to demonstrate, that in my opinion, if a proper technique had been used it is likely that Ezeji’s leg would not have been fractured.

I also obtained the police radio log which showed that only 3 minutes had passed between officers first arriving at the scene and Ezeji being reported as on the floor with a broken leg.  Three minutes does not seem a very long time for the officers to have exhausted all avenues of resolution eg talking/reasoning with Mr Jackson– before resorting to violence in a situation in which the crime for which Ezeji was suspected was not itself one of violence, and nor had he assaulted any of the officers present.  In other words, was it necessary for the officers to handcuff/lay hands upon Ezeji at all?  Again I know from long experience that officers are trained to resolve conflict situation first by none violent methods of communication and negotiation with a suspect unless they are truly threatened with immediate danger which simply could not have been the case here.

I felt that this was another strong factor in my client’s case and gave me the confidence to assure him that we would see his case through to trial if necessary.

The progress of the Court proceedings

As stated above, my firm was instructed by Mr Jackson in October 2013 after his other solicitors had rejected his case.

After analysing the second firm’s file of papers we formally agreed to act on Ezeji’s behalf in December 2013 and set about gathering further evidence from the police.

We sent a formal letter of claim to the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police on behalf of Mr Jackson in May 2014.

In August 2014 West Midlands Police replied denying that any police officer had kicked Ezeji and requesting disclosure of his medical records in order for the case to be further investigated between the parties.  There was no admission of liability.

Owing to the approach of the limitation date (September 2014) my firm then issued a Claim Form in the County Court Money Claims Centre to protect Mr Jackson’s right to proceed with the case.

Medical evidence was obtained from an Orthopaedic Consultant in regards to his leg fracture in October 2014.

With the Defendant still having failed to admit liability, despite disclosure of the Claimant’s medical records we accordingly served the Court proceedings, along with the Orthopaedic expert’s report in December 2014.

A Defence was then served by the police in January 2015 in which all liability for Ezeji’s injury was denied and in which the Defendant stated that Mr Jackson should not be allowed to continue with the claim on the basis of Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act (as discussed above).

Accordingly we had to issue an application to satisfy the Court that permission to proceed with the claim for assault against the police should continue, notwithstanding Ezeji’s conviction, and I am pleased to confirm that this was granted by the Court in April 2015.

Thereafter the case proceeded over the following months with the normal steps of exchange of documentary evidence, witness statements and questions to the medical expert with the police continuing to completely deny liability.

On a number of occasions we invited the police to attend a Joint Settlement Meeting with us to attempt to narrow the issues between the parties and secure an out of Court settlement, thereby saving legal costs for all concerned, but this was rejected.

Eventually, the case was listed for a 5 day trial to take place in October 2016.

Then in June 2016 the police put forwards an offer to my client to ‘drop hands’, ie that he discontinue his claim on the basis of no order as to costs.  In effect all that was being offered was that my client would be allowed to walk away from the case as if he had lost, without getting any damages but without having to pay any legal costs to the Defendant.

With my support my client quite rightly rejected this offer.  I identified the fact that the offer had been made as the first chink in the Defendant’s armour.

Indeed, in July 2016 the Defendant then made an offer to settle my client’s claim for a payment of damages but only in the sum of £3,000.

I advised my client that this was a very low offer in view of the extremely serious nature of the fracture he had sustained to his leg and the permanent damage it had caused to him, even taking into account the litigation risks of him not winning at trial.

Once again with my support therefore, Ezeji rejected the Defendant’s offer.

We however put forwards a counter offer in August 2016 to settle his claim for the sum of £20,000 damages.

We then continued to prepare the case for trial and were only a few weeks away from the trial when at the very end of September 2016 the Defendant accepted our offer and agreed to pay Ezeji £20,000 in compensation for the injuries which he suffered.

It had been a long hard fight over the course of no less than 5 years for my client to achieve justice, but working together with the right firm of solicitors he was able to do so.

Specialist Knowledge

Confidence and perseverance are required to see a challenging case such as Ezeji’s through to successful conclusion.

I am glad that he came to me before it was too late, and that he was not put off by the unduly pessimistic advice he received from his former solicitors who in my opinion did not have the requisite experience to realise that they had a winning case on their hands.

Mr Jackson now has 20,000 reasons to tell his former solicitors why they were wrong!

Calculating Compensation in a Claim Against the Police: A lesson in Damages.

Iain Gould solicitorI have previously blogged on the cases of Chris and Claire, both involving serious police misconduct in very different circumstances.

Chris brought a claim for assault against West Midlands Police having been injured by a Police Officer slamming his shield against his head.

Claire brought a claim for misfeasance in Public Office against West Mercia Police having been the victim of sexual exploitation by a Police Officer.

At an early stage in both cases, liability was admitted and an offer of settlement was made.

Notwithstanding the admission and offer, ultimately it proved necessary to issue Court proceedings and against the Police.  Why?

In both cases, the Defendant Police Force refused to put forward realistic offers of settlement and in the circumstances, it was necessary to issue proceedings so as to bring the respective forces to the negotiating table with the threat of a trial.

So how do we go about valuing such cases which at face value are so different?

Basic Principals

There are three types of damages available to victims of Police Misconduct; Basic, Aggravated and Exemplary.

  • Basic damages

Basic damages are designed to provide basic compensation for the loss and injury suffered as a result of the incident. They encompass:

a. pain, suffering and loss of amenity resulting from the wrongdoing (essentially the physical and psychological injuries inflicted);

b. any identifiable financial losses, for example loss of earnings, medical expenses, etc.

  • Aggravated damages

Aggravated damages are awarded at the Court’s discretion in addition to basic damages in exceptional cases where;

  • The Police have acted to aggravate the basic loss by causing injury to feelings, for example by insulting, humiliating, degrading, distressing and/or outraging the Claimant: and
  • It could result in the Claimant not receiving sufficient compensation for the injuries suffered if the award was restricted to a basic award only.

Accordingly, aggravated damages are usually only awarded in serious claims of wrongdoing.

The Court have given guidelines on the circumstances which might justify an award of aggravated damages including;

i. humiliating circumstances at the time of the incident: or

ii. any conduct of those responsible which shows they have behaved in a high-handed, insulting, malicious or oppressive manner.

iii aggravating features can also include the way litigation and trial are conducted.

Other factors which might found a claim for aggravated damages include;

a. if the conduct took place in public;

b. a lack of apology from the Police;

c. if the Claimant was physically or verbally abused;

d. if the Police were motivated by prejudice;

e. if the Police attempted to obstruct the investigation of a complaint by the Claimant;

f. any other feature of the Police’s conduct throughout the case.

Aggravated damages start at around £1,680 and go up to a maximum of about twice the award for basic damages according to the lead case of Thompson and Hsu v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  • Exemplary damages

An award of exemplary damages is even more exceptional than an award of aggravated damages, as the object of exemplary damages is to punish the Police rather than to compensate the Claimant.

Exemplary damages can only be awarded if the Police’s wrongdoing constituted oppressive, arbitrary and/or unconstitutional action.

Exemplary damages will not normally be awarded at less than £8,400 according to the guidelines set out in the case of Thompson and Hsu.

Chris’ case

I have previously provided a full description of Chris’ case in my blog. (Read it here.)

As a result of the Police Officer’s actions in smashing his shield against Chris’s head, Chris suffered injuries as follows;

  • A superficial laceration of several centimetres to his right temple that required closure with surgical glue that was tender/painful for 6 weeks and which left a small indented scar that was only visible on close inspection.
  • Headaches for several months, initially as a consequence of the direct blow to the right side of the head and subsequently as a result of the tension caused by the stress of the complaint process.
Are police the real football hooligans? This photo of a riot shield injury shows the damage they cause.
Photo of Chris’ injury caused by a police officer’s riot shield.

By the time I was instructed, Chris had made a full recovery from his injuries.  Although he had immediately attended the hospital following the incident, he had not sought any further medical treatment.

In addition, Chris’ jacket had ripped in the melee, he missed some time off work and he had incurred some normal expenses.  All in all, his additional losses totalled £250.

  • Basic Damages

Notwithstanding the violent nature of the assault and how serious his injuries could have been,  Chris’ injuries were relatively modest.

So as to value Chris’ claim for Basic Damages, I referred to the Judicial College Guidelines which provide appropriate brackets for awards of damage for personal injury.  Of relevance was the guideline for “trivial scarring” (£1225 – £2250) and “minor brain or head injury – headaches” (£1575 – £9100).  I valued Chris’ claim for personal injury to be worth in the region of £3500.  Together with his claim for additional losses (£250), I therefore valued his claim to be worth £3,750.  So, how did Chris end up recovering £17,500?

  • Aggravated Damages

I was satisfied that this was a clear case where aggravated damages should be awarded, particularly in light of the relatively low award of basic damages Chris would receive for personal injuries (which as I have stated above,  were surprisingly minor notwithstanding the officer’s violent attack).

Why?

Sergeant A attacked Chris with his shield which he used as a weapon, specifically he turned his shield and hit Chris with the edge of his shield, a technique known as ‘blading’.  This is a technique taught in public order training specifically to be used only when encountering serious levels of violence or to quote West Midlands Police’s own complaint investigation report, “as a last resort”.

Further Chris was struck to his head (on what West Midlands Police describe as the “final target area”) and his injuries could have been so much more serious.

The incident occurred in full public view and could in fact have caused a far bigger public disturbance because both Chris and a number of his friends were angry and began to remonstrate with Police Sergeant A and other officers.

The officer’s conduct amounted to a gratuitous attack; it was deliberate rather than accidental.

The officer (and several of his colleagues) told lies about Chris’ behaviour, stating that Chris was abusive, aggressive and threatening.

Yet further, the conduct of Police Sergeant A was condoned by his supervising Inspector who stated that “from the start of the police operations, officers had been instructed to be robust but fair in their policing style and he believed that Police Sergeant A had performed his role in exactly the manner in which he expected”.

Furthermore, an additional aggravating feature of the case was in my opinion the Defendant’s Professional Standards Department deliberately failing to investigate Chris’ complaint adequately and objectively and perversely concluding that the actions of Police Sergeant A were lawful, necessary and proportionate.  Such a failure and conclusion upset Chris and exacerbated his legitimate sense of grievance.  The Defendant’s response to his complaint was designed to improperly shield (sadly no pun intended) Police Sergeant A from a finding of misconduct or other legitimate criticism.

Overall, I felt that the Court would award aggravated damages around twice the amount of basic damages ie something in the region of £7,500.

  • Exemplary Damages

Somewhat exceptionally, there were a number of features of this case that I considered made it an appropriate case for an award of exemplary damages.

On Chris’ account and that of Sergeant X (the Officer who lodged a separate complaint against the offender Sergeant A), Sergeant A had deliberately attacked Chris.  Notwithstanding that the officer was in no danger throughout the incident and therefore the force used was excessive and disproportionate.  Such action was clearly oppressive and arbitrary.

Furthermore, there was in my opinion a real prospect that Chris would establish at trial that the complaint process overseen by an Inspector was in reality a cover up.

By this stage, I had assessed Basic and Aggravated Damages combined to be worth in the region of £11,500.

I was of the opinion that the Court would consider this to be inadequate compensation for what Chris had been through and award exemplary damages in the region of £8,500.

Conclusion

I considered Chris was likely to recover approximately £3,750 in basic damages, £7,500 in aggravated damages and £8,500 in exemplary damages, ie a total of £20,000.

At an early stage of the case and without sight of any medical evidence, West Midlands Police offered £750 settlement.  On my advice, Chris rejected this offer.  After medical evidence was commissioned and full details of his claim presented, West Midlands Police offered £3,000 maintaining that his “needs are more than adequately met by a basic award”.  Notwithstanding West Midlands Police’s admission of liability, there was still a significant dispute as regards Chris’ demeanour at the time (according to West Midlands Police, “argumentative”, “abusive” and “argumentative”), and whether the complaint investigation had been pursued improperly and/or inadequately and whether the decision of the Professional Standard’s Department as regards the complaint was perverse, as I argued, or simply “within a range of reasonable conclusions arising from the material available”.

Allowing for litigation risk, I advised Chris to put forward a counter offer of £15,000.  16 months later and just 1 month before the trial window, the Defendant (in my opinion to avoid embarrassment of its officers at trial and a storm of adverse publicity), put forward a revised offer of £17,500.  Allowing for (significant) litigation risks, I had no hesitation in advising my client to accept.

Claire’s case

Claire was the unfortunate victim of sexual exploitation by PC Jordan Powell.  I have blogged about her case previously which you can find here.

As a result of PC Powell’s exploitation, Claire suffered psychological injuries specifically;

i) Immediately following the incident, she experienced disturbed appetite, disturbed sleep, low mood and a degree of weight loss.  She also lost confidence, which affected her self-esteem.

ii) Further, she felt “dirty”, “used” and “stupid” and as though she had done something wrong.  She felt that PC Powell abused her trust.

iii) Claire’s view of the police was also affected by the incident and she experienced negative thoughts towards the police.

In the circumstances, I felt it appropriate to commission a report from a Psychiatrist.  Following examination, the Psychiatrist concluded that; Despite the abuse Claire had suffered at the hands of her ex-husband, there was no evidence of significant psychiatric history.  However following the relationship with PC Powell, Claire had experienced marked psychological disturbance.

Prior to the expert’s assessment, Claire had received numerous counselling sessions for between six and nine months which she found to be helpful and beneficial.

The expert found that Claire was not experiencing any symptoms of acute mental disorder at the time of his assessment but that she had experienced some degree of psychological disturbance directly related to the incident with PC Powell, which led to issues that required addressing in formal therapy.  The expert opined that Claire experienced features of an Adjustment Disorder, with predominant disturbance of other emotions.  Although these acute symptoms resolved around two months after the end of the relationship with PC Powell, Claire had continued to express negative thoughts towards men and the police, which had been exacerbated by the incident, and continued to experience problems with confidence and self-esteem, although she was coping well and her capacity to work, care for her children and carry out activities of daily living had not been affected.

In respect of prognosis, the expert concluded that  it would be favourable if Claire received a further course of therapy, specifically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (“CBT”) to fully treat her residual symptoms.  The expert was of the view that Claire should make a full recovery within four months of commencing treatment.

Claire subsequently underwent nine sessions of CBT.  In the discharge report, the CBT therapist confirmed that Claire had engaged well with treatment and she had  achieved a full recovery.

Basic Damages

Once again, I referred to the Judicial College Guidelines. According to the Guidelines, there are a number of factors to be taken into account in assessing psychiatric claims, namely: the injured person’s ability to cope with life and work; the effect on relationships with family, friends and those with whom they come into contact; the extent to which treatment would be successful; future vulnerability; prognosis; and whether medical help has been sought.  In respect of claims relating to sexual and physical abuse, the fact of an abuse of trust is relevant to the award of damages.

The Guidelines provided that for minor injury, the appropriate  psychological bracket was £1290 to £4900.  For the application of this bracket, the level of award would reflect the length of the period of disability and the extent to which daily activities and sleep were affected.

There were a number of features of Claire’s case that were relevant to determining the appropriate level of award; she obviously struggled with a number of symptoms, particularly in the first two months when she displayed symptoms of an Adjustment Disorder and the injury was most acute, and thereafter with the ongoing effects but overall her ability to cope with life and with work was not significantly affected. Further, Claire’s relationships with her family, including her children, and friends were not affected.  However, her relationships with men in general were affected, as was her relationship with the police. Recommended treatment was successful and Claire made a full recovery within 3 years.

I determined that there was a basis for saying that this was a sexual abuse case because, notwithstanding that the sexual contact between Claire and PC Powell could potentially be viewed as ‘consensual’, PC Powell’s abuse of power was a sexual abuse of power, in that he improperly commenced a sexual relationship with Claire.  There was undeniably an abuse of the trust that members of the public ought to have in the police.  It was also relevant to take into account that Claire did not necessarily recognise or acknowledge the abuse of power until just before or shortly after the relationship had come to an end.

Taking all matters into account, I assessed damages for Claire’s personal injury to be worth approximately £4000.  In addition, there was a claim for treatment cost and travel expenses of just under £1,000.  So Claire’s claim for Basic Damages was valued at £5,000 – £8,000.  So, how did she end up with £25,000?

Aggravated Damages

In my opinion, this was again a clear case where aggravated damages should be awarded,  particularly in light of the relatively low award of basic damages Claire would receive for personal injuries (which in some ways reflected the fact that Claire was of strong character and for which she should not be inappropriately penalised).

Why?

PC Powell targeted Claire because of her status as a vulnerable victim of domestic abuse. Further it was relevant that at the time the improper relationship started, Claire was in fear of her ex-husband and had sought the protection of the police.

It was also relevant that the incidents took place in Claire’s private sphere, including exploitation of her personal mobile telephone number, which she had provided to the police for contact in relation to the reports she had made to them, and progressed into her home, where Claire lived with her children, who were also vulnerable by virtue of their age.

The sheer number of messages Claire received and their explicit content was relevant, as was the fact that PC Powell was on duty during the course of much of his contact with Claire and at least on some occasions he was in uniform.

It was also an aggravating feature of the claim that Claire was the one to end the relationship, not PC Powell, which suggests that the relationship would have continued but for Claire’s realisation that the relationship was an abuse of PC Powell’s power.

In the circumstances, I concluded that this was an appropriate case for an award of aggravated damages around  twice the basic award and therefore expected Claire to recover between £8000 and £10,500 in aggravated damages.

Exemplary damages

There were also a number of features of this case that I considered made it an appropriate case for an award of exemplary damages.

While potentially the type of conduct involved in this case could give rise to exemplary damages on its own since an admission of liability for misfeasance in public office necessarily amounted to an admission that the officer acted with malice or bad faith, what really strengthened Claire’s claim for exemplary damages was the fact that PC Powell had abused other victims, which suggested that he was allowed to act with impunity, by his superiors  and further that PC Powell had a previous similar misconduct finding against him from 2008 but was nevertheless still serving, and yet further that rather than setting up a complicated ‘honey trap’ operation West Mercia could and should have contacted Claire much earlier so as to prevent or at least minimize PC Powell’s involvement with her.

This means that not only did PC Powell abuse his power but West Mercia Police knew that there was a risk of him doing so and took no or no appropriate action to prevent PC Powell from serving and/or protecting women to whom he posed a risk.  It appears no steps whatsoever, beyond the bare misconduct finding, which amounted to a ‘slap on the wrist’ had been taken to ensure that PC Powell would be prevented from abusing his powers and causing harm to vulnerable women.  It beggars belief that PC Powell was permitted not only continuing as a serving police officer but was specifically allowed to deal with vulnerable victims of domestic abuse on his own, taking into account his history.

In the circumstances, I concluded that despite the exceptional nature of the award, there was a real prospect that a Court would award exemplary damages to reflect the clear abuse of PC Powell’s power and the failure by West Mercia Police to prevent PC Powell from abusing his powers, in spite of his known history, and furthermore for the length of time it took for PC Powell to be investigated and thereafter convicted, which necessarily caused further distress to Claire. I felt that Claire could well recover exemplary damages of around £10,000.

Conclusions

I considered Claire was likely to recover between £4000 and £7000 in basic damages/damages for personal injury, £1000 in special damages. £10,500 in aggravated damages and around £10,000 in exemplary damages, i.e. a total of £25,500 – £28,500.

Settlement

At an early stage of the case and without sight of any medical evidence, West Mercia Police offered £3,000 in settlement.  On my advice, Claire rejected this offer.  After medical evidence was commissioned and full details of her claim were presented, West Mercia Police failed to  respond.  In the circumstances, I issued court proceedings. West Mercia Police instructed external solicitors and over several months, further offers of settlement were made (and rejected) – £9000 and £15000 – until eventually I was able to successfully negotiate a settlement of £25,000.

Both Claire and I were incredibly frustrated by the drawn out process that West Mercia Police forced us to adopt, in Claire’s words “rubbing salt in the wound”, but ultimately delighted with the settlement.   I am really pleased that having achieved justice in what she described to me as a ‘David & Goliath’ situation she is now able to move on with her life.

Calculating Compensation

As can be seen from the above, calculating compensation in a claim against the police is not straightforward, and could be a minefield for a person who does not have the advice of a specialist police claims lawyer.

Awards of ‘basic’ damages are often modest in cases of police misconduct if the physical injuries inflicted are not severe, notwithstanding the reprehensible nature of the wrongdoing, and therefore it is essential that the tools of the civil law, in the form of an injured person’s right to ‘aggravated’ and ‘exemplary’ damages are fully utilised to achieve a fair and just amount of compensation.

After all, an injury suffered ‘accidentally’ is not the same as one deliberately inflicted through police assault, abuse, false imprisonment or other form of misconduct.

As the conduct of both West Midlands and West Mercia police show in the cases of Chris and Claire, the police will normally start by offering a low award of ‘basic’ damages only to try to buy the case off cheaply, and the advice and assistance of an experienced practitioner in this area of law, such as myself, is essential to understand how to obtain aggravated and exemplary awards, and properly hold the police to account for their wrongdoing.

Contact me for help with your civil actions against the police compensation claim by completing the online form on this page.

Is Police ‘Conflict Management’ Training Working?

This is a guest post by my colleague and fellow solicitor, John Hagan.

Photo of John Hagan, solicitor.
John Hagan, solicitor.

Those of us who want to live in a civil society, where violence is always the last resort, and not some version of a Judge Dredd comic, in which a ‘hardcore’ police force shoots people for littering, may have been dismayed by the reaction of some sections of public opinion to a video released this week showing a Metropolitan police officer shouting at a motorist and viciously smashing the motor car’s windscreen with his truncheon, before trying to cut his way in through it with a knife.

In the video the police officer can be seen confronting the motorist (identified in press reports of this story as Leon Fontana), who, perhaps not coincidentally, is a young Black man. My colleague Iain Gould has previously blogged about the dangers of “Driving whilst Black” i.e the perception that black men are disproportionately targeted by the police for traffic stops.

The police have powers under S.163 and 164 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require drivers to stop their vehicles and produce their licence and insurance and confirm their identity. It does not however empower the police to require that a motorist who has been stopped must exit his vehicle, nor to require that he hand over his car keys.

Whilst it is true that Leon states he is not going to get out of the car, he is otherwise co-operating with the officer, and is not refusing to let the officer check his details. When the officer states that he is concerned that Leon might just drive off, Leon removes his keys from the ignition and places them on the dashboard…then within 30 seconds of the conversation beginning the officer is screaming “Get out of the car! You’re not allowed to drive it!” and starts smashing the windscreen viciously.

It appears that the officer has just received some information suggesting that Leon may only have a provisional licence (this subsequently proves to be incorrect, as it is a case of mistaken identity, cleared up within moments, as soon as other officers become involved…). However the officer immediately reacts to this information by shouting “Get out the car – you’re not allowed to drive it!” and within 15 seconds has started to pummel the side of the car with his truncheon before the man inside has even had a chance to respond. The officer is now screaming his command “Get out of the car!” as if he was involved in a life and death situation rather than a routine traffic stop. If a member of the public had been behaving like this – basically attacking the car and shouting at the top of his voice – he would surely have been arrested. The officer appears to have no impulse control in this situation, and there is no sign that he made any attempt at a reasonable and civil discourse with the driver. Surely this is not how we want our police officers to behave, nor why we empower them with special authority to inflict violence or commit damage to property. The officer was, in my opinion, behaving in a totally unprofessional and irresponsible manner.

As the footage continues, the motorist can be heard telling the attacking officer (in an entirely calm tone of voice) that he has a licence and insurance. The officer informs the motorist “You are not qualified, you’re not allowed to drive” apparently having jumped to an unshakeable belief that the motorist is an unqualified individual without going to the trouble of listening to what he is being told, or making any effort to check documents and establish the driver’s actual identity.

Manifestly, the police are here to reduce violence and aggression in society, not actively introduce it into otherwise calm situations (the motorist had clearly responded to police instructions to stop his car and was talking to them through an open window).

If somebody tells an officer that they have been mistaken for somebody else, surely the officer should spend at least a minute or two investigating that possibility in an amicable manner rather than shouting the person down and smashing his windscreen to pieces? And what purpose was being served by the officer smashing the windscreen – surely he didn’t intend to pull Leon out through it? The destruction of someone’s property by a police officer to make them comply with instructions during a low- level traffic stop is in my opinion a crazy and unjustifiable turn of events.

In my opinion, the police officer’s actions can only be characterised as anti- social, thuggish behaviour which clearly flies in the face of the norms of civilised behaviour as well as the specific training which police officers are given as to how to resolve a conflict situation.

Police officers are extensively taught the techniques of ‘conflict management’ which emphasise that violence must be a last resort after non- violent approaches to resolving the situation in the form of ‘officer presence’ and ‘tactical communications’ are first considered. Does anyone really doubt that the officer pictured in this video could have had a productive conversation with the motorist had he so chosen?

Sadly, as I discovered during my appearance on the Jonathan Vernon Smith (JVS) Show on BBC 3 Counties radio last week, some people do condone the officer’s behaviour.

You can listen to my interview here:

One caller to the show stated “the guy in the car should be prosecuted” whilst another called the motorist a “toe rag” and accused him of “winding up” the officer by the act of filming the confrontation.

JVS himself, perhaps adding fuel to the fire of his listener’s fury, speculated aloud that the police may have believed Leon to be a dangerous criminal with a history of using weapons, and that he might even have had “a gun in the glove box”. However, there was no basis for this assertion. All the evidence available to us is to the effect that the worse the police suspected of Leon was that he was driving without a full licence or insurance, which is a non- imprisonable offence.

The police are entrusted with special powers to use force against other citizens, but it is only right that the officers respect the safeguards that the law has put in place to prevent the abuse of those powers and to ensure that we have a functioning civil society in which people can have trust in the police – without which, they obviously cannot do their jobs and the risk of harm to both officers and citizens generally increases.

Police powers of arrest without a warrant are enshrined in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 S.110. In order to exercise his power of arrest, the officer must have a reasonable belief in its necessity on the basis of one or more of the following criteria –

  1. that:
  • the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable,
  • the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name,
  1. that:
  • the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service, or
  • the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service,

3. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent the relevant person:

  • causing physical injury to himself or any other person,
  • suffering physical injury,
  • causing loss of or damage to property,
  • committing an offence against public decency, or
  • causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway,
  1. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the relevant person.
  2. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question, or
  3. that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

It is highly questionable whether the officer in this case could have possibly had a reasonable belief that any of the above conditions applied to Leon Fontana. In which case, he had no power to arrest Leon, and no power to use force against his motor car to effect an ‘arrest’ – which renders his smashing of the windscreen not only a civil but possibly a criminal offence.

Contrary to what some of the listeners of the JVS show apparently believe, there is no seventh criteria of “having reasonable grounds for believing the person to be a toerag” nor any power for the police to arrest someone who is filming their encounter, or refusing to exit a vehicle, if there are no other circumstances such as a refusal to identify themselves or an attempt to abscond or obstruct the investigation of a suspected offence on the part of that person.

Here, as we can all hear, Leon was offering to identify himself – or at least was trying to go through that process in a respectful manner with the officer, but was being obstructed by the officer’s unreasonable anger towards him.

This case reminds me of another I have recently been involved with, also a video taped encounter,  in which police officers stopped a car on suspicion of ‘no insurance’ and in which the driver – a middle- aged white man as it happens – resolutely refused to identify himself to the officers involved and repeatedly made it clear that not only would he not exit the car, he would simply not identify himself or produce any documentation. The officers attempted to reason with him for  approximately 8 minutes, before deciding to discharge a CS gas spray into the car.

Whilst I do not agree that the CS gas should have been used, it is perhaps telling that in a confrontation with an older, white motorist the police gave considerably longer to conversation with an individual who was a lot more obstructive, than did the officer in this video towards a young black man.

I am sure that in the present case, all the unpleasantness could have been avoided, if the officer had just engaged in the civil conversation which Leon was offering him.

But you may think I am biased in that assertion, being a lawyer primarily working on behalf of people who believe they have been the victims of police misconduct.

In which case I will call as my next witness, the other contributor to the JVS show that morning, Peter Kirkham, who was formerly a Detective Chief Inspector with the Met.

Mr Kirkham acknowledged that the officer’s behaviour was “not a good example of conflict management skills” and made the point “when you’re dealing with a conflict situation the idea is you’re not making it more aggressive”.

Acknowledging that it was plain from the video that the officer has lost his temper, Mr Kirkham concluded by saying that if he was the supervising officer he would certainly be investigating the conduct of the officer concerned, whose actions could amount to criminal damage if there was no justification for his use of force.

The officer appears to have suffered a moment of madness; sadly for him he must now face the consequences of this. The uniform he wears is a symbol of the special authority vested in him but it does not, and should not, give him immunity from accountability for actions which if perpetrated by a member of the public may well have resulted in a night in the cells.

 

Should the Police “Arrest First” and Investigate Later?

Iain Gould solicitorBy Iain Gould, solicitor

The head of the National Crime Agency, Lynne Owens has been in the news. According to The Sunday Times and quoted in The Telegraph, whilst Chief Constable of Surrey Police she told police officers investigating rape cases to “arrest first” and investigate later.

Owens, who is now head of the National Crime Agency, is said to have made the changes when she was Chief Constable for Surrey Police between 2011-2015.

According to the report, minutes from a September 2015 meeting called by the then Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, Kevin Hurley reveal that Owens was asked how the force was going to improve their detection rates for rape.

The minutes record: “The chief constable was keen to ensure officers were robustly pursuing offenders. Officers tended to receive an allegation then wait to make an arrest after gathering evidence. They needed to change this and make an arrest first and then gather the evidence.”

Nick Ephgrave, then Deputy chief constable and who now leads the force, told the meeting that the tactics had raised the rape detection rate from 6 per cent to 15.8 per cent, a significant turnaround in a year.

It is obviously satisfying to see a Chief Constable adopting a robust approach to the investigation of crime but it is imperative that Police forces operate within the legal powers conferred upon them. In my dealings with various Police forces, I am afraid however that tactics of arresting prior to sufficient evidence to form the basis of reasonable suspicion being gathered first are not necessarily limited to Surrey Constabulary. An arrest on suspicion of a sexual crime, such as rape can have serious long-lasting consequences for the person arrested if they were in fact entirely innocent, and have been arrested by the Police simply as part of a ‘fishing expedition’ which effectively amounts to an abuse of Police power of arrest, as I shall explain.

Robert’s Case

I have recently concluded a case on behalf of Robert (name changed for obvious reasons), a student who when just 16 years old, was arrested by North Wales Police on suspicion of rape.

In the summer of 2013, a music Festival took place in North Wales. Robert attended along with several friends.

Towards the end of the festival, a female complainant, Ms A made a complaint to a crisis worker that she may have been raped the previous evening.  Ms A ‘s initial account was as follows;

“I went to the toilet block, talking to two lads.  I went to a tent…..  I don’t remember anything else but I think I have been raped because it hurts down below.  I think I remember one of the boys wearing a red puffa jacket”.

Ms A subsequently gave a statement to the police.  Her recollection of the evening was vague due to her consumption of a large amount of alcohol.  She recalled that the previous evening, she had visited the site toilets with a friend, GH.  While she was waiting outside the toilets for GH, she started a conversation with an unknown white male.  Ms A started kissing this male.  She was then introduced to the unknown male’s friend, “Robert” who was “mixed race” and who was wearing a distinctive red puffa jacket.

Ms A’s next recollection was of consensual oral sex with the white male in a tent.  Ms A also recalled something hard being pushed into her vagina.  Ms A remembered saying “stop, it hurts and I can’t do this”, getting dressed and then leaving the tent.

Ms A was examined by a paediatrician who concluded that she had received trauma to her genital area and that the marks were consistent with an attempt at intercourse.

GH was interviewed and he recalled he had seen Ms A and the unknown male kissing and then walking off together followed by “Robert”.

Several days later, friends and family of Ms A contacted North Wales Police to report that they had identified the mixed race male in the red puffa jacket introduced as “Robert” as my client.

On the basis of this information, several Police officers travelled to my client’s home address and arrested him on suspicion of rape.  Robert was 16 years old, is of mixed race and had never been in trouble with the Police before. He was taken to a Police Station. This was despite the fact that Ms A had never alleged that the mixed race male had any sexual contact with her, but rather his white friend.

At the Police Station and without the least evidential or reasonable foundation, the circumstances of arrest were said to be;

“The Detained Person has been identified as being responsible for rape.  Circumstances are that the I/P recalls being in a tent at the festival and being subjected to rape. D/P has been identified via clothing worn and full description of a male seen with the I/P prior to the incident”.

The necessity for the Claimant’s arrest was said to be to “allow the prompt and effective investigation”.

My client was obliged to provide his personal details.  He was then searched, his personal belongings including his mobile phone seized, and he was then placed in a holding cell where he was subsequently joined by his mother who had been obliged to travel to the Police Station separately.

Robert was subsequently taken for interview. He answered all questions truthfully and directly. The interview was rather meandering and in fact was a fishing expedition rather than fact based enquiry. On review, it was apparent that the officers had no information whatsoever to implicate Robert.  After 58 minutes of questioning, the Duty Solicitor intervened and put it to the interviewing officers that their questions resembled questions which would ordinarily be put to a witness rather than a suspect.   The relevant passage of the interview is as follows:

Solicitor: Sorry, the two times she’s described having sex, oral sex with a white man and then sex, you haven’t given any description as to the person she’s having sex with then.

IO:  No there is no description actually in the notes here I’ve got.

Solicitor:   So that has led you to arrest him as opposed to a voluntary interview or anything.

IO:  The clothing description and …

Solicitor:  She doesn’t say she’s …………….  red puffa jacket

IO:  The jacket also with the description as well, Robert is seen in the vicinity heading in the same direction.

Solicitor:   Is that just because you have a name? Because you’ve been able to pick a name up.

IO:  Hm hm

Solicitor: You arrested him and used him to get your information, that is disgraceful, Robert is 16 and has never been in trouble before.

IO:  I understand the point you’re making.  I’ll make a note of that.

Solicitor:  I’d like you really to get on and finish this interview because it’s disgraceful

Thereafter, the Police advised Robert that he was to be released on Police bail. The Duty Solicitor again made robust representations as to why Police bail was wholly inappropriate and that Robert should be released NFA (no further action). On the basis of those representations, the issue was reconsidered and a decision made to release Robert without charge.

Finally, in the early hours of the morning, Robert was released. Notwithstanding his release, the Police retained 2 T-shirts belonging to Robert and his mobile phone which were eventually returned several weeks later.

Robert was understandably shocked by what happened to him but equally satisfied that he had done no wrong.

Robert is in my opinion a young man going places and despite his arrest was not going to be deterred from getting on in life. He continued his studies and successfully passed several ‘A’ Levels 2 years later.

Robert was however left with a fear of intimacy with girls; he was concerned that if he developed a relationship with a girl, a similar allegation could be made. He was particularly fearful if he drank leaving gaps in his memories. A Psychologist concluded that this fear represented a chronic adjustment disorder but that with time, he would overcome these issues.

The Law

For any arrest to be lawful, it must be founded on reasonable grounds. This necessitates consideration of whether, objectively, it was reasonable to suspect the Claimant of the offence for which he was arrested. It is also necessary to consider whether the arresting officer honestly suspected the Claimant of the offence for which he was arrested. Further, it is necessary to consider whether the decision to arrest was a lawful exercise of discretion, applying the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness: see Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey (1996)

Castorina was followed in the more recent case of Buckley and others v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2009]. The following was stated by the Court of Appeal in Buckley:

“Suspicion is a state of mind well short of belief. The threshold for establishing reasonable grounds for suspicion is a low one. It is an inherent possibility in the need for diligent investigations of serious offences than an innocent person may be arrested on reasonable grounds. Importantly, the correct approach to judgment upon the lawfulness of arrest is not to separate out each of the elements of the constable’s state of mind and ask individually of them whether that creates reasonable grounds for suspicion; it is to look at them cumulatively, as of course the arresting officer has to at the time.”

It is clear that the test for reasonable suspicion represents a low threshold for the arresting officer to meet. What is required to reasonably suspect a person of an offence falls far short of what would be required to charge them and thereafter to ultimately convict them of the same offence. The relevant information is that which was available to the arresting officer prior to the arrest, not any information that might have been gained afterwards, for example, during interview.

Every arrest must also meet the requirement of necessity. Section 24(5) of PACE 1984 sets out a number of criteria for the consideration of whether an arrest is necessary.

The application of the necessity criteria was considered in Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2011], in which a schoolteacher successfully challenged the lawfulness of his arrest for assaulting a pupil, after he had attended the police station voluntarily. The decision in Richardson was then considered in Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2012]

In Hayes, Hughes LJ, having acknowledged that it might be quite unnecessary to arrest a schoolteacher who had attended the police station voluntarily, said that the correct test for the assessment of whether an arrest met the requirements of necessity was:

“…(1) the policeman must honestly believe that arrest is necessary, for one or more identified section 24(5) reasons; and (2) his decision must be one which, objectively reviewed afterwards according to the information known to him at the time, is held to have been made on reasonable grounds…”

The Claim

On Robert’s behalf, I intimated a claim against the Chief Constable of North Wales Police. Following investigation, liability was denied. In relation to the commission of the offence, the Police asserted that there were clearly reasonable grounds on which the arresting Officer was entitled to suspect that an offence of attempted rape had been committed by Robert:

  1. A complaint of rape had been made by Ms A;
  2. The paediatrician had concluded that Ms A had received acute trauma to her genital area;
  3. The marks were consistent with an attempt at intercourse;
  4. Ms A identified a mixed race male as being present when she began kissing the unknown white make and went back to his tent;
  5. Ms A could recall walking back to the tent with the unknown white male and the mixed race male;
  6. This mixed race male was described as wearing a red puffa jacked and being in his late teens/early twenties;
  7. Robert was 16 years of age and of mixed race.
  8. Enquiries by Mrs A’s friends and family identified that this mixed race make was Robert;
  9. The descriptive match with Robert was sufficiently proximate to implicate him (see inter alia, Armstrong -v- West Yorkshire Police [2008] EWCA);
  10. Ms A had been under the influence of alcohol and accordingly had an impaired personal recollection of events.

 In terms of the necessity of Robert’s arrest, his arrest was plainly necessary to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence and the arresting Officers was entitled to form the view, as he plainly did, that the relevant necessity ground for arrest was made out.  

As settlement terms could not be agreed, it was necessary to issue Court proceedings.

Court Proceedings

On Robert’s behalf, I argued that:

(a) There were no reasonable grounds to suspect Robert of the commission of the offence for which he was arrested.  I relied in particular on the following facts which individually or in aggregate negated reasonable suspicion;

i) Ms A performed oral sex on a white male.  Robert was of mixed race

ii) Ms A gave no description of the male who allegedly attempted to rape her.

iii) Despite being able to identify Robert by name and description, Ms A did not allege at any stage that Robert had himself committed the or any offence.

iv) Robert was identified as being an associate of the possible suspect.  It was apparent that the Police had arrested him so as to gather information as to the identity of the suspect,   not because of any reasonable or otherwise, suspicion to arrest.

(b) The arresting officer did not reasonably believe that lawful grounds for arrest existed;

(c) The arresting Officer did not at the material time honestly and reasonably believe that it was necessary to arrest Robert on suspicion of any offence or for any other lawful reason; alternatively

(d) There were no reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons specified in s24(5) of PACE it was necessary to arrest Robert.  There was no evidence that this young man of good character would not have answered questions voluntarily; further or alternatively

(e) The arresting officer failed to have any or any proper regard to the requirements of PACE Code of Practice G and in particular paragraph 1.3. of the said Code which requires that ‘officers exercising the power (of arrest) should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other less intrusive means’; further or alternatively

(f) The arresting officer in deciding whether to arrest Robert failed to exercise his discretion lawfully or at all; further or alternatively

(g) At no material time were there reasonable grounds for believing that Robert’s detention at the police station was necessary for any of the reasons specified in section 37 of PACE or at all.

The arrest and detention having been unlawful, it followed that all touching of Robert amounted to assault (ie to search and take his fingerprints/DNA sample) and that the seizure of Robert’s property amounted to trespass to goods.

As is so often the case, the Police denial of liability was nothing other than strategic manoeuvring and after 6 months of further prevarication, I am pleased to report that the Police agreed to destroy Robert’s personal data (fingerprints, DNA and photograph) and expunge the record of arrest from all local and national Police records and pay compensatory damages of £15,000 plus full legal costs.

The case highlights a more worrying trend in Police tactics employed in the investigation of sexual crimes; ‘arrest first, investigate later’, which may give the victim and Police and Crime Commissioners anxious for positive ‘detection’ rates some comfort but fails to take into account the catastrophic impact it can have on any innocent individual who is caught up in such an investigation.

 

Read more of my blog posts about actions against the police here.

Are Police the Real Football Hooligans?

Iain Gould solicitor, asks if police are the real football hooligans.
Iain Gould solicitor, asks if police are the real football hooligans.

By Iain Gould, solicitor

Last week we saw the ugly side of the beautiful game return; images of wanton violence by football hooligans in Marseille at the start of the Euros.

Although only a minority were involved, the trouble tarnishes all football fans who become by default a hated group viewed with suspicion, even hatred, by the police and the public at large. The fans’ comfort, conditions and even their civil liberties are ignored. They can be herded, corralled, subjected to casual violence and anything can be believed of them.

It is against this backdrop that the prospect of bringing a successful action against the police on behalf of a football fan accused of hooliganism or disorder could look hopeless especially in the absence of compelling CCTV footage or other evidence.

Step forward Chris, a man of exemplary character from Birmingham.  Chris supports Birmingham City FC (someone has to!) and has done since he was a lad.

On the 16 January 2011, Chris, then 23 years old, had been in a pub situated close to the City ground in Birmingham with friends watching the televised derby match between Birmingham City and Aston Villa.  During the game, he drank 4 pints of lager.  At the end of the match Chris and his friends left the premises to meet up with another friend who had been to the match itself.  The group joined thousands of other fans who were heading away from the ground.

The group passed another ‘Birmingham City’ pub, outside which a large number of supporters had gathered.  There was also a large contingent of uniformed Police Officers decked out in full riot gear. For whatever reason, the Police officers began to surround the group and usher them forward and away from the pub believing that trouble was going to erupt between the 2 groups (quite why, is a mystery as both groups of fans supported Birmingham City).

So as to achieve their objective, the officers began to use their shields to push Chris and his friends along.

Here’s Chris’ description of what happened next;

“A number of police officers began to surround us. The officers were wearing uniforms, fluorescent jackets and helmets and carrying round shields.  Initially they began to shout “move on” even though we hadn’t stopped moving forward at any time.  Then they started to repeatedly and aggressively push us using their shields, shouting “Move on” despite the fact that we were still moving along voluntarily.

One officer was immediately behind me.  He was Asian, approximately 6’ 2”, medium build, in his early 30s.  He pushed me with his shield 2 or 3 times hitting my back and elbows really hard, so much so that I was shunted forwards.

A second officer who was white, smaller, about 5’ 8” and in his early 40s came running from behind the Asian officer and began pushing me forwards, hitting me harder with his shield, up to 10 times.  Again, I was shunted forward and caused to trip and stumble.

The force used by the 2 officers and their colleagues against me and the others in the group was wholly unnecessary.  We were voluntarily moving forwards at all times and posed no threat to anyone else.  They seemed to be hitting us for the sake of it.

 I was becoming increasingly annoyed.  I turned to the white police officer and put my right hand onto his shield and asked him to stop pushing.  I shouted “fuck off, we’re moving”.

 I turned around with a view to proceeding forward when the officer used his shield and hit me yet again. 

 I turned to remonstrate again and when I did, I noticed a third officer come charging towards me from the back and in between several police officers including the white officer referred to above.

 As the officer charged, he raised his shield above his head, turning it sideways and slammed it into the right side of my head.  With the force of the blow, I stumbled backwards. I turned and the officer then hit me again a second time, to the rear of my head at the bottom of my skull/top of my neck.

Chris realised that he was bleeding.  He had a throbbing pain in his head and neck.  He was shocked and outraged as were his friends.  He staggered away.  Despite his obvious injuries, no officer stepped forward to offer first aid or assistance.  Chris and his friends walked on to a nearby pub where he tended to his injuries and took a photograph.  Later, he returned home.  It so happens that his sister, a serving Police officer with a different police force was visiting their parents.  She accompanied Chris to hospital.  Whilst waiting to be treated, she had the good sense to write down his detailed account of events.  He was later examined; a 1.5cm cut to the right cheek was noted. The wound was cleansed and closed with glue. The laceration left an indented scar which was cosmetically disfiguring and permanent.  In addition to the laceration/scar, Chris suffered daily headaches which gradually resolved over the months ahead.

Are police the real football hooligans? This photo of a riot shield injury shows the damage they cause.
Photo of Chris’ injury caused by a police officer’s riot shield.

Notwithstanding Chris’ detailed description of events, it is important to bear in mind that;

  • he accepts that he had drank 4 pints during the course of a relatively short period of time (1 ½ – 2 hours) immediately before the incident;
  • he accepts that he verbally remonstrated with officers and physically grabbed an officer’s shield;
  • this was a volatile football derby game which inevitably carried with it a perceived high risk of football related violence or disorder;
  • the Police are present in large numbers supposedly to protect not injure;
  • there was reportedly no CCTV footage of the incident.

Although Chris was a man of good character who could provide cogent witness evidence, in context, to an outside observer, the prospects of a successful civil action against the Police might seem slim.

Unfortunately, when the offending Police Officer’s evidence is considered, that outside observer might conclude the prospects of success were next to impossible because of course the officer who struck Chris, Sergeant A gave a very different account;

“As we pushed the group back, I saw one of the group stand still and face towards us.  He grabbed out and grabbed hold of my Police shield as I pushed towards him.  I told the male to “move back”.  I saw the male’s body weight drop and his eyes became fixated on me.  His shoulders dropped and his fists were clenched.  I honestly believed the male was going to attack me.  The male then shouted “Come on then you cunt”.  At that point I was two feet away from the male.  I was unable to reach for any of my personal safety equipment due to holding my police shield.  My visor was down on my public order helmet.  Due to the nature of the incident and the weather conditions my visor was slightly steamed up and my visibility was not as clear as normal.  I used my shield and punched out with the front of the shield which impacted on the male’s face.  The front of the shield made a direct hit with the male’s face which immediately stunned him.  I hit the male as hard as I could, but only struck him to the face once.  I would describe the male as being 6 foot 2 inches tall, 25 years of age, dark hair, thick set.”

Other officers offered some corroboration for Sergeant A’s account.

The Inspector on duty reported as follows;

“As they reached the bus stops underneath the railway bridge, some of the group were leaning back against the shields, trying to stop.  Officers had to physically push them with their shields to keep them moving, as I instructed.  I saw one youth in particular, face the officers and push back hard at the shields.  He continually shouted at the officer directly in front of him telling him to “fuck off!”.  I was 10 – 15 yards from this and I saw the officer to be Sergeant A.  I saw Sergeant A push hard with his shield held in front of him in a correct, trained, manner, forcing this youth backwards, preventing him from stopping.  I could hear Sergeant A shouting clearly “move back” and “get back”.  The youth was resisting going backwards and tried to grab Sergeant A’s shield”. 

Later on, he noticed the same youth who by now “had a small trickle of blood to his left cheek.  I recognised this youth to be the same one that was pushing at Sergeant A’s shield as he was the most aggressive and volatile amongst them.   The injury was so minor I did not feel he required medical attention.

 From the very start of the policing operation, including the match ‘briefing’, it had been stressed that officers must be robust but fair in their policing style.  It is my opinion that Sergeant A had performed his role in exactly the manner which I, and West Midlands Police, expected.

 I have performed a number of duties as a PSU Commander with Sergeant A as one of my Serial Officers.  He has an excellent leadership style and receives a great amount of respect from his team.  When I perform PSU Commander duties at ………….  football matches, Sergeant A is one of the first names on my list that I would want on my PSU.  This is because I can rely on his firm policing style at times when it is needed but in a proportionate manner.

 In relation to the allegation that Sergeant A had used excessive force I can say that I completely and utterly dispute the allegations.  If I had felt that Sergeant A had acted inappropriately I would have dealt with the incident myself”.

The Asian officer described by Chris added further corroboration; he said he was “looking in the direction of Sergeant A and said to him, “Come on then you cunt”.  I could see that he looked extremely aggressive and he had his fists clenched.  Sergeant A then hit him with his shield towards his face.  This appeared to have the desired effect and the male moved on”.   Other officers gave a similar account.

Shortly after the incident, Chris lodged a formal complaint.  6 months later, Chris received a 20 page investigation report.  It transpired that another officer present had misgivings about the conduct of Sergeant A and no doubt in difficult circumstances had reported Sergeant A to his Inspector who in turn reported to Professional Standards.

Sergeant X recorded that;

“I directed my serial to gently nudge the group with their shields to push them up the road… As we were doing this the serial, which consisted of 6 officers plus myself were explaining to the group why they needed them to move.  I noticed the other serial headed by Sergeant A were also using their shields to nudge the group up the road.  My serial was at the front/side of the group and I was situated behind them so I could monitor the group.  Sergeant A’s serial was behind the group containing them.  Both serials were moving the group away from the ground.  As we were moving the group they were somewhat reluctant and slow moving, two or three members of the group began to take exception to our actions and question our intentions, they were using phrases such as “stop fucking pushing us”….  They wasn’t being aggressive, just ‘arsey’ swearing at us.  At this point we continued to nudge the group gently up the road.  One officer from the serial to my left… ran through the others quickly and hit male 1 with the flat of his shield in his back.  I noticed that this was Sergeant A….  At the time male 1 had turned to face and ask “what the fuck you pushing us for?” as he has turned that is when Sergeant A moved forward to strike him in the back.  He hit male 1 hard as he stumbled violently forwards and managed to stay on his feet by putting his hands on the wall underneath the railway bridge.  When this male re-gained his balance he turned toward Sgt A and said “what the fuck did you do that for you twat?”….  Sergeant A has then struck male 1 again causing him to stagger backwards.  Male 1 then remonstrated with Sergeant A as to why he kept hitting him….  Male 1 was still shouting…. clearly unhappy with what had happened, his hands were open and not making a fist and although very vocal he was not offering any physical threat….  I then saw Sergeant A turn his shield so that the edge/rim was pointing towards the male 1.  I know this technique is taught in public order and is called ‘Blading’.  This is taught to be used only when encountering serious levels of violence and as a last resort.  Sergeant A has pulled the shield back above his head and struck the male with it.  Both strikes were towards the male’s head and face area on the right side….  I felt Sergeant A wasn’t in any danger throughout the incident and felt that his use of force in this situation was inappropriate.”

Another officer who was in Sergeant X’s serial also said that he “saw a round shield above officers’ heads at one point” but that he could not identify the officer it belonged to.

Notwithstanding Chris’ account and that of Sergeant X, the Professional Standards Report dismissed the complaint by concluding;

“Sergeant A describes Chris as standing directly in front of him and threatening him directly. The accounts provided by the Asian officer corroborate Sergeant A.

 It must be noted that when officers use any ‘use of force’ technique it is the responsibility of that individual officer to account for and justify that action based upon their perception of the incident.

 The incident was obviously volatile with a potential for major disorder.  Whilst Chris states that he was moving on as requested; he clearly was offering some resistance to simply moving on.  In the circumstances, Sergeant A therefore used necessary force.  Sergeant A has stated that he felt in fear of his safety based upon his perception of the incident.

 Whilst the area targeted by Sergeant A raises some concern, the question to be addressed is whether the force used is actually excessive. The investigating officer feels that having considered all of the evidence; the force used upon Chris by Sergeant A was necessary, proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

Really?  Even allowing for some resistance from Chris, or at worst, threatening behaviour, was the officer’s use of his riot shield as an offensive weapon necessary, proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances?  In my opinion this was a typical Police ‘whitewash’ of a legitimate complaint.  The report’s conclusions were nothing other than perverse.

Chris lodged an appeal to the Independent Watchdog, the IPCC.  On review, the case worker concluded that Sergeant A had, on the balance of probability used the edge of his shield to hit Chris.  The case worker went on;   “The use of the edge of the shield is a recognised method and (force) guidance quotes that “In certain circumstances where the officer feels that there is no other alternative available to them and it is reasonable in the circumstances and absolutely necessary to the level of force being used or threatened, then the edges of the shield can be used by being driven towards the offender.   This use must be the minimum amount necessary and proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances they find themselves in”.

In the circumstances, the Professional Standards Department’s findings were overturned and the IPCC directed that Sergeant A be reprimanded.

On Chris’s instructions, I subsequently brought a civil claim for compensation against West Midlands Police. The initial response of West Midlands Police was to neither admit or deny liability but offer £750.

Notwithstanding the findings of the IPCC, it was clear that West Midlands Police were not going to properly compensate Chris without a fight.

On Chris’s behalf, I issued Court proceedings.  Although West Midlands Police then belatedly admitted liability they continued to fail to recognise the serious nature of their officer’s misconduct and the implications this would have as regards the likely award of damages that a Court would make.  After a succession of offers and only a short while before the final hearing, West Midlands Police offered and Chris accepted a final settlement of £17,500 plus costs.

So justice was done; but not before the police had – as is their habitual practice – closed ranks against Chris and tried to deny his legitimate complaint. Where would we have been without the honesty of Officer X, who did the right thing and spoke out against wrongdoing by one of his colleagues? Frankly, in my experience, too few officers are willing to speak up or criticise their fellow officers in these situations. The eventual settlement reached with the police was over 20 times as much as their initial offer. There was absolutely no need for the Police to drag this matter out as long as they did, but it seems that the general police mentality when faced with a case like Chris’s is that in these situations, any fan who gets injured ‘must’ by definition have been doing something wrong. Given this aggressive ‘us versus them’ approach to the policing of football fans, cases of police brutality subsequently compounded by a prejudiced refusal to admit any fault on their part, are sadly all too common.

 

Why Paul Ponting’s Strip Search Was Wrong

Photo of Iain Gould solicitor, explains strip search law referring to the case of his client Paul Ponting.
Iain Gould solicitor, explains strip search law referring to the case of his client Paul Ponting.

By Iain Gould, Solicitor

You may have read in today’s papers (Daily Mail, Liverpool Echo) that my client, Paul Ponting, is suing Lancashire Police for compensation following his arrest and strip search in June 2014.

To strip an individual of their clothes following their arrest is one of the greatest invasions of privacy and bodily integrity that the State can perpetrate.

Here I explain the law about strip searches and how it affects Mr Ponting’s case.

(N.B. Paul Ponting has given his consent to publicity and agreed to me using details of his case here, which are based on his version of events.)

Arrest and Strip Search

At the time of his arrest Paul Ponting was a successful 42-year-old businessman and father-of-two. He owns computer shops and lives in Ormskirk, West Lancashire.

In 2014 Paul told Lancashire Police that an ex-employee was harassing him via an online hate campaign. On the evening of 18 June 2014, two uniformed police officers visited Paul and his wife at home to tell them that the police would not be taking action against the ex-employee. Mr Ponting was upset about this and an argument developed. The police arrested him for a minor public order offence and an alleged (but in any event minor) assault against one of the officers.

Paul was taken to Skelmersdale Police Station. He was frightened and worried as he had never been arrested before and was unfamiliar with the process. What happened next is in dispute. Paul’s behaviour is variously described in the Custody Record (which is completed by the Custody Sergeant, not the Claimant) as “erratic” and “violent”. (The available CCTV footage would suggest otherwise.)

The Custody Record also says that Mr Ponting refused to engage in the Risk Assessment Process (whereby the arrested person provides details about their general health). As a result, the Custody Sergeant wrote that he should be stripped of his clothes. The Sergeant justified this decision by stating that it was not possible to determine if Paul had anything on him likely to cause harm to self or others.

Paul was taken to a police cell. There he was violently manhandled, assaulted, and forcibly stripped naked by FOUR police officers. You can see photographs and CCTV footage of his painful and degrading experience here.

Paul began to experience chest pains while in police custody. He was rushed to hospital where his injuries were recorded as “multiple bruises and superficial lacerations to the limbs and a swollen left lateral hand”. He was later bailed to return to the police station where he was eventually charged.

Mr Ponting was prosecuted all the way to trial. Thankfully he was acquitted of all charges at Ormskirk Magistrates Court in November 2014.

Paul’s experience at the police station was humiliating, degrading, and undignified. He contacted me for advice as I specialise in civil actions against the police. I am now helping him bring a compensation claim against Lancashire Police for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and malicious prosecution.

The Law in Strip Search Cases

Searching detainees is understandably important: it protects the safety of arrested persons; reduces the risk of harm to police staff; and allows material to be seized that may be subject to legal proceedings. But in my experience, all too often an arrested person’s dignity is ignored and a strip search effected on the flimsiest of excuses.

The rules about searches are rightly strict. The courts say that careful consideration should be given by custody staff before authorisation and execution of a strip search. (See Patricia Zelda Davies (by her litigation friend Zelda Davies v. Chief Constable of Merseyside Police and Just for Kids Law and Children’s Rights Alliance for England (Interveners), Court of Appeal [2015] EWCA Civ 11.)

And, as well as this clear guidance provided by the Court of Appeal, the police must consider:

All this means that:

1.      The custody officer should decide the extent of the search and the subsequent retention of any article that the detainee has with them. Officers must document the decision-making process on the Custody Record and include:

  • the reason for the search
  • those present during the search
  • those conducting the search and,
  • a record of any items found or seized.

2.      The custody officer should explain to the arrested person why it is necessary to carry out the search. Custody officers may seize clothing on the grounds that they believe the arrested person may use them to harm themselves. However, custody officers should, when deciding to remove clothing, balance the need to protect the right to life with the importance of ensuring that an arrested person’s dignity is respected.

3.      The search must be conducted with proper regard to the sensitivity and vulnerability of the arrested person and every reasonable effort must be made to secure the arrested person’s cooperation. Only if they do not consent may the officer(s) use reasonable force to carry out the search/removal of clothes (Section 117 of PACE).

Police Failures in Paul Ponting’s Case

Paul Ponting was rapidly taken from the police van on arrival at the police station, through to the Custody Desk, and then into a cell where he was forcibly stripped naked. This suggests that little or no consideration was given to Paul’s rights, or his dignity.

And if Lancashire Police suggest that its officers were concerned for Paul’s wellbeing whilst in custody, I will argue that more consideration should have been given to alternative and less invasive measures. The College of Policing guidance states:

“Officers should not automatically see strip-searching individuals for their own protection as the best way to prevent them harming themselves.”

On the facts, the police’s conduct was unjustified. I do not understand why a normal “pat down” search of Paul’s person, without removing his clothes, could not have satisfied the officers that he was not carrying anything of potential danger. Furthermore, belts and socks, which could be used to self-harm, can be removed without requiring an individual to be stripped naked. There was simply no need for Lancashire Police officers to strip Mr Ponting of his clothes and his dignity. And to then prosecute him all the way to trial on bogus charges simply added insult to painful injury.

Mr Ponting is right to pursue his case, despite recent government efforts to make it harder for claimants to seek justice and hold police officers to account. By taking action against Lancashire Police he is shining a light on their poor practices, and, hopefully, encouraging the Force to change its approach to strip searches.

Contact me for help with your actions against the police via the online form below.