Category: Police claim comments

This week’s blog post addresses the question of whether you can still sue the Police if you have been lawfully arrested for an offence and, in fact, subsequently convicted of that offence. The answer to that question is yes, if the force used during your arrest can be shown to be excessive – but with an important caveat which I will go into below. In a nutshell, however, the old playground adage is correct: two wrongs don’t make a right.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Cheshire Police Officers Assault Man During Arrest Outside Chester Hotel

One night in December 2024 my client Dean was involved in a “public order” incident in a hotel in Chester (for which he later pled guilty). However, when four officers of Cheshire Constabulary arrived to arrest Dean, the incident had already calmed down and Dean was merely standing outside the hotel, smoking a cigarette.

Dean made no attempt to escape from the officers as they arrived and answered the lead (female) officer’s question as to his name. The female officer informed Dean that he was under arrest, to which he remained calm. Unfortunately, the three male officers in the squad now started to unnecessarily take hold of Dean’s arms and push him against the wall, as if they were spoiling for a fight. My client did not fight back, but verbally protested at what was being done to him and tried to free his arms from their grip – for which he was rewarded by one of the male officers grabbing him by the throat and then punching him, repeatedly and quite deliberately, in the side of his head.

Excessive Police Force: Punches, Kicks and PAVA Spray

A second officer then joined in with throwing punches, and between them, in the space of seconds, the male officers had kicked and forced Dean to the ground and sprayed him with PAVA (also known as “Captor”)  spray, leaving him curled up in a ball on the ground. The officers then proceeded to shout aggressively at him to put his “fucking” hands behind his back for handcuffing, whilst also kneeling on him and effectively preventing him from complying with their “request”.

The officers also now announced that Dean was further under arrest for “resisting arrest” and “assault Police” – neither of which accusations were true. Sadly, long experience has shown me how often the charge of “assault PC” actually means you have been assaulted by a PC.

Police Restraint, Positional Asphyxia and Verbal Abuse

When Dean, now lying injured and helplessly handcuffed, chest down on the ground (and therefore at risk of positional asphyxia), protested that the officers had kneed, kicked and punched him, the officers standing over him added insult to those injuries by berating him, calling him “a fucking dickhead”, a “dick” and mocking him for lying on the floor. Compassion and empathy was perhaps too much to hope for; but surely any degree of professionalism at this stage would at least have led the officers to bite their tongues. Apparently fuelled by their collective gang-think, they could not restrain themselves and echoed their colleagues’ aggression in a rain of brutality and invective.

Eventually, the officers picked Dean up off the ground, but owing to his injuries he struggled to walk, and so they ended up effectively dragging him to their van, where he was “caged” and driven to North Cheshire Custody Suite.

In light of his injuries, Dean was examined by a Health Care Professional (HCP) whilst in custody, and prescribed painkillers.

He was subsequently charged – and pleaded guilty to the public order offence – but was notably not charged with the alleged offences of resisting arrest or assaulting a Police Constable.

PSD’s Different Eyes  

The body worn camera footage of this incident was subsequently reviewed by Cheshire Constabulary’s “Professional Standards Department” and their partial and biased interpretation of what they saw prompts me to add further entries to “The Big Blue Book of Police Euphemisms” –

How Police Professional Standards Departments Describe Excessive Force

• “Delivered strikes with a closed fist to the side of the head” – means “punched forcefully” as does “striking him with a closed fist to the side of his abdomen”.  

• “Distraction strikes” – means “punched or kicked” and is terminology only ever applied to what Police Officers do to you, never vice versa.

• “Poor language” – means swear and slur- words; what if coming from a civilian’s mouth would almost certainly be described by the Police as “abusive or insulting words” in the terms of the Public Order Act.

• “Learning has been identified” – means, here is a large carpet under which we’re going to sweep this obvious misconduct, and pretend it’s something else.

Police Body Camera Evidence and the Failure to Identify Misconduct

PSD officers seem to think that a strangely decorous, almost medicalised description of a “beating” robs it of its force. I highly doubt that the same language would be used if the officers were describing two civilians fighting (or a civilian fighting Police). The fact that the first strikes were to the “red area” of my client’s head – literally putting him at risk of death or serious injury – was closed over with the woefully inadequate excuse that because the officer in question was tall, and was in close proximity to Dean “this was the only area he could reach.”

Needless to say, PSD concluded, despite the clear body camera evidence, that there was “no indication of misconduct in this case” and despite the fact that the female and one of the male officers were trainee officers. Notably, it was not these two “students” who commenced or committed the most egregious violence upon my client but the two experienced officers who were supposed to be setting an example for them. But all PSD could think to advise the officers was “consider how they write up use of force forms [to] offer more detail and justification” and to think about “how the public would perceive” Dean being grabbed by the throat.

In other words, PSD signed off on the officers’ use of force as lawful and proportionate and advised them on how best to ‘mask’ it from scrutiny in the future.

Cheshire Constabulary Admits Liability for Police Assault and Battery

If matters had been left to lie there, this would have been a travesty of justice, but thankfully Dean had instructed my firm to represent him, and I and my colleague Alexandra Nelmes secured an almost immediate admission of liability from Cheshire Constabulary. It was conceded that whilst lawfully arresting my client, the four officers had unlawfully assaulted and battered him.

Why the Police Complaints System Needs Urgent Reform

Once again, I offer this glaring disparity between the apparent assessment of Professional Standards that there was no wrongdoing by the officers, and the confession by Police legal services that there was as all the evidence that is needed to prove the moribund and corrupt nature of PSD departments and the need for urgent reform of the Police complaints system.

Is It More Difficult to Sue the Police for Assault if You are Convicted of a Crime?

Notwithstanding the quick concession of liability by the Police on the facts of this particular case, the Court rules do make it more difficult to sue the Police if you have been assaulted by them in the course of an arrest for an offence of which you are subsequently convicted.

Section 329 Criminal Justice Act 2003: The Grossly Disproportionate Force Test

The general law relating to Police use of force is that it is unlawful unless it is “necessary, proportionate and reasonable”. However, Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 changes the criteria in cases when the force has been used against a subsequently convicted person; in such cases it is much easier for the Police to avoid liability because the law says they only have to compensate you if the force they used was not just unreasonable but “grossly disproportionate.”

Why Specialist Police Assault Solicitors Are Essential Following a Criminal Conviction

This is a much higher legal hurdle to clear in order to succeed in your claim, as I have explained in previous blog posts, and why in such circumstances you should always instruct a real specialist such as myself.

£15,500 Compensation Secured Following Unlawful Police Assault

I am very pleased to report that we have recently concluded Dean’s claim for damages in the sum of £15,500, plus his legal costs.

What I can’t confirm is whether Cheshire Constabulary have taken any of the lessons of this case to heart; and in particular whether the trainee officers involved have been appraised of the outcome – or left to continue their careers under the impression that “might makes right”  and “my officer wrong or right” are the central codes of British Policing.

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

This blog has grown through the trust of readers and clients rather than through aggressive marketing or paid promotion. If you feel this article offers genuine insight or practical value, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your feedback plays a meaningful role in helping others identify experienced, specialist advice when it counts. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales, challenging unlawful arrests, excessive use of force and police brutality. Even where an arrest is lawful and results in a criminal conviction, Iain has the specialist expertise to hold officers accountable for unlawful violence and secure rightful compensation for victims of police misconduct.

The High Court judgment in Clarke v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police reinforces the strict safeguards governing the arrest of children, particularly at school. I examine why the Court found the 16-year-old Claimant’s arrest, handcuffing and detention unlawful, the importance of the necessity test under PACE, and the principle that Police must treat the arrest of a child as a measure of last resort.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

School Arrests and the Rights of a Child

If “an Englishman’s home is his castle”, then all the more so should a person’s childhood be respected as a stronghold against Police interference, violence and deprivation of liberty.  Of course, there are occasions when, just as the Police in extremis need to force their way into a person’s house, so a child must be arrested to prevent real and imminent harm to themselves or others; but even when reasonable suspicion of a crime exists, the arrest of a child should be the exception and not the rule.  The traumatising affect of arrest upon a young mind must never be underestimated.

Police Powers of Arrest and the Special Protection of Children

As we enter the ‘new school year’ I am caused to reflect upon a recent High Court decision which strongly reinforced the presumption that arrest powers should not be used against children – particularly censuring the arrest of a child at their place of education.

I have written at length on this blog about how the legality of an arrest is not just contingent of there being objectively reasonable suspicion of an offence – it must also be shown to be objectively necessary that the person be arrested in order for that offence to be properly investigated,  or to protect people from immediate harm – and nowhere is the issue of necessity more stringently regulated than when it is a child who is under suspicion. 

Corey Clarke v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police: Unlawful Arrest at School

The case of Corey Clarke v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2026] EWHC 747 (KB) was an appeal to the High Court from the County Court, in which the Claimant was seeking to overturn the lower Court’s finding that his arrest at school, when he was only 16 years old, was lawful.

The Police investigation in this case related to alleged sharing of sexual images. 

On the morning of 9 November 2018, Corey was arrested at his High School in Sunderland (Southmoor Academy), handcuffed, and placed in the cage section at the rear of a marked Police van and driven to Southwick Police Station.  Approximately 7 and a half hours later he was released under investigation.  He was never charged with any offence. 

When Is It Necessary for the Police to Arrest a Child? 

The alleged necessity for 16 year old Corey’s arrest was said, by reference to the necessity criteria set down in Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), to be as follows –

• S.24(5)(d) – to protect a child or other vulnerable person;
• S.24(5)(e) – to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence (specifically in this case, by an interview to obtain evidence by questioning).

But were the necessity criteria actually satisfied on the facts of this case, and especially considering the Claimant’s young age?

To properly consider this, it is necessary to look at another part of the PACE legislative framework – the Police Codes of Practice.

PACE Code G and the Arrest of Children at School

PACE Code G (Arrest Powers) provides as follows –  

1B Juveniles should not be arrested at their place of education unless this is unavoidable.  When a juvenile is arrested at their place of education the principal or their nominee must be informed. (This same injunction also appears in PACE Code C, Treatment in Custody, at note D11)

2C for a Constable to have reasonable grounds for believing it necessary to arrest, he or she is not required to be satisfied that there is no viable alternative to arrest.  However, it does mean that in all cases, the Officer should consider that arrest is the practical, sensible and proportionate option in all the circumstances at the time the decision is made. 

The High Bar of the Police Arrest Necessity Test

The appeal Judge, in ultimately finding in favour of Corey, stressed that whilst reasonable suspicion of an offence is a relatively low hurdle for the Police to clear and therefore “a reasonably thorough investigation is not a pre-requisite for reasonable grounds for suspicion” the essential second test of the legality of an arrest – the test of objective necessity – is “a high bar”.  (paragraphs 45-46 of the Judgment of HHJ Hanbury). 

Why Police Must Take Particular Care Before Arresting a Child

In emphasising the “Very particular care” which is to be taken before arresting a child, HHJ Hanbury referenced a case about which I have blogged previously in exactly this context –  ST v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2022] EWHC 1280 (QB) (26 May 2022)  – There is to be specific consideration of the fact that the arrested person is a child.  It requires an assessment of whether a less intrusive step than arrest and detention is a practical alternative.  ST was a case in which the child was arrested at 5.30am, when he was asleep at home. 

The Children Act and UN Convention: Arrest as a Last Resort

The Judges in both the present case and ST highlighted Section 11 (2) (a) Children Act 2004 which requires the Police to have regard for the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which provides at article 37 that the arrest of a child is a measure of last resort.

All other realistic practical alternatives must therefore be given adequate consideration before the arrest of a child is contemplated, and particularly an arrest at the child’s school.

Why the High Court Found Corey Clarke’s Arrest Unlawful

HHJ Hanbury set out the following factors at paragraphs 52 – 58 of his judgment, in support of his decision to rule in favour of Corey and declare that his arrest was unlawful, thereby amounting to false imprisonment –

• A search warrant was a less intrusive measure which would have been more consistent with Corey’s welfare and best interests.

• In accordance with PACE Codes C & G there must be a presumption against arresting children at school, and such an arrest must only occur “if it cannot be avoided”.  This is not a total prohibition on arrest at school – but it is getting very close to it.

• The arrest in this case was “harsh and avoidable” – Corey did not have his mobile phone with him.  It was clearly unnecessary to arrest him at school to obtain a phone which he did not have.  No other children were at risk, because Corey had already been taken aside by staff into a separate room.

• It was therefore neither unavoidable nor the “last resort” to arrest Corey.  Merely to consider alternatives to arrest was not enough – generally the arrest of a child at his or her school will be unreasonable, unless it is completely unavoidable.

• Here, as noted above, Corey had already been taken to another room away from the rest of his class.  That was uneventful.  The staff had powers of search in relation to students.  Corey’s grandmother was involved in the investigation and her assistance was available. (She had recently attended a meeting with the school about this matter and subsequently cooperated with the search of her home, where Corey lived, and where the Police found and seized his mobile phone and iPad). 

Unlawful Arrest, Handcuffing and False Imprisonment of a Child

As the arrest of Corey was unlawful, it automatically followed that his handcuffing and subsequent 7 hour detention were also unlawful. Thus did the High Court correct the initial error and misapplication of the law by the County Court, and reinforce the protection of children from arrest.

Compensation Claims for Children Wrongfully Arrested by the Police 

My services in seeking civil justice restitution from the Police have been called upon by the parents of many wrongfully arrested children during my decades long legal career and I have a significant number of ongoing cases involving children subject to arrest, handcuffing – and some cases even more violent uses of Police force. Significant mental trauma and long-term psychological harm can be caused to teens who are ‘criminalised’ by being subjected by the Police to the dehumanising arrest process, particularly when that arrest takes place in the humiliating and embarrassing venue of the child’s school.

The Arrest of a Child Must Be a Last Resort

I therefore hope for the sake of countless other parents and children that the Police finally remember the strictures of their own Codes of Practice, the principles of English jurisprudence and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – and learn from the lesson of this Appeal Judgment to make the arrest of children truly a “last resort”.

 How you can help

Making specialist legal knowledge accessible is a core part of why I write this blog. If you believe that clear, independent information about police powers and civil liberties is important, I would greatly appreciate you taking a moment to leave a 5-star review. Each review helps ensure that those searching for answers can find this site — and the help they deserve. Thank you for your support.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police including cases involving the unlawful arrest, handcuffing and detention of children and young people. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales, challenging unlawful arrest and other abuses of Police powers and securing rightful compensation for his clients.

An unlawful Police stop-and-search is the subject of this week’s blog post, which I will use as a case study to illustrate the wrongs Police often commit in these situations, and the rights you have against them.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Unlawful Stop and Search by Greater Manchester Police

My client Pierre is a black man who was born in France, and speaks English as a second language.

One day in July 2023, he was walking home through Oldham, having attended his local gym, when two marked Police cars suddenly pulled up next to him and multiple Greater Manchester Police Officers alighted.

Pierre’s path was blocked by one of the Officers. My client attempted to walk around the Officer, however the Officer put his arm out to stop him from proceeding, and Pierre was then informed that he was being “detained” – but no explanation was given to him as to why.

Stopped, Detained and Handcuffed Without Explanation

Pierre accordingly decided to film the interaction on his mobile phone – something which I would always encourage people to do in such situations.

When Pierre protested that he needed to leave, he was grabbed by the Officers and forced against a wall. When he asked for the reason as to why he had been detained, the Officers told him to “stop talking” and to “relax”.

Still not having explained their actions – the Officers then handcuffed Pierre’s hands behind his back, causing him sharp pain and discomfort in addition to his shock and disorientation.

Pierre continued to ask why he had been detained, as was absolutely his right; eventually, he was informed that he was being detained under Section 1 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 for the purposes of a search, on the basis that he matched the description of someone who had been seen “making off” from the scene of a burglary. 

My client pleaded with the officers to let him go, saying that they had stopped him for no reason and were hurting him. He was now being held by approximately four officers, whilst another began to search him. Pierre continue to protest his innocence.  

Police Use of Force During a Stop and Search

Pierre was then taken to the ground, face down, by several Officers. His glasses were knocked off in the process, and one of the Officers put his knee on Pierre’s leg to pin him down.

My client was again told to “relax”, however he found this hard to do in the context of what was being done to him. The search continued whilst Pierre was being restrained on the ground in this manner.

One of the Officers again asserted that Pierre matched the description of someone who had committed a burglary. When he queried what that description was, my client was told that the suspect was “wearing a shiny coat and dark clothing.”

In response, Pierre pointed out that the coat he was wearing was not “shiny”. In the face of this vague and inaccurate assertion, with no other information being provided, Pierre naturally began to suspect that he was being detained not because of the colour of his clothing – but of his skin.

Can Police Demand Your Name and Personal Details After a Stop and Search?

The search was completed, and nothing had been found, as Pierre had no involvement with the suspected crime. An officer then asked for his personal details to “complete the search log.” Pierre protested – again, quite correctly in the eyes of the law, if not its officers – that he did not need to provide his details. At this point, despite the ‘negative’ search Pierre was still being held prisoner, restrained on the ground, and the officers were refusing to let him up.

Eventually, he was pulled to his feet, but the officers kept him in handcuffs, and continued to demand his personal details, including date of birth. The officers now threatened to take him to the Police station if he did not reveal his identity. They informed him that if he provided his details, he would be allowed to leave. My client knew that he was under no such obligation, and therefore continued to refuse.

Finally, Pierre’s resilience in defence of his rights was rewarded; despite their (unlawful) threats of incarceration, the officers removed my client’s handcuffs and allowed him to leave the scene.

When Does a Police Stop and Search Become Unlawful?

The law of England & Wales quite rightly respects, and jealously guards, the privacy and integrity of our persons. That is why the Police’s statutory powers to stop and search ordinary citizens in the course of their public business are hedged around and limited by a number of crucial rules, summed up by the “GOWISELY” mnemonic which outlines the criteria for a legal stop-and-search and the information the Police must provide to the subject of that search, in the interests of accountability and to prevent abuse of power, in accordance with Code A of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act. 

A popular article which I wrote some years ago about GOWISELY can be read here, but in summary the information the Police must explain to you in such situations is as follows –

• Grounds – A clear explanation of the reasons for the Officer’s search, i.e why he finds you suspicious
• Object – What the Officer will be looking for (e.g drugs, or stolen or prohibited items)
• Warrant – Warrant card to be produced, if the Officer is not in uniform
• Identity – The Officer must state their name and collar number  (except in terrorism cases, where the Officer can provide just his collar number)
• Station – The Officer must identify the station at which he is based
• Entitlement – The Officer must inform you of your entitlement to a copy of the stop/search record (which will be either handwritten or, increasingly, electronically recorded)
• Legal – The Officer must specify the legislation under which he is searching you e.g the Misuse of Drugs Act or Section 1 of PACE
• You – The Officer must clearly explain that you are being detained for the purpose of a search (and actually, although the spelling of the mnemonic requires this to come last – it should actually be the first thing you are told)

If the Officer conducting your search fails to comply with these behavioural steps then absent a good reason for such failure – such as fight or flight on your part – the search he is conducting of you is likely to be illegal and amount to false imprisonment and/or assault and battery, as well as trespass to goods if your belongings are taken/ interfered with.

What Lessons Can We Learn from this Case?

Applying these rules to the facts of Pierre’s case, the following key points stand out to me –

• Pierre was not initially told he was being detained for the purpose of a search (let alone its grounds), and this was therefore false imprisonment – the Police do not have a general authority to detain you short of arrest or a formal search (despite the amount of times they will purport to have such a power). 
• He was quite right to make an independent record of what was happening to him –  filming the Police in public is absolutely lawful, and your mobile phone is the independent witness in your pocket.
• Handcuffing does not go “hand in hand” with search powers – it is an extraordinary action which the Police can only take if there are objectively reasonable grounds to believe you are going to be physically resistant. Handcuffing must be justified on the individual circumstances of each case, or else it will be deemed to be an act of battery against you. 
• Pierre was quite right to stand his moral ground and refuse the officer’s demands for his personal details – again the Police do not have a general authority to require us to identify ourselves, and this is the case even if we have been searched (the position changes upon arrest, of course – but a person cannot be arrested ‘just’ for not identifying themselves). 

£12,000 Compensation for an Unlawful Police Stop and Search

Greater Manchester Police initially, and strenuously, disputed liability for Pierre’s claim, but, confident in our analysis of the evidence I and my expert team brought civil court proceedings on behalf of Pierre against the Chief Constable.

Although a Defence was filed apparently maintaining their denial, GMP proved not to have the stomach for the fight, and my colleague, actions against the Police specialist solicitor Alex Nelmes, has recently agreed a settlement of Pierre’s claim for damages of £12,000 plus legal costs.

So, if you are caught up in this kind of intrusive and violent Police search, remember your GOWISELY rights, record what is happening if at all possible, and come wisely – to this website.

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

I publish these articles regularly to demystify police powers and to help people understand when those powers have been misused. If this post has clarified your rights or reinforced the importance of police accountability, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your review helps point others towards experienced representation at a time when clear guidance really matters. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

Police Officers often misuse their powers against children, treating teenagers as adults and subjecting them to excessive force. This post highlights the case of a 14-year-old who was violently detained and handcuffed during a stop and search despite being compliant. The article outlines the legal safeguards under GOWISELY and stresses that force must be proportionate and necessary – standards breached here.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

GO UNWISELY: Police Violence Against Teenagers

One of the most common characterisations of Police misbehaviour is that the Officers involved are like “playground bullies” – relishing power and domination over others, often with verbal and physical intimidation combined. 

Such a summation of Police abuse of power is never more accurate than when such “bullies in uniform” are picking on actual children.

How Police Treat Teenagers: A Failure of Safeguarding Duties

Whilst the law recognises people under the age of 18 as children, Policing often treats teens as if they are a special category of adulthood, fair game for significant levels of violence and aggression and in dereliction of their safeguarding duties towards minors.

 Police Abuse of Power Against Children: Real Case Examples

I have written before on this blog about many such cases of Police abuse of power against teenagers, abuses which are all the more harmful and exploitative by virtue of the very fact these people are children, much less well versed in the law and in their rights than adults, and particularly vulnerable to long- term harm to their mental health and social adaptation.

 Read here, the stories of some of the many children whom I have been called upon to help, not just when they have been let down by the Police, but actively harmed and unlawfully criminalised by them –  

• A 12 year old autistic boy, who was called a “fucker”, threatened with a taser and then violently shaken and thrown by an officer after being suspected of committing a minor traffic offence on his bicycle
• A 13 year old boy, handcuffed and roughed up during a “stop and search”
• A 17 year old boy, unlawfully strip- searched.

 Unlawful Stop and Search: A Case Study Involving a 14-Year-Old

The latest such case which I have settled involves, once again, Police misuse of “stop and search” powers – and the law of the school playground rather than the land.

My client, Reuben, aged only 14 at the time of this incident was with a group of school friends in a local park in Oxfordshire, who were doing nothing more sinister than walking and talking through the park, during daylight hours  (it was “teatime”, and several of them were still in their school uniforms) when they were focused upon by a group of police officers responding to reports of theft from a local shop.

As they were in fact innocent, Reuben and his friends did not panic or attempt to flee as the officers approached them, but one constable, PC Dancer, nevertheless ran up to Reuben from behind, and without any warning or provocation, kicked Reuben’s legs out from underneath him, causing the boy to fall to the ground.

Excessive Use of Force by Police Against Children

PC Dancer then angrily shouted to Reuben to “Get up!” (despite having put him down in the first place) and handcuffed the boy’s hands behind his back, swearing at him aggressively as he did so. 

All of this was caught on PC Dancer’s own body worn camera.

Stop and Search Law Explained: Section 1 PACE and GOWISELY

Fortunately, at least, this shocking incident did not last very long. Reuben was entirely compliant with the police officer’s search of his person, which he would have been even had he not been ambushed violently from behind, and when that search was found to be ‘negative’, he was released. 

Police powers of Stop and Search (which in this case were being exercised under Section 1 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the power to search for stolen items) are strictly governed by the rules which are collectively known by the acronym “GOWISELY.”

What is GOWISELY? Legal Requirements for Lawful Stop and Search

GOWISELY requires officers to give crucial information to the person who is being searched, without which the search is automatically unlawful (even if otherwise based on reasonable suspicion) – 

1. The grounds for the search
2. The object of the search
3. The officer’s warrant card (if he is not in uniform)
4. The officer’s name & collar number
5. The station at which the officer is based
6. A written record of the search
7. The legislation under which you are being searched (e.g Section 1 of PACE or Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act). 

When Police Breach Code of Practice: Verbal Abuse and Intimidation

What GOWISELY does not require is for an officer to shout in the startled face of a young teenager – “Don’t fuck around, don’t do it!”  

Perhaps PC Dancer was reading the wrong part of the Code of Practice.

Police Use of Force: Legal Standards of Proportionality and Necessity

 Police powers to use force are always governed by the watchwords “proportionate, lawful, appropriate and necessary”. The minimum force possible should be used, and sometimes, indeed, that is nil – especially when children are the targets of Police attention.

Psychological Harm and Rights Violations in Child Stop and Search Cases

Thankfully, Reuben did not suffer any significant injuries from this incident, but the violation of the rights of a child for even a short period of time, and including the distressing and degrading stigma of being handcuffed, is no minor matter.  

Police Accountability and Professional Standards: A Failure to Act

PC Dancer was deemed by Thames Valley Police Professional Standards Department not to have committed any misconduct in this incident, but to require a “reflective practice review” of his performance.

Winning Compensation for Police Misconduct Against a Child

I am pleased to say that when I commenced a legal action on behalf of Reuben against the Police I was able to win far more from them than that  – an order to pay Reuben substantial damages and his legal costs.  

Perhaps the Policing profession as a whole needs to “reflect” upon its treatment of children, and the bullying tendencies of its officers towards teens.  

 My client’s name has been changed.  

How you can help

Making specialist legal knowledge accessible is a core part of why I write this blog. If you believe that clear, independent information about police powers and civil liberties is important, I would greatly appreciate you taking a moment to leave a 5-star review. Each review helps ensure that those searching for answers can find this site — and the help they deserve. Thank you for your support.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

This case details how my client, Clayton Varley was wrongfully arrested after a serious administrative failure following a variation in his Crown Court bail conditions. Due to miscommunication between the Crown Court and the Electronic Monitoring Service, outdated GPS exclusion boundaries continued to be enforced, leading to Clayton’s arrest despite his full compliance with bail conditions. The error caused significant personal and professional harm. After legal action was threatened, the Ministry of Justice settled the claim with substantial damages and costs.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Wrongful Arrest Due to GPS Tagging and Bail Condition Errors

In August 2023 my client Clayton Varley was arrested and charged with criminal offences.  He was thereafter granted conditional bail, which included an obligation to wear a GPS (Global Positioning System) tag and a requirement, in rather archaic terms, “Not to go north of the River Thames”. This was what was known as the “Exclusion zone.” 

Crown Court Bail Variation and Revised Exclusion Zone

Subsequently, the Crown Court varied Clayton’s bail condition such that he could go north of the River Thames, as long as he stayed within the confines of an area demarcated by a red line endorsed on a map produced by the Court – this was so as to allow him to visit the areas of the city where his mother and brother lived. Essentially what this meant was that Clayton could now go north of the River, but could not go north of the M25 motorway i.e. the London ‘boundary road’. 

 Electronic Monitoring, Ministry of Justice, and Private Contractors

As I have explained in previous blog posts, the monitoring of GPS exclusion zones (and timed curfews) is a public-private partnership between the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) on the one hand, and the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) on the other. EMS is not an entity in itself – it is the name of the franchise/project that is contracted out to a private company such as Serco or Capita, one of those big beasts of private enterprise who commercialise the criminal justice system. 

Administrative Failures Leading to False Breach of Bail

The disjuncture between the MOJ and EMS gives rise to numerous errors based on misunderstandings or miscommunications between these two separate entities (with the Police service often as a third, complicating factor) and as an expert solicitor in the field of civil liberties, I am often called upon by those who have been harmed by such mistakes. Clayton was the latest of them.

Arrest, Police Custody, and Court Dismissal

After the hearing, Clayton ensured that he stayed within the parameters of his liberty as re-defined by the Crown Court i.e he could go north of the Thames River, but not north of the M25 motorway. Accordingly, when Clayton next attended his local Police Station to sign in on compliance with his overall bail conditions, he was shocked to discover that the Police were intending to arrest him for allegedly having entered the “exclusion zone”.  

What made matters all the worse was that Clayton is employed as a funeral director, and had been engaged to arrange a funeral that very day. He explained to the Police his occupation and that he had a funeral to organise but his representations were ignored; given the fundamental importance of that event, Clayton had to make a series of desperate phone calls in order to not let the bereaved family down, by getting one of his competitors to take over conduct of the funeral. 

Thereafter Clayton was kept in Police custody before being transferred, in handcuffs, to his local Magistrates Court.  After an afternoon sweating in the cells, Clayton was brought before the Court at 6pm whereupon the allegation of breach of bail was summarily dismissed and he was released – the Court, of course, being fully aware of what the boundaries of the exclusion zone actually were. 

How this mistake happened – and how I was able to help Clayton

I was able to give Clayton access to justice by representing him under a Conditional Fee (no win, no fee) agreement, and I then set about investigating who was to blame here between the MOJ, EMS & the Police.

I established that fault lay with the Crown Court, whose staff had firstly failed to send any map showing the new, post-variation boundary to EMS, and then had failed to send a sufficiently clear map. EMS had therefore continued to monitor the original exclusion zone. 

11 days after the Crown Court bail variation, EMS ‘flagged up’ to the MOJ, that they had failed to provide the map showing the revised exclusion zone, and hence they (EMS) felt they had no choice but to continue as if the original exclusion zone was still in place.  Finally, almost 3 weeks after the Crown Court decision, the MOJ did provide a revised map to EMS – but, even then, EMS felt that the new map was inadequate for them to do their job properly. It was described in Police documents as “a black and white map, zoomed out, of London in general, from which the line cannot be determined.” In the meantime, EMS had already reported Clayton to the Police for breaching his bail. Clayton, of course, had no way of knowing that EMS were still operating off the old boundaries. 

This was the very opposite of the ‘joined-up’ thinking which is the least we are entitled to expect from a public- private partnership when people’s liberties and livelihoods are at stake. No-one should be at risk of incarceration because of a backlog in someone’s “in-tray.” 

It is also striking how GPS monitoring using satellites is being paired with lines drawn on badly photocopied maps; a Frankenstein’s mashup of old and new technology, which is unsurprisingly causing monstrous problems. 

After I threatened to bring Court proceedings under the Human Rights Act, I was able to get the MOJ to agree to settle Clayton’s claim for substantial damages plus legal costs. 

I would like to think that this victory will have taught both the MOJ and EMS important lessons, which will lead to them not committing people to custody for their own ‘schoolboy’ errors in the future; but experience tells me that such big, faceless entities are slow learners, whether their bureaucracies are harmed by capitalist short-cuts or civil-service sclerosis. 

Perhaps I need to draw them a map! 

What My Client Said Afterwards

 You can read below the review which Clayton posted at the conclusion of his case. Reviews like this mean more to me than words can say. If you get yourself caught up in this kind of particularly unpleasant game of “tag” with the Courts, EMS and the Police – you know who to call. 

Last year I was wrongfully arrested, the police, EMS tagging company and the Crown Court are so badly run that it was a total mess, their negligence nearly ruined my business, so a friend of mine who had used Iain’s services previously couldn’t recommend him strongly enough. Iain took on the case and he never gives up, he’s professional and polite, always at the end of the phone to help, he was a real gentleman and a game changer, he took these guys on and got me the result i wanted. Thank you so much Iain.

• Clayton

How you can help

This blog exists to inform, empower, and reassure people who may otherwise feel overwhelmed when dealing with unlawful police conduct. If you’ve found this article helpful or informative, I would be very grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Your support helps me continue this work and, just as importantly, helps others find reliable, specialist advice when they need it most. Thank you.

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

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.  

Content Authenticity Statement

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

How a Lawful Stop and 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.  

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.  

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.  

The Legal Definition of Disorderly Conduct

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!”

Overturning the Complaint Rejection

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.

Winning Compensation and an Apology

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.

How You Can Help

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

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police, including cases involving wrongful arrests for drunk and disorderly behaviour, unlawful stop and searches, and contested Community Resolutions. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

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

• If at all possible, create your own record of any potentially adverse interaction with the Police using a mobile phone, given your lack of control over the Police body cameras which are not always switched on when they should be.

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!

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.

“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 –

• Julia, a domestic violence victim who won £14,500 damages after PC Latimer of Cambridgeshire Police exploited his knowledge of her case to attempt to groom her;

• Nicola, who won £17,000 from West Yorkshire Police after a Crime Scene Investigator called Daniel Cordwell, attending her home after a burglary, kissed her without her consent;

• Sally, another domestic violence victim, who recovered compensation of £45,000, and a written apology, from Devon & Cornwall Police after PCSO Bunyan exploited his ‘white knight’ role to groom her into a sexual relationship;

• Karen, who recovered £10,000 from Merseyside Police after PC Campbell sexually harassed her whilst carrying out a ‘child welfare’ check at her home;

• Josie and Lisa, who were both abused by the same predatory officer, DC McMillan of Merseyside Police;

• 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;

• Clare, a young, vulnerable victim of domestic abuse who recovered £25,000 compensation after she was groomed and sexually exploited by a serving Police Officer, PC Powell;

• Gemma, who recovered £22,500 from Thames Valley Police after the officer allocated to her case, PC Green, pestered and harassed her with flirtatious and personal messages.

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.