This week’s blog post examines a shocking case in which my client Gary, a vulnerable motorist with serious health conditions, was unlawfully targeted by Cheshire Police after his car broke down. Despite there being no accident and no evidence of drink-driving, an officer aggressively demanded a breath test and then sprayed Gary in the face with PAVA as he attempted to retrieve his medication from his vehicle. The incident led to an upheld Police complaint, findings of unnecessary and disproportionate force, and an eventual settlement of £25,000 damages after I and my team successfully pursued legal action against Cheshire Police. The case also highlights the legal limits on Police breathalyser powers and the strict rules governing the use of PAVA incapacitant spray.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Break-Down in Communication: A Roadside Emergency, Created by the Police

This week’s blog post takes a case which my team and I have recently concluded, winning substantial damages from Cheshire Police, in order to study two important aspects of Police law: when the Police can breathalyse you (and when they can’t) and the rules that govern their use of PAVA incapacitant sprays.

One evening in the Summer of 2023, my client Gary was travelling home from Doncaster, where he had been attending a craft fair with his family. He has a number of health issues and approximately 7 years ago, underwent a quadruple heart bypass.

Unfortunately, whilst he was travelling on the A54 in Cheshire, Gary’s car broke down. This was due to an internal mechanical fault; there was no collision, and no other vehicles were involved. Gary parked by the grass verge, put his bonnet up, to signal to other drivers that he was stranded, and called a relative for assistance. He, his wife and adult daughter remained sitting in the car.

Shortly afterwards, a Cheshire Police vehicle arrived and two officers got out, PC Schofield and PC Styles.

PC Schofield asked if everyone was “OK”. Gary explained that they had broken down owing to a faulty gearbox. However, when Gary then queried why the Officer was recording them on his body worn camera, PC Schofield started to adopt an officious and patronising tone of voice, implying that Gary might have been involved in a crash, to which my client quite fairly queried “Do you know the difference between a broken-down car and a crashed car?”

In reality, it was obvious that there was no damage to Gary’s car, there was no debris and no reason to think this situation was anything other than what he said it was – but the Officer wouldn’t let it go.

Unlawful Police Breathalyser Demand During Cheshire Roadside Breakdown

To Gary’s shock, PC Schofield then announced that he was going to “breathalyse” him. Gary had not had a drop to drink – indeed, owing to his health conditions he hadn’t drunk alcohol for years. He got out of his car to demonstrate to the officer that he was totally sober, but was met by a furious tirade from PC Schofield who bellowed at him – “Stop right there! If you take another step towards me, you’ll be sprayed!”

To be clear, all Gary had done was to step out of his car. He had made no move to threaten the officer, but PC Schofield now began to bombard him with unlawful and bullying instructions, causing Gary to shout back at him.

Sadly, some Police Officers behave as if they have a zone around them in which personal liberty is suspended. In the space of three minutes, PC Schofield had conjured up a confrontation from out of nowhere. Instead of displaying sympathy to a stressed road-user, who had committed no crime, he behaved first with smugness and sarcasm – and then savagery.

Police Use of PAVA Spray Against Vulnerable Motorist With Heart Condition

Gary’s wife and daughter now exited the car – in an equally unthreatening manner – and with everyone gathered on the grass verge, Gary’s wife, who herself suffers from cerebral palsy, tried to explain to PC Schofield about her husband’s health conditions, and why he was so incensed to be baselessly accused of drink- driving. Gary lifted up his t-shirt, to show the officers the scars to his chest from his heart bypass surgery, and then tried to walk to the boot of his car to retrieve his medication in further proof of what he was saying – only for PC Schofield to spray him in the face with his PAVA cannister. The noxious liquid caused Gary immediate, intense pain to his eyes and face. As Gary’s wife screamed at what she was witnessing, PC Schofield shouted – “Spray, spray! I’ve just told you to stop moving!”

Having got his breath back, Gary made a second attempt to retrieve his medication from the boot of his car, despite PC Schofield assaulting him again – this time by grabbing his arm, and ranting at Gary like a petty tyrant, and entirely without any legal basis – “Stop rooting through the car!”

Gary rightly ignored him, and produced his medication.

Of note was the fact that throughout this encounter, the second officer, PC Styles, was measured and respectful in his tone towards Gary and his family: there is another way, and all it takes is for common-sense to out-rank arrogance.

Body Worn Camera Evidence Contradicted Police Claims of “Lunging”

Other Officers now began to arrive at the scene, and when talking to them, PC Schofield over- dramatized the situation, alleging that he had had to spray Gary for “lunging” at him – which simply wasn’t true, as the Officer’s own body worn camera would reveal in due course. 

After around 15 minutes of debate and argument, in which Gary was making it clear how aghast he was at PC Schofield’s behaviour, and that he wanted to exercise his right of complaint – he agreed ‘under duress’ to undergo the breathalyser.

It was, of course, negative.

What Powers do the Police Have to Breathalyse You?

The Police in England and Wales do not have a ‘random’ power to require any driver to take a brethalyser test; they require an objectively reasonable suspicion that you have been drinking, or that you have committed a driving offence (e.g speeding) or have been involved in an accident, in accordance with Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 

This power does not, therefore, apply to drivers whose vehicles, like Gary’s have merely broken down, unless there is direct evidence that the driver is drunk.

PAVA Spray Explained: Police Use of Incapacitant Spray in England and Wales

PAVA is part of the arsenal of most Police Officers in England and Wales, and is a type of incapacitant spray, similar to ‘pepper spray’, which uses a synthetic chemical – Pelargonic Acid Vanillylamide (hence “PAVA”) – to deliver its sting. 

It is therefore, albeit at the lowest level, a type of chemical weapon, and should never be used impulsively or offensively – as it was here – but only as a proportionately measured act of self- defence. Civilians are prohibited from possessing such a device – under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, sprays of this nature are classed as prohibited weapons. They should never, therefore, simply become an extension of an officer’s anger, the spitting fury of his voice – but so often they are. 

National Decision Model and Unlawful Police Use of Force

If the Police resort to violence, when communication was an option instead, then in accordance with the National Decision Model, that use of force is unethical and unlawful.

By reason of this incident, Gary suffered chemical burns to his face and neck, his throat and lips. His right eye was swollen. It took several days for his physical injuries to resolve; much longer-lasting were the stress and anxiety this incident had caused – and that foul taste in the mouth, called abuse of power.

Thankfully, Gary didn’t have to swallow it, as I was here to help him.

Cheshire Police Professional Standards Department Upholds Complaint

The incident was the subject of a Professional Standards investigation by Cheshire Police and Gary’s complaint that PC Schofield had been rude and aggressive and that the force he used was unnecessary – was upheld.

The Inspector who reviewed PC Schofield’s BWC footage concluded that “The situation could have been avoided and was due to poor communication by the Officer.”

The Complaint report went on to detail the following-

“The complainant had broken down with his family after a long journey; the vehicle also being on a fast road. The complainant stated he was awaiting the arrival of his son to recover the vehicle. [Gary] was understandably anxious and upset at that time, which should have been taken into consideration by PC Schofield. Having established that the occupants of the vehicle were safe and well the incident should have come to a swift conclusion with PCs Schofield and Styles leaving …. the manner in which PC Schofield reacted towards [Gary] was unprofessional and aggressive….”

Police Complaint Findings: PAVA Spray Was Unnecessary and Disproportionate

In terms of the officer’s use of force, the report was equally scathing –

“[Gary] is an older gentleman of much smaller stature to PC Schofield… there were two Officers present and I am not satisfied that PC Schofield was in fear for his safety at the point where he sprayed the complainant. It is also my opinion that [Gary] did not in fact ‘lunge’ towards the officer but was, as he claims, attempting to retrieve items from the rear of the vehicle.”

The Complaint report also acknowledged that none of the officers present offered Gary any after-care for the effects of the PAVA spray, particularly in the form of water for his eyes.

It was refreshing to read an honest and straightforward Complaint outcome report like this; when so often Police “Professional Standards” Departments (PSD) spend their time excusing the inexcusable and thereby undermining the very standards in Policing and public protection they are supposed to uphold.

Taser Concerns Raised During Cheshire Police Complaint Investigation

Yet a point of further concern did arise as a result of the Complaint investigation: namely that PC Schofield had apparently considered using his taser gun on Gary, not just his PAVA spray. This was chilling information for my client to read, and I shudder to think what might have been the consequences had the officer decided to electro- shock a man with Gary’s history of cardiac problems. Thankfully, that did not occur, but it reinforces the danger that out-of-control officers can pose, when anger and arrogance run amok in their heads, and the desperate need for PSD to pull their weight in response to such misconduct.

As a result of these findings, Cheshire Police offered an apology to my client for their officer’s conduct and the upset that had been caused, not only to Gary, but his family as well, and PC Schofield was to be subjected to closer monitoring and rescinding of his taser licence for 2 months.

Some might say that should have been “permanently”.

Cheshire Police Increase Settlement From £3,500 to £25,000

Following the complaint outcome, I was able to secure a prompt admission of liability for my client from Cheshire Police; but as I wrote about last week, that is only the start of the process of achieving a fair outcome; the wrongdoing that has been caused must be correctly compensated.

Utilising expert medical evidence and legal argument, I and my colleague, actions against the Police specialist Alexandra Nelmes, were able to get Cheshire Police to increase their initial offer of settlement of £3,500 by more than 600%, achieving a final settlement of £25,000 damages for Gary, plus his legal costs.

Actions Against the Police Solicitor With Four Decades of Experience

The role of the Police, is to be public servants; all too often, however, they treat the public like servants. This week’s post has highlighted a shocking episode of Police abuse of power, apparently born out of the arrogant assumption that if you wear a uniform as part of a hierarchical organization, those who are not in uniform are ‘lower ranking’ than yourself, and if they don’t follow your orders should be disciplined – with force. However, the post also shows how, with my knowledge of the law, I turn the victims of Police misconduct, into the victors.

In my four decades as a solicitor specialized in suing the Police in England and Wales, I have built up a huge case- history of success and experience, which I am proud to showcase and share on this blog. Here are some of my previous posts on similar topics which may be of interest and assistance to you –

• https://iaingould.co.uk/case-reports/innocent-driver-subject-to-unlawful-stop-and-search-awarded-compensation/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/case-reports/asian-man-subjected-to-unlawful-stop-and-search-by-north-wales-police-receives-compensation-and-his-legal-costs/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2021/03/26/know-your-rights-when-it-comes-to-police-traffic-stops/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2025/07/28/damages-for-witness-detained-at-scene-of-fatal-road-traffic-accident/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2025/07/07/good-samaritan-wrongly-arrested-after-stopping-to-assist-crash-victims/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2025/04/14/how-i-helped-an-autistic-man-win-significant-damages-from-lancashire-police/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2023/01/16/accidents-involving-police-cars/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2023/01/09/lack-of-necessity-to-arrest/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2016/09/29/is-police-conflict-management-training-working/
• https://iaingould.co.uk/2024/12/16/pava-sprayed-wrongfully-arrested-and-victorious-how-my-client-owen-andrews-won-22k-from-merseyside-police/

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

This week’s blog is about how even when the Police admit they are at fault, the expertise of an actions against the Police specialist solicitor is necessary to ensure that they don’t just hold their hands up – but they also hand over full and fair compensation.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Armed Police Stop on Black Driver in Coventry

My client Wayne, a black man, owns a high-performance luxury sports car with a private licence plate. On an otherwise unremarkable evening in September 2024 he was driving through Coventry when he was subjected to a Police ‘ambush’ which seemed to have come straight out of an action movie. Two unmarked Police cars drove towards Wayne in his own lane (i.e against the flow of traffic), a “stinger” device was thrown across the road to puncture the tyres of his vehicle, and then he was “boxed in” from behind by a marked Police car with flashing lights. Officers then swarmed around his car.

Psychological Impact of Aggressive Police Tactics

Wayne was understandably stunned by what was happening. He described being frozen in fear as the Officers closed in around him, took his car keys and shone torches in his car. He said it made him feel like “Britain’s most wanted criminal.” The Police were the hunters and he was the prey – and he had no idea why.

Concerns About Racial Profiling and “Driving While Black”

Wayne got out of his car as the Officers started to examine it. As the initial shock started to recede a little, Wayne felt increasingly humiliated and violated, particularly because the situation was occurring in a public place. He began to suspect that he had fallen foul of that unspoken rule of the road – not running a red light, but driving whilst black. Was it Wayne’s skin colour, combined with his high-performance vehicle, which had led the Police to perform such an “over the top” stop?

Police Suspicions Over Cloned Registration Plates

When asked, my client provided his name and address to the Officers, and was now told that they suspected his vehicle had been “cloned” because of a disparity in the licence plate displayed, and their records. Wayne honestly explained that he had transferred his personalised plate from another vehicle – but that he had correctly informed the DVLA of this, and they had approved it.

Disproportionate Use of Stinger Tactics Against Innocent Motorist

The Officers told Wayne that they had been following his vehicle on road cameras before they stopped him, and had used such harsh tactics because they didn’t want him to use his high-performance car to stage a “get away.” Wayne was flabbergasted. To use this level of force over nothing more than a licence plate query was entirely disproportionate, and it was clear the Police had no other reason to stop him that night. He told the officers that he had been stopped before whilst driving, by Police using the ‘normal manner’ of flashing lights to signal him to pull over, and he had always complied with such instructions. Again, he suspected the reason the Police had not used non-violent methods here, was because they had put a black man and a sports car together, and got “criminal.”

Innocent Driver Left Stranded After Police Stinger Stop

Shortly afterwards, the Police evidently having satisfied themselves that what Wayne had told them about his registration and the DVLA was correct, confirmed that he was free to go, or, at least, he was free – his vehicle with its four punctured tyres was going exactly nowhere. Wayne had no choice but to arrange for a tow truck to recover his vehicle to a garage, and take a taxi home.

Why Specialist Actions Against the Police Solicitors Matter

After handing back his car keys, the Officers had told Wayne that he could contact West Midlands Police to obtain compensation for his tyres “and any other losses” – but of course, it wasn’t as simple as that. When, prior to instructing me, Wayne submitted a claim, he received a refund for the cost of the tyres and the taxi fares, but the rest of his claim was ignored. This is a classic example of how, even when the Police admit liability straight away, they will seek to pay out only the bare minimum amount of compensation, and you are best advised to obtain the advice and assistance of an expert solicitor – such as myself.

Expert Legal Representation Secures Full Compensation

I advised Wayne how to argue and evidence his claim to its fullest extent, and make sure that the Police paid him every penny he was entitled to. This included obtaining expert medical evidence to prove the extent of the psychological impact upon him, and also claiming for the loss of liberty which he underwent from the moment the Police ‘boxed him in’, until the moment they returned his keys. Then, when the Police still failed to offer the right amount, I ramped up the pressure on them by issuing civil Court proceedings.

£10,000 Settlement for Wrongful Police Stop and Detention

As a result, Wayne ended up with far more than just a new set of tyres. The Police eventually agreed to settle my client’s claim in the sum of £10,000 damages, plus legal costs. I do not back down until my clients’ receive the result they are entitled to.

Related Cases Involving Cloned Cars, Stinger Stops and Racial Profiling

Follow these links to read about how I have helped many other victims of cloned car mistakes, stinger stops of innocent motorists and racial road policing win compensation-

Cloned Car Mistake Leads to Police Stinger Attack on Innocent Family – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor

“My Bad” Cop: Stinger Deployed On The Wrong Car – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor

A Stinger In The Tale: Police Ambush Innocent Driver – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor

Training Day: Student Officer Arrests Black Man For Complaining About Her – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor

Man arrested at roadside receives substantial compensation award – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor

Black Motorist Assaulted During Police Stop Wins £10,000 – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Specialist Solicitor

Client Review

I was very proud to represent Wayne, and he wrote the following in his 5 star review of my services afterwards: 

I instructed Iain following an incident involving a stinger deployment by police while I was driving, despite being completely innocent. My vehicle was brought to a sudden stop, I was detained by officers, and what followed amounted to an unlawful arrest after the stinger deployment, leaving me distressed.

After initially being denied any compensation by the police, I turned to Iain for help. He was outstanding from the outset: calm, professional, and highly efficient. He quickly got to grips with the details of my case, challenged the police’s position, and uncovered clear evidence of their mistake surrounding the stinger deployment and unlawful arrest.

Thanks to his expertise and persistence, my case was successfully resolved and I received fair compensation far beyond my initial losses, reflecting both the unlawful arrest and the consequences of the stinger deployment.

Iain made a difficult situation much easier to deal with and kept me informed throughout. I would highly recommend Iain to anyone in need of legal assistance; his professionalism and results speak for themselves.

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 abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

Today’s blog post argues that the police complaints system, intended to uphold professional standards and protect the public, is frequently undermined by Professional Standards Departments (PSD) that act to shield officers rather than hold them accountable. Using the case of Rocco Kirkpatrick as a stark example, it highlights serious investigative failures, apparent bias, and the troubling reappointment of the same investigator despite a quashed report by the IOPC. The piece contends that such practices reflect a wider systemic issue in which complaints processes serve to protect police reputations instead of delivering impartial justice, and calls for genuine reform to restore public confidence and accountability.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

The Purpose of the Police Complaints System

What is the purpose of the Police Complaints System?

It is to uphold the Standards of Professional Behaviour, as defined by Schedule 2 of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020, in order –

• to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the Police service

• to uphold high standards in Policing and deter misconduct

• to protect the public.

How Professional Standards Departments Fail the Public

Yet so very often, those “Professional Standards Departments” (PSD) who are tasked with internal Police investigations and the handling of complaints behave not as watchdogs guarding the Public interest, but as the shield and protectors of corrupt, dishonest and violent cops, as if their motto was “My Officer Right or Wrong” – and perhaps it is.

A Culture of Scepticism Towards Police Complaints

We can only be thankful that the Police as a whole do not treat complaints of crime generally with the same scepticism, obfuscation and even outright antagonism which PSD units serially display towards complaints about Officers.

Ongoing Issues With Police Misconduct Investigations

This is a problem which I have been called upon to address time and time again, as regular readers of this blog will be well aware.

The Rocco Kirkpatrick Case: A Disturbing Example

A particularly egregious example of pro-Police bias in the handling of a complaint was the case of my client Rocco Kirkpatrick, which I addressed in a lengthy, and disturbing, blog post in January; please be aware that post contains distressing images.

Rocco, a 15-year-old boy who was being unlawfully detained by Officers of Suffolk Police, had his head impaled on a metal railing as the Officers were attempting to handcuff him, and suffered a horrific injury as a result. Understandably, there has been a lot of public interest in this story, and both I and Rocco’s mum, Jade, were subsequently interviewed by the BBC’s “Look East” news programme.

Challenging the Initial PSD Investigation Outcome

In my January post I dissected the “whitewash” complaint report which had been prepared by Suffolk PSD investigator, Detective Constable Teresa England, and which had purported to exonerate all of the Officers involved; I wrote how I was going to lodge an appeal on behalf of my client with the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) – and how I was confident that I would persuade the IOPC to overturn the outcome.

IOPC Intervention and Ongoing Concerns

I am pleased to report that I was correct, but I must also, sadly, report that the battle is far from over; because apparently when Suffolk PSD are told that one of their officers has so badly mishandled an investigation that a re-investigation is required – they think the logical response is to return the case to the same officer, to do it again.

Reappointment of the Same Investigator: A Questionable Decision

I find the re- appointment of DC England in this matter to be frankly astonishing, given the serious failings for which she was responsible in the first investigation, and which led to the outcome of that investigation being quashed by the IOPC on the grounds that the report was sub-standard, that its conclusions lacked “an evidence- based rationale” and that the outcome contradicted the available evidence.

Key Failures in the Original Police Complaint Investigation

Major flaws which I identified in that first complaint report included the following –

• failure to complete a Severity Assessment
• failure to obtain Rocco’s own account of events
• failure to interview any of the Police Officers under caution
• failure to locate and review all Police body camera/ dashcam footage of the incident
• failure to consider Use of Force forms
• failure to note the discrepancy between one Officer’s statement that he was ‘looking the other way’ when Rocco was impaled on the railing, and the fact that the video footage shows that not only was the Officer not looking the other way, he was actively using force upon Rocco at the key moment.

Also, the report purported to reach the following conclusions, which were entirely unreasonable on the available evidence-

• that the injury was caused by Rocco impaling himself on the railing (as opposed to his falling onto the railing because of the force being used upon him by Officers)
• that Rocco’s “sudden downward movement” was somehow independent from the aggressive force being used upon him by Officers at that exact moment
• that Rocco lifted himself back up off the railing – when the CCTV footage explicitly shows Officers pulling Rocco up and off the post

• that Rocco was being lawfully detained/ restrained in the first place (no proper attempt is made to address the legality of this child’s detention, or the legality of the use of handcuffs upon him).

Lastly, the report included numerous non- relevant incidents (in an apparent attempt to justify what happened to Rocco by the alleged misbehaviour of other members of the public).

Evidence of Systemic Bias in PSD Investigations

You will note that all of DC England’s failings in this investigation flow in one direction i.e they are to the detriment of the complainant’s case, and to the advantage of the Police Officers concerned.

The Misguided Justification for Investigator Reappointment

What was Suffolk PSD’s basis for re- appointing DC England? They argue that she is the right person for the job because she is a “passionate” investigator. I have already responded to point out to them how misconceived this is; ‘passion’, indeed any emotion, is a vice, not a virtue, in an investigator. The evidence must be dispassionately assessed, without fear or favour, or any pre- conceived agenda.

The Need for an Independent and Impartial Investigation

Not only my client and his family, but the public as a whole, deserve an entirely fresh investigation carried out by a person who is not tainted by the errors of judgement, procedure and apparent bias which resulted in that original, unacceptable report.

Awaiting Proper Reallocation of the Investigation

I now await confirmation from Suffolk Police that this matter has been properly re- allocated and that a full, fresh and rigorous investigation, implementing all necessary procedures, will be commenced forthwith; unless they are not interested in maintaining even the semblance of impartiality, fairness and adherence to their duties in this matter?

PSD’s True Role vs Reality

PSD’s role is to protect the public, not the Police, yet time and time again, that’s exactly what they do. “Passion” for the home- team drives their investigators to exculpate when they should interrogate, lecture when they should listen, and obstruct when they should enable. They treat the public as the ‘opposition.’

The Core Problem With Police Misconduct Accountability

That is the core of the problem we have with endemic Police misbehaviour and misconduct; the complaints system has one purpose in theory – but the opposite in practice. The unacknowledged mission statement of Police Professional Standards units, though it is also “written between the lines” of almost every report they produce, is as follows –

• whitewash the reputation of the Police
• protect Police Officers
• patronise the public
• excuse misconduct.

Holding Police Accountable: A Call for Reform

I am proud to stand amongst those who are dedicated to changing that, through the cases we fight, and the blog posts we write.

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 abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.

Today’s blog post criticises police misuse of legal powers after officers from Avon & Somerset Police unlawfully entered a family home at night using a spare key, claiming authority under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to conduct a “welfare check” related to a parked car. This was a clear overreach, as Section 17 is intended only for urgent threats to life or safety, not minor inquiries. The case was pursued as trespass and a violation of Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, ultimately resulting in over £10,000 in damages for the family.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Police Powers vs Privacy Rights: When the Law Is Overstepped

“I thought the police were supposed to uphold the law and protect people and property, not invade privacy without lawful reason.”

Our private homes are “out of bounds” to Police Officers except in extraordinary circumstances. Sometimes, the Police must be content not to know information, and to respect a locked door; indeed, the respect of the agents of the State for a private citizen’s locked door is one of the keystones of democracy.

Misuse of Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

This week’s blog post concerns yet another home trespass by Police Officers misusing the special powers entrusted to them under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and committing an outrageous invasion of privacy, a violation of the safety of the home, for the most banal of reasons. Indeed, the actions of the Officers amounted to a psychological assault upon the female occupants of the house that Officers entered in quest of – information about a parked car…

Terrifying Night-Time Police Entry Into a Private Home

In the early hours of a summer night in 2024, my client Susan (with whose eloquent quotation I began this post), and her adult daughter Rose, were asleep in their beds in their rural home. Susan’s son and husband were not at home, so it was just the two women. Rose was awoken by the sound of the doorbell ringing and someone tapping. She became aware of people walking around the outside of the house and using torches. Extremely scared, and naturally thinking that they were being burgled, Rose then hid in a wardrobe.

There are few more terrifying noises than the sound of strangers in your home in the middle of the night.

The people then entered the house via the front door and porch, and into the hallway. Susan had now also heard the commotion and came downstairs in her pyjamas to confront the intruders.

Why Police Entered the Property: A Parked Car Investigation

My clients discovered that the trespassers were Officers of Avon & Somerset Police. At first, she feared that something terrible had happened to her husband or her son; then officers began asking questions about her husband’s car. Earlier that evening, Susan’s son had driven the car, parked it in a remote location and then gone for a jog. The officers told our client that they had been looking for a stolen car and came across her husband’s car. They knew it wasn’t the stolen vehicle they were looked for, but had decided, as ‘the engine was cold’, it had been ‘abandoned’, and therefore they wanted to track its owner down.

How Officers Gained Entry Without Permission

It transpired that the officers had found a key that Rose had left in a flowerpot outside of the premises, and used it to unlock the front door and let themselves in when there was no answer to their initial knocking.

Emotional Impact of Police Trespass on the Family

After speaking to Susan and Rose, the officers apologised and left; but they had no business being there in the first place, and the after- effects of their invasion of my clients’ home address, in terms of the shock, distress and anger caused to the family, lasted much longer. As Susan later said –

“The Police were ‘goons’ who acted impulsively, showing a large degree of thoughtless complacency and arrogance.”

Legal Action: Trespass and Human Rights Violations

Susan and her family consulted me for legal advice and representation. I was happy to take on all of their claims, for trespass to land under the Common Law, and for breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to private and family life) on a no win, no fee basis.

Police Defence: Claiming Lawful Entry Under Section 17 PACE

Avon & Somerset Police sought to argue that their Officers’ actions were lawful, as they had found what they described as a “seemingly abandoned” vehicle, and that having found that Susan’s husband was the owner (from a registration plate check), and then had no answer when they knocked on the door of my clients’ home, they claimed they had a right to enter under Section 17(1)(e) PACE because of “concerns for the welfare” of the abandoned vehicle’s owner.

Why Section 17 Did Not Apply in This Case

To be clear, there was no evidence that anything at all had happened to Susan’s husband, and there was no damage to his car; these alleged concerns simply arose from the officers having decided that his vehicle was ‘abandoned’, and gone on a flight of fancy from there. Police Officers generally do best when they remember that they are policing the real world, not a TV drama. Yet further, their repeated use of the word ‘abandoned’ was a manipulative cacophemism (the opposite of a euphemism) – a word designed to imply evidence of a catastrophe or mystery, when in fact what was being described was a parked car.

Misuse of Police Language and Authority

Cacophemisms, however, are as much a tool of Policing as handcuffs and radios.

Section 17 Powers: Intended for Emergencies Only

As I have written time and time again on this blog – Section 17(1)(e) of PACE is a power “to save life or limb” in the face of real and present danger, not to merely carry out a ‘welfare check’ and certainly not to ask questions about vehicle ownership. There was no evidence anyone inside the house was injured or dying, and nor could any such inference reasonably be drawn from a parked car, found in an entirely normal state. The officers simply had no right to use the key – but the fact that they thought they did, or thought they could blag or overawe the occupants into thinking they did, speaks volumes as to why my services as an actions against the Police solicitor are in such high demand, and why this blog is necessary.

Pattern of Police Overreach in Home Entry Cases

Bursting through the door to save life and limb is a power intended to be used exactly as it sounds, in obviously urgent and extreme situations, but so often officers misuse it, simply to gain access to ask questions where they have no right to do so.

The Importance of Respecting Private Property Rights

The officers in this case weren’t terrible villains – but they were busy- bodies who had no right to invade a family’s private space. They let their power go to their heads, and seemed to have no conception that breaking into a house in the middle of the night to ask questions about a parked car, was a gross up-ending of their roles and duties. They should have respected the ‘no answer’ to their knocking and left, it is as simple as that, no matter how keen they were to trace the owner of the vehicle. The role of the Police is to serve the public – not the other way around.

Compensation Award: £10,000 for Unlawful Police Entry

My team and I, including my fellow solicitor Alexandra Nelmes, have recently recovered damages for Susan and her family totalling over £10,000 plus legal costs.

My clients’ names have been changed.

Further Cases of Police Trespass and Civil Liberties Violations

Read here the stories of other people whose doorsteps and civil liberties were trampled over by Police Officers, how I helped them win substantial compensation awards, and how I can help you, if the Police trespass in your home-

• Unwarranted: When the Police Can Enter Your House Without A Warrant, And When They Can’t
• An Englishman’s Home Is Still His Castle
• An Englishman’s Hotel Room Is Also His Castle
• Police Home Trespass: Misuse of Section 18 Powers of Entry
• £41,000 Damages For Family After Cheshire Police Raid The Wrong House.

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

Today’s blog post explains that a police search warrant for a property does not automatically give officers the right to search people inside it, nor to detain or use force against them without proper justification. It uses a real case involving a couple whose home was searched by Humberside Police under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, where officers unlawfully handcuffed, detained, and strip-searched both occupants despite the warrant not authorising personal searches and without providing a copy of the warrant as required by law. The post highlights that such actions breached the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and established legal safeguards, rendering the search and officers’ conduct unlawful. It concludes that the police abused their powers, and the case ultimately settled with significant damages paid to the claimants for trespass, false imprisonment, and assault, reinforcing the principle that individuals’ rights in their own home must be respected even during lawful police operations.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Humberside Police Humbled Over Abuse of Search Warrant Powers

“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 England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

William Pitt the Elder, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1760

Does a Search Warrant for an address, also entitle the Police to search any persons that they find inside that address?

This week’s blog post will address that and other related questions, by reference to a case which my colleague Alexandra Nelmes, expert actions against the Police solicitor, has recently settled against Humberside Police, with the Police ‘caving in’ and agreeing to pay our clients significant damages, just days before the civil trial of the claim was due to begin.

The Background Facts: How A House-Search Became a Strip-Search

Our clients Colin and Claire (names changed) reside at an address in Yorkshire. In March 2021, Humberside Police obtained a Magistrates Court Search Warrant for our clients’ house, under Section 23 (3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, following false ‘tip-offs’ that drugs were being dealt from the property.

When officers arrived to execute the warrant, Claire was out shopping and Colin was in the back garden of the premises, smoking a cigarette and talking on the phone with his daughter. To Colin’s surprise, Police Officers suddenly swarmed into the garden, and demanded that he confirm his name and address, which he did. Despite Colin’s co-operative and non-threatening stance, he was, nevertheless, immediately handcuffed, with his hands behind his back.

One of the Officers told Colin that the Police had a warrant to search the premises for drugs (although they did not, notably, produce a copy of the warrant for Colin) and continued –

“To save us the time, are we going to find anything in there, and if so, where will we find it?”

Colin honestly admitted that he had a single joint of cannabis upstairs, in a tub in his bedroom drawer. He had no other illicit substances in the house: the cannabis was for his own personal use, and he was not a drug-dealer.

The Police then started searching the house from top to bottom, finding nothing more than the single ‘spliff’ which Colin had told them would be there.

Escalation of Police Powers: Unlawful Detention and Strip Searches

Matters now escalated, however, as Colin was led inside the house by officers. His handcuffs were removed – but only, it transpired, because the officers now wanted him to remove all of his clothes, for the purposes of a “strip search.” Colin was told that if he did not obey their instructions, he would be “taken down.”

Colin, in fear that force would be used if he did not comply, removed his t-shirt, trousers, shoes and socks and boxer shorts, so that he was completely naked. The officers then told Colin to ‘squat’ and inspected the area of his genitals. Nothing being found, he was then allowed to re- dress himself, but felt extremely embarrassed, humiliated and degraded.

Clothes are quicker to put back on than your dignity in a situation like this.

Claire now returned home from her shopping trip, having been alerted by a phone call from her daughter (to whom Colin had been speaking when the ‘raid’ began).

The Police had been at the property for around 10 minutes when Claire arrived. The officers told her about the search warrant – but as with Colin, did not produce or supply her with a copy of it.

A discussion then ensued between the officers, at the conclusion of which it was decided that Claire should be removed from the house “because she [wasn’t] [t]here at the time” of entry. Nevertheless, they didn’t want to let her go completely.

This led to Claire being taken back out of the house and detained in the front garden, under the supervision of one of the Police officers. Colin, meanwhile, had been moved into the living room of the house, where he was also detained under supervision of the Police.

The search of the premises concluded around 10 minutes after Claire’s arrival, but rather than leaving (nothing having been found), the officers then took Claire back inside the house and just as they had done with Colin, subjected her to a strip-search.

To her immense embarrassment, Claire was forced by one of the female officers to remove her clothing stage by stage and subject herself to ‘inspection.’ This included Claire having to bare her breasts, and lift them up, and then to remove her knickers and squat down so that the officer could carry out the same degrading visual examination of her genitals as Colin had been subjected to.

Claire was now allowed to re- dress, and was taken into the living room, where Colin was being held. After discussing some administrative matters with them, the Police Officers finally left – leaving our clients’ property a mess, and both of them with a sense of violation – not only of their home, but of their bodies as well.

Public Disclosure and Further Distress Caused by Police Actions

Sadly, their ordeal was still not completely over, however, as the Officers left only to later return to their road and distribute leaflets to neighbouring houses, announcing that a “Section 23 warrant has been executed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 [in this road] this morning” – causing our clients further shame and humiliation.

What the notice did not say was that rather than uncovering Walter White’s crystal meth factory, the Police had found only a single cannabis joint, and no arrests had (quite rightly) been made.

Also of significance, was the fact that the Police’s prolific distribution of paperwork that day had not included producing and supplying a copy of the actual Search Warrant to either Claire or Colin.

Were the Police in the Wrong? Key Legal Questions Explained

Understandably, Claire and Colin felt that they had been victims of Police abuse of power, and turned to me as an expert in civil liberties and Police law, for advice and assistance, which I was able to offer to them on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis.

The fact that the Police were operating with a Warrant issued by the Court, gave them a considerable degree of protection from being sued by our clients – but certainly not full immunity. The key questions were these –

1. Did the Police have the right to detain our clients during the house search (and use handcuffs upon Colin)?
2. Did the Search Warrant, issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act, actually give the officers the right to search people they found in the house, as well as the property itself?
3. Was the Police failure to show the Warrant to our clients and supply them with a copy significant?

1. Can Police Detain Occupants During a Search Warrant Execution?

The primary answer to this question is no, if the warrant does not specify persons to be searched (as opposed to just the property itself). Anyone found at the premises at the time of the search is free to leave if they want to.

If occupants remain in the property, it is normal for officers to ‘detain’ them in the sense of stopping them from freely coming and going around the house, as this could reasonably be construed as an obstruction of the search, but such a detention must be as proportionate and for as short a time as possible.

Furthermore, even if the occupants are being restricted to a particular room or area of the house, the use of handcuffs upon them would be unlawful unless there was an extraordinary reason – such as a real threat of violence from that person.

In this case, however, both Colin and Claire were treated by the Police as if their presence on the property made them automatically the ‘captives’ of the officers and fair game for handcuffing and searching, in the same way as if they had been arrested. Indeed, this was notwithstanding the fact that Claire herself wasn’t even at home when the Officers arrived.

In this respect, this was a classic abuse of power: none of the officers involved either fully understanding, or respecting, the limits of their authority.

2. Do Search Warrants Allow Police to Search People? Legal Clarification

The answer to this question is a firm no.

The lead Officer later admitted that she had mistakenly believed she had the power to search the occupants under the Search Warrant, but that was not the case, because the Warrant did not specify that persons as well as the property were to be searched.

Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (setting out the legal rules governing Police searches) explicitly provides as follows (at paragraph 2.27.b) –

2.27 The following powers to search premises also authorise the search of a person, not under arrest, who is found on the premises during the course of the search: … (b) under a warrant issued under Section 23(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to search premises for drugs or documents but only if the warrant specifically authorises the search of persons found on the premises;

This warrant did not, and therefore the searches of both Colin and Claire were unlawful, being carried out by officers who misunderstood the extent of their powers under the warrant – an elementary mistake, with severe consequences for our clients.

It is also worth noting that, even had the warrant authorised the search of persons found in the property, or the Police had had a suspicion independent of the Warrant so as to allow them to exercise their ‘free-standing’ stop and search powers pursuant to Section 23 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, that does not mean that they had the power to conduct a strip- search.

When Are Strip Searches Lawful? Police Powers and Limits

The draconian power of strip- searching someone is closely regulated, and paragraph 3.7 of Code A warns Officers to limit such searches, as follows –

3.7 Searches involving exposure of intimate parts of the body must not be conducted as a routine extension of a less thorough search, simply because nothing is found in the course of the initial search.

3. What Happens If Police Fail to Provide a copy of the Search Warrant?

If the Police fail to produce a copy of the warrant, and do not provide it to the occupants as soon as is practicable, their occupation of the premises and actions thereon are unlawful; effectively, the warrant is invalidated, and this is only right and proper given the need for transparency and accountability if the State is seeking to (temporarily) abrogate the right of privacy to which every Englishman (and woman) is entitled in the ‘castle’ of their home.

Section 16 (5) of PACE provides as follows –

(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.

The mandatory language employed in this section of the statute is such that a failure to comply with it, absent an objectively good excuse, renders the execution of the warrant invalid and hence all of the actions of the Police upon the premises (or upon persons detained or searched therein) as acts of trespass, liable to be compensated in damages.

Legal Outcome: Compensation for Unlawful Police Conduct

Notwithstanding the multiple Police abuses of the law which I have identified above, Humberside Police denied liability in response to our clients’ claims, and even when they did start to make offers of settlement these were no more than a derisory £500 each, on the grounds of, what the Police argued, were no more than ‘technical’ breaches of the law.

We knew this not to be the case, and we knew the true value of these claims. We stayed the course, guiding Claire and Colin through the Court process until the Chief Constable finally ‘chucked in the towel’ just days before trial.

My colleague Alexandra Nelmes was able to secure total damages of over £12,000 for our clients, plus their legal costs, for trespass to land, false imprisonment and assault and battery.

Further Reading on Police Powers and Civil Liberties

The constitutional importance of the principle of “An Englishman’s home is his Castle”

A discussion of the case law relating to the limits of Police powers of detention whilst a Search Warrant is executed

Another example of substantial damages arising from a failure by the Police to produce the Search Warrant

How to win a claim even when an apparently valid Search Warrant has been lawfully executed.

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

This post explains that police do not automatically have the power to arrest someone for breaching a civil court order, such as a non-molestation order, occupation order, or injunction, unless a specific power of arrest is attached or a court authorises it. While breaches may amount to contempt of court, this typically requires court approval before any arrest, and police must instead rely on criminal offences—such as harassment—if they wish to use their summary arrest powers under Section 24 of PACE, which requires reasonable suspicion and necessity. Through real case examples, including wrongful arrests of clients Elaine and Josie, the post highlights how misunderstandings of these legal principles can lead to unlawful detention, but also how such errors can result in successful claims for compensation where police act outside their powers.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Can Police Lawfully Arrest for Breach of a Civil Court Order?

One of the questions I am often asked to answer, as an expert in claims against the Police, is whether it is lawful for the Police to arrest a person for an alleged breach of a Civil Court Order – such as a Non-Molestation or Occupation Order, issued by the Family Court, or an injunction issued by the High Court or County Court under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Understanding the Legal Complexity of Civil Orders and Arrest Powers

The answer is a nuanced one, rather than a straight yes or no, and therefore another example of why the area of criminal law infringement upon civil rights is a minefield, where people are best advised to tread with the guidance of an expert lawyer in the field, such as myself.

Is Breach of a Civil Order Grounds for Immediate Arrest?

The basic position is that mere breach of a civil order forbidding a person from certain behaviour/ actions is not enough for Officers to summarily arrest that person.

What is a Summary Arrest Under Section 24 of PACE?

A summary arrest is an arrest by a Police Officer using their own judgment under the provisions of Section 24 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) i.e reasonable suspicion of an offence – and is to be distinguished from an arrest carried out in accordance with an arrest warrant issued by the Court.

Do Penal Notices Automatically Give Police Power to Arrest?

Even civil orders which have so-called “Penal Notices” attached to them i.e a warning in the following terms “IF YOU DO NOT OBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE SENT TO PRISON” – do not give Police ‘free- standing’ powers to arrest for an alleged breach. The breach may indeed amount to contempt of court, but before any arrest can take place, an application must be made to and approved by the Court.

Common Police Misconceptions About Civil Injunctions

Nevertheless, many Police officers wrongly assume that all civil injunctions automatically carry arrest powers.

Case Study: Wrongful Arrest for Breach of an Occupation Order

An example of this is the case of my client Elaine, who whilst in the midst of a messy divorce from her husband was arrested for alleged breach of a Family Court Occupation Order (that is an Order governing Elaine and her husband’s use of what was still then the shared family home) because the Police got confused between the terms of the Non-Molestation Order (to which a power of arrest was automatically attached by reason of Section 42A of the Family Law Act 1996, but which Elaine had not breached) and the Occupation Order (which Elaine had technically breached, but which did not have a power of arrest attached). As a result, in the midst of what was already a time of great stress and tribulation for her, Elaine had to undergo the travesty of being detained in Police and Court custody for 32 hours.

Legal Minefield: Injunctions Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Alleged breaches of injunctions issued under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are a further legal minefield.

When Must the Court Authorise Arrest for Civil Injunction Breaches?

Section 3 (3) of the Act mirrors the general position (no summary power of arrest for civil breaches) by providing that where a civil injunction has been granted “for the purpose of restraining the Defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment” the Claimant must apply to the Civil Court for an arrest warrant, if they believe the Defendant is breaching the injunction i.e the question of whether an arrest is justified is one for the Court not the Police.

Civil vs Criminal Harassment: When Police Can Arrest

However, harassment is not just a civil matter – under the provisions of the same Act, it is also a criminal offence. Therefore, if there is sufficient evidence that the Defendant is committing criminal harassment, the Police could exercise their direct power of summary arrest; but, in that event, all the safeguards laid down by Section 24 of PACE apply. I.E. the Police officers must have both objectively reasonable suspicion of the offence and necessity to arrest (rather than investigate by means of voluntary attendance, for example).

Case Study: Wrongful Arrest and Compensation – Josie’s Story

All of these issues came to a head in the case of my client Josie.

Background: Civil Injunction Dispute With Neighbours

Josie, who lives in London, was, in December 2024, made subject to an injunction that had been imposed following a dispute with her neighbours over alleged noises from her property and which had been granted by the County Court under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There was no express power of arrest attached to the injunction.

Police Investigation and Arrest Without Legal Basis

One afternoon in January 2025, Josie had taken her dogs to a veterinary appointment when she received a telephone call from a Metropolitan Police Officer. The Officer explained that there had been an allegation that Josie had breached the Injunction Order and that Officers needed to speak to her accordingly.

Josie cooperated with the Officers, and even allowed them access to her property to investigate the report of ‘noises’, but was nevertheless arrested early that evening for “breaching the Civil Order”. This was a deeply distressing experience for Josie – and as with my client Elaine, one which only added salt to the wounds of the existing civil dispute she was involved in, with her neighbours.

Court Intervention: No Power of Arrest Confirmed

Josie spent a miserable night in Police cells before being conveyed to the Royal Courts of Justice, whereupon the Judge – immediately seeing what the Police had not – ordered her to be set free, as the Injunction Order carried with it no power of summary arrest.

Failure to Apply PACE Safeguards by Police

My client could, arguably, have been arrested by the Police for the criminal offence of harassment, if they had put their minds to the question as to whether there was reasonable suspicion of that offence, and whether the necessity test was satisfied – but they did not do so. Instead, those crucial legal safeguards were completely disregarded by the Metropolitan Police, and my client was arrested without due process and in contravention of PACE.

Successful Outcome: Compensation for Wrongful Arrest

Marshalling all of the facts, I presented a strong and clear- cut case on behalf of Josie, to such an extent that it was not necessary to go back to Court again. The Police have recently agreed to make a substantial compensation payment for my client’s wrongful arrest, plus legal costs.

Have You Been Wrongfully Arrested? Get Expert Legal Advice

If you have suffered summary arrest for alleged breach of a civil court order, contact me for an initial assessment of your case/ advice. It may well be that no power of arrest actually existed – and I can help you, too, receive substantial damages for Police blundering with your liberty.

Client Review: 5-Star Feedback on Legal Representation

You can also read Josie’s 5- star review of my handling of her case by clicking on the link.

How you can help

Every post on this blog is grounded in real cases, real experience, and a commitment to holding abuses of power to account. If you’ve taken something useful from this article, or if you wish to support that broader aim, I would be grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Each review strengthens this work and helps others in need of straightforward, specialist expertise find their way here. 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.

A couple whose home was wrongly raided by Police under a search warrant were initially advised by their solicitors that any compensation would be limited to the cost of a damaged door, leading to their claim being dropped; however, after seeking specialist representation, it was established that the warrant had been obtained using outdated and inadequate information, resulting in a successful claim against the Police, an admission of liability, an apology, and nearly £20,000 in damages—highlighting the importance of genuine expertise in actions against the Police.

 Content Authenticity Statement

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

Police Raid Compensation Case: When Legal Advice Gets It Wrong

“Whilst the Barrister was of the view that the warrant would be overturned, he was of the opinion that any award for damages would more likely than not be limited to the cost of the repairs to your door, a matter which the Defendant has already offered to pay you in any event”.

 These were the words of advice that one of my clients received from her original solicitors, when they dropped her claim for damages over a Police raid at her address. As it would happen, they were dead wrong – and I went on to win for my client and her partner rather more than a new door: Damages of almost £20,000. 

Some Solicitors Are Good Marketeers: That Doesn’t Make Them Good Lawyers

 As an expert practitioner with over 30 years of hands- on litigation experience in the field of claims against the Police, I am greatly concerned by the increasing number of Solicitors who are holding themselves out as experts in suing the Police – without in fact having the requisite skills, knowledge, and confidence to properly represent those members of the public who instruct them.   

Just such a fate befell a young couple called Molly and Arthur, who turned to me for assistance in February 2025 after they were severely let down, not only by the Police – but their original Solicitors. 

Wrong Address Police Raid: A Search Warrant Gone Wrong

 Molly and her partner purchased a house in Merseyside in August 2022.  On purchasing the premises, Molly registered for Council Tax, as well as specifying her new address on the Electoral Register.

 One morning in January 2025, Molly was asleep in bed when she was awakened by a horrendous noise and vibrations throughout the house.

She opened an upstairs window, and to her shock saw that there were a number of Police Officers outside and that one of them was sawing through her front door. The Officers shouted up to her, demanding that she come and open the door; Molly immediately said that she would do so, but regardless of this the Officers continued to saw the door. 

As this was occurring, Molly heard one of her neighbours shouting at the Officers that they had the wrong address, only for the Officers to shout back that they were at the right address.

Molly then opened the front door and the Officers stormed into the premises, stating that they had a Search Warrant.

Police Misconduct and Distress Caused to Innocent Family

Molly was concerned for the welfare of her mother, who resided in an annexe to the house, and she asked the Officers if she could go and check on her, however the Officers refused. Unbeknownst to Molly, other Officers had already scaled the fence into the back yard, waking Molly’s mother, and had entered the annexe.  

The Officers searched Molly’s home and detained Molly, her partner, and her mother in the front room.  

Molly was provided with a copy of the warrant – and she was shocked to see that it related to allegations of drug dealing.  Whilst speaking to Molly, one of the Officers mockingly commented that she had “a drug dealer’s door”.  In response, Molly insisted that the Officers had the wrong address – but they maintained that they were at the right one.

Right House, Wrong Family: Police Error Revealed

The pennies were now beginning to drop.  The Officers had a conversation in a separate room, before returning to ask Molly how long she had lived at the property, to which she confirmed that she had purchased it in 2022. The Officers then asked Molly questions about the previous occupants.  

As it happened, the previous occupants had moved into another house in the same road, following the sale of the property to Molly.  The Officers then left the premises and went to that house, where they arrested a female occupant of that address (who used to live where Molly and her family now resided). 

Molly is a woman of entirely good character, who had no previous history of interactions with the Police.  This incident caused her and her family severe psychological distress – for which Molly required treatment and time off work.  She was caused considerable concern for the welfare of her mother (whose health was already vulnerable) and she was further concerned that there might be ‘repercussions’ from the previous occupants of her home whom, it was now apparent, were suspected by the Police of involvement in drug dealing. In an attempt to alleviate her stress, Molly purchased a camera- doorbell. 

Additionally, Molly was aware that her neighbours had either directly witnessed, or soon become aware of, the incident, causing her further humiliation and embarrassment. 

Claims Against the Police: Legal Challenges and Misguided Advice

 After the events of that January day, it was perfectly understandable that Molly would seek legal advice in regard to a potential claim against Merseyside Police for the distress and damage caused by their raid. 

The big difficulty was that Merseyside Police could claim the protection of the search warrant which had been issued for her address by Merseyside Magistrates Court under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

This was not a case in which the Police had ‘kicked down’ the door of the wrong house on the face of the warrant – although that is a set of circumstances which occurs far more often than it should …. Here the Court had indeed issued a warrant authorising the Police to search Molly’s address, albeit that the Magistrates had only issued the warrant on the basis of an application made by Merseyside Police themselves – who evidently, but erroneously, believed that the previous occupants still resided at Molly’s address. 

The first firm of Solicitors whom Molly instructed – who hold themselves out as specialists in actions against the Police – sought to tackle this problem by threatening a Judicial Review (JR) with the aim of overturning the warrant.

Judicial Review vs Direct Claim: A Strategic Legal Mistake

Under Section 8 of PACE, a Magistrate may only issue a search warrant if they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed and that evidence of “substantial value” to the investigation of that offence is likely to be on the premises which are the subject of the warrant. 

If the Police had failed to carry out a thorough investigation, and/or failed to put all relevant evidence before the Court when they were making their application, then this might give grounds for the warrant to be overturned through the process of Judicial Review.

It was, however, an indirect way of tackling the problem – as the Defendant in the JR proceedings would in fact be the Ministry of Justice (i.e. the Magistrates Court) and not Merseyside Police themselves, at whose feet any blame really lay.   

These threatened Judicial Review proceedings never got off the ground, however.  In response to the Solicitor’s ‘warning’ letter, Merseyside Police wrote back, insisting that they had carried out proper investigative steps prior to seeking the search warrant, and that they did have reasonable grounds for believing that the subjects of their investigation (i.e. the suspected drug dealers) were still living at the property.   

The Police also stated that they had already offered to pay Molly for a replacement door – but all further entitlement to any legal remedy for these traumatic events was denied. 

Are You A Lawyer, Or A Postman? Poor Legal Representation Exposed

In response to this denial, Molly’s first Solicitors did what those who lack confidence in their own ability to analyse the merits of a case frequently do – which is immediately turn to an “independent Barrister” for advice. 

On receipt of the Barrister’s report, the Solicitors wrote to Molly with the advice which I quoted at the top of this blog – 

“Whilst the Barrister was of the view that the warrant would be overturned, he was of the opinion that any award for damages would more likely than not be limited to the cost of the repairs to your door, a matter which the Defendant has already offered to pay you in any event”.

Low Settlement Offers and Abandoned Clients

The Solicitors went on to suggest that Molly could make ‘last ditch’ offer of settlement of £1,000 (in addition to the cost of the door), but made it clear that whilst they would put forward this offer on her behalf, they were no longer prepared to issue Judicial Review proceedings.

When Molly declined their advice about this low- ball offer, her Solicitors then closed her file – which would have left Molly high and dry, if it hadn’t had been for a friend of hers called Julie, who was a former client of mine. I had successfully sued Merseyside Police in respect of Julie’s wrongful arrest, and she now strongly recommended me to Molly. 

How I Succeed Where Others Fail in Police Claims

 When Molly came to instruct me, in February 2025, I ripped up the “Judicial Review” plan, and went straight for the real culprits, in the form of a direct claim against Merseyside Police themselves. 

This was on the basis of the following facts – 

• The documentary evidence which the Police had relied upon to support their application for the search warrant, and which linked the drugs suspect to Molly’s address related to a benefits claim made in 2018 and a voter registration check made in early 2022.  
• More up to date searches of the property records (for example the Land Registry and Council Records) would have revealed Molly’s ownership of the premises from August 2022 onwards. 
• Therefore, the warrant had been applied for on the basis of information that was over 2 years old and with disregard for the true facts of the ownership/occupancy of the premises which could have easily been obtained by the Police. 

There was no need to bring separate proceedings (whether Judicial Review or otherwise) against the Magistrates Court – everything here led back to failures by the Police investigative team, and I knew the legal tools by which we could – shall we say – “saw” through their warrant.

Common Mistakes Made by Inexperienced Police Claims Solicitors

 Molly’s original Solicitors had got this case wrong on multiple grounds – 

• They had focused only a potential Judicial Review, and appeared to completely overlook a direct compensation claim against the Police. 
• They were overly dependent upon the “independent Barrister” and that Barrister’s negative opinion, apparently not having the confidence or experience to analyse the case themselves.  Barristers are not a ‘higher rank’ of lawyer than Solicitors; rather they are lawyers who specialise in advocacy at trial. I have a far greater depth of experience in actions against the Police than the majority of barristers practicing in this field, and hence I do not defer to them – I collaborate with them when I know their special skills can strengthen my client’s case, and not before. 
• They wrongly estimated damages as being worth a maximum of £500 – £1,500.   
• They misunderstood the rules governing disclosure of evidence in civil proceedings, informing Molly that the documents which the Police had provided to them in response to the letter of claim were for the eyes of the Solicitors only, and that they were “prohibited” from sharing the material with Molly, which shows a frankly astonishing lack of understanding of the rules of evidence and disclosure in civil proceedings. To put it simply, the Defendant owes disclosure to the Claimant; not to the Claimant’s solicitor, whose role is to obtain that material for the benefit of their client – not to act as a gatekeeper to it, at the Defendant’s behest.   
• They abandoned their client as soon as the going got tough. Any solicitor’s business model which is overly dependent on barristers, is a broken one – though generally it’s the clients who have to pick up the pieces.

Successful Claim Against Merseyside Police: £19,000 Compensation and Apology

 I am proud to say that is not how I operate, and I am pleased to confirm that I have recently obtained for Molly and Arthur an admission of liability from Merseyside Police, and total damages of £19,000, plus legal costs. 

Furthermore, and just as importantly, I have obtained for them the following apology from the Deputy Chief Constable – 

“On behalf of Merseyside Police may I offer my deepest apology in relation to the incident where your house was entered pursuant to a warrant [in January 2025]. 

I know that the Officers who attended realised that insufficient research had been carried out in relation to that warrant which led to an entry onto your premises. I appreciate how distressing that must have been for you. I understand that you had lived at the premises for 2 years and can confirm that you had no link whatsoever to the Merseyside Police Operation that was being carried out on that day.

I understand the Officers directly involved in this case have already apologised to you and once again, on behalf of the Force I offer my sincere apologies.”

Choosing the Right Solicitor for Claims Against the Police

 Now that’s a better quote than the one we began with, isn’t it? 

If you want the right result for your claim against the Police, I urge you to instruct a legal expert such as myself, with a proven- track record, verified by hundreds of client reviews, and not the kind of ‘post- man’ lawyer who needs to forward the Defendant’s response to a barrister to find out what to do next, and who relays other people’s opinions to his client, not his own. 

The names of my clients have been changed.

How you can help

I post every Monday 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

This post warns about the risks of police retaining custody photographs on the Police National Database (PND), particularly as facial recognition technology can now search millions of stored images. It highlights the case of Alvi Choudhury, who was wrongly arrested after facial recognition matched him to a suspect using a photo taken from a previous arrest where he faced no charges. Unlike DNA and fingerprints, which are strictly regulated under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, custody photographs can be kept indefinitely, despite being used as biometric identifiers.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Facial Recognition Misidentification: The Case of Alvi Choudhury

Consider this something of a ‘public service’ announcement in the wake of the healthy publicity surrounding the case of my client Alvi Choudhury – victim of a ‘mistaken identity’ arrest caused by Police use of Facial Recognition technology.  

In Alvi’s case, the image of a man wanted for a burglary was compared by Thames Valley Police with faces stored on the Police National Database (PND), using Cognitec “facial recognition” software.  

The PND is not the equivalent of the FBI’s most wanted list…it comprises literally millions of Custody ‘mugshots’ taken of individuals arrested for even the lowest level of crime – and retained on the system even if they are never charged with any offence. Such was the case with Alvi, who, as he explained to the Guardian, fell prey to this Police harvesting of facial data in the following circumstances –  

“Choudhury’s mugshot was held on the police system only because he had been wrongly arrested in 2021 when he had been attacked on a night out while at university in Portsmouth. The police released him with no further action.”

Millions of Innocent People’s Images Stored on the PND

The PND currently holds around 19 million facial images – hundreds of thousands of which are photographs of people who have never even been charged with an offence, let alone convicted.

The retention of these people’s images, and their being considered “fair game” for the approximately 25,000 searches currently carried out by UK Police each month, is ethically dubious, and seems to fly in the face of the great British legal traditions of presumption of innocence and respect for individual privacy. It is also an example of how the pace of technological change has outpaced the cognitive wheels in law- maker’s brains – leaving behind legislation that’s no longer fit for purpose.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and Biometric Data Retention

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 laid down strict time-limits for Police retention of what was then considered to be the extent of sensitive biometric data i.e DNA and fingerprints, but custody photographs fell into what we can only now, with bitter irony, acknowledge to be a “policy blind spot” – legislators failing to anticipate the rapid development and deployment of facial recognition programmes over the ensuing decade.

Current UK Rules on DNA and Fingerprint Retention

The current position on “biometric retention” is summarised by the Home Office as follows – 

• If a person is charged, but not convicted, of a serious offence, their DNA profile and fingerprints must be automatically deleted after 3 years (or a maximum of 5 years, if an extension is granted by a District Judge).
• If a person is arrested for, but not charged, with a serious offence, their DNA profile and fingerprints must be automatically deleted by the Police after their release (except that the Police can apply to the Biometrics Commissioner for permission to retain for up to 3 years, and can make a further application to a Judge for a maximum of 5 years).
• If a person is arrested, but not convicted of a minor offence, their DNA profile and fingerprints must be destroyed on their being refused charge, or not convicted, and there is no discretion for that data to be retained.

Why Custody Photographs Can Be Retained Indefinitely

Facial photographs, on the other hand, are subject to no such laws, and can potentially be retained “indefinitely”.

 The Police retention of facial images seemed less intrusive and harmful when large-scale Facial Recognition software was still a glint in a tech bro’s eye. In 2012, DNA and fingerprints were readily acknowledged to be sensitive biometric identifiers, as they could be scientifically calibrated, but photographs were outside the scope of widespread ‘machine’ testing, and hence considered to be forms of ‘unplugged’ evidence, records not searchable in the way DNA and fingerprint profiles were.

How Facial Recognition Turned Custody Photos Into Biometric Data

The science changed when, in recent years, the Police unleashed facial- matching algorithms over the Police National Database, converting old- school custody photographs into biometric identifiers –  “Faceprints” if you like – but without any comparable change in the law.  

Now the fact that Facial Recognition programs can search, compare and report “facial matches” in the blink of an AI, makes a person’s face accessible to Police investigators in a way they never were before; but because facial snapshots, unlike fingerprints, are not “unique” and the technology for comparing them still has significant error rates and evidence of racial bias (as I highlighted in last week’s blog) this is going to endanger the freedom of many innocent people (like Alvi).

Police Use of Facial Recognition and the Risk to Innocent People

In other words, the Police have, through technological ‘mission creep’, weaponised the Police National Database in the fight against crime, without the Government updating legislative safeguards to defend the liberty of innocent individuals.

The Legal Right to Request Deletion of Custody Images

But there absolutely is something you can do about this, if your photograph is on the Police National Database. In the landmark case of RMC and FJ v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1681 (Admin) R (RMC FJ) Metropolitan Police Commissioner – 22 June 2012

Policing practices were censured by the High Court and in 2017 Home Office rules were introduced custody images review to allow for the deletion of custody images, on request, in set circumstances.

How Unconvicted Individuals Can Apply to Delete Their Police Custody Photo 

Of most relevance, for our purposes, is the right of unconvicted individuals to apply, in writing, to the Force which arrested them for deletion of their custody image, following the conclusion of any investigation or prosecution against them. In such a scenario, the Home Office stipulates that the Police must adopt a presumption in favour of deletion of the image, subject to certain specified “exceptional reasons” (e.g arrests for sexual offences or terrorism/ organised crime matters).

Why Deleting Your Police Image Matters: Lessons From the Alvi Case

Had Alvi been made aware of his rights, and applied to the Police for deletion of his custody image once he received a decision of “no further action”, then the simple fact of the matter is that he would never have been arrested, over 4 years later. The only thing (incorrectly) linking him to the alleged crime was that redundant custody photo, and there was no basis for its retention. But because he didn’t ask, he didn’t get.

How to Request Deletion of Your Image From the Police National Database

So, I urge you to act now, if your face is on the Police National Database and you fit the criteria above – exercise your rights and contact the relevant Police Force (i.e the Force which arrested you) and get your image wiped. This should be a straightforward process – all you are required to do is email the Force with your name, address, DOB, and an explanation detailing when the image was taken, what offence it relates to and the outcome of the arrest.

Protecting Privacy in the Age of Police Facial Recognition Technology

The Police are taking advantage of people’s ignorance of the law to retain images of the innocent by default, whilst using fallible and biased facial recognition technology. This does not have to be tolerated. Our particular version of “Big Brother” currently has 19 million eyes: together, let’s blind as many of them as possible.  

How you can help

Every post on this blog is grounded in real cases, real experience, and a commitment to holding abuses of power to account. If you’ve taken something useful from this article, or if you wish to support that broader aim, I would be grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Each review strengthens this work and helps others in need of straightforward, specialist expertise find their way here. 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.

This blog post describes how Alvi Choudhury was wrongfully arrested after police relied too heavily on a flawed facial recognition “match,” despite official guidance that such matches are only investigative leads. The technology is known to produce higher false positives for Asian men and younger people, and officers allegedly ignored clear red flags, including Choudhury living 100 miles from the crime scene and having no criminal record. He was detained for nearly 10 hours before being released, highlighting the risks of treating AI as decisive proof rather than using proper human judgment.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

The Growing Use of Police Facial Recognition Technology in the UK

I have written before on this blog about how there is neither sense nor purpose in being “Luddites” about technology in general, and specifically about the increasing use by the Police of “Facial Recognition” software. What is of overriding importance, however, is that we ensure that Artificial Intelligence is not substituted for human intelligence and common sense; AI algorithms can be useful tools, but at the end of the day they are just that – tools, not brains.   

Or in other words: Fools rush in, where AI learns to tread… 

College of Policing Guidance: Facial Recognition Matches Are “Investigative Leads Only”

Police Facial Recognition technology is accepted to be flawed, and the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice guidelines make it absolutely clear that purported “matches” between faces in database A (wanted individuals) and faces in database B (individuals who for one reason or another have had a Police ‘mugshot’ taken, which is stored in the Police National Database or PND) are to be treated as ‘investigative leads only’. The algorithm’s identification of a possible match is supposed to be a starting point for critical thinking, not an end- point and not a substitute for it.   

This is, not least, because of the indisputable fact that the technology demonstrates striking imbalances in the degree of “false positives” i.e mis-identifications which it produces for individuals of certain demographic groups, compared with others. 

The latest overview of facial recognition technology, published by the Home Office in December 2025 has failed to assuage concerns about significant racial and gender imbalances in accuracy. In Retrospective Facial Recognition (RFR) searches results were reported which demonstrated that the “false positive” results for Asian males were 5.3% compared with 0% for White males, whilst the false positives for people aged between 21 – 29 was 5.2% compared with 0.1% for those aged 41 – 76.

APCC Warning on Built-In Bias in the Police National Database (PND) Facial Recognition Tool

Hot on the heels of that report, the Association of Police & Crime Commissioners (APCC) released a statement deploring the current state of affairs, saying, in part – 

“The report from the National Physical Laboratory evaluating the accuracy and equitability of the Police National Database’s (PND) retrospective facial recognition technology tool sheds light on a concerning in-built bias. This has meant that, in some circumstances, it is more likely to incorrectly match black and Asian people than their white counterparts. The language is technical but, behind the detail, it seems clear that technology has been deployed into operational policing without adequate safeguards in place.” 

The APCC statement went on to give thanks that  –

“there is no evidence of adverse impact in any individual case, that is more by luck than design.”

The Wrongful Arrest of Alvi Choudhury Following a Facial Recognition “Match”

Well, as the case of my client Alvi Choudhury demonstrates that ‘luck’ has now run out – and it was Alvi who had to pay the shocking price for the same: the degradation and humiliation of a wrongful arrest for burglary. 

Alvi’s case has rightly generated a lot of media interest this week. You can read his interview with the Guardian and see him describe his ordeal on Good Morning Britain.

Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Police’s Role in the Misidentification Case

I am proud to be representing Alvi and bringing my skills and expertise in this area of law to bear on the Police Forces responsible for his incarceration – both Thames Valley Police, who wrongfully requested his arrest on the basis of an alleged Facial Recognition “match”, and Hampshire Police, who carried it out. I also hope that by publicising Alvi’s story, he and I can bring pressure to bear on the Police to make them use this technology with far greater care and caution – and hopefully prevent others suffering the same fate in the future, particularly those from the most ‘at risk’ ethnic and age groups. Alvi, it will be noted, is in a cohort both in terms of his skin colour and his age which makes a false positive far more likely in his case than it would with an older, White male.

Why Policing by Consent Requires Critical Thinking, Not Blind Reliance on AI

This isn’t just a case of “racial bias” in the algorithm, however. It comes down to the problem that I highlighted at in the opening of this blog post – Policing by consent requires common sense and critical thinking, not the ‘short-cut’ of letting a computer programme do your thinking for you.

Key Red Flags Ignored in the Police Facial Recognition Identification

Sadly, I believe that is exactly what happened in Alvi’s case. The reported “match” between Alvi’s image on the PND and the CCTV still of a man wanted for burglary was taken as if it was an undisputable truth, rather than an algorithm’s ‘best guess’, and disregarded the following ‘red flags’ – 

• Alvi lives over 100 miles (in Southampton) from the location of the crime (in Milton Keynes).
• Alvi is a man of exemplary character with no criminal convictions whatsoever (his image was in the Police Database only because of a previous wrongful arrest).
• Alvi’s image was taken well over 4 years before the crime – and no allowance appears to have been made for the obvious fact of almost half-a-decade of aging since then.
• The officers initially reviewing the match report appear to have only ‘seen’ the very broad racial similarities between Alvi and the wanted male (both are of Asian appearance) rather than clear disparities between them; in other words, they saw the generic, not the individual.

The Human Cost of Facial Recognition Errors and Wrongful Arrest

As Alvi told the Guardian – “I just assumed that the investigative officer saw that I was a brown person with curly hair and decided to arrest me.” Alvi was released after the Officers who came to interview him saw him – and rapidly agreed that he was clearly not the suspect in the picture; but in the meantime, he had been deprived of his liberty for almost 10 hours in Police custody.

Holding Police Accountable for Improper Use of Facial Recognition Technology

To my mind, Alvi’s arrest was as a result of the Police playing “AI lottery” with people’s lives, and I intend to make them pay the price for that – and in doing so, help to drag improper uses of this technology into the full light of day.

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.

This article examines the unlawful use of Section 19 PACE by police officers to seize mobile phones from people filming them, focusing on the case of Natalie, who was arrested, handcuffed, detained for 47 minutes and had her phone confiscated while recording her sister’s arrest in the street. It explains that filming police in public is lawful and that Section 19—an evidence-seizure power tied to officers being lawfully on “premises”—does not justify taking a phone on a public highway or stopping someone from recording. The case resulted in an admission of liability and a £25,000 settlement for unlawful arrest, detention and injury.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Early this month, I blogged about how Police misuse legislation in order to claim that they have power over ordinary citizens in situations where no power exists. In that article I was specifically commenting on Police misuse of Section 17 of the Police & Criminal Evidence, very often claimed to be the legal basis for them bashing in a front door to “save life or limb” when in reality they know that there is no ‘life or death’ emergency.

Police Misuse of Section 19 PACE: Can Officers Seize Your Phone for Filming?

 In this week’s blog post I will address another endemic Police misuse of legislation: Officers purporting to use Section 19 of PACE to seize mobile phones which are being used to film them.

Is It Legal to Film Police in Public? Your Rights Explained

Through the lens of the recently settled case of one of my clients I will answer the following questions – 

• Is it legal to film Police Officers?
• Can the Police use Section 19 of PACE to seize mobile phones? 

– and demonstrate the level of compensation that can be recovered when the supposed guardians of the law, fail to heed it.

Case Study: Unlawful Police Arrest and Illegal Seizure of a Mobile Phone

In June 2023 my client Natalie, a Civil Service manager of exemplary character, was at her home in Merseyside, when she saw her sister being arrested by the Police in the road outside, following her sister having been involved in a dispute with a neighbour.

My client went outside to investigate and began recording events on her phone,  whilst keeping her distance from the Officers. She did not attempt to interfere with the arrest, or obstruct officers, she was merely cataloguing what was happening to her sister: every citizen’s right in the digital “Phone Age” in which we now live.

Suddenly and without warning, a male Police Officer grabbed Natalie’s left wrist and left upper arm and said “I’m seizing that phone under Section 19 of PACE, I believe its got evidence of an offence, pass me the phone”.

Shocked, my client resisted this ‘Police mugging’, whereupon the Officer told her that she was “under arrest for resisting arrest”.

Other male and female Officers now ‘piled in’ and Natalie was forcefully handcuffed to the rear, whilst being forced face-down onto the bonnet of a Police car, and her mobile phone was wrenched from her grip. She immediately began to experience pain and discomfort in both of her wrists and numbness in her hands; a reminder of how handcuffs are not just ‘ornaments’, the badge of a Police detainee, but are active weapons in the Police arsenal, gripping and squeezing and causing pain through their pressure and tightness, and their should never be used without necessity, although they so habitually are. 

A bystander asked if filming in public was not allowed, to which one of the male Officers asserted, “We seize any mobile device that’s being used to record, it’s capturing evidence, an offence”. My client quite reasonably responded to this by telling the first Officer that she could have sent him the video, pointing out “All you had to do was ask”. 

Natalie complained to one of the Officers about the pain she was in from the handcuffs, which she told him were “really cutting into me”. The Officer callously replied: “They’re not designed to be comfortable – because you’ve been actively resisting, I can’t risk loosening them.” This is the very definition of adding insult to injury.

Only after Natalie continued to report that she was experiencing “burning” and that her arm was “going dead”, in the context of her having previously had ulnar nerve surgery to her right arm, did the Police condescend to remove and adjust her handcuffs – re-handcuffing Natalie in the somewhat less degrading position of her hands being in front of her.

Natalie was then escorted to a Police carrier van, where the first Officer asked her if she understood why she had been arrested.  My client told him that she did not at all understand, and again asserted that if the Officer wanted her phone footage, he could have just asked for it.  The Officer threateningly replied “If you’re going to be difficult, I’ll take you to Custody”. 

Unsurprisingly, however (because in reality, no offence had been committed), Natalie was now advised that she was being de-arrested and her handcuffs were removed. She had been unlawfully detained for approximately 47 minutes, although owing to the pain and public humiliation the Police had subjected her to, it felt a lot longer than that.

When my client then asked for her phone back, the Officer who had arrested her replied “It’s ours now” and said that she might get it back in six months.  The Officer showed no compassion or concern at all for the significant disruption this would cause to my client’s work and personal life.

It was not until the following month, and after Natalie had proactively raised a number of complaints, that she was ‘allowed’ to come and collect her phone from a local Police Station.

Upon collection of the phone, Natalie noted that she had over 30 voice messages, one of which was from a local Walk-in-Centre where she had attended for treatment following her being assaulted by the Officers as described above. The message was now several days old. When my client belatedly made contact, she was advised that following a review of an x-ray which had been taken of her left wrist a week after this incident, and which had initially been thought to be clear, a fracture had in fact been identified and she now needed to go to hospital for further advice.

Did Police Have Legal Power Under Section 19 PACE to Stop Filming, or to Seize Her Phone?

The short answer to both of these questions is “no.”

As I explained in an earlier blog post about this case –                                                   

• There is no law that prevents you from filming the Police (in exactly the same way that they will habitually film you, body worn cameras now being a daily part of Police kit), and nor should there ever be as long as we uphold our democratic tradition of Police Officers as citizens-in-uniform. 
• The Police can claim to be using the power granted to them by Section 19 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)  to seize your phone – as they did to Natalie – but such a use of that power is almost certainly illegitimate, as I will explain below. As in the case of Police misuse of Section 17 powers for forced entry to homes, I strongly suspect that a lot of Officers know that Section 19 does not encompass the seizure that they want to make – but do it anyway, thinking that many of the public will, understandably, be brow-beaten by the combined threat of legislative chapter-and-verse and real violence (bureaucracy and brutality, we might say).   

Section 19 PACE Explained: General Power of Seizure and Its Legal Limits

Section 19 PACE provides as follows- 

19 General power of seizure

(1)The powers conferred by subsections (2), (3) and (4) below are exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on any premises.

(2)The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and

(b)that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed.

(3)The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; and

(b)that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

(4)The constable may require any information which is [stored in any electronic form] and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible [or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form] if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that—

(i)it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; or

(ii)it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and

(b)that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, tampered with or destroyed.

Why Section 19 PACE Does Not Apply to Filming Police in the Street

Section 19 is in a part of PACE which is specifically designated “Powers of Entry, Search & Seizure” and the proceeding sections are all about Police powers of entry into premises either with or without search warrants, in certain defined circumstances. It is a piece of legislation (first drafted 40 years ago) which is designed to allow Officers investigating a crime to gather evidence of the crime, or the presumed proceeds of crime (such as stolen goods) whilst they are searching premises.

“Section 19” therefore does not give Police Officers the power to confiscate mobile phones in order to prevent filming. It was never intended to be used in this way, and Officers purporting to use it in this manner are doing so illegally. This becomes even clearer when the specific wording of the legislation is analysed-

• “Exercisable by a Constable who is lawfully on any premises” – Although ‘premises’ is a word which is not necessarily confined in its meaning to ‘indoors’- it can include a place in the open air – that place must be a distinct piece of land in single occupation/ ownership. The middle of the street (where Natalie’s encounter with the Police took place) can clearly not be defined as “premises.” If you are on a public highway, you are not “on premises” and thus Section 19 is irrelevant and inapplicable.
• Even if the encounter took place “on premises”, the Constable can still only seize “evidence in relation to an offence.” Filming in public is not itself an offence. Filming an officer talking to you is not an offence. Filming an officer searching or arresting somebody else is also not an offence (and would not constitute evidence of whatever offence the arrestee is being accused of, that naturally having already occurred).
• Even if a Constable can clear the above statutory hurdles, and does have legitimate grounds for believing that an offence has been ‘captured’ on your mobile phone, and you and he are currently “on premises” where Section 19 is exercisable, note the crucial caveat – “that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.” In encounters of this nature, the person recording the Police is doing so precisely in order to preserve a record of what is happening, and it is nonsense to assert that there is an imminent danger of that evidence being destroyed.

Indeed, what the Police really want to do through their intervention in this manner is not to preserve existing evidence, but to prevent the accumulation of further evidence – for the first thing they will do is to switch off/ put down the phone.  They know this, and so do we, and it is a travesty of the law for them to pretend otherwise. Even if the Officer genuinely wanted to see, rather than stop, the recording – then the correct and lawful first port of call is simply to ask the person filming to send the officer a copy of the recording, as indeed my client pointed out to the Police in the incident described above:  “All you had to do was ask…”

So, on multiple grounds, my analysis of the law showed that everything the Police did to Natalie on this occasion was wrong – they had no power to stop her filming; to take her phone; to brutalise, humiliate, handcuff and imprison her at the roadside.

Claiming Compensation for Unlawful Arrest, False Imprisonment and Assault by Police – How I Helped Natalie Turn 47 minutes of Detention into £25,000 Damages

By writing a detailed and effective letter of claim on behalf of Natalie, I swiftly obtained from Merseyside Police an admission of liability and I was able to bring them to the negotiating table without the need for Court proceedings.

Although Natalie’s unlawful arrest thankfully lasted less than an hour, there were much more long- lasted consequences from the Police brutality she had experienced, and I helped her to evidence and quantify them as follows –

• Obtaining a report from an orthopaedic expert in relation to her left wrist injury (which proved to be a tendon inflammation).
• Obtaining a report from a psychiatric expert in relation to the shock/ psychological impact of these distressing events, including anxiety and sleep disruption.
• As well as her injuries, the trespass to goods she had suffered as a result of the Police illegally holding her phone for over 2 weeks.
• The aggravating features of the case – entitling her to more than just basic compensation. In Natalie’s case, these included the high-handed, intimidating, oppressive and very public nature of the first Officer’s treatment of her – a gross and totally unnecessary affront to her personal dignity and integrity. 

I am pleased to confirm that on the basis of this evidence, I was able to get Merseyside Police to increase from their original offer, which was only £3,000, and agree to pay £25,000 damages for Natalie, plus her legal costs. It was no less than she deserved.

5-Star Client Review: Unlawful Arrest and Police Misconduct Claim Success

Natalie wrote the following 5 star review of my handling of her case, here on Trustpilot –   

Natalie Mclachlan gave iaingould.co.uk 5 stars. Check out the full review…

“I done my research before choosing Iain to reach out too about my case and I was not disappointed! From my very first conversation with Iain I knew I had made the right choice. In a nutshell I was unlawfully arrested and detained with my phone unlawfully taken from me, during this I suffered a serious injury. Iain has been honest, consistent and supportive throughout my dealings with him. If you need someone who is as passionate and honest as they claim when it comes to justice involving police, then he is 100% your guy! Everyone claims to have your best interest at heart and he truly does. We have just settled after a bit of back and forth and I am satisfied with the outcome of the case and completely satisfied with the service provided by Iain and his team.” 

How I Can Help You

 No matter how much they might not wish it to be the case, when it comes to filming in the street police officers have no special power to prevent you filming them, or to confiscate phones from the public. If the Police try to bully or blag you into believing the opposite, contact me to seek expert advice and representation on a no win, no fee basis. If they use “might” to overwhelm you, let’s show them that it doesn’t make “right” – just pick up the phone. 

How you can help

I publish these articles every Monday morning 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, yes 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.

This blog post exposes a particularly dangerous form of police misconduct: officers claiming powers they do not lawfully possess, especially the misuse of Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) to force entry into private homes. It explains that while police do have limited powers to enter premises without a warrant in strictly defined emergency circumstances, these powers are frequently exaggerated or abused to justify unlawful intrusions, routine “welfare checks,” and intimidation of occupants. Such behaviour, if left unchecked, represents a serious erosion of civil liberties and privacy, normalised within police culture and often misunderstood by the public.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Police Forcing Entry Without a Warrant: When It’s Legal – And When It’s an Abuse of Power

 “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

Ronald Regan, US President, 1986 

Police Abuse of Power and the Hidden Dangers of Fake Legal Authority

The primary purpose of this blog post is to highlight Police abuse of power and to show how it can be combatted and its victims compensated. 

The Most Insidious Form of Police Misconduct: Claiming Powers That Don’t Exist

 Perhaps the most egregious, and certainly the most insidious, form of Police misconduct relates not to Police abusing the powers that they actually possess – but committing a kind of knowing fraud upon the public by purporting to have powers which do not in fact exist at all.

 I describe this as perhaps the worst misconduct, because it is so widespread and tolerated, even deliberately encouraged, in Policing culture.  Such malpractices would, if they were allowed to stand unchallenged/unchecked would constitute a disastrous encroachment upon our civil liberties, both in terms of our personal freedom and the privacy of our homes.

Common Examples of Police Overreach and Misuse of Legal Powers

 Examples of this form of overreach of Police power include – 

• Police Officers claiming to have the right to detain you prior to a full/formal arrest   
• Police Officers invoking a right of forced entry to your home, under Section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), not to ‘save life or limb’ but to carry out what, at its highest, is not a matter of life and death, but a ‘welfare check’.      

Misuse of Section 17 PACE and Illegal ‘Welfare Check’ Raids

It is the latter of those two forms of almost ‘daily’ Police misconduct which I will be addressing in this blog post. 

Can the Police enter your home without a warrant?

 Many people at first assume, incorrectly, that the answer to this question is “no”.  When Police Officers bang at their front door, the resident demands to see the judicial warrant which they presume the Police require in order to enter to either search the property or arrest someone on the premises. 

But actually, Police raids carried out under Court warrants are in the minority; the majority of times that Police turn up at houses demanding entry and threatening ‘the big red key’ – i.e. a battering ram – they are using or purporting to use free- standing powers granted to them by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

Section 17 and Section 18 PACE Explained: When Forced Entry Is Lawful

 Police Officers are granted powers under Sections 17 and 18 of PACE in order to allow them to enter premises without a warrant and without the owner’s consent, in certain specified circumstances, as follows – 

• Arresting a person for a criminal offence [S.17 (1) (b) & (c)]  – although most offences which can only be tried at the Magistrates Court, rather than the higher- level Crown Court, are excluded 
• Arresting a person who has failed to answer bail [S.17 (1) (c)]
• Recapturing a prisoner or ‘escaped’ arrestee[S.17 (1) (c) & (d)]
• Saving life or limb [S.17 (1) (e)] – but not to carry out a non- emergency “welfare check”
• Preventing serious damage to property [S.17 (1) (e)]
• To conduct a search following an occupier’s arrest [S.18 (1)] – although the Police will be strictly liable if they get the wrong house, even if they had reasons to think it was the right one. 

The Police do not need judicial authority, they do not need a Court warrant to exercise those powers – but what they do need, in order to exercise any of the Section 17 powers, is an honest and objectively reasonable suspicion that the condition relied upon pertains i.e that they will find the person they are looking for, or that somebody really is at risk of imminent death or serious injury.

When Section 17 Becomes a Fake Power Used to Invade Private Lives

It is therefore a power that should only be invoked in extremis – but time and time again in my career I have seen the Police claiming to be able to use Section 17 in the most banal of circumstances – in order to ‘investigate’ an argument or domestic dispute, or to carry out a non- specific ‘welfare check’ on the occupants. 

In other words, it becomes a fake power which the Police claim to have when they want to stick their boots through people’s front doors and noses into people’s private lives.

I have been called upon on many occasions to assist those who have suffered from unlawful Police intrusions into their house under purported Section 17 powers of entry, and I will set out below a case study about one such claim which I have very recently concluded.  

Case study of an Illegal Section 17 Police Raid

 On an ordinary morning in July 2021, my clients Michael and Danielle were home together at Danielle’s house in Birmingham – rented only in her name but where Michael commonly resides, the couple being in a long-term relationship and having a number of young children together.

 An Officer of West Midlands Police, PC Slepertas, attended at the premises in order to carry out a ‘welfare check’ on the couple’s young daughter. 

 Danielle answered the door to the Officer, but did not open it fully and did not grant him entry into the house, as she had just come out of the shower and was only in a bathrobe.  She therefore explained to PC Slepertas that this was a bad time and asked if he could come back later that day.

 However, PC Slepertas refused to leave, causing Michael, who had overheard the conversation between his partner and the Officer to intervene.  Michael approached the front door and said to the Officer “Are you deaf –  can’t you hear what she said?  Can’t you see she isn’t dressed?”  Michael then swiftly shut the front door and a brief exchange of words took place between Michael and Danielle.

 Neither Michael nor Danielle wanted the Officer to enter the house at that time and nor did he have any power to force entry – as a generic welfare check (borne as it happens, on this occasion, out of misplaced concerns by the child’s school, logged a week earlier after the girl had been late for school “and this was out of character”) does not constitute a ‘life or limb’ emergency.

 Rather than leaving, however, PC Slepertas hung around outside the house, and once Danielle had got dressed and left the premises with her daughter PC Slepertas approached and attempted to engage with Danielle.  Danielle again explained that this was a bad time, as she and her daughter were running late, and she did not want to speak to the Officer.  Danielle and her daughter therefore continued on their journey.

 PC Slepertas subsequently made a statement of events in which he recorded the following information, describing his encounter with Danielle and her daughter outside the house – 

“I made an assessment of the child’s appearance and wellbeing as that was the initial reason for me to be at the location.  [She] looks very happy, well dressed, clean and well fed”.

 But PC Slepertas was not prepared to let matters rest there, and returned to the station.  As it was made clear by his subsequent actions, recorded in his statement and on his own body camera, PC Slepertas was clearly unhappy about Michael’s attitude and wanted to enter the house to speak to him – I presume to challenge him, tell him off, or otherwise interrogate him – despite not actually having any power to do so. 

How Police Manufactured a ‘Life or Limb’ Emergency

 PC Slepertas therefore, when he called for back up from his Police colleagues, framed the situation in the following terms – he sought to argue that the ‘raised voices’ he had heard between Michael and Danielle, immediately after the door was shut in his face, and the fact that he had not subsequently seen Michael emerging from the house, had given rise to a concern on his part that Michael had somehow been injured. 

This argument was indeed as ropy and threadbare as it sounds.  PC Slepertas’ alleged concern for Michael’s ‘life or limb’ was entirely based on the fact that in the relatively brief time that had passed since the initial incident, he had not seen or  heard from Michael– hardly surprising, of course, as the man clearly didn’t want anything to do with the Officer loitering outside the house. 

However, PC Slepertas and his colleagues now effectively manufactured a situation in which they were purporting to have concern that Michael was either dead or seriously injured in order to justify using Section 17 powers to smash open the family’s front door.

 This was a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and a gross distortion of the power that the Police actually have in such a situation. 

Clearly, however, PC Slepertas was determined not to have his authority infringed – and called upon the considerable force of West Midlands Police to “lay siege” to Michael’s castle; for what was, at its highest, a little bit of intemperate rudeness on Michael’s part. 

Battering Rams & Taser Guns: But Are You Feeling Safe & Well?

 Approximately 10 minutes after she had left the house, Danielle received a phone call from the Police asking that she return home, as it was said that the Police were concerned about the welfare of Michael.  Danielle was totally confused by this sudden change of tack, the Police having originally told her they were there for a welfare check on her daughter – and replied that Michael was fine. 

Michael was indeed fine, he had gone into the back garden of the premises and was talking to a neighbour over the garden fence.  

Michael then returned inside the house, and was upstairs when he heard loud banging noises coming from the front of the property.  He came to the top of the stairs in a state of semi-undress (wearing only boxer shorts and a t-shirt) and to his shock witnessed the front door of the house being smashed in by a battering ram, and numerous Police Officers, including PC Slepertas, storming into the house and shouting aggressively at him.    

One of the Officers, who was holding a drawn taser gun, immediately issued taser threats and shouted at Michael to put his hands behind his back.   

Another Officer then raced up the stairs to where Michael was standing and pushed him down into a sitting position on the stairs. The Officer with the taser gun then ‘red dotted’ Michael’s chest i.e targeted him with the weapon’s laser sights, the last precursor to firing – whilst the other Officer commenced handcuffing him. 

PC Slepertas then announced that he was going to“do” (i.e. search) “the house”.  During this search – which was entirely unlawful and had no defined object or purpose, but which included the Officers going into bedrooms and looking in cupboards, PC Slepertas telephoned his Sergeant (who was back at the Police Station) and confirmed that the reason for “putting the door in” was to carry out a “safe and well” check on Michael. 

Meanwhile, two Officers led Michael down the stairs, holding his arms, and completed handcuffing his arms behind his back. 

In response to Michael’s question as to what the “problem” was, the taser armed Officer replied- 

“The problem is you haven’t come to the door, have you sir, and spoke to us”.  

Michael quite fairly queried whether this was a crime, and the taser Officer, falsely and shamelessly, asserted that it was. 

Unlawful Search, Detention, and Intimidation Without Arrest

 Multiple Officers then commenced a search of the house, upstairs and downstairs, whilst Michael was kept captive in handcuffs upon the stairs.  The Officers refused Michael’s reasonable request to be allowed to finish dressing (put his trousers on) and repeatedly berated him for ‘not answering the door’.

 Having completed his illegal search of the house (remember, that even on the Police’s version of events, they were only here to save Michael’s life and limb, not to arrest anyone or search for anything), PC Slepertas returned to speak to the ‘prisoner.’

 Whilst another Officer held Michael’s shoulder (despite the fact that Michael was offering absolutely no resistance to the Officers, and was already handcuffed) PC Slepertas lectured him as follows, asserting that the reason why his door had “been kicked in” was as follows –

 “For all I know, you two have had an argument, and you could be at the bottom of the stairs not breathing… We need to know you’re alive.  You after 20 minutes of trying didn’t give us any response.  Therefore we’ve used Section 17 of PACE to know that you are alive and well”.

 After approximately 15 minutes, the Officers removed Michael’s handcuffs and exited the premises.  At no point did the Officers purport to arrest Michael for any offence, despite the fact that they were manifestly detaining him in handcuffs.  

In Summary: When it Comes to Police Trespass, Section 17 is the Last Refuge of the Scoundrel

The Police can force entry to houses, without a court warrant, in the specific circumstances defined by Sections 17 and 18 of PACE, but what they cannot do is – 

• Force entry because you are refusing to speak to them.
• Assume you are dead because you have had an argument with your wife.
• Force entry to carry out a “safe and well”/ welfare/ general “wellbeing” check.
• Imprison you and search your house, after entering in order to “save” you.

 That will not, however, stop a lot of Police Officers doing exactly that, and then shouting about “Section 17” in order to browbeat and bamboozle the public, and disguise their illegal actions.

 Know your rights, and seek legal advice if this happens to you.

How I Was Able to Help Michael and Danielle & What You Can Do If This Happens To You

Unfortunately, the Officers had not finished with Danielle and Michael that day. They later returned, as Danielle was returning to the house with the couple’s daughter, and re-entered, although they did not need to force entry this time – the door still hanging off its hinges from the first time.

 The Officers, led by PC Slepertas now announced that they had decided that Michael needed to leave the house because of what they called his earlier ‘domestic’ with Danielle – the argument at the door – and although Danielle made it clear that she did not support this, they then arrested Michael for “breach of the peace” when he refused to leave.

 Thus did an incident which began with an unlawful Police trespass, culminate in an unlawful arrest.

 Michael and Danielle both brought Police complaints about how they had been treated, and both complaints were investigated and rejected by West Midlands Police Professional Standards Department (PSD). In particular, PSD wrote to Danielle asserting that “entry was lawfully forced [to your house] under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.”

 As Police PSD units habitually act, not as open-minded arbiters of public complaints, but as the ‘first line of defence’ against claims, this came as no surprise to me; and was an illustration of how admissions of Police wrongdoing are hard to come by, even in the face of glaring evidence, and why it is always best if you instruct an expert Police claims solicitor to represent you, if this happens.

Holding the Police to Account: Compensation for Illegal Police Raids

Thankfully, Michael and Danielle had me, acting on their behalf by way of a no win, no fee agreement. In response to the detailed letters of claim which I sent on their behalf, West Midlands Police Legal Services department now admitted that the first entry into the couple’s home (when the door had been forced) – 

“was not a lawful exercise of Section 17 PACE powers and hence constituted a breach of Article 8 ECHR [i.e the right to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights] and trespass to land.” 

They also admitted that the handcuffing of Michael, and pointing of tasers at him during that first entry constituted acts of unlawful assault/ battery, although they disputed other aspects of the claim. 

West Midlands Police then offered my clients combined damages of £2,500 (without legal costs). This is another fine example of why in a claim like this you should always seek specialist legal representation. I confidently advised Michael and Danielle to reject this offer, and after bringing Court proceedings, was able to conclude the couples’ claim for combined damages of £19,000 plus legal costs. 

Know Your Rights and Challenge Police Trespass

So, returning to the quotation with which I began this blog post, remember what the nine most terrifying words in the language are for English Police Forces – 

“I’m Iain Gould, and I’m here to sue you.”

My clients’ names have been changed. 

How you can help

Every post on this blog is grounded in real cases, real experience, and a commitment to holding abuses of power to account. If you’ve taken something useful from this article, or if you wish to support that broader aim, I’d be grateful if you could leave a 5, yes 5-star review. Each review strengthens this work and helps others in need of straightforward, specialist expertise find their way here. 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.

This blog post recounts the case of Dimitri, a black man who was seriously injured after being unlawfully tasered by Nottinghamshire Police while attempting to flee an aggressive and racially charged confrontation during the Covid restrictions in 2021.

Despite having committed no offence and posing no threat, Dimitri was pursued by officers, tasered from behind while climbing a six-foot gate, and left with multiple fractures to his spine after falling unconscious. His ordeal was compounded by his premature removal from hospital, humiliating treatment in police custody, and criminal charges for public order and resisting arrest that were later discontinued by the CPS.

The post examines the systemic failures that followed, including a biased police complaints investigation, missing evidence, and a hollow apology that carried no meaningful consequences for the officers involved. It then explains how a wide-ranging civil claim for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution was pursued on Dimitri’s behalf, ultimately forcing the police to settle the case for £30,000 shortly before trial. The outcome demonstrates how civil litigation can succeed in delivering accountability and compensation for victims of police taser misuse where internal complaint processes so often fail.

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Use of Weapons: Holding the Police To Account for Taser Injuries

Just weeks ago, news headlines were caught by the story of a man who was paralysed after being shot from behind by a taser-wielding Metropolitan Police officer, PC Liam Newman, whilst climbing at height. The officer was quite rightly prosecuted: quite unsurprisingly, he was not convicted. Judges and jurors both, in my experience, display significant bias towards the ‘blue’ side when Police brutality is in the dock.

But that is the state of affairs in the criminal courts; in the civil justice system, in which I am an expert practitioner, very different outcomes can be achieved from very similar circumstances.

For also in January 2026, I concluded a claim for one of my clients, tasered whilst climbing a gate, winning him no less than £30,000 damages from Nottinghamshire Police.

Dimitri’s Story: A Case Study in Police Taser Misuse

Dimitri’s story takes us back to the Summer of 2021, when the Covid lockdown had been relaxed, but social distancing rules were still in place. Dimitri, a black man, was at a bar in Nottingham city centre with a male and a female friend. They had been having a good time, but were unfortunately asked to leave because it was deemed that Dimitri’s male friend was breaching the Covid laws by ‘dancing’ away from his table. Remember, this was back during that strange period when the health emergency had led to the most anodyne of activities becoming ‘criminalised.’

Racially Charged Policing and Escalation Outside a Nottingham Bar

Dimitri acted to successfully defuse a confrontation between his friend and the club bouncers, but, outside, a number of Police officers on patrol, honed in on the situation and then inflamed matters by badgering the three friends – in particular, repeatedly using the racially loaded word “boy” towards Dimitri (in fact a man in his mid- 30s).

When Dimitri remonstrated with the Officers over their use of that word, one of them, PC Butler, assaulted my client by pushing him across the street and threatening him with the words “I’ll give you a count of 10 to leave”.

Unlawful Assault, Threats and the Failure to De-Escalate

In response, Dimitri started to count 1-10 by way of mocking the Officer’s authoritarian pomposity; unfortunately, this just provoked PC Butler to lunge at my client.

Not wanting the Officer to manhandle him any further, Dimitri began to back away, but he was now pursued by all 3 of the Officers, (Butler, Wilde and McClintock). The Officers took hold of Dimitri’s arms and PC Butler attempted to handcuff him with the words, “I’ve had enough of you, I’m taking you in”.

Fleeing an Unlawful Arrest and Police Use of Force

Dimitri was convinced that he had done nothing to justify the Officer’s existing aggression towards him, and he was genuinely concerned, especially in light of what he already perceived as their racist attitude towards him, about how much further they were willing to go.

Furthermore, he had not been formally arrested for any offence and so, in the context of what he saw as an unlawful assault by the Officers (and I would certainly agree with him), Dimitri pulled free of their grasp and fled.

The Officers could have just let him go. Indeed, just moments before that was what PC Butler had been ordering – for Dimitri to leave. No one had accused Dimitri of any criminal behaviour whatsoever – not even, at this stage, the Officers themselves.

Police Ego, Adrenaline and the Decision to Give Chase

As is so often the case in this sort of situation, however, anger, ego and adrenalin seems to have flooded the Officers’ decision making faculties, and they all gave chase to my client as if he was a red-handed culprit escaping from the scene of a serious crime.

After being pursued by the Officers for some distance, Dimitri was aware of one Officer running behind him and could hear that Officer, now known to be PC McClintock, shouting that he had a taser gun.

What Are Police Taser Weapons and When Are They Lawfully Used?

Tasers, or “Conducted Energy Devices” (CEDs) are deemed by the Home Office Code of Practice on Police Use of Firearms to be weapons which may not fall within the statutory definition of a ‘firearm’, but which nevertheless require ‘special authorisation’ and should only be carried by specially trained officers.

Risks and Dangers of Police Taser Deployment

Use of taser weapons by the Police are at all times subject to the tests of reasonableness and proportionality which govern all deployments of force, in accordance with the Police “National Decision Model” (NDM). Proportionality is a very significant factor here, given the risks posed by these “less lethal weapons”, and which include in Police training materials the following –

• Head injuries from unsupported falls

• Use of taser on people who are running

• Injuries from taser-induced falls

• Cardiac damage

• Respiratory harm, including positional asphyxia

• Triggering of epileptic seizures.

Shot in the Back: Taser Use Against a Fleeing Suspect

Police Officers playing ‘cops and robbers’ and shooting people in the back with their taser weapons is sadly nothing new in my experience. As well as the tragic case which caught the headlines last month, you can read here about another similar case which was handled by my colleague Aidan Walley.

Tasering a Man at Height: A Recipe for Catastrophic Injury

It was in that context, that Dimitri attempted to climb over a metal gate, approximately 6 feet high. Using a yellow grit box to give himself elevation, Dimitri began clambering over the top of the gate. As he did so, he suddenly felt a spasm of agonising electrical pain throughout his whole body, lost control of his arms and legs and fell helplessly to the ground on the other side of the gate, losing consciousness on impact.

Broken Back, Hospitalisation and Police Custody

Dimitri now knows that what had happened was that he had been tasered by PC McClintock, who in his desperation to apprehend my client for an unspecified offence – but one which seems to, in essence, to have been ‘disrespecting’ PC Butler – the Officer had risked either killing him or inflicting catastrophic injuries.   

As it happened, Dimitri’s outcome was a far luckier one than that of the man with whose story we began this blog – but that, of course, was no thanks to PC McClintock whose actions were in fact just as reckless as those of PC Newman. Once a person has been tasered neither the Officer nor the person themselves has any control over how they fall, or what they might hit on the way down. 

Tasers must only be used proportionately – but time and time again, as I have shown in the many such cases that I have won for clients who are the victims of Police taser misuse, they are used not proportionately to deal with severe threats or apprehend the most serious criminals, but rather out of some combination of anger, laziness, error, or authoritarianism.   

When Dimitri regained consciousness, he found that his clothing had been removed and he was wearing a hospital gown.  He was immediately aware of an intense pain and discomfort in his lower back and could not feel his legs…he was terrified he was paralysed.  He also had multiple other aches and bruises, less severe, to other parts of his body.  A doctor informed Dimitri that he had suffered three fractured lumbar vertebrae in his back.  

Regrettably, Dimitri did not just have medical staff at his bedside; also present were two Police Officers who informed him that he was now going to be taken to the Police Station. To his relief, Dimitri found that he could move his toes, but he still had no sensation in his legs and was in a lot of pain. Nevertheless, the Police Officers began to ‘help’ him out of the bed.  He got the impression that the Police had pressured the hospital staff to discharge him early.   

After initially collapsing back onto the bed, Dimitri was again ‘helped’ to his feet and then escorted out of the hospital to a Police car, suffering further intense pain in his back as he had to bend down to get into the car.  He remained dressed only in his hospital gown, making him feel exposed and half naked.   

A more literal example of adding insult and humiliation to injury, it would be hard to imagine.   

On arrival at Central Nottingham Police Station, Dimitri was led before the Custody Sergeant, in great pain and discomfort, asking himself “What did I do to deserve this?” 

Only one of the emergency services, the NHS, should have been attending upon Dimitri that night, and I consider it to be travesty that he had been ripped out of his hospital bed in order to be processed on the Police Custody conveyor belt and then incarcerated in a cell in the state that he was in.  

Dimitri was told that he was under arrest for a Section 5 public order offence.  He denied any wrongdoing and requested to be allowed to speak to a solicitor. He was then carried by Officers and put into a cell as he was unable to walk properly – lest we forget, not because of any alcohol he had consumed that night, but because the Police had fractured his back.

Whilst in his cell, Dimitri continued to be tormented by the pain in his back and the shock and confusion of everything that had happened to him.  He felt nauseous, faint and clammy and his vision was blurred.  He asked to see a doctor, but was first taken to an interview room to see the duty solicitor.  

He also made it clear that he wanted to register an official complaint about what had been done to him.   

Dimitri was now told that he was going to be charged with both a public order offence and resisting arrest.  He felt that this was because he had had the temerity to complain.  

Finally, he was seen by a nurse who deemed him unfit for Custody, issued him with painkillers and advised that he should be returned to A&E for further assessment.  

Accordingly, Dimitri was now driven back to Nottingham Hospital – in a Police van not an ambulance – where the Officer collected a wheelchair, wheeled Dimitri back into A&E and abandoned him there, along with the clothes he had been wearing the night before – most of which had been damaged as they had been cut off Dimitri by medical staff attending upon him whilst he was still unconscious.  One of his friends came to collect him from the hospital later that day, following his official discharge.  

For months afterwards. Dimitri was unable to work or to exercise, and required considerable personal care and help around the home with the ordinary tasks of day-to-day living, most of this care provided by his ex-partner who let him move back in with her given the terrible state that he was initially in.

Thankfully, after 3-4 months, Dimitri was able to return to work and by the Spring of the following year, 2022, he had returned to running and exercising in the gym, and was feeling around 80% better.

What turned out, therefore, to be relatively minor spinal fractures, from which Dimitri was able to eventually make a good recovery, was purely a matter of good fortune; PC McClintock’s gross recklessness in tasering Dimitri as he was climbing could easily have cost him the use of his legs – if not worse.

Criminal Charges Collapse as CPS Discontinues Prosecution

As for the criminal charges which Dimitri had faced – and which PC McClintock had apparently thought it was worthwhile death, brain damage or paralysis to apprehend Dimitri for – they very rapidly vanished in a puff of smoke.  Dimitri had pleaded not guilty at Nottingham Magistrates Court in late July 2021, and then just over a month later, in September 2021, was advised that the CPS had discontinued the prosecution (on both charges). 

Police Complaints Process: Institutional Bias and Lost Evidence

 Just as it is very difficult for the victims of Police taser misuse to achieve justice in the criminal courts, so it is to achieve justice through the Police complaints system; both being presumptively hostile environments for those who allege Police brutality.    

The investigation by Nottinghamshire Police Professional Standards Department showcased many of the ‘usual suspects’ of a Police complaint enquiry – 

• No adverse inferences were drawn from the failure of any of the officers to turn on their body cameras until after Dimitri had been tasered.    
• The accounts of the officers were given preferential treatment, whilst Dimitri’s was confined to an unsigned statement taken from him whilst he was still in custody, in considerable pain and discomfort and under the effects of heavy painkilling medication; no attempt had been made to take a fuller statement from him when he was better, or to properly explore and understand his perspective. This is reflective of an unpalatable truth, but one I have had to write about on so many occasions: those who complain to the Police about other members of the public are treated as victims, whilst those who complain to the Police about other Police officers, are treated as vandals.  
• The complaint investigation relied upon key pieces of evidence which the Force subsequently managed to lose, such that they were not available to be used in evidence in Dimitri’s civil claim: Custody CCTV footage, some body camera footage filmed after Dimitri’s tasering, email correspondence and the photographs of Dimitri’s injuries taken whilst he was in Custody.  

My client found that catalogue of errors by the Police to be astonishing; I found it to be appalling, but at the same time, almost to be expected.  

No particular criticism was levelled at the main culprit, PC McClintock despite what I would describe as misleading inaccuracies and mendacious omissions from his statement of events, most glaringly the fact that he failed to reference the fact that Dimitri was 6 feet off the ground, on top of a gate, when McClintock “red- dotted” and shot him with the taser – instead presenting an account which made it seem as though Dimitri was at ground level whilst tasered.

The complaint investigation was concluded in November 2021 and reached the following key findings –  

• PC McClintock’s use of the taser upon Dimitri was conceded to be “not acceptable” as being “not in line with training and best practice”. 
• Dimitri’s arrest for a public order offence was deemed “not unlawful” but it was conceded, in similar mealy- mouthed middle-management fashion that “it may have been possible to progress that investigation without the need to detain you in custody.” 
• An apology was also offered for PC Wilde’s admitted use of the word “boy” towards Dimitri, although it was argued that the Officer did not intend a “racist connotation.”  

The overall conclusion was as follows – 

“On behalf of Nottinghamshire Police, I would like to apologise for the manner in which you sustained your injury. Nottinghamshire Police do take pride in providing a quality service to the public. Whilst the Officers were responding to the events outside the bar, they have clearly not provided you with the quality of service we expect.” 

Or, I might add, the public deserve.  

But what were the consequences of these findings? Nothing of any significance. The whole matter was treated as if it were a workplace appraisal rather than an investigation into a misuse of power and weapons, a brutal assault that (literally) broke a man’s back.

“Sorry, Not Sorry”: Police Apologies Without Accountability

East Midlands Police Legal Services, representing Nottinghamshire Police, were even more obstructive and antagonistic in their approach – they thought they could deny liability outright, and in all aspects, notwithstanding the findings of their complaint department. They argued not only that Dimitri’s arrest was lawful, but that PC McClintock’s use of the taser was reasonable and proportionate, contending that –  

• “Opinions and conclusions of a complaint and disciplinary investigation are immaterial to the question of civil liability. Such an investigation relates to different issues, for a different purpose and subject to a different legal framework.” 
• “In the context of police complaints, the Defendant maintains her apology to the Claimant. That should not be undermined by denial of liability in the context of civil litigation.”  

That latter comment is an absolutely classic example of trying to have your cake and eat it – and also why Police apologies generally aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, especially in the context of a complaint.  

The former comment is also an interesting illustration of how when it suits the Police to say that complaints and claims are inextricably linked, and that therefore a claim response should be delayed pending the complaint investigation, they will do so – but that when it doesn’t, they will argue the exact opposite: reinforcing the conclusion of my recent blog post about whether claims can be brought whilst complaints are ongoing.  

In terms of excusing the taser use, the Police in their Defence contended that –  

• Dimitri “had already shown himself to be violent towards officers” (Despite the fact that he was notably not arrested for assaulting a police constable). 
• PC McClintock was “scared for his own safety” (Despite the fact that he was the pursuer, and his ‘quarry’ was actively trying to put a metal gate in between the two of them).  
• “The officers gave him ample opportunity to walk away…He failed to do so and ran from the scene.” (Which would seem to be something of a non- sequitur).  
• It was concerning that “the Claimant would go to such lengths to escape a relatively minor incident.”

Civil Action Against Nottinghamshire Police. How I Helped My Client Turn a Half-Hearted Apology into a £30K Settlement

Surely a ‘minor incident’ – in the Police’s own words – could not justify tasering somebody in such a vulnerable position as Dimitri, could it? Yet that was what the Police sought to argue, fighting the civil proceedings which I brought against them on behalf of Dimitri almost all the way to trial.  

As far as Dimitri was concerned PCs Butler, Wilde & McClintock had not been behaving like officers, but members of a street gang. He had fled from them out a genuine concern for his safety, in the face of their totally unnecessary aggression, and they had only doubled- down on this by hunting him down, and, to all intents and purposes, throwing him off a wall. Police failures to de- escalate and respond with professional proportionality rather than egotism and emotion are what leads to so many similar situations in my experience, from those resulting in relatively minor but still avoidable injuries to the tragic or near- tragic such as this.  

Dimitri did not accept that he had been committing any “public order” offences and I very much agreed with him. Therefore, after giving him access to justice via a “no win, no fee” agreement, I helped him to present a litigated claim which was not just confined to his injuries.

We sued the Police on multiple fronts –  

• For assault and battery 
• For false imprisonment (aka wrongful arrest) 
• For malicious prosecution (aka bringing the initial charges as a “smokescreen” designed to hide the actual wrongdoing of the officers, and in particular PC McClintock).  

So, the claim was not just about brutality and physical injury, but deprivation of a law-abiding citizen’s liberty and active Police malice, an attempt at criminalising an innocent person in order to deflect from Police wrongdoing. Bringing the claim on such a broad front would entitle Dimitri to significantly higher damages than it would have done if confined to the ‘bones and bruises’ of personal injury only, and I had the confidence to know that the findings of a civil court were likely to go much further than the admissions of the Police complaint system.

£30,000 Damages for Police Taser Misuse and Malicious Prosecution

After all statements of case, evidential disclosure, expert evidence and witness statements had been served and finalised, with the case listed for a 6 day trial at Nottingham County Court commencing 23 February 2026, the Police and their solicitors caved in on 5 January 2026 and accepted Dimitri’s offer – made over a year earlier – to settle his claim for £30,000 damages. In addition, they will pay the legal costs incurred in this 5-year battle for justice.

Final Thoughts: Police Taser Misuse and the Fight for Accountability

I was very proud to represent Dimitri, and he wrote the following in his 5 star review of my services afterwards: 

“From the very beginning, Iain was professional, knowledgeable and approachable. He took the time to clearly explain the legal process, kept me informed throughout, and showed genuine care and commitment to my case. During an extremely stressful and difficult period in my life, Iain’s support, expertise and reassurance gave me real confidence. I would not hesitate to recommend Iain Gould to anyone who needs strong, reliable and dedicated legal representation.”

–  iaingould.co.uk reviewed by Dimitri Moses on 20/01/2026

Thank you for that review, Dimitri. One thing, however, is for certain – Dimitri will not be the last victim of almost criminally-reckless use of taser weapons by the Police, as ever-increasing numbers of officers are authorised to carry them. Until the day that Police vetting, training and decision making is what it should be, I will be here to help those who have suffered from their violence.

How you can help

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

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

CAUTION: THIS BLOG POST CONTAINS DISTRESSING VIDEO AND IMAGES.

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

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

Content Authenticity Statement

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

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

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

– UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

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

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

Police Professional Standards Department Clears Officers of Wrongdoing

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

Attempted Deflection of a Death or Serious Injury Complaint

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

Why This Blog Has Been Published

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

What Happened to Rocco?

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

Police Investigation Report Misrepresents the Incident

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

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

Initial Police Confrontation With a Minor

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

Unlawful Detention Without Arrest or Stop and Search Powers

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

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

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

Police Admit Rocco Was Not Under Arrest

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

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

Escalation Rather Than De-Escalation by Police Officers

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

Failure to Provide Immediate Medical Assistance

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

Graphic Evidence of Serious Injury

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

Police Complaint Outcome: “Service Was Acceptable”

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

Key Failings of the Police Complaint Investigation

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

The following catalogue of errors then occurred –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does This Tell Us About the Police Complaint System?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Can Be Done About It / What Happens Next?

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

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

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

Watch this space.

How you can help

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

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

Update: 28 January 2026

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

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

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

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

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Can the Police Lawfully Arrest You Without Properly Explaining Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information to be given on arrest

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

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

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

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

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

(a) that he is under arrest; or

(b) of the ground for the arrest,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Justice Clarke ruled as follows:

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

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

When Vague Arrest Grounds Make Detention Unlawful

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

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

Using Section 28 PACE to Win a Claim for Wrongful Arrest

A Real Case Study: Compensation for Arrest Without Proper Grounds

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

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

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

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

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

An Ancient Common Law Right Reinforced by Modern Statute

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

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

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

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

How you can help

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

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

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

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

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

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

Content Authenticity Statement

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

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

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

The Reality of the Police Complaints Process

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

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

Why Police Complaints Can Take Years to Resolve

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

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

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

There Is No Legal Bar to Parallel Civil Proceedings

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

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

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

Misconduct Panels Are Not “Biased” by Civil Claims

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

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

Criminal Proceedings and Civil Claims: The Limited Exception

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

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

The Strategic Answer: Waiting May Strengthen Your Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

How you can help

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

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

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

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

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

Content Authenticity Statement

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

What powers of arrest do the Police have?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was able to help him in the following ways – 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My client’s name has been changed.

How you can help

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

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

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

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

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

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

Content Authenticity Statement

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

Wrongful Arrest Caused by Court Summons Sent to the Wrong Address

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liability for Detention in Court Cells Following a Wrongful Arrest

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

How Compensation for Wrongful Arrest Is Properly Assessed

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Outcome

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

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

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

Client Testimonial About Iain Gould, Actions Against the Police Solicitor

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

“Brilliant firm

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

How you can help

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

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Background: Conditional Bail and Electronic Tagging

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

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

Wrongful Arrest for Alleged Breach of Bail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Is Responsible for Wrongful Arrests and Detention?

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

It turned out that what had happened was the following – 

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

Compensation for Wrongful Arrest and Unlawful Detention

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

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

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

My client’s name has been changed.  

My Client’s Testimonial

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

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

How You Can Help

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