Tag: actions against the police; solicitor; lawyer; iain gould; compensation claims

One Rule for the Rich?

Screenshot
The Tory Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell is currently under significant pressure after a call for a formal inquiry following his outburst at two police officers on the evening of Wednesday 19 September.
 
 
Upon leaving Downing Street, it is alleged he asked officers to open the gates that lead on to Whitehall.  When the officers refused and asked him to leave via a side gate, he allegedly shouted ‘You fxxxing plebs, I’ll have your jobs for this’, and ‘You don’t know who I am.  I am the Chief Whip.  You don’t run this fxxxing country’.
 
 
The officers recorded this outburst in their pocket notebooks and subsequently in a report and yet to date no action has been taken against the Minister.
 
 
This is surprising as swearing aggressively at a police officer constitutes a potential offence under the Public Order Act.
 
 
Mr Mitchell can count himself lucky.  My client, George Jennings (name changed for privacy reasons) of Leicester was less fortunate.
 
 
Shopping in Morrisons Supermarket one day, he encountered a police officer in full uniform also doing his shopping.  Mr Jennings approached him and said, ‘There is a 9.2 million pound deficit for the next 3 years and you are here shopping for bloody shoelaces and shoe polish.  Do you think this is acceptable?’
 
 
The officer was taken aback.  After a pause, the officer advised George that he needed new laces in order to enable him to chase criminals.  The officer then warned Mr Jennings that his conduct amounted to a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, i.e. that George had used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.
 
 
Mr Jennings advised the officer that he would lodge a complaint and promptly visited the nearby Police Station.
 
 
Some 2 months later, George was charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act and the case proceeded to trial.
 
 
The officer provided a statement and accused Mr Jennings of saying, ‘There is a 3 something million deficit for the tax payers and you’re in here, why aren’t you out in the street dealing with crime’ and ‘I’m going to report you for shopping on duty.  You’re a bloody waste of money’.  During this encounter, George was said to be aggressive and intimidating.
 
 
Somewhat remarkably, not only was Mr Jennings prosecuted for his ‘threatening and abusive behaviour’ but he was also convicted by the Magistrates!  His defence was hindered by the Police or Crown Prosecution Service’s failure to disclose CCTV footage from the supermarket.
 
 
George appealed and the case proceeded to the Crown Court.  In advance of the Appeal Hearing, the relevant CCTV footage was finally disclosed.  Although there is no audio, no one could conclude from the actions of Mr Jennings that he was aggressive or intimidating in his encounter with the officer or, even more significantly, that the officer showed any signs of alarm or distress.  At Court, the prosecution case collapsed and no evidence was offered.
 
 
I am now pursuing a civil claim against the police for compensation on Mr. X’s behalf.
 
 
The police officer in question was caught by my client doing something he shouldn’t have. He was embarrassed.  Because Mr Jennings had the temerity to lodge a formal complaint, the officer then instigated a formal prosecution. But for the CCTV footage George could still have a conviction for breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Instead, Mr Jennings ought to be compensated by Leicestershire Constabulary and the individual officer and force’s reputation questioned. If, like in the case of (the rich and powerful) Andrew Mitchell, the officer took the view that there had been no offence committed, (the considerably less well off) Mr Jennings and the police would have avoided all of this. In the meantime, I’m sure that the multi-million pound Leicestershire Police deficit is now even greater because of this ludicrous prosecution. Surely a man who claims to ‘run this fxxxing country’ would have something to say about that.
 

 

Would you believe it? Custody CCTV footage and the police

Custody CCTV footage can often be helpful in an actions against the police claim.

Every police station in the country has a CCTV system in place recording everything that happens in the custody suite. Not only does the footage produced by the system provide vital evidence about a Claimant’s general demeanor immediately post-arrest, but it can also confirm or disprove the arresting officer’s initial arrest account. Often it contradicts the stated position of the police in correspondence, for example if they deny allegations of assault, leading to compensation being paid for the police’s wrongdoing.

Consequently, it is vitally important that custody CCTV footage is retained and made available to the Claimant and his actions against the police solicitor as soon as possible.

Many police forces operate a system whereby their CCTV footage is deliberately wiped after 90 days. In these days of digital technology, I often wonder why.

Also, increasingly I am coming across situations where CCTV footage is being wiped, despite my request within time that relevant CCTV footage be preserved. Excuses I have received recently include:

‘The Custody suite footage whilst requested by yourselves prior to the expiry of the 90 day  period was addressed to the incorrect staff…’;

‘Your letter was received but unfortunately not acted upon…’ and;

‘there is no CCTV footage available as data was not captured due to technical difficulties…’

I have no doubt that these excuses are tactical, as they prevent access to evidence which may assist the Claimant and harm the police’s defence.

We all have an interest in how public funds are spent. If CCTV evidence will assist in early settlement of a claim that is in everyone’s best interests, especially the police’s, who will save money and time. Equally, if it contradicts the Claimant’s version of events, that should be known by his solicitor as soon as possible, who may take a different view as to the prospects of success. In short: custody CCTV footage should be retained and produced in every actions against the police case. Failure to do so can only be viewed with suspicion.

 

Why swearing at the police is not a crime

I recently read with interest the Telegraph’s report that a 19-year-old man’s s.5 Public Order Act conviction was overturned by Mr. Justice Bean recently on the grounds that his use of swear words could not have caused the necessary ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ required to convict.

In response, Peter Smyth (chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation) complained that ‘if judges are going to say you can swear at police then everyone is going to start doing it’.

In my opinion, Mr. Smyth has missed the point completely. I am presently dealing with a similar actions against the police case for a client who was stopped and searched by the police while going to the bank. My client suffers from panic attacks, for which he has received therapy. When approached by them, the police officers used demeaning, offensive and rude language, searched him and made him agitated. He was arrested for a breach of s.5 Public Order Act and forced to sit on the floor of the police transit van while they drove him to the police station. During the journey and at the station he suffered a full-blown panic attack. My client was detained and searched again, and only released once a fixed penalty notice had been issued.

The police say he used abusive language which justified the arrest and subsequent charge under s.5. I dispute this. My client’s alleged use of swear words was in the course of his everyday language (e.g. he is alleged to have said ‘why the f— do you pick on me I just want to go to the f—ing bank.’). He was not squaring up to or challenging the officers, quite the opposite as he was using distraction techniques to try to avoid having a panic attack.

It is the context of the swear words which is important, and the way in which they are used, that may give rise to the ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ necessary to secure a s.5 Public Order Act conviction. S.5 was never intended to allow easy prosecutions for those who use swear words in every day conversation, rather it was intended to deal with those who cause fear and upset; the type of people we would all try to avoid. The sooner the police recognise the difference the better.

 

Actions Against the Police Solicitor

Hi!

As this is my first post, I thought you should know a little about me. I’m a solicitor (lawyer) based in Liverpool. My main practice area is actions against the police work, although I also deal with personal injury cases as they often overlap.

I represent people from all walks of life, some of whom have had regular encounters with the Police, others only the once!

All my client’s have a story to tell and some of these stories will shock you!

In this website you will find information about what actions against the police are, why I chose to write about them, case reports, and commentary.

If you want to contact me or discuss the blog, please post a comment or contact me via the online form below or my firm’s website.

I hope you enjoy reading (and commenting) on the blog.