Tag: iain gould

What to do if you’ve been wrongfully identified by Police Facial Recognition technology (Part 2)

Picture of a UK police facial recognition van.
A UK police facial recognition van.

In this article I discuss the increasing prevalence of Police Facial Recognition Cameras, whether their use infringes civil liberties/ rights and what you can do if you have been wrongfully arrested or detained as a result of Facial Recognition technology. 

This is a continuance of last week’s blog post on the increasing number of arrests based on Police use of Facial Recognition Technology and the wrongful arrests which may arise as a result of its use.

Is there Ethnic Imbalance in the way Live Facial Recognition Works?

 A Live Facial Recognition (LFR) camera takes digital images of a crowd moving through the “zone of recognition” in real time. 

The LFR software then automatically detects individual human faces amongst the crowd, and extracts facial features from the image to create a “biometric template”.  

The LFR software (the Genie in this particular bottle) then compares the biometric template with those of the faces on the pre-determined Police watch list. 

The facial images from the crowd are compared against the facial images from the watch list, and the LFR system generates a “similarity score”, a numerical value indicating the extent of similarity between the faces. The operators of the system will have set a “threshold value” to determine when the LFR software will generate an alert indicating a possible match. 

The decision-making process then reverts from the robot to the human: Police Officers must review the alerts and make a decision as to what, if any, further action to take. 

The Police guidance set out in the Authorised Professional Practice for live facial recognition seeks to reassure us – “In this way, the LFR system works to assist Police personnel to make identifications, rather than the identification process being conducted solely by an algorithm.” 

Early, legitimate, concerns that LFR algorithms were mis-identifying black people’s faces more often than white people’s, and women’s more than men’s, (see the Bridges judgment of the Court of Appeal, 2020 ) have to some degree been assuaged, and the pace of technological change is such that these algorithms are surely only going to become better and more accurate with each passing year. The Met Police point to a report commissioned from the National Physical Laboratory, which seems to confirm that LFR systems, when used at the highest settings, now produce no statistically significant difference in outcomes between demographic groups (i.e people of different genders/ ethnicities).  

But the devil, as always, is in the detail. LFR algorithms have configurable settings for face detection – good quality frontal face images of sufficient size giving the most accurate identification results. The settings can be ‘lowered’ to increase the number of faces processed – but such a relaxation of the criteria, allowing poorer/less accurate images to be used by the system increases the “false match rate”.  

As I highlighted above, at the highest ‘face match’ settings there were no false positives but at lower settings – casting the net wider – not only did “false positives” occur but they were disproportionality higher for black subjects than for Asian or white subjects – “The demographic variation in the nominated score distribution does not affect equitability if settings are such that the chance of a false alert is very low.  However, if settings allow for a higher number of false alerts, these are likely to occur disproportionality within black or Asian ethnicities.” (NPL report, 9.3). 

The NPL report goes on to state that the “False Positive Identification Rate” (FPIR) is equitable between gender and ethnicity and age at face-match threshold 0.6 and above.  At face-match thresholds lower than 0.6 FPIR ‘equality of outcomes’ varies between demographic groups dependant on the settings of operational deployment, including the size and composition of the watch list and the number of crowd subjects passing through the zone of recognition during deployment, which led the NPL to caution  – “Given our observations on the demographic variation in FPIR, we would recommend, where operationally possible, the use of a face match of 0.6 or above to minimise the likelihood of any false positive and adverse impact on equitability” (NPL report, 1.4.6). 

All of this must be considered through the lens of the Equality Act 2010  – Chief Officers must demonstrate compliance with their non-delegable Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under Section 149 Equality Act 2010, particularly in terms of taking steps to “rigorously” understand and monitor their LFR system’s algorithmic performance in relation to statistical accuracy and demographic variants (which as, highlighted above, depends on the settings that its operators have implemented).  

As the APP guidance enjoins its Officers, Forces must “Satisfy themselves that everything reasonable that could be done has been done to ensure that the software does not have an unacceptable bias on any basis, including on the grounds of race, sex, religion or belief.  No system is every 100% non bias. There is always something within the system (and operator).  Forces need to identify and understand the degree to which this occurs and then mitigate against this.” 

Clearly, therefore, this is still an area of some concern, and needs to remain on our own – shall we say – ‘watch list’.

Practice not Theory: Legal Remedies for a ‘False Positive’ Arrest

 As the views I have expressed in these posts make clear, I think a good argument has been made for the usefulness of this technology in modern day policing, and so I am prepared to concede the theory of the case.  But that doesn’t alter the fact that I will always strive to bring to each and every individual case in which a person consults me because they have been unlawfully arrested/detained by the Police, an analytical attention to detail, a questioning of the facts to find out what went wrong –and a refusal to stop until the full truth has been uncovered. This is because whenever theory is put into practice, mistakes and abuses can occur, and when they do I offer my 30 years of success in litigation against the Police as proof of the fact that if there is a path for a wrongfully arrested person to achieve restitution/compensation, I will find it.  

The checks and balances on this most recent of Policing tools already exist, and so, if you have been wrongly arrested on the basis of a supposed facial recognition match don’t hesitate to contact me for advice. 

My daily job is holding Police power to account, and in regard to this new technological power, the following considerations are particularly pertinent – 

  • have the LFR cameras been used in an overt way, or have they been deployed in a manner constituting covert surveillance, thereby potentially breaching the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)?   
  • have the algorithmic settings unfairly increased the risk of non-white faces being misidentified (clearly a problem which still exists despite significant improvements); or indeed have they been set so low, or provided with such inadequate material in the form of the ‘watch list’ (blurry/ low- resolution or older images), that the risk of “false positives” for all demographic groups is too high? 
  • all the hazards and risks dependent in the human part of the process: i.e decision- making and deployment of Officers to respond to the potential face matches:
  • notwithstanding what the algorithm has indicated – is it reasonable to believe that a person identified by the LFR system actually is the person on the watch list? 
  • is it reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, to use force or threats of force to detain the suspected ‘match’ ? 
  • have the Officers on the ground actually got the right person? – errors in this regard are bound to occur, just as much as they do in the deployment of ‘stingers’ against innocent people’s vehicles. 
  • the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – in particular Code G (governing the rules of a lawful arrest)  and Code D (identification procedures)   
  • the Human Rights Act 1988  – use of LFR may engage Article 8 (the right to private and family life) and/or Article 9 (freedom of thoughts, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) 
  • the Data Protection Act 2018  
  • has the authorisation for deployment of LFR been given by an Officer of senior rank (generally, not below the rank of Superintendent), defining the boundaries of time/ geography for the deployment and sufficiently justifying the same in writing?

The Authorised Professional Practice also sets out the ‘paper trail’ of documentation which must be created in support of each LFR operation, and which a lawyer such as myself would seek to obtain and interrogate in the event of a wrongful arrest occurring. These include – 

  • LFR Standard Operating Procedure including the criteria for watch lists; sources of imagery; guidance for when an alert is generated and arrangements to ensure that the deployment is overt (e.g. signage) : Setting the Forces’ false alert rate in policy and assessing the success of deployment against these metrics to ensure ongoing proportionality of use and reassurance to the public
  • the written authority document for each LFR operation, outlining the aim of the deployment and, in compliance with the Human Rights Act, explaining how and why the deployment is necessary (not just desirable) and proportionate 
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) : explaining what the “pressing social needs” are for each particular LFR deployment; why sensitive processing is needed to achieve the legitimate aim and why the purpose cannot be achieved through less intrusive means
  • Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)
  • Community Impact Assessment (CIA) 
  • LFR training materials so that those Officers and staff using the technology fully understand its technical capabilities (and limitations) and how to properly respond to an alert. 

In Conclusion

 We can’t alter the pace of technological change, but we can ensure the integrity of fundamental rights and upon them we should accept no encroachment.

 From here on the front lines, I am confident that Police misconduct experts such as myself, who:

  • know what they are doing
  • know how to obtain the necessary disclosure from the Police; and
  • can read between the lines to build our clients’ cases

will be able secure justice and win compensation for those wrongfully arrested as a result of Facial Recognition technology, using the existing laws and policy safeguards which ringfence its deployment, as set out above. 

But as ever, those laws and rights must be exercised in practical terms to ensure that they are not lost, and that they fill both their primary purpose of compensating the wrong individual and secondary purpose of protecting others from similar harm, by policing the Police. 

Let the Police have the best modern tools they want; lawyers like me will use the best traditions of the law to Police them when they misuse those tools – if you’ve been wrongly identified by facial recognition, seek expert legal advice as soon as possible – hold power to account, don’t unplug it.

How you can help me

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

What to do if you’ve been wrongfully identified by Police Facial Recognition technology (Part 1)

Picture of a UK police facial recognition van.
A UK police facial recognition van.

In this article I discuss the increasing prevalence of Police Facial Recognition Cameras, whether their use infringes civil liberties/ rights and what you can do if you have been wrongfully arrested or detained as a result of Facial Recognition technology.

As an expert solicitor in claims against the Police, I am being increasingly consulted by people who have been the ‘mistaken identity’ victims of wrongful arrest due to Police facial recognition cameras.  I expect such consultations will only increase as the use of this technology becomes ever more ubiquitous.

What is facial recognition technology?

Data obtained by the Guardian newspaper and Liberty Investigates found that the number of faces scanned by live facial recognition cameras last year doubled to near 5 million, and these figures are surely bound to rapidly increase as more and more Forces follow the trial first blazed by the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police. 

The Police are currently using three different types of facial recognition –

  1. Retrospective Facial Recognition (RFR)
  2. Operator Initiated Facial Recognition (OIFR)
  3. Live Facial Recognition (LFR).

Retrospective Facial Recognition

Retrospective Facial Recognition (RFR) techniques are, as the name suggests, applied after a crime has been reported, and as part of the Police investigative process. Images of the suspect, taken from such sources as CCTV, mobile phone, dashcam or doorbell footage are fed into the RFR system which then compares them to the ‘mug shots’ of previous arrestees which have been retained on the Police National Database (PND). 

When the RFR system flags a potential match, the accuracy of that match is then required to be reviewed by the investigating Officer to ensure accuracy, before an arrest attempt is made.

The benefits of automating this part of the criminal investigative process do seem quite obvious and are hard to argue against – provided that the ‘artificial intelligence’ result is not unthinkingly accepted by the human beings involved without the application of reason and common sense; and assuming, of course, that the result has not been ‘contaminated’ by data inputting or recording errors. 

Operator Initiated Facial Recognition

Operator Initiated Facial Recognition (OIFR) is, effectively, an app on Police Officer’s phones, which they can use to photograph a “person of interest” and check their identity. The Police position is that this is a reasonable and proportionate alternative to arrest. If you are not who they think you are, the app should confirm this, and you should be allowed on your way.

However, the introduction of this technology must not be allowed to be used by the Police as a ‘backdoor’ to circumvent the long- standing tradition that you do not have to identify yourself to an officer (if he does not already reasonably suspect you of a crime), unless you are in control of a vehicle, and if a person has been detained, without arrest, for the purposes of being scanned for an OIFR check, and that result is negative – they will probably have the right to claim compensation for wrongful arrest, even if only for a short period of time.

Read more about this here.

Live Facial Recognition

The deployment of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology is probably the most controversial of these three practices. It has principally been spear-headed by the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police. Other Forces are bound to follow, as the speed of change picks up.

Mobile LFR units (i.e. vans fitted with cameras) are deployed to locations where there are likely to be large crowds, in order to scan the faces of passersby in real time, comparing those faces to a ‘watch list’ of wanted individuals, identifying matches as fast as only an AI can think (i.e. in the blink of an eye), whilst the person is still in the vicinity of the LFR van. The system will then ping an alert so that its flesh and blood policing brothers can take action – if appropriate.

Home Office guidance makes it clear the buck for arrest continues to stop with the Officer on the grounds that all possible matches are only that – possibilities.  Rules governing the need for reasonable suspicion and necessity for arrest, set down by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and which enable those who have been wrongly arrested in this country to seek restitution, remain fully in-play in these scenarios and the Police must not allow the AI system to replace their own brains or derogate reason, respect and dignity, or so we are promised –  

“Facial recognition technology will never replace the need for human judgment, insight and empathy. This is not automated decision making – Police Officers will always make the decisions about whether and how to use any suggested matches.”

If the LFR system does not make a match between your face and that of a person on the watch list (that has been inputted into the system for this particular deployment), then your biometric data, i.e. the image/analysis of your facial features is supposed to be immediately and automatically deleted.

Given such parameters, I personally have no problem with the use of this technology in principle. The Police make a fair point when they say that this is really just a much more efficient, and hopefully more foolproof version, of the system of daily briefings that Officers have always undergone, wherein they are provided with the images of suspects to be on the lookout for – particularly in given areas or at certain times and events. Now, however, rather than each Officer on patrol having only one pair of eyes, the LFR system has a ‘thousand eyes’ and obvious technological advantages over human eyesight and memory.

In this respect, therefore, you could see the LFR camera van as the natural evolution of the age old ‘wanted poster’.  It is not an infringement of civil liberties for an offender to be wary about going to a social or sporting event, or other busy ‘public square’ environment, for fear of being identified by LFR and I am not the type of lawyer who turns into a Luddite at the mere thought of such technology. The Police can pull you out of a crowd right now and arrest you on the basis of human assessment that you match the appearance of a suspect. In that sense nothing has changed.

It is not, in my opinion, accurate to describe LFR surveillance as turning “us all into walking ID cards [and] the streets of Britain into Police line- ups” (Big Brother Watch/ Liberty Investigates). Unless our records are already in Police databases in accordance with existing laws, our facial images will bring only a blank, and will not be retained. It is a gross exaggeration to suggest that this technology is a tool for tyranny, and that the next step is a Big Brother state, an authoritarian dystopia such as China. All power can be misused, but that doesn’t mean we need to be frightened of it and keep the switches off. It just means that, as ever, the public, in conjunction with expert lawyers like me, need to police the Police’s use of the technology and hold them to account when they overstep the bounds, make mistakes and cause harm.

In this sense, LFR cameras can be equated to the now- commonplace ANPR cameras on our roads, which can be used by the Police to track vehicles in near real time or build up a historical map of their past journeys. LFR does not go as far as that, because our faces are not numberplates and their data is not being stored once scanned, unless a match with the ‘watch list’ occurs. As I have said; whilst I think it is absolutely crucial to uphold the traditions of British justice and Policing by Consent, I do not think that the best way to do this is to try to (futilely) live in the past and seek to deny the Police the available tools of the modern era of Artificial Intelligence and pervasive public video surveillance. To do so would be an exercise doomed to failure, and ultimately counter-productive.

I don’t call for the cameras to be turned off: indeed, I have repeatedly praised the benefits to justice of the prevalence of video recording devices – both Police body cameras  and private citizen’s mobile phones  – and called for them to be turned on more often. My case work has long since convinced me of the social good that mobile phones serve, in re-dressing the old imbalance between the word of a Police Officer and that of a member of the public.

Policing by Consent?

Police Forces can make a persuasive case as to why they should be allowed to utilise this technology, particularly LFR. Rather than it being a system designed to allow the State to surveil ordinary citizens, LFR is effectively watching for the faces of “persons of interest” from a pre-determined watch list and therefore ‘looking through’ everybody else as if they weren’t there.

Police justifications for LFR include –

  • locating and arresting those already wanted for criminal offences
  • preventing people who may cause harm from entering an area (e.g. people subject to football banning orders)
  • locating people whom intelligence suggests may be at risk of harm, or pose a risk to others (e.g. missing persons; stalkers; suspected terrorists). 

Such uses are naturally likely to garner public support. The Guardian article referred to above quotes Lindsey Chiswick, Director of Intelligence at the Met and the National Police Chief Council Lead on Facial Recognition, quoting surveys indicating that 80% of Londoners were in support of the Police using facial recognition cameras.

This concludes the first part of my blog post: next week I will address the issue of ‘ethnic inequalities’ – are these systems mis-identifying the faces of black people more often than white?  – and address what everyone can do if they have been the victim of a wrongful arrest as a result of Facial Recognition.

How you can help me

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

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

Image of a Merseyside Police car

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was again investigated by Merseyside Police PSD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How you can help me

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

Assaulted by Private Security Guards: £20,000 damages for Butlins Brutality

I have written blog posts on many prior occasions about the lawless violence of private security ‘guards’ who behave like thugs- for- hire at festivals, in shops and at private entertainment venues.

The most recent such case that I have settled, against Butlins, is particularly shocking because its victims were a mother and her 7-year-old son, who is severely autistic.  

In February 2023 my client Maria and her young son were holidaying at Butlins Skegness resort. They had been walking through a theatre known as the “Skyline Pavilion” and had stopped to watch a dress rehearsal of a show which was taking place on the main stage. Our client’s son started dancing to the music and Maria got out her mobile phone to film him having fun. Although it was late, they were certainly not the only guests around – several other members of the public were watching the performers, including some sitting down at tables.

Maria was then approached by a male security guard who told her that she had to leave. When Maria protested about this, she was swarmed by other security staff, including a female security guard who took hold of Maria’s left arm and forced it up behind her back and began to forcibly march her from the pavilion. When Maria became distressed that she was being dragged away from her son in this manner, the female guard then took hold of Maria’s head and knocked her legs out from under her, in what can only be described as a ‘martial- arts’ manoeuvre, causing Maria to fall forcefully onto the ground. The female guard then proceeded to hold my client in a headlock on the ground, with Maria screaming in pain and distress. Maria was then pulled to her feet and pushed and held against a railing, before being forcibly escorted from the pavilion to a security hut.

This violence was completely unlawful and unnecessary. On no analysis could it be said that Maria was committing a breach of the peace (an actual or imminent act/ threat of violence to person or property) and nor is remaining in a Butlins theatre after being asked to leave an indictable offence  – the only type of criminal offence which persons other than constables, including private security staff, can ‘arrest’ other citizens for, in accordance with Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). 

My client could not, in fact, have been lawfully arrested for what she was doing by actual police officers; sadly, that reflection is rarely one which gives the soldiers of private security pause for thought.

What was most harrowing for my client was that these terrible scenes were witnessed by her son – who must have thought that a nightmare was unfolding in front of his eyes, with strange people attacking his mother, and who fled in terror from the scene, greatly adding to Maria’s own distress as she was unable to go after him, but was dragged the other way, the prisoner of the security squad who forced her to accompany them to the ‘hut’ that appeared to be their office. At the hut Maria was then ‘released’, emotionally distraught at having been brutalised in this way and separated from her son. Thankfully, she was reunited with him a few minutes later when he was brought to the hut, equally upset, by another member of staff.

Maria now insisted that Butlins call Lincolnshire Police, and when Officers attended, she made a full report to them about what had occurred. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the Police refused to take any action (against anyone) – taking the side of the security staff as is so often the case (Big brothers/ little brother seems to be the usual relationship between Police and private security in such scenarios). 

 As a result of this incident, Maria sustained injuries to her wrist, knee, ankle and face for which she required hospital treatment as well as considerable psychological distress given the embarrassment and humiliation of the incident (which had been witnessed by other members of the public who had been in the Skyline Pavilion at the time) but worst of all the torment of that separation she had suffered from her son and her thought of what witnessing this event had done to him.    

Calling this incident a ‘holiday from hell’ is no exaggeration. 

Whilst it might have been hoped that Butlins would have been ashamed and contrite when I presented a letter of claim to them on behalf of Maria, their response was anything but. Adopting an aggressive and unrepentant stance, their lawyers tried to prevent the release of the body worn video footage from the cameras which were being worn by their security staff at the time and argued that the security guards use of force upon Maria was necessary because she was “trespassing”. Do not forget that throughout this incident, Maria and her son were paying guests at the Butlins establishment – one which the security staff through their heinous acts turned into something more akin to a prison camp than a holiday camp.   

I am, however, pleased to confirm that notwithstanding Butlins’ ostensible denial of liability, I have recently been able to bring Maria’s claim to a successful conclusion for damages in the sum of £20,000 plus her legal costs. 

Given the callous attitude displayed by Butlins’ staff at the time of the incident, and its insurers/ lawyers after the event, I am very happy to be assisting clients such as Maria in bringing both barrels of the civil law against the armies of private security – hitting them hard in the pocket being the only apparent way to bring about accountability and, perhaps, a future change in their behaviour. 

My client’s name has been changed.

£20,000 Damages for Postal Summons Address Error Arrest

In early 2023, an Officer of Nottinghamshire Police contacted my client Roisin in relation to a minor road traffic accident in which she had been involved.  Arrangements were made for Roisin to attend a local Police Station, to be interviewed under caution, which she duly did. 

At the conclusion of the interview, Roisin was told that she might be summonsed in due course to attend Court. 

My client heard nothing further about this matter, and was thus utterly shocked when, almost seven months later the ‘Boys in Blue’ turned up at her home to arrest her for failing to attend Nottingham Magistrates Court.

Roisin honestly explained that she was unaware of any Court summons or requirement for her to attend Court. The Officers were unfazed by this and replied that they had no option but to arrest her.

Roisin was then taken into Police Custody where she was searched and processed and detained in the cell block overnight. The whole experience had been made more terrible for Roisin by the fact that the arrest took place in front of her youngest child, and she was reduced to crying for most of the hours that she spent in the grim and unpleasant Police cell.

The following day she was transported to Court in handcuffs feeling as bewildered, humiliated, and degraded as any law-abiding citizen thrown into such a situation would be. 

Thankfully, at least, it did not take long after the Court Hearing commenced for my client’s innocence in this matter to be vindicated; it was quickly established that the Court summons had been sent to my client’s old home address, where she had not lived for some five years.

It is frankly appalling how many people like Roisin suffer wrongful arrest by reason of ‘incorrect address’ errors every year – and indeed how much legitimate Police and Court time is wasted in the process as well. I have blogged about precisely this form of wrongful arrest numerous times over the last 18 months, showing the prevalence of the problem. It is the ‘collateral damage’ caused to people’s lives by bureaucratic laziness/ sloppiness within the criminal justice system, and absolutely inexcusable.

On the basis that it was Nottinghamshire Police Officers and/or staff who were responsible for issuing the original Court summons to the incorrect address (when my client had done all that she reasonably could to ensure they had her correct address, including cooperating with the initial contact earlier that year and attending a Police interview), I advanced a claim on her behalf against the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire for:

I am pleased to confirm that in December 2023, following receipt of a detailed letter of claim which I had sent on behalf of Roisin, East Midlands Police Legal Services, acting on behalf of the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, accepted that the Postal Requisition had been sent to my client’s previous address as a result of a Police “administrative error” and that liability for all of the causes of action outlined in my letter of claim was admitted. 

Roisin was detained in total for over 26 hours.  Her compensation would, however, be measured not only by reference to the precise amount of time for which she was deprived of her liberty but also the sadly much longer lasting psychological impact of a wrongful arrest, and I therefore arranged for Roisin to be examined by a Clinical Psychologist.

When you leave a Police cell behind, it does not necessarily leave you behind. After her arrest, Roisin’s sleep was frequently disturbed, by thoughts that noises outside her house were someone coming to ‘get’ her and by disturbing feelings of being trapped in the cell and separated from her young children (aged only two and four at the time). This got so bad that she was eventually prescribed sleeping tablets. She suffered symptoms of low mood and of anxiety – even something as simple as an unexpected knock on the door could trigger a panic attack and cause her heart to race. She also became very nervous and on edge at any sight of Police officers in the local area. She was signed off work for some time as a result of these symptoms.

The medical expert whom I instructed diagnosed Roisin as suffering from a Specific Phobia, as well as anxiety and depression as a result of this incident.

I am pleased to confirm that in April of this year I was able to conclude Roisin’s claim for damages in the sum of £20,000, plus her legal costs, on the back of that report and with a threat of Court proceedings against the Police. The kind of threat which my Police opponents know I do not bluff about!  

If the Police arrest you after using the wrong address, you may be entitled to compensation and I can help you to maximise your award – getting you every penny you are entitled to for such a shocking invasion of your privacy and violation of your liberty; and thereby hopefully helping the Police to learn from their mistakes.

My client’s name has been changed.

Wrongfully Detained for Shoplifting

For all that they wear uniforms and often behave with the arrogance and aggression of a private Police Force, the fact is that security staff patrolling retail premises, on the hunt for shoplifters, only have the same “Citizen’s Arrest” powers that everybody else does, as defined by Section 24A of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE):

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons 

(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence. 

(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it. 

(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—

(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and

(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead. 

(4)The reasons are to prevent the person in question—

(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(b)suffering physical injury;

(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or

(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.  

And those powers, as with Police powers of summary arrest (ie arrests made without the rare authority of a Court warrant), are contingent on reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, they do not come with the additional power to search a person or their property which Section 32 of PACE grants to actual Police Officers.  

Sadly, these powers are commonly misunderstood and misused by retail security staff, leading their victims to have to turn to specialist lawyers such as myself for recompense and restitution. For whilst most of my time is spent holding misbehaving ‘official lawmen’ to account, I am also more than happy to help roundup and rectify the abuses of quasi-Police cowboys.  

In September 2021 my client Michael, a medical professional and man of exemplary character, attended his local Sainsbury’s store. He had come to purchase a particular type of watermelon for his daughter’s birthday party. As he walked around the store Michael spoke on his mobile phone to his wife about what was required; after finding that no such melons were available Michael  went to exit the store, having only been in there for a few minutes. This is something I’m sure we’ve all done on those occasions when we are on a ‘mission’ for a very specific and urgently required item, rather than a general ‘shop’. 

As Michael approached the exit of the store, an alarm went off. As he had no items in his possession and the alarm had gone off before when he passed through the detectors, a common occurrence with these temperamental machines, Michael thought nothing of it and continued to exit the store. 

At this point, an unknown man dressed in plain clothes, suddenly rushed to block Michael’s path, and immediately assaulted my client by grabbing his right arm and twisting it behind his back. Michael was utterly shocked. The man then forced him back into the store.

As Michael was marched ‘prisoner-style’ down the aisles, the man not only kept his arm twisted up behind his back, but actually threatened to break it. Due to the position that Michael’s arm was being held in, it started to turn numb. 

The man now accused the Michael of being part of a ‘gang’, along with another person who had been stopped, whom Michael knew nothing about. 

The man who had ‘apprehended’ Michael alleged that he had been communicating with other gang members on his mobile phone. Incredulous, Michael denied this and offered to show his phone to the man to prove that he had been simply talking to his wife; however, this was ignored. 

As Michael was force-marched through the store, a female member of staff wearing a Sainsbury’s uniform and a name tag swore at him, evidently having decided he was a shoplifter. Just as private security operations generally neglect the proper rules of arrest, so they often disregard the time-honoured principle that any person is innocent until proven guilty; the staff involved behaving like judge, jury and jailer, as if supermarket aisles were an extra- territorial jurisdiction. 

Michael was forced into a back office where his captor demanded that he take off the (then obligatory) Covid face mask that he was wearing, and provide his identification. Michael refused to do so. The man then claimed that he worked ‘for the government’, but when this was questioned by the Michael, his captor merely flashed a blue card at him before leaving the room. 

Also present in the room was a uniformed security guard, a man with a Sainsbury’s name tag (who subsequently identified himself as the store manager), and another person who had been detained in this allegedly ‘gang busting’ operation. 

Michael attempted to explain to the manager and the security guard that he had nothing to do with the other person who was detained, however they repeated the accusation about Michael being part of an organised gang stealing from the store and maintained that he had been seen on CCTV ‘communicating’ with other members of the gang. Despite Michael’s protests to the contrary, the security guard and manager maintained that they had not made an error and that his guilt was ‘proven’ by the CCTV. They then refused to allow Michael to leave the room and said that he would be held until police officers attended. 

Michael provided the registration number of his car so that further CCTV footage could be checked to prove that he attended the store on his own and showed his captors his bank card with his name on, including for what it was worth his title of ‘Dr’ (although he was under no obligation to do either of these things). His cooperation availed him naught and he continued to be held. 

After some time, two Police officers arrived. One of these Officers told Michael that he had reviewed the store CCTV and did not believe that Michael was involved in any thefts. The officer then told Michael that he was free to leave. However, Michael suffers from diabetes, and by the time that he was released he felt weak and lightheaded as his blood sugar levels were low. He asked whether he could purchase a soft drink with sugar but was refused.

As Michael was led out of the back office – Sainsbury’s temporary ‘Police Station’ –  he was offered a bunch of flowers for his wife, which he declined. His compensation, I am pleased to say, was ultimately to be measured, not in petals but in tens of thousands of pounds. 

Before leaving, Michael told the store manager that he wanted to make an official complaint. The manager said that hat he would record the complaint but refused to provide the Michael with any reference numbers for the incident or identify the member of staff that had sworn at him. 

Accordingly, a few days later Michael emailed a formal complaint to Sainsbury’s customer services. In response, Sainsbury’s Executive Office first claimed that “after full investigation” they had determined that his complaint would be dismissed – only to retract this the following day (following another ‘full investigation’ we might wonder?) now stating that they accepted that Michael  had been “identified in error” by a security guard employed by Mitie PLC, a well known private security company who work as subcontractors for supermarket chains and other nationwide businesses. 

Sainsbury’s now somewhat improved on their bunch of flowers by offering Michael  a ‘goodwill’ payment of £150, which he also wisely did not accept. 

In a follow-up email Sainsbury’s stated-

“I can confirm the store have advised that you were identified incorrectly, and have mentioned, that as you were leaving our store, you were walking along side or behind those involved in a major shop lift. As a result of this, our guard wrongly accused yourself for being involved therefore you were detained in error. The way the guard handled the situation is highly unacceptable and is something that is being thoroughly reviewed with our security team. Please be assured, any action deemed necessary will be taken. Our team within the store should have handled this matter in a highly professional manner so to swear at yourself is completely unacceptable. Sainsburys take full ownership that you were detained in error and our guard and management team have been fully addressed to prevent a similar case going forward.” 

As a result of the force used upon him, Michael was left with a sore arm, but far worse was the psychological damage that had been caused. Michael was deeply upset by the incident and felt extremely humiliated that it had taken place in full view of members of the public and Sainsbury’s staff, one of whom had sworn at him. Michael found that he was unable to properly enjoy his daughter’s birthday party due to the impact of the incident and he suffered sleeplessness thinking and worrying about the incident, particularly how the incident might both physically and mentally impair his ability to perform medical procedures in his job. 

Michael also found himself unable to return to this particular Sainsbury’s store because of the highly distressing memories it brought back, and whilst able to bring himself to enter other supermarkets, he found himself plagued by anxiety whilst in such premises, for fear he might again be falsely accused of theft, detained, and assaulted. He also suffered from a legitimate concern that whilst he was being branded as a shoplifter, he might have been recognised by a colleague or patient, and feared damage to his professional reputation as a result.  

Taking Action Against Sainsburys 

After hearing Michael’s story I agreed to take his case on and prepared and presented a detailed letter of claim to Sainsburys. 

In response to the claim, and contrary to their earlier assurance to Michael that they “took full ownership” for the error, Sainsburys prevaricated and delayed to such an extent that it was necessary for me to issue an application for Pre-Action Disclosure in the County Court to get them to hand over all relevant evidence. 

In advance of the hearing of my client’s application, Sainsburys agreed to disclose the CCTV footage of the incident and then subsequently sought to pass the blame for what had happened onto the “reputable security services” whom they had employed i.e Mitie PLC. 

The Mitier They Are, the Mitier They Fall… 

In the circumstances, I now presented a claim to Mitie, with whom I have crossed swords on previous occasions, alleging both false imprisonment and assault and battery on behalf of Michael. Following investigation, Mitie admitted that their security guard had had no reasonable grounds to detain my client. I obtained medical evidence to quantify the full extent of the psychological impact which this incident had had upon my client, and in response Mitie put forwards an initial offer of £8,500 damages, which Michael rejected on my advice. 

I am pleased to announce that I was ultimately able to negotiate a settlement of £12,000 damages for Michael , plus his legal costs; fair recompense for all he had gone through – and a lot more than a halfhearted bunch of flowers. 

I think it is highly unlikely that either the big retail chains or security firms like Mitie will change their staff recruitment or training policies any time soon, and incidents like this will keep on happening. 

Three Key Points To Remember When It Comes To Shoplifting Arrests

  1. Retail staff and security staff, no matter what uniforms they are wearing, nametags or attitude they are displaying, have no more powers to effect a “citizen’s arrest” under Section 24A of PACE than do the rest of us.
  1. Section 24A of PACE empowers citizens to arrest others whom they “reasonably suspect” to be committing an offence –  see Section 24A 1(b) and 2(b) of PACE. Very often when an innocent person is stopped and accused by staff of shoplifting there will, practically speaking, be an absence of reasonable suspicion – just as in Michael ’s case, where an aggressive security guard appears to have negligently grabbed the wrong person. If you are innocent and have been detained by security staff, even if only for a few minutes, you should always seek legal advice to establish if you have a right to compensation.
  1. Retail and security staff in shoplifting cases, utilising Citizen’s Arrest powers, can only detain you until the Police arrive and use only reasonable force to do so – they are absolutely not empowered to interrogate you, hold you prisoner without contacting the Police or to search you or your belongings. A “Citizen’s Arrest” does not entitle a “Citizen’s Search” of the detained person.

 Commonly, however, Retail Security staff ride roughshod over these important rules and safeguards designed to protect a person’s liberty and property. Contact me if this has happened to you, and together we’ll hold them to account.   

My client’s name has been changed.

Read more about this matter in the case report: Man wrongfully detained in Sainsburys agrees out of court settlement

How you can help me

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

“Giving Us Evils”: Know Your Rights When It Comes To Police Stop & Search

Detained and searched for looking at a Police Officer the wrong way? Sadly, that was what happened to my client Allen Norman.

Police Officers live in a world of ranks, uniforms and chains of command and unfortunately often bring that mentality to the everyday world, behaving as if they ‘out-rank’ ordinary citizens.

One afternoon in June 2022, Allen was shopping in the heart of London and passed a Police carrier that was parked up, close to a Boots store.

Having completed his shopping in the store, Allen returned outside and went to retrieve his bicycle, which was locked to a nearby lamppost. 

At this time, two male Police Offices – now known to be PC Laurie and PC Minnerthey of the City of London Police, approached Allen and asked if he was “Alright” and what he was up to.

Allen was immediately apprehensive, as many of us would be if stopped by the Police in such circumstances.  He asserted that he was fine, but that he would not be answering any questions.

PC Minnerthey then began to accuse Allen of “Giving us evils” as he had walked past their Police carrier and then of allegedly “Fiddling around with a lot of stuff” in the Boots store (whatever that was supposed to mean).

PC Minnerthey announced that he was going to search Allen under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), produced his handcuffs and reached out to grab Allen’s arms.  Allen felt threatened and sought to clarify upon what grounds the Officer wanted to search him, asserting that the Officers’ actions were unlawful. He knew his rights under the Police Codes of Practice – the ‘GOWISELY’ procedure, which Officers are supposed to adhere to, but in fact routinely abuse.

Ignoring this, the Officers now grabbed Allen’s arms and forcefully handcuffed him.

Again, Allen demanded to know on what grounds the Officers were asserting a legal power to search him.  PC Minnerthey repeated his bizarre accusation: that Allen had been giving him and his colleagues “Evils”, before then going into a shop and “Fiddling around”.

PC Laurie then stated that as Allen walked down the road, he was seen “eyeballing” the Police carrier, “paying a lot of attention” to the Officers within, and had then gone into a shop where he was seen to be “fumbling around” and “potentially up to no good.”

Numerous other officers now attended, it obviously being a slow day in the city of London…

The Officers continued to hold Allen – although he was not resisting them, or attempting to leave – and searched him, including removing his wallet and mobile phone from his possession.

Apparently having polished his script a little more, PC Minnerthey now advised Allen that – “You’ve appeared to be concealing yourself in the shop while you appeared to be fiddling about with things, okay, we’ve come over to have a chat with you and straightaway you’ve been very very “anti”, not letting us get a word in edgeways.  You’re extremely nervous, your breathing rate is up there, we think you’ve got something to hide. We suspect you might have been involved in something in the shop and therefore we’ve searched you under section 1 PACE for any stolen items.”

Section 1 of PACE (with irrelevant sub-clauses omitted) provides as follows-

1 Power of constable to stop and search persons, vehicles etc.

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

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

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

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

(a)may search—

(i)any person or vehicle;

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

for stolen or prohibited articles; and

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

(3)This section does not give a constable power to search a person or vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles.

Allen correctly denied that the Officers’ had any grounds to detain and search him under this legislation; of course, this did not stop them.

It was in fact quite apparent that, no matter how they attempted to dress it up, the reason that the Officers were searching Allen was because they didn’t like the way he had looked at them as he passed their vehicle.  Somewhat unsurprisingly, PACE does not in fact grant Officers the power to search someone because he is suspected of ‘giving them the evil eye’ and the Officers had no legal grounds for interfering in Allen’s business that day.

To be entirely clear, no member of the public or member of staff from the Boots store had made any accusation of shoplifting against Allen whatsoever, and at its highest all the Officers could apparently say was that they had seen Allen ‘fiddling about’ with things in the store – but just as with looking at Police Officers, ‘fiddling around with things in a store’ is not a crime; in fact it is shopping. 

The search having proved negative, Allen’s handcuffs were removed after a period of about 7 minutes.

Allen was outraged by the incident and felt as if he had been mugged, although at all times he kept his temper under control and spoke respectfully to the squad of Police Officers now assembled around him.

Aware of his rights, Allen asked PC Minnerthey for a Stop Form.  He was at first (wrongly) told that a Stop Form could not be provided because he had not given his personal details (which he was under no legal obligation to do).  Allen asserted that he was entitled to a Stop Form whereupon the Officers told him that he would have to subsequently attend Bishopsgate Police Station, in order to collect it. 

His phone was now returned to him, and he was told that he was free to go.

Throughout their conversation with Allen, as evidenced on their own body camera recordings, PCs Minnerthey and Laurie had, in effect, confessed their improper motivations to him. It is quite clear that they had detained, manhandled and searched him simply because they thought he was looking at them ‘the wrong way’ as he went past, compounded by his ‘failure’ to smile and engage with them when they approached him. Allen was in fact doing nothing wrong, and was in no way behaving in a criminally suspicious manner – but sadly the Officers’ mindset was obviously such that they immediately considered the slightest display of a ‘anti-police’ attitude tantamount to being a crime in itself.

Such, indeed, is the mindset of the very many Police Officers who fall into the trap of believing that they outrank ordinary civilians and that, accordingly, acts of insubordination from those ‘lower down’ the rungs need to be punished by some muscular exercise of Police powers. In this way, the boundaries of Police Officers’ egos very frequently exceed the boundaries of the law.

This attitude is at the heart of a huge proportion of all acts of Police misconduct and oppression.

A few days later, Allen duly attended Bishopsgate Police Station, required them to give him a copy of the Search Form and lodged a formal complaint. That complaint was summarily dismissed by Inspector Mackenzie (which is the knee-jerk Police reaction to most complaints). 

Allen therefore turned to me for assistance, and when the City of London Police continued to maintain their denial of any wrongdoing, I instituted County Court proceedings on behalf of my client, suing the Police for false imprisonment and assault and battery on the basis that the Officers had grossly misused their Stop and Search powers under Section 1 PACE because they did not honestly or reasonably suspect that Allen was in possession of “Stolen or prohibited articles”. 

I am pleased to confirm that through those Court proceedings I was able to win for Allen compensatory damages of £8,500, plus his legal costs and a letter of apology from the City of London Police in the following terms –

“The Commissioner admits liability for false imprisonment and assault and battery as set out in your Particulars of Claim.

On behalf of the Commissioner I accept that on 22 June 2022 you should not have been detained or searched by the Commissioner’s officers.  The officers’ grounds for stopping and searching you were not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.  I unreservedly apologise to you on behalf of the Commissioner and confirm that the officers involved will be notified of this decision. I trust that this apology will go some way to restoring your trust and confidence in the City of London Police.” 

A healthy scepticism of Police authoritarianism is essential in any democratic society; indeed it is the first bulwark in the defence of our civil liberties. Police Officers who baselessly pull rank on ordinary citizens – in this case with only the shameless excuse of having been ‘looked at the wrong way’ – need to be taught a lesson in good manners, in respect for individuals’ privacy, dignity and integrity of person, and in the limits and purpose of their powers.

That the Police still won’t properly police themselves, is amply demonstrated by their mass rejection of legitimate complaints. Perhaps when the letter of apology I have quoted above comes as a prompt and heartfelt response to a person’s initial complaint, then we will know that things have really changed for the better.

Until they do, it is up to brave citizens such as Allen Norman to take on the system, and teach the Police how to be better.

Since the conclusion of his case, Allen has sadly passed away.  His son has given me permission to publish this blog post, telling me that his father would have wanted this story told. I am proud to give Allen Norman the last word against overbearing and unconstitutional Police bullying.

Update

Rob Warner at Crimebodge has produced a video about Allen’s case. Watch it here:

Hard Fought Win Against GMP results in £30K Damages Payout

Earlier this month, I wrote about the sense of satisfaction that can be achieved by a Claimant in a Police action through a well-deserved but hard- fought win in collaboration with your lawyer, and a case in point is the one which I will describe in today’s blog post, in which my client eventually prevailed – but only after Greater Manchester Police (GMP) had fought him tooth and nail through the Magistrates and County court systems – and literally so in the living room of his girlfriend’s house.

My client faced Police brutality and a robust defence from GMP , but his determination to achieve justice saw him through to victory; and this is how he did it.   

In the summer of 2019, Ben was in a relationship with a woman who lived in Greater Manchester. 

 One afternoon, whilst Ben was at his partner’s house, the couple had an argument, as couples do, concerning the behaviour of Ben’s partner’s teenage daughter. Although voices were raised inside the house, there was no violence involved and nobody called the Police.  

Unfortunately, Police Officers including PC Day and PC Hassan were in the vicinity investigating an unrelated matter, and overhearing the argument, took it upon themselves to intervene. The officers entered the garden of the house and PC Day opened the back door, where he was met by Ben and his partner.  

PC Day said that the officers “Wanted to come and speak to you and see what the shouting.” 

Ben considered that the presence of the officers was unnecessary and replied “Well, I don’t want to speak to you.”  His partner said that there had been an argument and that she wanted Ben to leave.  Ben wholeheartedly agreed, telling the Officers “Which I am doing when I’ve got my stuff.” 

Nevertheless , PC Day stepped into the house, uninvited, and referred to the “shouting and screaming” (although this was certainly no longer ongoing).  

Whilst Ben’s partner went upstairs, PC Hassan pushed my client into the front room (placing his right hand upon Ben’s chest) and was followed by PC Day.

 Ben walked into the kitchen, where he again said that he would collect his stuff and go, to which PC Hassan replied “That’s sound”.   

Ben made it clear that he just wanted to “Get out of this situation” and “Get my stuff and go.”  PC Day said “Right, well get your stuff and go and we’ll supervise it.” 

But then – without warning –  PC Hassan then grabbed Ben’s left arm, announcing that he was unhappy with his behaviour. 

Maintaining a firm grip on Ben’s arm, PC Hassan then pushed Ben out of the kitchen and back into the living room.  

PC Hassan now announced that Ben was under arrest for “Breach of the Peace” and simultaneously applied a handcuff to his left wrist, whilst PC Day took hold of Ben’s right wrist. PC Hassan told Ben to put his hands behind his back.

Ben was bewildered at the Officers’ unnecessary force, and sought to remonstrate verbally, but without any physical resistance.  

However, his complaints fell on deaf ears, as without warning, and whilst Ben was talking to PC Hassan, PC Day sought to pull Ben to the ground – but lost his footing/grip as he did so, causing both he and my client to fall towards the floor. Ben was shocked, but managed to steady himself and stood back up.   

Unfortunately, his shock was only just beginning, as Ben then felt a blow to his face from PC Hassan and was then grappled by multiple officers. Ben attempted to defend himself from this assault by pulling his arms free, and shaking the officers off, but was unsuccessful. The officers delivered multiple blows to Ben’s face and body and forced him back against the wall, and then onto the floor in the corner of the room. 

In effect, Ben had been ‘mobbed’ by the officers, the two male officers having been joined by one of their female colleagues. He was completely overwhelmed.  

Whilst Ben was lying on his front on the floor, with other officers holding down his body, PC Day then gripped Ben’s neck, pushed his face into the carpet and sprayed him in the face with CS gas from ‘point blank’ range.  Ben was in agony and struggled to breathe. 

This type of ‘spay-painting’ of an already subdued victim is a sadly common feature of this type of Police brutality case, in my experience – irrespective of sex or age.   

Ben’s ordeal had not finished there; PC Day now punched him in the face and PC Hassan delivered further blows with his hands to Ben’s back, all whilst Ben was being held face- down on the floor. 

Ben’s arms were then taken hold of and he was handcuffed to the rear whilst still on the floor, with multiple officers applying pressure to various parts of his body, including his torso and legs. 

Ben was immediately aware of significant pain and discomfort in his face and body from the blows, and of burning sensations to his face and in his mouth and blood coming from his mouth. He was also struggling to breathe and genuinely feared that he might die.  Extremely frightened, Ben called out for an ambulance , begging the officers with the words “I’ll do whatever you want.”  

Ben was then marched out of the house, the prisoner of the Officers, and placed in a van.  Before being taken to Custody, however, Ben had to first be transported to hospital for the injuries which the Officers had inflicted upon him to be ‘patched up’, and there he underwent a facial x-ray and it was noted that he had a loose tooth, which subsequently fell out. 

To quite literally add insult to injury, whilst at the hospital, Ben was further arrested for the alleged offence of assaulting the three Police Officers who had in fact assaulted him. Again, this is another sadly typical feature of such cases – that the innocent victim of Police violence faces charges that could result in his criminalisation and imprisonment, all for the ‘crime’ of having been beaten up by the Officers in the first place, as if they feel such charges now need to be laid to justify the level of force they have used.  

Thereafter, Ben was taken to a local Police Station, where he was processed and incarcerated.  

Early the following morning, Ben was interviewed under caution and then yet further arrested for assault with the intention of resisting arrest. Once again, I view this as the Police trying to bury their own wrongdoing in a shallow grave of false charges, showering their victim with the ‘dirt’ of criminal offences.  This is a sadly common tactic by the Police, and I can think of many occasions when it has been utilised by GMP in particular. 

 Ben was eventually released ‘under investigation’ after a period of 14 hours in custody. 

 Even this was not the end of his ordeal; some six months later, in February 2020, a Postal Requisition was sent to Ben charging him with the following offences – 

a.      Assaulting PC Day thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm contrary to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1986. 

b.      Assaulting by beating PC Prudence, an Emergency Worker, namely a Police Officer, acting in the exercise of the functions of such a worker, contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act and Section 1 of the Assault on Emergency Workers (offences) Act 2018.  

c.      Assaulting PC Hassan with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of himself, contrary to Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. 

 Ben of course pleaded not guilty to these trumped-up charges, but had them and hence the real prospect of being wrongly convicted and being sent to prison hanging over him for well over a year, all against the stressful backdrop of the Covid pandemic and our national lockdowns, until the case was eventually listed for trial in June 2021 at Manchester Crown Court (a trial actually conducted at the Lowry theatre, owing to the continued restrictions of the pandemic).  The stress which Ben felt at the thought of imprisonment was made all the worse by the fact that in the interim, he and his partner had had a baby girl and Ben was tormented at the thought of being separated from his daughter by incarceration. All of this played havoc with Ben’s mental health, causing him to become extremely anxious and withdrawn, and devastating his faith in the inherent justice of ‘the system’ and the Police in particular. 

Then, at Court, the Crown Prosecution Service chose to offer no evidence and Ben was found not guilty on all three counts. 

That decision indicates the objective weakness of the evidence against my client – the incident was caught in detail on multiple officers’ body cameras and clearly the CPS lawyers had realised that they were on a hiding to nothing pursuing it.  

Why had Ben been charged in the first place and had to wait all this time for his innocence to be secured? As I have said above, I strongly feel that the decision to charge was, perversely but precisely,  because of the level of force the Police had used against him.  

It might now have been hoped that when I presented a civil claim for compensation to GMP on behalf of Ben,  that they would see sense and do the right thing; but instead, they denied liability, giving us no choice but to issue County Court proceedings against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, which were met with an apparently robust defence.  

GMP failed to take this further opportunity to admit their culpability,  and instead threw buckets of time and money at this case, apparently determined to bring all resources to bear to deny Ben’s entitlement to civil redress for the wrongs he had suffered, including serving statements from all the officers involved and fighting the case almost all the way to trial. 

Ultimately, my determination and Ben’s courage in pursuing the case, saw him through to victory and GMP cracked in the ‘home straight’  a few months before trial, agreeing to pay Ben £30,000 damages plus his legal costs (which will be substantial).  

I would like to think that GMP and its officers will learn a valuable lesson from this case, and curb future practices of attempting to hide Police brutality and wrongful arrests behind the smokescreen of meritless prosecutions… but like someone who’s just been sprayed with CS gas at point-blank range, I won’t be holding my breath. 

My client’s name has been changed.


	


	





	

		
		
Reflections on 2016
	


	
	
	

		
Iain Gould solicitorGreetings to all of you as we come to the end of another busy year; a time for reflection on what we have done and what we hope to achieve in the year to come. I trust that your year, like mine, has been a challenging but rewarding one and a healthy and happy one but if it has not, then here’s hoping that next year will bring you better fortune.


The major political upheaval of 2016, the “Brexit” vote has caused repercussions in the legal sector as we enter a period of great uncertainty ahead but this has not stopped the government’s intended plan to “reform” the Personal Injury sector in favour of the giant insurance companies who contribute so much to the war-chests of the Tory party. We are currently in a ‘consultation’ period which could see people stripped of the right to obtain legal representation in claims worth less than £10,000, and indeed significantly reduce or even bar the recovery of damages for certain types of ‘soft tissue’ injury.


This is clearly going to have a knock-on effect in the area in which I specialise, actions against the police, as it will add another line of argument with which Defendant police forces can try to (effectively) strip Claimants of their right to legal representation by seeking to get cases allocated to the Small Claims track of the County Court. This is something which Defendants in my experience are seeking to do with increasing frequency but which I am pleased to say I have successfully opposed on many occasions. This is because the monetary value of a claim is not the only factor which the Court will consider when it comes to deciding whether a case is suitable for the Small Claims process. Strong reasons why actions against the police Claimants should (in my opinion) always be allowed the benefit of legal representation include the importance of the actions themselves. These types of cases which revolve around not mere ‘accidents’ but often very deliberate abuses of police power including assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, as well as the complexity of the legal issues and the number of witnesses/ length of trial which police claims involve.


So whilst ultimately the changes to the Small Claims limit may not prove a major obstacle to future claims being brought by my clients, other obstacles in the path of access to justice remain which have also been scattered there as indirect consequences of the government’s reforms over the last 5 years (which might also be characterised as their “war on personal injury claims”).


For example, the government’s abolition of the right to recover the costs of your legal expenses insurance policy as part of your claim continues to cause major obstacles to those who are wealthy enough not to qualify for legal aid (most working people) but who are not lucky enough to be amongst the top 1% of the country who could fund a legal claim out of their own pockets with no concern over having to pay tens of thousands of pounds to the Defendant if they lose. A mechanism to protect losing Claimants in personal injury claims – Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) – exists and was specifically brought in to recognise the fact that otherwise thousands with valid claims would be ‘scared off’ making a claim if they did not have insurance to cover the other side’s costs if they lost (and the cost of that insurance outweighing their likely damages made it simply not economic to obtain). However, despite repeated calls from police claim lawyers such as myself and indeed the Civil Justice Council itself, the government appears to have no intention of extending ‘QOCS’ to cover those who have suffered significant wrongs (such as loss of liberty) at the hands of the police, but who may not also have suffered an injury. This leaves other claims which do involve injury allegations, but also other aspects including wrongful arrest, in a difficult ‘half-way’ house situation and it is dispiriting for me not to be able to advise my clients with certainty that they will have QOCS protection for their claims. As a result, I have seen clients with valid claims becoming ‘frightened off’ pursuing the matter because their inability to obtain practical insurance cover, coupled with the likely costs of paying the Defendant if they lose, makes it too risky an option for them financially.


One might cynically conclude that even if the government didn’t intend this side effect of its ‘root and branch’ reform of the personal injury sector, they are indirectly benefiting from it and are highly unlikely to change it for reasons of political expediency. If you are in the process of slashing police budgets (officer numbers down 20,000 since 2010) so as to cut central government costs, you are unlikely to enact a law to make it easier for valid claims to be pursued against the police (and by extension the public purse) even though it is undoubtedly the right thing to do.


Another side effect of the government’s anti- personal injury claims agenda has been to drive more and more accident claims practitioners to look for alternative sources of work. Lawyers without the specialist experience which I have in this area are therefore starting to ‘dabble’ in police claims which can have severe adverse consequences for their clients. You need somebody who knows what he is doing!


The government has also signalled intent to impose a system of ‘fixed costs’ across claims of all types and values which will also have an adverse effect upon access to justice for those who have been the victims of police wrongdoing. ‘Fixed costs’ really means ‘Capped costs’ and restricts the amount of legal costs a lawyer can recover from the Defendant even if all the work he has done to win his client’s case is entirely reasonable, necessary and proportionate. Inevitably, lawyers will be less willing to take cases on if they are not going to be fairly recompensed for the significant amount of time and resources they have to put into a legal claim against the police which are claims often fought ‘tooth and nail’ by police forces who have far more resources at their disposal than any single individual who has suffered at their hands. ‘Fixed costs’ will not prevent the police ‘throwing the kitchen sink’ at a clam if they wish to (exacerbating the ‘David v Goliath’ situation) which already faces anybody who wants to bring a claim against what is effectively a State institution. The resources available to a police force (financially and in terms of access to legal representation) are so much greater than those of most members of the public and the police very often adopt antagonistic attitudes towards claims, displaying a mentality of not wanting to admit wrongdoing. They may be prepared to ‘over spend’ in the defence of a claim to purposely ‘stringing it out’ by making the litigation process as difficult as possible so as to exhaust the financial resources (and more importantly the willpower) of the individual Claimant.


Nobody could think that this is right; checks and balances between


a) the rights of individuals without major financial resources, and


b) richer and more powerful individuals or state agencies,


appear to be being systematically dismantled by the government’s ‘reform’ process. Checks and balances established over many centuries during which time our legal system grew to be one of the fairest and most admired in the world. But what now lies ahead?


So we are undoubtedly in the middle of an era of fundamental attacks to our justice system and in particular access to justice, changing fundamental tenets of the age-such as old Common Law of this country and including the right to recover damages for personal injury and to be put financially back in the position you would have been had the wrong against you not been committed in the first place. This situation is unlikely to improve if, as part of the Brexit process, the government abolishes the Human Rights Act (as it has previously threatened to do) stripping a whole layer of additional protections and civil liberties from the citizens of this country.


But the fight for justice will go on. There are obstacles but we can overcome them. The judiciary recently took action to disapply ‘fixed costs’ rules in personal injury cases where a Claimant beats a settlement offer he has previously made. This is certainly a step in the right direction and one which may be echoed by a higher court ruling in regards to QOCS to establish that the protection given to that law does apply to claims against the police even if only very minor injuries were suffered. After all, we do not live in an autocracy and regardless of the government’s agenda, the legal profession, (especially in the persons of the higher judiciary) can fight back to modify the law and establish new precedent to set parties back on a more level playing field.


And personally, I’ve fought against the odds on behalf of my clients before and won, and I believe we can continue to do so despite the obstacles in our path. The determination of the Hillsborough families in their 27 year campaign for justice shows that setbacks and obstacles are what they are, but are not the end.


This year I and my clients have celebrated several noteworthy victories in diverse, challenging and interesting cases:


    

  • 6,500 awarded to a London man arrested and incarcerated by the police despite voluntarily attending for interview at a police station
    • 

  • £35,000 for a man who was asleep in his bed only to wake to find himself under attack and being dry stun tasered by officers who unlawfully had invaded his home
    • 

  • £26,000 for a young mother who was falsely arrested on suspicion of sexual abuse of her own 3-year-old daughter as a result of a reckless police investigation
    • 

  • £17,500 for a Birmingham City Fan smashed in the head with a police riot shield
    • 

  • £13,000 for a young football fan bitten without cause by a police dog
    • 

  • £25,000 for a victim of domestic abuse groomed and sexually exploited by a police officer
    • 

  • £15,000 plus destruction of his personal data (including DNA sample and fingerprints) of a young man arrested without reasonable suspicion for rape (in my opinion, the police never suspected he was the culprit at all but reprehensibly wanted to use the ‘pressure’ of the arrest to make him provide them with a statement regarding the person they really suspected)
    • 

  • £22,500 for a disabled young Black man wrestled to the ground by two police officers after a ‘routine’ traffic stop (in my opinion, a traffic stop that was in the first place without any foundation other than that of ‘driving whilst Black…’)
    • 

  • £63,500 for a man who fled to this country to escape persecution at the hands of Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical regime in Zimbabwe, who suffered a severe beating at the hands (and feet) of British police officers after speaking up on behalf of another young man who was being assaulted by bouncers.
    • 



I continue to relish the challenge and the fight. I derive immense satisfaction from these victories which always go so far beyond ‘mere’ monetary compensation in what they give back to my clients such as the sense of justice, restored dignity, faith in society, personal satisfaction which they absolutely deserve.


Most of us aspire to do something meaningful with our lives, to serve something greater than them, to have something to look back upon with pride at the end of each and every year. I consider myself immensely privileged and fortunate to represent people who have been mistreated by the police; to be able to fight on their behalf and secure for them the vindication that they deserve and to help them hold the police to account for the greater good of the individual and society, to play my part in making the system fairer.


It goes without saying but deserves to be said at this time of year in particular, that I couldn’t do what I do without the bravery and determination of my clients who have overcome the trauma of their suffering at the hands of the police to come to me in the first place and have the strength of their convictions and the character to see through to the end what can often be a bitter and hard-fought but ultimately rewarding legal battle.


So at this time of year, as ever, I just want to say to all of my clients – past, present & future – that you have my utmost respect and I am proud to be continuing the fight for justice on your behalf into 2017 and beyond.


	


	





	

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


	
	
	

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Basic Principals 


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


    

  • 

    Basic damages
    

    • 



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


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


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


    

  • 

    Aggravated damages
    

    • 



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


    

  • The Police have acted to aggravate the basic loss by causing injury to feelings, for example by insulting, humiliating, degrading, distressing and/or outraging the Claimant: and
    • 



    

  • It could result in the Claimant not receiving sufficient compensation for the injuries suffered if the award was restricted to a basic award only.
    • 



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


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


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


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


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


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


a. if the conduct took place in public;


b. a lack of apology from the Police;


c. if the Claimant was physically or verbally abused;


d. if the Police were motivated by prejudice;


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


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


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


    

  • 

    Exemplary damages
    

    • 



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


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


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


Chris’ case


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


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


    

  • A superficial laceration of several centimetres to his right temple that required closure with surgical glue that was tender/painful for 6 weeks and which left a small indented scar that was only visible on close inspection.
    • 



    

  • Headaches for several months, initially as a consequence of the direct blow to the right side of the head and subsequently as a result of the tension caused by the stress of the complaint process.
    • 



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


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


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


    

  • 

    Basic Damages
    

    • 



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


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


    

  • 

    Aggravated Damages
    

    • 



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


Why?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


    

  • 

    Exemplary Damages
    

    

    • 



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


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


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


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


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


Conclusion




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


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


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


Claire’s case


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




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Basic Damages


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


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


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


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


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


Aggravated Damages


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


Why?


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


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


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


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


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


Exemplary damages




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


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


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


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


Conclusions




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


Settlement


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


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


Calculating Compensation




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


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


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


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


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


	


	





	

		
		
Why West Mercia Police Paid £25,000 Compensation for Misfeasance in Public Office
	


	
	
	

		
Iain Gould solicitor
Iain Gould, solicitor.


I have previously written about ‘Clare’s’ case; a young vulnerable victim of domestic abuse groomed and sexually exploited by a serving Police Officer, PC Powell.


I am pleased to report that Clare’s case has now been successfully concluded; on my advice, Clare brought a claim against West Mercia Police for misfeasance in public office and successfully recovered £25,000 compensation plus her legal costs.


Clare first contacted me shortly after PC Powell had been sentenced to 15 months imprisonment at Gloucester Crown Court for Misconduct in Public Office. PC Powell had admitted that:


    

  • When acting as a public officer he wilfully neglected to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducted himself
    • 

  • To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in his office without reasonable excuse or justification.
    • 



per Attorney General’s Reference number 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Criminal 868.


Clare felt that PC Powell’s personal behaviour was reprehensible but that West Mercia Police were also at least partly responsible, as PC Powell had been warned for similar misconduct in 2008 but had been allowed to continue in office without adequate supervision, and in particular had been allowed to continue to have conduct with victims of domestic abuse.


On review, it struck me that Clare had a potential civil claim for misfeasance in public office, an ancient tort originally developed during the eighteenth century for the benefit of electors willfully refused the right to vote and increasingly deployed in civil actions against the police in more recent times.


What is misfeasance in public office?


In order to establish a successful claim for misfeasance, the Claimant must show that:


    

  1. A public officer;
    2. 

  2. Exercised a power in that capacity; and
    3. 

  3. The officer intended to injure the Claimant by his/her acts.  This is known as ‘targeted malice’; or
    4. 

  4. The officer knowingly or recklessly (in the subjective sense) acted beyond his/her powers.  This is known as ‘un-targeted malice’; and
    5. 

  5. The officer’s act(s) caused damage to the Claimant; and
    6. 

  6. The officer knew or was subjectively reckless to the fact that his/her act(s) would probably cause damage of the kind suffered by the Claimant.
    7. 



If misfeasance can be established against a serving Police Officer then his Chief Constable, and therefore in effect the whole Force as an organisation, becomes ‘vicariously’ liable to pay damages to the wronged/injured party.  In a case like Clare’s this would be an eminently fair result, owing to the failings of the Force and Senior Officers in allowing PC Powell to prey upon domestic abuse victims (as highlighted in my previous blog).


Proving Clare’s Claim


In support of the claim for misfeasance, it was clear that PC Powell was acting as a public officer in the West Mercia Police Force when he abused Clare:


    

  • PC Powell was responsible for investigating crimes and incidents in which Clare was a victim and for taking action and providing support to Clare in respect of the same.
    • 

  • PC Powell engaged in sexual relations with Clare during his working hours and whilst on duty (and on a number of occasions whilst wearing his uniform).
    • 

  • In all the circumstances, there was clearly a very close connection between PC Powell’s conduct and the performance of his duties, such conduct having taken place in the performance or purported performance of his policing duties and his relationship with Clare having been established through the position of authority he held as the investigating officer in her case.
    • 



During the course of his office, PC Powell exercised powers as a Police Officer and  was responsible for the following acts:


    

  1. Sending and receiving text messages and telephone calls of a personal and sexual nature to Clare, a victim of domestic abuse.
    2. 

  2. Requiring Clare to attend at the police station on a number of occasions.
    3. 

  3. Attending Clare’s home address on a number of occasions.
    4. 

  4. Instigating and engaging in a sexual relationship with Clare, a victim of domestic abuse.
    5. 



Although often difficult for Claimants to prove bad faith on the part of the officer, here it was blatantly apparent that PC Powell acted with malice in that he:


    

  • Knew that Clare was a vulnerable victim of domestic abuse and that she would, or would be likely to, respond to apparent care, concern and attention on his part and thus knew and intended or did not care that he could injure Clare, by instigating an inappropriate sexual relationship with her;
    • 

  • Specifically targeted Clare as a vulnerable victim of domestic abuse in order to exert control over her and for his own sexual gratification;
    • 

  • Instigated a personal and sexual relationship with Clare in flagrant disregard for his professional duty as a Police Officer assigned to her case.
    • 



In all the circumstances, it was apparent that PC Powell knew of, or was reckless to the risk that his acts would probably cause harm to Clare, but proceeded to act, indifferent to that risk


By reason of PC Powell’s conduct, Clare had suffered material damage, specifically she reported psychological trauma as a result of the relationship and such injury was reasonably foreseeable specifically;


    

  • Immediately following the incident, Clare experienced disturbed appetite, disturbed sleep, low mood and a degree of weight loss.  Clare lost confidence, which affected her self-esteem.
    • 

  • Clare felt as though PC Powell had sexually exploited her.  Clare felt ‘dirty’, ‘used’, and ‘stupid’, and as though she has done something wrong.  Clare felt that PC Powell abused her trust.
    • 

  • Clare’s view of the police was also affected by the incident and she felt very negatively about the police. Clare said that she would be reluctant to contact the police for assistance in the future.
    • 



Notwithstanding the broad nature of this civil wrong, the Courts have routinely issued warnings to lawyers against actions for misfeasance in public office being brought unless there is clear evidence to support a contention of dishonest abuse of power (see Masters v Chief Constable of Sussex [2002] EWCA Civ 1482)  Unlike claims in false imprisonment and assault, the burden of proof lies squarely on the Claimant at each stage. It is a difficult burden to overcome in the absence of clear evidence of bad faith.


Notwithstanding these issues, I was confident of success and agreed to act on behalf of Clare by way of ‘no win no fee’ agreement.


I believe that my robust presentation of Clare’s case encouraged West Mercia Police to admit liability early on. It is a pity that they did not agree settlement terms swiftly but that will be for another blog.


	


	





	

		
		
Why Paul Ponting’s Strip Search Was Wrong
	


	
	
	

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


By Iain Gould, Solicitor


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


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


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


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


Arrest and Strip Search


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The Law in Strip Search Cases


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


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


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



All this means that:


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


    

  • the reason for the search
    • 

  • those present during the search
    • 

  • those conducting the search and,
    • 

  • a record of any items found or seized.
    • 



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


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


Police Failures in Paul Ponting’s Case


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


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


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


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


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


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


	


	





	

		
		
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
	


	
	
	

		





By Iain Gould, solicitor


I have a tremendous amount of respect for people who to take actions against the police.


Their fight for justice can be a hard, long, and stressful process. Why? Because they have to:


    

  1. know enough about the law and police procedure to determine if they have a valid complaint and/or potential claim
    2. 

  2. be mentally strong enough to take action against the police
    3. 

  3. be determined to find a suitably qualified solicitor they can trust, given the considerable financial risk of litigation.
    4. 



People often get help with the first part. Duty solicitors at police stations, family and friends, research on the internet, can all help identify wrongs. But the rest is down to the individual.


How matters progress often depends on their past experiences. Many of my clients have never been in trouble with the police and often still trust them, despite what happened.


As a result, they (perhaps naively) think that the police complaint process is fair and impartial. This view is not unusual. Research commissioned by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”) found that:


“those that had the least amount of contact had much higher expectations of police behaviour and were therefore more willing to complain about a range of potential misconduct.”


Sadly, trust in the police complaints process is often misguided. Often, only when it fails do we find out if the person involved is truly determined to seek justice. One such person was my client, John Rutherford (name changed at his request), from London. His story shows why I have such respect for people who brings actions against the police.


Racial Abuse Arrest


On 26th February 2014 my client, a professional, middle-aged white man got into an argument with a black woman after parking his car on the narrow street in front of his home. The woman verbally abused him for blocking the path of an oncoming car while he adjusted his road-side wing mirror to stop it from being damaged. He responded by telling her to park her own car behind his to let the traffic pass. Their exchange involved the use of coarse language and ended when the woman took photographs of his car and said that she was going to report Mr Rutherford to the police for racial abuse. She told John that, even though she knew he had not racially abused her, she was confident the police would take her seriously, and not “some fat, angry, white guy”.


More than 3 weeks later, on 20th March 2014 at 9:30am, Mr Rutherford was shocked when 11 Metropolitan Police officers turned up at his home.


An officer told my client that he was under arrest for using “racially aggravated threatening words and behaviour” following the incident on 26th February.


John vehemently denied that he had been racially abusive. The police refused to listen and told Mr Rutherford that they were taking him to his local police station. He was not allowed to shower but was allowed to dress under close supervision of an officer. During this process, one of the officers flippantly said to my client “Your taxi is waiting, the meter is running”.


John was “booked in” before the Custody Sergeant. The circumstances of his arrest were recorded as “Officers investigating an allegation of road rage have cause to believe this male is involved.  Allegation of racially aggrieved (sic) Sect 4 POA.  Arrested to interview, prevent harm.”


The reason for arrest was recorded as “to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the detained person”. My client was searched and his personal possessions removed.


He requested pre-interview disclosure information. The Custody Sergeant refused, saying, “We don’t, not to people like you”.


Mr Rutherford asked for the Duty Solicitor. He was then photographed, his fingerprints and DNA sample taken, and locked in a police cell.


The Duty Solicitor and officer in charge saw John at approximately 11am.  The Duty Solicitor told my client that he had also not been given any pre-interview disclosure information and that he had been advised that the alleged victim, the foul-mouthed woman, had not even been interviewed. Given that the police appeared not to have crucial evidence Mr R immediately asked how they could justify his arrest.  The officer in charge realised they were on shaky ground on this point and tried to dismiss it, saying that he was about to interview the alleged victim at 12pm.


After several hours of detention, an Inspector visited Mr Rutherford in his cell for his custody review.  He told John that “I have authorised your further detention”.  My client immediately challenged the officer, saying that he had pre-judged the further detention without hearing from Mr Rutherford or his solicitor.


The Inspector agreed to investigate and authorised my client’s release. At 4pm John was released on police bail and told to return to the Police Station on 9th April.


Police Complaint Farce


Readers will be in no doubt that Mr Rutherford is an intelligent man. He felt aggrieved that:


    

  • the police could not justify his arrest having failed to obtain the victim’s evidence first, even though the incident occurred over three weeks earlier.
    • 

  • they failed to invite him to attend for a voluntary interview, instead sending 11 officers to his home causing John and his family great embarrassment, shock, and distress.
    • 

  • he had been mistreated during arrest and at the police station.
    • 

  • the police denied his reasonable request for information.
    • 

  • they pre-judged his further detention and delayed his release.
    • 



In his opinion, he had the legal grounds for a complaint. Mr Rutherford is also confident, determined, and articulate. Consequently, he had the first and second traits of people willing to take on the police.


My client lodged a formal complaint within a few days of his arrest which was handled by an Inspector in the same division as the arresting officers. Incensed by his treatment so far, John’s priority was to ensure that he would not be re-arrested when he returned to the police station on 9th April.


The investigating Inspector agreed that Mr Rutherford could attend the Police Station on 9th April as a volunteer.  During interview, John established that the so-called “victim” had just been interviewed earlier that day (9th April), despite being told previously that she was going to be interviewed on the same day he was arrested (20th March). The allegation of racial abuse was put to Mr Rutherford which he vehemently denied. The case was referred to the CPS for advice and John was informed that his complaint could not be investigated while the police waited for the CPS’s input.


Eventually, on 21st May, Mr Rutherford was advised that no further action was to be taken against him.  John understandably felt aggrieved by the actions of the Metropolitan Police and pursued his complaint.


To say he was given the run-around would be an understatement:


    

  1. His complaint was (wrongly) dealt with internally by the Metropolitan Police, rather than being referred to the IPCC. Mr Rutherford described this as “akin to getting Bernard Madoff to investigate customer complaints about his own investment scheme”.
    2. 

  2. The Inspector who initially investigated the complaint failed to apologise, even though he confirmed that “You were circulated as a suspect on the 05/03/14 to facilitate a prompt and effective investigation and protect a vulnerable person.  On reflection, once the vulnerability passed the decision to arrest could have been reassessed and could possibly have been investigated utilising less intrusive methods”.
    3. 

  3. Dissatisfied with the response, he appealed. The same Inspector dealt with the appeal. In January 2015 he said: “the investigation process could have been progressed without the requirement for arrest however the arrest itself was not unlawful”. Despite this, Mr Rutherford made some progress when the Inspector finally said “I wish to apologise for the distress this incident has caused you and accept our failings in how we progressed this investigation.  To be clear, this investigation did not require your detention in custody to secure your account, nor was it necessary to affect a prompt investigation”.
    4. 

  4. John was dissatisfied with the apology for “distress” only, and, among other things, with the Metropolitan Police’s failure to admit his unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, or to confirm that they had breached professional standards. He appealed to the IPCC.
    5. 

  5. In March 2015, a year after the arrest, the IPCC confirmed Mr Rutherford’s view that his complaint was not suitable for Local Resolution and should never have been dealt with internally. It also confirmed that the Inspector’s response to the appeal was effectively a re-hash of the initial investigation, and that the matter should be sent back to the Metropolitan Police for a re-investigation.
    6. 



Instructing an Actions Against the Police Solicitor


By this time, John Rutherford was despondent. He, like many, was initially reluctant to engage a solicitor. I suspect this was because he felt comfortable dealing with the complaint himself and wanted to avoid issues about legal fees, trust, and confidence in his legal representation.


He found me on Google and got in touch. At this point, the third trait (finding a suitable solicitor) kicked in and we vetted each other.


I was frank with Mr Rutherford. I offered no guarantees but, on the strength of his instructions and the documents he provided, I felt he had a viable compensation claim for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.  I was confident enough to act under a Conditional Fee (“no win no fee”) Agreement, in which I only got paid if he won.


After the IPCC’s criticism the Metropolitan Police Inspector who originally investigated John’s complaint completely changed his tune. He now confirmed in a third report that, in his opinion, “The arrest was unnecessary and therefore unlawful. Your complaint has been upheld”.


Despite this, Mr Rutherford remained unhappy with the complaint investigation. On my advice we focussed on his civil claim for compensation. I intimated a claim.


I explained to my client that the Inspector’s opinion was not binding on the police in the civil claim. Unsurprisingly, the Metropolitan Police’s legal department failed to either admit or deny liability suggesting that “the matter could have been investigated utilising less intrusive methods”.  (my emphasis) They put forward an offer of £2,500.


I advised John that this offer was too low in my opinion. I suggested we put forward a counter-offer and, if the police did not accept it or make a reasonable offer, to issue court proceedings. This was not an easy decision for him to make.


It is a common misconception that “no win no fee” agreements also mean “no risk”. In fact, when the Claimant issues court proceedings they are at risk of paying the Defendant’s legal costs if they do not win or beat an offer. Litigation is not cheap and the police instruct expensive lawyers. It is not uncommon to see legal bills in actions against the police for over £50,000.


The decision to issue court proceedings required Mr Rutherford to trust my judgement. He knew that I have the necessary skills, expertise, and confidence which come from practising in this area of law for over 20 years. I was also invested in his success because I was risking my firm’s money and time by acting under a “no win no fee” agreement. But irrespective of the level of confidence and trust, there are no guarantees.


After weighing the options John took my advice and authorised me to issue court proceedings.


In response, despite their previous offer and failure to increase before proceedings, the Metropolitan Police put forward a revised offer of £6500.


Better, but not enough.


Mr Rutherford authorised me to negotiate further. I eventually settled his claim for £7400, nearly three times more than the first offer, plus legal costs.


Here’s what John said about my service:


“I was happy with every aspect of advice that you gave me, along with the guidance that you offered, I negotiate contracts for a living, and am quite legally aware. However, the threat of issuing proceedings against the Metropolitan Police caused me concern.  Your constant encouragement that everything was ok along with your experience and attention to detail impressed and bolstered my confidence, I was also happy with the result”.


Specialist Legal Help


People often complain direct to the police to get answers, accountability, and sometimes compensation. They do this without legal representation because they trust the police to investigate their complaint in a fair and just manner, without bias.


Instead, what they get is delay, avoidance, and a strong institutional bias against the person bringing the complaint and in favour of the officer(s) involved. They often only seek a solicitor’s help when they have lost all faith in the police complaint system.


In April 2016 there were 134,785 practising solicitors in England and Wales. Search Google for “actions against the police solicitors” and you’ll get 127,000 results. How hard can it be to find a good one to take on the police?


Answer: not so easy. This is because actions against the police solicitors work in a complicated, niche area of law. There are many lawyers out there who specialise in either criminal defence or civil litigation. There are few who cover both and also have the necessary background, skills, and attitude to risk to take on the State.


People have to spend time to find a solicitor they can work with, potentially for years. They have to look beyond the promises made on slick websites and make sure the solicitor is the right one for them.


Mr Rutherford knew enough about the law in actions against the police, had the courage to take them on, and the determination to find a specialist solicitor with whom he could work. He has my respect.


For help with your civil actions against the police contact me via the online form below.


 


			


	





	

		
		
Is Police Taser Policy Working?
	


	
	
	

		





By Iain Gould, Solicitor


The relentless rise in the police use of Taser “stun guns” is confirmed by the latest Home Office figures. The statistics show that police in England and Wales drew their Tasers more than 10,300 times last year, an increase of 55% since 2010.


These statistics are, to a large extent, understandable, as more and more front-line officers are equipped with the devices. This trend seems set to continue as, if it were up to the Police Federation, all front-line police officers would have the opportunity to carry Tasers (confirmed in a unanimous vote on 09 February 2015).


It’s easy to see why the police are so keen on them. The Association of Chief Police Officers like that “Taser provides an additional option to resolve situations, including the threat of violence, which can come from any section of the public.” Senior officers tell us that “The Taser is low-level officer protection equipment that is both safer and more appropriate to be used in many circumstances than a baton or firearm.” (Humberside Police Chief Superintendent Steve Graham). And, According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, “The normal reaction to the discharge of a Taser is pain, coupled with loss of some voluntary muscle control… Recovery from these effects of the Taser should be almost instantaneous, once the discharge is complete.”


So, according to the police, it’s all good. Carry on. But really, should we be concerned?


Taser Risks Exposed


Notwithstanding police claims that Tasers are low-level and safe, police policy seems to reflect the reality that the use of Taser is in fact a relatively high level use of force (IPCC review of Taser complaints and incidents 2004-2013) and that arming all officers with Tasers is effecting “compliance by pain” rather than “policing by consent” (Amnesty International press release 24 November 2008).


For this reason, Steve White, Chair of the Police Federation, said that “Any officer authorised to carry Taser must be fully trained to do so and there are strict procedures and safeguards in place to ensure all officers are fully accountable.”


But is this just hollow propaganda? Are officers fully trained? Are procedures followed? Are police officers held to account?


Consider the ongoing case of my client Rob Sutherland (name changed for privacy reasons).


Police Taser a Peacemaker


On 21 June 2013, Mr Sutherland went to his son’s ex-girlfriend’s flat to mediate in a disagreement over access to their baby son.


Rob arrived at the same time as two police officers. His son’s ex-girlfriend’s mother allowed the officers entry but blocked Mr Sutherland and then sought to slam the door in his face. Rob accepts that he held his ground and may have gripped the door frame. At this, one officer pushed Mr Sutherland away and said, “go away”.


Rob accused the officer of assault and asked for his badge number. The officer replied, “I am the police” and shut the door.


Mr Sutherland felt that the officer’s conduct was unacceptable and thought about lodging a complaint. He approached the officers’ vehicle to look inside for details of the officer’s identity. He accepts that he may have accidentally caught the wing mirror of the car with his hip but he did not deliberately kick or punch it.


Rob returned home. A short while later, the same officers arrived.


One of them advised Mr Sutherland that he was under arrest for public disorder. Rob asked what he had done wrong. The policeman sought to handcuff Mr Sutherland who accepts that he resisted by stiffening and raising his arms in the air. There was a minor struggle for no more than 10 or 15 seconds.


Suddenly, Rob heard a pop, which he described as “like a firecracker” going off. He felt intense but short-lived pain. The right side of his body went into an involuntary spasm and convulsion. His body “felt like jelly”. He momentarily lost his balance but was caught by the officers who grabbed Mr Sutherland’s arms and handcuffed him to the rear.


Rob was put in the back of the officers’ patrol car. The handcuffs had been applied extremely tightly and he asked one of the officers if the handcuffs could be loosened. They refused.


The police drove him to the local Police Station where the handcuffs were finally removed.


At this stage, Mr Sutherland felt terrible. His chest hurt from where the barbs of the Taser had pierced his skin. The ends of his fingers were still trembling. He felt generally unwell. His wrists were sore and painful.


Despite his own situation, as Rob is a full-time carer for his mother, he thought only of her wellbeing. His priority was to get out of the police station as quickly as possible.


He spoke to a duty solicitor before his police interview. He was advised that he had been arrested for both a public order offence and resisting arrest.


The police told Mr Sutherland’s solicitor that if his client accepted a fixed penalty notice for the public order offence, no further action would be taken in relation to the allegation of resisting arrest. The solicitor said that accepting the notice and payment of the fine would not be an admission of guilt. Conscious of the proposed deal, when interviewed, he deliberately underplayed the officer’s unlawful conduct and excessive use of force.


A short time later, Rob was brought out of his cell and issued with a fixed penalty notice which he subsequently accepted and paid.


Police Complaint and Claim


Mr Sutherland was angry about the incident in which, he felt, the police deliberately injured and humiliated him. He lodged a formal complaint. In response, the police offered to resolve his complaints by local resolution.


Rob then researched instructing a solicitor to help. As I specialise in civil actions against the police he asked me to handle his complaint and bring a compensation claim for both wrongful arrest and assault.


After a lengthy investigation process involving no less than two appeals to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”), his local police force have finally admitted that the use of Taser and handcuffs was inappropriate.


This only came about after the IPCC’s extremely critical comments of both PC B (the officer who Tasered Mr Sutherland) and his police force.


In a review of Rob’s appeal, the IPCC caseworker said, 


“I would question whether PC B gave enough emphasis to the first element of the National Decision Model, which is to communicate. He does not appear to have made any attempt to communicate with Mr Sutherland beyond challenging him about hitting the police car then, when Mr Sutherland argued back, telling him he was under arrest. The matter then quickly escalated to the use of force. This is precisely why the National Decision Model places so much emphasis on good communication – in order to diffuse difficult situations, so that they use of force will not become necessary.”


Police officers are entitled to use force to make an arrest provided that it is reasonable and proportionate to the threats presented. But, the caseworker continued, “Mr Sutherland was not waving a weapon and he had not assaulted anyone. He was in his own house and not a danger to the public. He had not been violent, or threatened violence, towards the officers”.


In conclusion, the caseworker reported that “the situation should not have been allowed to develop to the point where the use of Taser became necessary. More effort should have been made, in line with the National Decision Model, to engage Mr Sutherland in dialogue about why his behaviour was not acceptable” and “in situations where the police are confronted with members of the public who are adamant that they have done no wrong, often the best approach to adopt is one of communication and dialogue. A skilled officer will make every attempt to defuse a potentially volatile situation, rather than, in this case, a quick escalation to the use of force.”


Irrespective of the police officer’s rash behaviour, what was even more concerning was his attitude to the use of Taser and his perception of its seriousness. In his interview, the officer said:


“… It’s worth raising that people’s perceptions of use of Taser is that it’s quite serious and it’s quite high up on the scale of things, and in actuality it isn’t, it’s quite low down, it comes in at the same level as just putting your hands on somebody.“ (my emphasis in bold)


He went on:


“….If you have to put hands on someone and you’re struggling with them it makes them angry and human nature is makes you angry as well, and Taser just eliminates that completely because there is no reason to get worked up about anything, it’s just an instant thing and straightaway it stops somebody and generally their response is quite positive, I’ve found… the control is immediate, there is no reason for anybody to get injured, and the person will then generally, you know, have a chat with you afterwards and sort of chat to you about the Taser, and you didn’t like that much and you can be friends about it.” (again, my emphasis in bold)


Quite clearly, just putting your hands on somebody is not the same as inserting barbs into their skin and discharging a 50,000 voltage electrical current through their body, causing extreme pain and loss of muscle control. The officer’s apparent naiveté about the physical and mental impact of being Tasered calls into question his training and fitness to carry a weapon.


Inadequate Taser Training


The officer’s comments led to the IPCC caseworker making a somewhat exceptional recommendation under paragraph 28A of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. The IPCC demanded that the police force concerned should review the training provided to officers to ensure that:


    

  1. The training conforms with national guidance about when, and for what purpose, a warning is given about Taser discharge, and
    2. 

  2. Sufficient weight is given in training to the potentially harmful physical and psychological effects of discharging a Taser, and the benefits of using communication to defuse a difficult situation.
    3. 



In addition, the caseworker criticised the police force’s handling of Mr Sutherland’s complaint. The caseworker said that, “it should never have been treated as a matter suitable for local resolution given that the complaint, if proven, could amount to gross misconduct. As such, it ought to have been subject to a full investigation from the start, with the IPCC, not the force, being the relevant appeal body. Moreover, the matter should have been referred to the IPCC at the outset in line with the requirement to refer all cases where Taser has been used and a complaint is made”. 


Last Resort


Mr Sutherland was traumatised by not only his wrongful arrest but also the excessive and disproportionate use of force against him.  He is currently undergoing counselling and in due course I will present full details of his physical and mental injuries and hopefully negotiate a settlement.


In view of inappropriate Taser use such as this incident, it is right that public concern about the increasingly routine deployment of police Taser should remain high. I accept that there are legitimate reasons for using Taser weapons in policing. Used correctly, it can be a valuable tool in assisting police officers to manage difficult and challenging situations.


But it is essential that officers are taught and understand that the device should be a last resort and not as, in Rob’s case, a default choice where other tactical options, including communication could be effective. And where police officers fall short, their forces should to act quickly to address officer failures and accept responsibility. Only then will the public have confidence in the police’s policy on the use of Tasers.


Contact me for help with your police Taser assault claim using the online form below.


	


	





	

		
		
Why the Metropolitan Police Won’t Apologise to Lord Bramall
	


	
	
	

		





By Iain Gould, Solicitor


Recently the Metropolitan Police was in the headlines because it refused to formally apologise to Lord Bramall over its treatment of him during an investigation into historic child abuse allegations.


The Metropolitan Police raided Lord Bramall’s home in March 2015 and he was later interviewed under caution on 30 April 2015. He strenuously denied the allegations and said that “There wasn’t one grain of truth in the allegations” made against him.


In mid-January 2016, the Metropolitan Police finally declared that there “was insufficient evidence” to pursue charges against the 92-year-old Second World War veteran over the historic abuse inquiry.


Sir Max Hastings, military historian and friend of the peer said that Lord Bramall had “been through absolute hell” over the allegations. He said that in pursuing the investigation of historic abuse, the Metropolitan Police had lost sight of a “sense of justice and fairness” towards those accused and that “decency demanded” an apology.


This is why he won’t get one.


Metropolitan Police Statement


Patricia Gallan, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Crime and Operations, said in a statement: “The Metropolitan Police accepts absolutely that we should apologise when we get things wrong, and we have not shrunk from doing so.


“However, if we were to apologise whenever we investigated allegations that did not lead to a charge, we believe this would have a harmful impact on the judgments (sic) made by officers and on the confidence of the public.


“Investigators may be less likely to pursue allegations they knew would be hard to prove, whereas they should be focused on establishing the existence, or otherwise, of relevant evidence.”


Miss Gallan also said that she recognised “how unpleasant it may be to be investigated by the police over allegations of historic abuse. For a person to have their innocence publicly called into question must be appalling, and so I have every sympathy with Lord Bramall and his late wife and regret the distress they endured during this investigation.”


The force had a duty to fully investigate “many serious allegations referred to us every year” and should do so “irrespective of their status or social standing”, the statement went on.


“It stands to reason that we cannot only investigate the guilty and that we are not making a mistake when we investigate allegations where we subsequently find there is no case to answer,” the assistant commissioner said.


“I accept that we can always learn and improve,” she insisted.


Wrongful Arrest Apology Sought


But do the Metropolitan Police “learn and improve” and apologise when they “get things wrong”?


My client Raheel Khan (name withheld for confidentiality reasons) would disagree after he was wrongfully arrested in October 2013.


Mr Khan had previously served the Community as a part-time magistrate but that experience had not prepared him for a late night visit from police officers and a night in the cells.


Unbeknown to Raheel, on 12 February 2013, the County Court had imposed a non-molestation order against him in response to a series of spurious and vindictive allegations made by his ex-wife.


The non-molestation order was ordered to remain in force until 11 February 2014 at 11.59pm and provided that Mr Khan was, amongst other things, forbidden to use or threaten violence, intimidate, harass or pester, or communicate directly with his ex-wife. His only means of contact with her were to be through her nominated solicitors. Crucially, the order included a power of arrest so that if my client breached the order, he was liable to be arrested and brought before the Court.


Upon service of the order, my client contested it, saying that it had been supported by untrue and unfounded allegations and included a draconian power to arrest.


The Court agreed and, on 6 June 2013, discharged the non-molestation order, which was substituted with a “General Form of Undertaking”. In that both my client and his ex-wife effectively promised to not harass each other. As such, the threat of arrest for alleged breach of the non-molestation order was withdrawn.


On 9 October 2013, Mr Khan’s ex-wife reported a breach of the (now defunct) non-molestation order, claiming that my client had sent her emails. The Metropolitan Police decided to investigate and arrest my client.


On 11 October 2013, two officers attended my client’s home address at about 10.30pm. They told Mr Khan that he was to be arrested for breach of the terms of the non-molestation order.


Raheel told both officers that the non-molestation order had been discharged and replaced with a “General Form of Undertaking” which he had in his house. He offered to show it to the officers but they refused. They told Mr Khan that:


    

  • they had been instructed to arrest him;
    • 

  • they would not consider his documentation; and
    • 

  • he could give an account at the Police Station.
    • 



My client was dressed in his pyjamas, was not allowed to change, and was humiliatingly led outside in front of his neighbours to a waiting marked police van. He was taken to Ilford Police Station where he was processed and imprisoned in a cell overnight.


The next morning, Mr Khan was interviewed during which he produced the documentary evidence confirming that the non-molestation order had been replaced by an “Undertaking”. The interview lasted for less than 5 minutes and he was soon released without charge.


Complaint Against the Metropolitan Police


In November 2013, Mr Khan, upset at his treatment during the embarrassing and frightening episode, submitted a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards.


The Directorate’s long-winded investigation ended in mid July 2014. The Force thanked Mr Khan for raising the issue and confirmed that the officers’ behaviour had been unsatisfactory and breached professional standards. It accepted that Raheel’s arrest had been unlawful and upheld his complaint.  But no apology was forthcoming.


My client felt that the officers’ punishment (“management action”) was wholly inadequate and lodged an appeal.


Following review by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”) in October 2014, it was considered that management action was indeed appropriate but that, in addition, the Metropolitan Police should “give consideration” to Mr Khan’s request for a written apology.


(It was presumably considered that an apology would go some way to satisfy Mr Khan that he had been wronged, that the Metropolitan Police recognised what they had done wrong, and would learn from their mistake.)


Despite this clear recommendation from the IPCC the Metropolitan Police again failed to apologise.


Compensation Claim


Having exhausted the complaint process, Mr Khan felt that he had no alternative but to pursue a civil action against the police. He sought me out as a specialist in actions against the police following an internet search.


After carefully considering the facts I took Raheel’s case and demanded an apology on his behalf. I also intimated a compensation claim, alleging, false imprisonment among other things.


Following investigation, solicitors acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Police responded with a financial offer of settlement without admission of liability or an apology.


As is so often the case, whilst compensation may provide vindication and some comfort to my client, what he really wants is an apology. Despite Mr Khan’s repeated requests, a recommendation from the IPCC, and numerous requests from me, the Metropolitan Police have failed to do this simple, and free, thing.


The Force could easily address this, even while negotiations about compensation continue. At this point there is nothing to be gained by refusing to apologise, so why not do it?


Decency Demanded


My client’s experience is not unique. Mr Khan is one of many clients that I have represented (and continue to represent) who has to fight tooth and nail for justice. Unlike Lord Bramall, most are not in the public spotlight with friends and family in high places who can bring the police to account.


The Metropolitan Police’s response to Mr Khan (offer compensation with no admission of liability or apology) is in line with my experience of their general policy. A policy that fails to recognise what I consider to be its moral and economic duty as a public organisation to apologise when in the wrong, resolve issues quickly, and avoid lengthy and expensive legal battles.


I certainly do not recognise Patricia Gallan’s statement that the Metropolitan Police apologise “when we get things wrong”. Her statement reads more like a defence of their practices and indicates an unsympathetic attitude, despite the platitudes.


Sadly for Lord Bramall, Raheel, and countless others, the “decency demanded” by Sir Max Hastings for an apology does not seem to exist at Britain’s largest police force.


For help with your civil action against the police contact me via using the online form below or at my firm’s website http://www.dpp-law.com.


 


	


	





	

		
		
Are Police Disciplinary Hearings “robust, independent, and transparent”?
	


	
	
	

		
Iain Gould, solicitor, asks if police disciplinary hearings are robust, independent, and transparent.
Iain Gould, solicitor, asks if police disciplinary hearings are robust, independent, and transparent.


By Iain Gould, solicitor


I recently blogged on the case of Alex Farragher whose complaint about police misconduct led to a public police disciplinary hearing.


As of 1 May 2015, in accordance with Section 9 of The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, police disciplinary hearings “shall be in public” (subject to the discretion of the person chairing or conducting the hearing to exclude any person from all or part of the hearing).  That change, along with others, was aimed to create a “more robust, independent and transparent” police disciplinary system.


Has it worked?


The Law in Public Hearings


What does “in public” mean? The OED definition is “openly, for all to see or know”.


The concept of open justice has long been recognised.


In Scott v Scott (1913) AC 417, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said “that publicity in the administration of justice ….(is) one of the surest guarantees of our liberties” and cited passages from Bentham and Hallam in support of the general thesis that in Bentham’s phrase “Publicity is the very soul of justice”.


The principle is just as important now as it was then; in Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Limited (1998) 1 WLR 1056, Lord Woolf MR relied upon the following passage from Sir Jack Jacob’s Hamlyn lecture, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (1987) where he said:


“The need for public justice, which has now been statutorily recognised, is that it removes the possibility of arbitrariness in the administration of justice, so that in effect the public would have the opportunity of ‘judging the judges’: by sitting in public, the judges are themselves accountable and on trial”.


An application of the principles in Scott v Scott is to be found in McPherson v McPherson (1936) AC 177, a decision of the Privy Council’s in a Canadian case. There the undefended divorce of a well-known politician was conducted not in a court room (though there were empty courts available) but in the Judges’ Library. There was direct public access to the courts, but not to the Judges’ Library. It could be approached from the same corridor which encircled the building and provided direct access to the courts, but only through a double swing door, one side of which was always fixed shut, and on which there was a brass plate with the word “Private” in black letters on it. Through this swing door was another corridor, on the opposite wall of which was a further door to the Judges’ Library. Both this internal door and the free swinging half of the double doors were in fact open during this hearing. The question for the Court was:


“… whether those swing foots with ‘Private’ marked upon one of them were not as effective a bar to the access to the library by an ordinary member of the public finding himself in the public corridor as would be a door actually locked”. (p198)


Their answer, while accepting that no actual exclusion of the public was intended, was that:


“… even although it emerges in the last analysis that their actual exclusion resulted only from that word ‘Private’ on the outer door, the learned judge on this occasion, albeit unconsciously, was ……, denying his court to the public in breach of their right to be present, a right thus expressed by Lord Halsbury in Scott v Scott: ‘every court of justice is open to every subject of the King’.” (subject to any strictly defined exceptions).


In Storer v British Gas plc (2000) 2 All ER 440, the Court of Appeal decided that this fundamental principle was no less important in employment proceedings than in other proceedings. In that case, Mr Storer brought a claim against his employers. At a hearing at the Industrial Tribunal Centre, his claim was dismissed. On appeal, Mr Storer argued that this decision should be quashed on the basis that the hearing had not been held in public.


The relevant facts were as follows:


At the Centre, “12 Industrial Tribunals were sitting on that day.  The lists of cases to be heard in each were on public display.  There was also a list of floating cases, i.e. cases which had not been allocated to a court, but would be heard as and when a court became available.  Mr Storer’s case was one of these.  As the morning wore on, it seemed clear that his case would not be reached unless it was heard in a room not normally used as a court-room.  One was available – namely the office of the Regional Chairman, as that position was unfilled at the time.  As a Judge was available, and as the room was available, the court authorities took the decision to have the hearing there.  They did not consult Mr Storer on this.  The parties (including Mr Storer’s wife) were escorted there by a guide.  No member of the public accompanied them.  It is accepted that Mr Storer’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal accurately summarises the geographical situation of the room that was used:


(a)    The hearing was held behind a locked door which separated the area to which the public had access from that part which the learned Judge described as the ‘secure area’ on the second floor of the Tribunal office. This ‘secure area’ [is] protected by the door locked with a bush-button coded lock [which] provides the only means of access to the large open plan office off which the Regional Chairman’s room is located.


(b)   This locked door is clearly marked with a large sign stating ‘Private’ in black letters on a white background.


(c)    All access stairs from the public areas on the ground and first floors to the second floor where [the] locked door is located are marked clearly with a large sign stating”


PRIVATE


NO ADMITTANCE


TO PUBLIC BEYOND


THIS POINT


The Court concluded that the hearing had not been held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was physically  prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to conduct itself in this way.


How Public are Police Disciplinary Hearings?


Both my client Mr Edwin Taylor, and myself, have first-hand experience of the lengths to which the police will go to follow the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it in public police disciplinary hearings.


Following an incident that occurred on 14th February 2013, my client Mr Edwin Taylor lodged a complaint to the Metropolitan Police. The following description is based on his version of events.


Mr Taylor was driving home from work when he was stopped by a police carrier van. Edwin got out of his car. He was told that he had been driving erratically and asked to hand over his car keys. He refused.


Suddenly, one of the officers grabbed hold of Mr Taylor’s left arm and a struggle began. Many other police officers from the police van then stormed out and forcibly moved Edwin towards the pavement.


In doing so, Mr Taylor fell to the ground where he banged his head.


Edwin, with five or more police officers on top of him, was then handcuffed and leg restraints were strapped on him.


Mr Taylor was then told that he was under arrest for breaching s.5 of the Public Order Act. So as to further justify arrest, one police officer then said that he ‘could smell cannabis’ in Edwin’s car.


Mr Taylor was then transported to a police station. En route, Edwin said to both police officers that he was going to sue them for what they had done. An officer said in response “We’ll just say that you assaulted a police officer”.


Mr Taylor was then kept in custody until the next day and after he was interviewed for the alleged offences. Edwin was then bailed to return to the police station a few weeks later.


On his return, he was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.


There was no further action against Mr Taylor in respect of his driving (the reason for his stop), the cannabis allegation or breaching s.5 of the Public Order Act.


At the first opportunity, Edwin pleaded not guilty and his case was eventually listed for trial nearly a year later. At Trial, the CPS without notice or reason decided to discontinue.


Police Disciplinary Hearing Access


After investigating Mr Taylor’s complaint the Professional Standards Bureau decided to bring gross misconduct proceedings against three of the officers.  The police misconduct hearing finally went ahead last week in the Empress State Building, South West London, nearly three years after the incident.


Edwin is intent on bringing a civil claim against the Metropolitan Police for unlawful arrest, assault and malicious prosecution. To find out how the officers performed, I sent my colleague to sit as watching brief.


My colleague met up with Mr Taylor outside the Empress State Building and they went into reception together. Having been frisked by security, Mr Taylor was ushered upstairs to the hearing room. My colleague was denied access as his name was “not on the list”. My colleague queried this given that the hearing was “in public”. He was told it didn’t matter, his name must be on “the list”.


My colleague asked to speak to the Investigating Officer and explained his role. Pursuant to Regulation 30 (3) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012, Mr Taylor was (irrespective of any argument that this hearing was allegedly being held in public!), entitled to attend the hearing accompanied by one other person as an observer and my colleague was that person. The Presenting Officer promptly authorised entry.


My colleague was then escorted to the hearing. Here’s what appeared on the hearing room door:


Public Police Disciplinary Notice.
Public Police Disciplinary Notice.


I must say that I found my colleague’s experience intriguing.


Metropolitan Police hold their misconduct hearings at Empress Buildings. According to their website, “any member of the public or press wishing to attend a misconduct hearing may apply to do so but due to limitations on space and capacity, attendance at the hearing will be administered and booked by application”.


Should you be interested, you must then complete and submit an application providing your full name, address and date of birth.


The lucky few successful attendees are then sent a confirmation email but admission to the hearing is conditional. They must produce their personal registration letter (confirmation email) that was issued by the hearings unit and supporting photographic identification (passport, and/or driver’s licence), along with proof of address (ie a recent utility bill).


Needless to say, my colleague reports that no members of the public attended any one of the five days of the hearing.


Police Disciplinary Hearings Restrictions


Having checked out the websites for most of the other police forces in England and Wales, the Metropolitan Police’s conditions are fairly standard. There are however a few quirks here and there.


West Yorkshire Police state that notice of a public hearing will be made not less than five days prior to the hearing but that applications to attend “must be submitted within 48 hours of the notice being published”. This could effectively be a three-day window.


Most stress that space is limited. Thames Valley Police are bold enough to announce that “available space will limit numbers of the public attending to six people including members of the public”.


Should you be fortunate to apply in time, be selected, and have the necessary proof of ID with you, there’s still no guarantee that you will actually sit in on the hearing. Some like Gwent Police openly admit that “The Public/media will be given access to a room at Gwent Police HQ” which will broadcast “a live feed of the hearing”.


Consequences of Police Policy


To increase public trust in our police force, the police should freely and unconditionally open their doors to members of the public at disciplinary hearings.  Otherwise they are in danger of appearing to be (literally) a closed shop and to encourage an assumption that police officers judging  other police officers do not do so in a fair, unbiased and transparent way.


For example, Deputy Chief Constable of Essex Police Derek Benson claims that “Our intention will be to hold these hearings in public and make them as accessible as possible.”


But his force’s restrictive conditions (shown here) suggest to me that Essex Police (along with other forces) are paying only lip service to the concept of holding disciplinary hearings in public. In reality, they are putting many obstacles and discouragements in the way of the interested public.


This undermines the reputation of the police as being unbiased and effective in the investigation of crimes or misdemeanours committed by their own.


In the case of Storer v British Gas plc, the coded door lock was an actual physical barrier which prevented all access to the public. There was, the Court said “no chance of a member of the public dropping in to see how Industrial Tribunals (as they were then) were conducted, and the fact that none attempted to does nothing to show that this Tribunal was conducting the trial of the preliminary issue in public”.


What would the Court of Appeal make of the various barriers being put up by police forces around the country?


Contact me for help with your civil actions against the police using the online form below or here.


Update 


I am pleased to confirm that at a Joint Settlement Meeting, the Metropolitan Police agreed an out-of-court settlement of £46,000 together with my client’s legal fees.


	


	





	

		
		
Why the Police Disciplinary Tribunal Failed Alex Faragher
	


	
	
	

		
Photo of Iain Gould, solicitor, who discusses why a police disciplinary tribunal failed Alex Faragher.
Iain Gould, solicitor, discusses why a police disciplinary tribunal failed Alex Faragher.


By Iain Gould, solicitor


This afternoon, a public police disciplinary tribunal decided on the seriousness of misconduct by two Officers who had admitted breaching the standards of expected behaviour.


The hearing was in respect of a complaint lodged by my client, Alex Faragher. I have previously blogged on this case here, where I explained why police misconduct investigations must be reformed and later asked if the police are guilty of gross misconduct.


Sadly, my comments in the conclusion of the earlier post about a perception of bias have been borne out by today’s proceedings.


The disciplinary panel at today’s tribunal was made up of two senior police officers, Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale (Panel Chairman), Detective Superintendent Blackburn, and an independent lay individual, David Bowden.


Police Disciplinary Tribunal Finding


After consideration of the facts and on the basis of the Officers’ record, the disciplinary panel decided that their behaviour was misconduct only rather than gross misconduct.


I am dismayed by this verdict.


Is it right and proper that these two men, who admitted their disgraceful misconduct, continue to be employed as police officers for West Midlands Police?


After much publicity, certain changes have been introduced to the way that police officers are disciplined so as to create a “more robust, independent and transparent” police disciplinary system.


One of the changes introduced is holding misconduct hearings in public. As I have previously said, that’s a start.


Sadly for Ms Faragher and so many others, the system hasn’t changed materially in that the police continue to prosecute, defend, and sit in judgement on themselves.


Disciplinary Tribunal Punishment


Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale said the voicemail comments fell “substantially below what is expected of a West Midlands Police officer”.


However, he added: “The panel assess that the breach does not require the full range of sanctions, and that it amounts to misconduct.”


The punishment? Both Officers have been issued with written warnings.


My client, who attended both days of the police disciplinary tribunal, is extremely disappointed with not only the process, but also the findings, and result.


As a woman who was an alleged victim of domestic violence, all she wanted was to be treated with respect and professionalism. After being treated so badly by the two Officers she feels that the disciplinary tribunal has added insult to injury by letting the Officers off the hook.


She is also concerned that this sends a message about how West Midlands Police treat victims of crimes (in particular domestic violence against women) and that others might be put off reporting crime.


The panel at the police disciplinary tribunal had an opportunity to right a wrong and deal with these concerns. They failed.


Ms Faragher is now en route to ITV studios to be interviewed. The panel at the police disciplinary tribunal and two Officers may think that this matter is now settled. But for her, this story is not over.


UPDATE 29 October 2015: Click here to watch the tv news report.


Contact me for help with your civil action against the police using the online form below or via my firm’s website.


 


	


	





	

		
		
Is Confirmation Bias Responsible for Police Taser Assaults on Black People?
	


	
	
	

		
By Iain Gould, Solicitor


Photo of Iain Gould, solicitor, who discusses reasons for police Taser assaults. Iain Gould, solicitor, discusses reasons for police Taser assaults.


According to statistics just released by the Home Office to the BBC, black people are three times more likely than white people to be involved in Taser incidents.


The research shows the electric stun gun was drawn, aimed or fired 38,135 times in England and Wales over five years.


In more than 12% of cases Tasers were used against black people, who make up about 4% of the population.


I have long maintained that there is a growing trend for the unnecessary and unreasonable use of Tasers (see here, for example). Now, we have concrete evidence of their disproportionate use against a certain ethnic group.


But why?


One theory is that the police, like the rest of us, are subject to “confirmation bias” which is defined in Science Daily as the “tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions”.


If police officers have the perception that black people are more likely to be involved in criminal behaviour, that they will attempt to evade capture, or forcibly resist arrest, they will consciously or unconsciously seek out proof. Using Tasers during an arrest is just one way of justifying their (unfounded) assumptions.


Taser Assault on Innocent Black Man


An example of police confirmation bias against black people is the case of my client Samuel Miller (name changed for privacy purposes).


Samuel is a young black man who had never been in trouble with the police. He was walking to his local gym on a sunny day in June 2010 when, unbeknown to him, local police were actively looking for a black suspect who had raped a student at knifepoint.


Mr Miller was stopped by an officer with a dog who told him that they were looking for someone with his profile.  Samuel gave his name and address and told him he was heading to the gym. The Officer called for backup. Samuel understandably felt uneasy.


10-15 minutes after he had first been stopped, several police vehicles arrived and positioned themselves so as to box Samuel and the dog handler in. Seven white officers alighted. Mr Miller was extremely alarmed by developments.


Four of the officers approached. At this stage, Mr Miller had his thumbs in his back pockets with his arms hanging down. One officer told Samuel to “Give me your hands”. Samuel did so and as he did, the officer took hold of his forearm and suddenly said, “He’s going to attack”.


The officer grabbed Mr Miller’s wrist and tried to force his arm behind his back and handcuff him. Samuel could not believe what was happening and having done nothing wrong and having been given no explanation, resisted.


In response, other officers applied a succession of knee strikes and blows to his body and then five or six punches to his face. Eventually, Mr Miller felt his leg about to give way and as he began to fall to the ground, he was Tasered to the back. His body shuddered and he fell heavily onto his right shoulder.


Following his arrest, Samuel could see the officers in discussion. They were holding a picture up on a piece of paper. He could see that the picture was of a black man’s face. The officers held it up and were looking at Samuel and looking back at the photograph. One officer said, “We’ve got the wrong man.”


Despite this Samuel was arrested and taken to a local police station. Upon arrival, he still had two of the Taser barbs embedded in his back. A police nurse and Doctor tried to remove the Taser barb from his body but concluded that the barb was embedded so deeply that Mr Miller would have to attend hospital.


After a short while, Samuel was taken to hospital where with some difficulty, the barb was extracted and stitches applied.


Mr Miller was taken back to the police station where he was eventually interviewed.


The police told him that he had been stopped because he bore a strong resemblance to an armed man wanted for a serious offence but that because of how he had reacted, he had been arrested for a public order offence.


Samuel was eventually released on police bail having spent over 14 hours in custody. Several weeks later, he was advised that no further action was to be taken against him.


With my help, Mr Miller brought a civil action against the police. Liability was robustly denied. Notwithstanding this denial, Samuel’s claim settled for substantial damages plus costs together with an apology following the issue of court proceedings.


Addressing Confirmation Bias


It appears that the police’s confirmation bias that black men like Samuel are dangerous individuals led to this brutal and unjustified Taser assault.


Mr Miller’s only “crimes” were being black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. His understandable and perfectly reasonable resistance to an unlawful arrest led to the disproportionate use of force, and especially the unnecessary discharge of a Taser when he had already been subdued and was falling to the ground.


The police then showed their true colours by arresting Samuel for a (bogus) public order offence because of how he had reacted, convincing themselves that his conduct was unlawful, and fitting the confirmation bias narrative. (s.5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says that a person is guilty of an offence if he “uses threatening (or abusive) words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour”.)


In light of today’s BBC report and Mr Miller’s case it seems to me that the police still have a long way to go to address what Sir William McPherson described as an “institutional racist” organisation in his 1999 report about the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. They need to address confirmation bias as well.


Contact me for help with your claim against the police using the online form below or via my firm’s website.


Update 


I am pleased to confirm that at a Joint Settlement Meeting, Greater Manchester Police agreed an out-of-court settlement of £50,000 together with my client’s legal fees.












	


	





	

		
		
Why the New Police Code of Ethics is a Waste of Paper
	


	
	
	

		
Picture of Iain Gould, Solicitor (lawyer) and specialist in actions against the police claims.
Iain Gould, Solicitor (lawyer)


By Iain Gould, Solicitor


I was interviewed for BBC Breakfast today about the new Police Code of Ethics.


The Code, which you can read on the College of Policing website, serves as a reminder to police officers to fulfil duties that seem basic and obvious.


Described by Chief Constable Alex Marshall as ‘a first for everyone who works in policing in England and Wales’, it applies to all those who work in policing, including volunteers and contractors.


The Police Code of Ethics applies the ‘Nolan’ Principles, which originate from the 1995 report prepared by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and holds at its core the following principles:


    

  • Accountability
    • 

  • Fairness
    • 

  • Honesty
    • 

  • Integrity
    • 

  • Leadership
    • 

  • Objectivity
    • 

  • Openness
    • 

  • Respect
    • 

  • Selflessness
    • 



In addition, the Police Code of Ethics incorporates the existing Standards of Professional behaviour which covers the following:


    

  • Honesty and Integrity
    • 

  •  Authority, Respect and Courtesy
    • 

  • Equality and Diversity
    • 

  • Use of Force
    • 

  • Orders and Instructions
    • 

  • Duties and Responsibilities
    • 

  • Confidentiality
    • 

  • Fitness for Duty
    • 

  • Discreditable Conduct
    • 

  • Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
    • 



Despite referring to the Nolan Principles, I am struck by how little attention they are afforded. In the whole 32 page document only one page sets out the Principles and how they apply to policing in the UK.


As police officers are already obliged to respect and behave in accordance with Standards of Professional behaviour, which take up the vast majority of the new Code, this is merely a re-branding exercise.


What’s required is real reform.


Police Misconduct to Continue


Last year I wrote about why the existing system for dealing with police misconduct, which has been carried over into the new Police Code of Ethics, fails the public.


Then I found myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Sir Hugh Orde, Chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, when he said that it is ‘critical’ that there now be a fully independent police investigation system.


At the heart of any reform must be the introduction of a robust and objective disciplinary system.


The greatest encouragement to police corruption is a disciplinary system which makes no adequate effort to detect and punish corruption or misconduct.


The Independent Police Complaints Commission has proved useful but is woefully under-resourced and by reason of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), the majority of complaints against the police are dealt with in-house by the same Police Force.


As a result, investigations are often simply a whitewash.


Consider, for example, the experience of my client Pamela Boxford-White. She complained to Wiltshire Police following her (unlawful) arrest for Breach of the Peace using the internal police complaints procedure. Unsurprisingly, her complaint was rejected. She was told by a Chief Inspector in Wiltshire Police that the officers who arrested her had no case to answer and that no further action would be taken.


I had to issue civil court proceedings on her behalf to get the apology and compensation she deserved.


Only when government and the police make genuine and robust efforts to tackle corruption and misconduct in their ranks will it stop.


The introduction of a new Police Code of Ethics, while good for media coverage, changes nothing.


If you have suffered as a result of police misconduct and want help to sue the police, contact me using the online form below, on 0151 933 5525, or via my firm’s website.


 


	


	





	

		
		
Will the Metropolitan Police Abuse their Body Cameras?
	


	
	
	

		
By Iain Gould, Solicitor


I was interviewed on BBC Radio 5Live today about the Metropolitan Police’s decision to pilot a scheme in which 500 front line officers will wear body cameras.


You can hear the interview here:



Body camera debate


There is considerable debate about the use of body cameras, which is not surprising given that the trial, if extended, will ultimately result in 10,000 to 20,000 Metropolitan Police officers using the cameras, with many more around the UK following suit.


In my opinion, such cameras have the potential to be crucial in re-establishing public confidence in the police. They can help members of the public in their fight against police misconduct and at the same time help the police reduce the number of complaints and police abuse claims made against them.


But the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has said that such cameras will not be permanently switched on and that officers will be able to turn them on and off as they choose.


If this is allowed the body cameras’ role in providing a much-needed check and balance against abuse of police powers will be lost.


Picture of a police officer wearing a body camera.
Police officer wearing a body camera.


Many reasons why continuous recording will never happen have been put forward (Human Rights, employment regulations, and so on) but unless the deployment of such cameras is not subject to stringent guidelines, their effectiveness will be limited.


I would suggest a mandatory rule that such cameras must be turned on during any interaction with the public. If an officer fails to do so, not only should disciplinary action be taken when it is established that the camera was not deployed, but any footage obtained should be excluded from being used as evidence. This would have the desired effect of putting pressure on the police officers on the beat (and their superiors) to ensure that the cameras are routinely used.


As with any new habit, a ‘carrot and stick’ approach would help. The ‘carrot’ is ensuring that the difficult job of being a front line police officer is supported by impartial and contemporary evidence from a video camera. The ‘stick’ reminder of the threat of disciplinary action or a failed prosecution will help to ensure compliance.


Political motive for body cameras?


Unless and until such guidance is issued, the deployment of these cameras is little more than a political quick fix to try to restore public confidence.


What is really required is a change of culture where all police forces adopt a robust complaints system that is open and transparent and where police officers are held to account. The use of body cameras would go some way to providing the transparency required, but without a system of continuous use when interacting with the public, the Metropolitan Police’s motives could be seen as suspiciously self-serving.


If you have a police abuse claim and want legal help, contact me, Iain Gould, using the online form below, on 0151 933 5525, or via my firm’s website.


 


Image credit: West Midlands Police on flickr.