What You Need to Know About the Deletion of Records from National Police Systems

Iain Gould solicitor, explains what you need to know about deletion of records from national police systems.
Iain Gould solicitor, explains what you need to know about deletion of records.

By Iain Gould, solicitor.

In my experience as a solicitor who specialises in actions against the police, when an individual has been wrongly arrested, their priority is not necessarily financial compensation. Instead, they often seek:

  • an acceptance of wrongdoing;
  • an apology; and
  • deletion of records and data from national police systems obtained as a result of the arrest.

Data held in police systems can include the record of arrest, fingerprints, DNA sample and custody photograph.

This issue is particularly important for individuals who have no prior arrest history and who consider such retention of personal records with grave suspicion.

How Records Are Deleted from Police Systems

In certain cases subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) the individual’s DNA profile and fingerprint record should be automatically deleted by reason of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the “PoFA”). See below: 

1 Destruction of fingerprints and DNA profiles 

After section 63C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 insert—

“63DDestruction of fingerprints and DNA profiles 

(1)This section applies to— 

(a)fingerprints— 

(i)taken from a person under any power conferred by this Part of this Act, or

 (ii)taken by the police, with the consent of the person from whom they were taken, in connection with the investigation of an offence by the police, and

 (b)a DNA profile derived from a DNA sample taken as mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).

 (2)Fingerprints and DNA profiles to which this section applies (“section 63D material”) must be destroyed if it appears to the responsible chief officer of police that—

 (a)the taking of the fingerprint or, in the case of a DNA profile, the taking of the sample from which the DNA profile was derived, was unlawful, or

 (b)the fingerprint was taken, or, in the case of a DNA profile, was derived from a sample taken, from a person in connection with that person’s arrest and the arrest was unlawful or based on mistaken identity.

 (3)In any other case, section 63D material must be destroyed unless it is retained under any power conferred by sections 63E to 63O (including those sections as applied by section 63P).

 (4)Section 63D material which ceases to be retained under a power mentioned in subsection (3) may continue to be retained under any other such power which applies to it.

 (5)Nothing in this section prevents a speculative search, in relation to section 63D material, from being carried out within such time as may reasonably be required for the search if the responsible chief officer of police considers the search to be desirable.”

It is important to note the exceptions at points (3)-(5), and be aware that the PoFA does not deal with custody photographs (stored on the Custody Suite Imaging System, “CSIS”) and the associated police national computer (“PNC”) record and/or entry.

As a result, unless an application is made under the Record Deletion Process (“RDP”), even if DNA and fingerprints are destroyed, the PNC records and custody photograph will be retained by the police until the subject is deemed to have reached 100 years of age.

How to Seek Deletion of Records from National Police Systems

Irrespective of any complaint or civil claim pursued, the individual can apply for the destruction of all of his/ her personal data under the Record Deletion Process. Click on this link for guidance and the application form issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office (“ACRO”).

Applications can be submitted to ACRO or the individual police force concerned. The applicant must state the grounds for having their records deleted and provide proof of identity/current address. The guidance suggests that the evidence and grounds for deleting records from national police systems will be then be examined by a chief officer. If agreed, the expectation is that any records held will be deleted.

There are no set criteria for the deletion of records. Chief officers must exercise professional judgement based on the information available.

The following are some examples of circumstances in which deletion will be considered:

  • Malicious/false allegation. When a case against an individual has been withdrawn at any stage, and there is corroborative evidence that the case was based on a malicious or false allegation.
  • Proven alibi. Where there is corroborative evidence that the individual has a proven alibi and as a result she/he is eliminated from the enquiry after being arrested.
  • Incorrect disposal. Where disposal options are found to have been administered incorrectly, and under the correct disposal there would be no power to retain the DNA profile. In such circumstances, consideration should be given to deleting records.
  • Suspect status not clear at the time of arrest. Where an individual is arrested at the outset of enquiry, the distinction between the offender, victim and witness is not clear, and the individual is subsequently eliminated as a suspect.
  • Judicial recommendation. If, in the course of court proceedings, a magistrate or judge makes a recommendation that an individual’s records should be deleted.
  • No crime. Where it is established that a recordable crime has not been committed. For example, a sudden death when individual is arrested at the scene but after post-mortem it is determined that the deceased person died of natural causes and not homicide.

Metropolitan Police Record Deletion Process

For deletion of records held by the country’s largest force, the Metropolitan Police (“the Met”), applications must be submitted to the Early Deletion Unit (“EDU”).

It is not a straightforward process, as my client, Mr M, would confirm.

Mr M (name withheld to preserve anonymity) was arrested on 31 July 2012.

A month earlier an employee of Metropolitan Police was driving his car when he saw two individuals arguing in a car upfront.

The female passenger allegedly slapped the male driver (Mr M) and in response he allegedly punched her in the face.

At the next set of traffic lights, the Met employee parked in front of the car and got out to speak to the couple. He allegedly noted that the female, Mr M’s girlfriend, had injuries to her face and obtained their details.

Several days later the Met employee submitted a report about the incident.

Given the priority that domestic abuse is given, the case was investigated.

Unfortunately, there was a significant delay because:

  1. the police failed to get to grips with the location of the incident; and
  1. there were a large number of people at the Met passing the matter around.

During the investigation, Mr M’s girlfriend was contacted on a number of occasions.

She denied that she had been assaulted and further, refused to lodge a formal complaint. Notwithstanding this, a decision was made to invite Mr M to attend a police station for voluntary interview a month after the incident.

Upon arrival, despite attending as a volunteer, Mr M was summarily arrested.

He was detained in custody for 3 1/2 hours during which time he was interviewed.

Mr M was then bailed to attend the police station on 4 September 2012 where he was again detained in custody for a further 4 hours during which time he was interviewed again.

Ultimately, he was charged and bailed to attend court.

Mr M pleaded not guilty and eventually the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued proceedings on the basis of insufficient evidence.

Mr M searched the internet for guidance and, given my track record of success in this area, contacted me for legal help.

My client’s priority, as a man of exemplary character, was the destruction of all personal data held. He also sought compensation for his false arrest, detention, and the stress of court proceedings.

Mr M could have lodged an Application to the EDU shortly after the Crown Prosecution Service decided to discontinue proceedings. On my advice, he delayed, because, I advised, a complaint about the police’s conduct should come first.

Complaint Against the Metropolitan Police

After discussing the case, I explained to Mr M that he did not have grounds to complain with the Met’s decision to investigate.

But what was objectionable was:

  • the delay; and
  • inviting Mr M to attend a police station for a voluntary interview followed by an immediate decision to arrest at that time, which was said to be necessary so as “to allow a prompt and effective investigation.”

I submitted a complaint against the Metropolitan Police on Mr M’s behalf and agreed to act in his civil action against the police for compensation.

As is often the case, the complaint was dismissed by the Metropolitan Police.

On my client’s behalf I appealed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”).

Following review, Mr M’s complaint was upheld by the IPCC.

This mattered because the legality of arrest was initially considered by the Met’s “Professional Standards Champion”. As they initially dismissed my client’s complaint I am sure that the application for deletion of records would also have been rejected.

Civil Claim Supporting Deletion of Records

Despite the IPCC’s positive findings its decision was not binding upon the police.

As a result, when I submitted Mr M’s compensation claim to the police citing wrongful arrest, the Metropolitan Police denied liability.

In the circumstances, I had no alternative but to issue court proceedings to seek justice for my client.

Although liability was disputed, solicitors on behalf of the Met offered to settle his claim out of court. This confirmed my view that Mr M’s claim was entirely justified, despite the Met’s formal denial.

After extensive negotiations, Mr M settled his compensation claim for £6500 plus legal costs.

Despite this, in previous negotiations with the Met, it has been made clear that destruction of personal data has no relevance to any civil claim and that a separate application must be lodged to the EDU.

I used the supportive decision of the IPCC and offer of settlement to persuade the chief officer to agree to the deletion of my client’s records.

Delay in Deletion of Records

You would think that it would be a relatively quick and easy task to delete records. After all, they were easy enough to create when Mr M was arrested. Not so.

My application to delete his records was acknowledged in mid-January 2015. As is standard, the (laughably misnamed) Early Deletion Unit advised that it would take “up to 12 months” for a decision about deletion to be reached.

Notwithstanding several reminders, no decision was made by mid-January 2016. The EDU advised that “there is no statutory time limit for processing these requests and they may take up to 12 months or longer, due to the volume of similar applications currently being dealt with by the MPS”.

See redacted letter below:

The Metropolitan Police's Early Deletion Unit say that deletion of records requests can take up to 12 months or longer.
Redacted letter from the Metropolitan Police’s Early Deletion Unit confirming that requests may take up to 12 months or longer.

You may wonder how many requests are processed at the EDU. In response to a recent Freedom of Information Act request, the Metropolitan Police said that they were unable to provide this information because, remarkably, “This information is not recorded in a searchable electronic format”.

And yet, in another Freedom of Information Act request, the Met confirmed that:

“As of the 18th September there were 164 requests awaiting decision by the
Commander. These are regularly reviewed by the Commander and dealt with on
a priority basis. The outstanding requests awaiting decision are not
attributable to any staffing issues.”

In any event, I am pleased to confirm that the EDU did eventually process Mr M’s application. In mid-March 2016, the EDU ironically advised that the case was “eligible for early deletion”.

And you might think that now that a decision has been made, the offensive data would be deleted forthwith. But no, the EDU advise that “the deletion process may take several months to complete”.

See redacted letter below:

The Metropolitan Police wrote this letter to solicitor Iain Gould about deletion of records from their police systems.
Letter from the Early Deletion Unit confirming that Mr M’s case was “eligible for early deletion”.

Despite this, my client is extremely pleased. His arrest has been recognised by an independent body as unlawful, he has received financial compensation for his unlawful detention, but most importantly, ALL personal data obtained as a result of his arrest has been (or will be) destroyed.

His case proves that deletion of records from national police systems is possible, but it takes perseverance and knowledge of the system.

Contact me for help with your actions against the police using the online form below or at www.dpp-law.com.

Contact Me:

 

 

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 E T, 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 E T lodged a complaint to the Metropolitan Police. The following description is based on his version of events.

Mr T was driving home from work when he was stopped by a police carrier van. Mr T 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 T’s left arm and a struggle began. Many other police officers from the police van then stormed out and forcibly moved Mr T towards the pavement.

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

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

Mr T 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 Mr T’s car.

Mr T was then transported to a police station. En route, Mr T 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 T was then kept in custody until the next day and after he was interviewed for the alleged offences. Mr T 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 T 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, Mr T 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 T’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.

Mr T 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 T outside the Empress State Building and they went into reception together. Having been frisked by security, Mr T 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 T 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.

Contact Me:

 

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.

Contact Me:

 

Image credit: West Midlands Police on flickr.

Why must Court Proceedings be issued in a Compensation Claim Against the Police?

Actions against the police solicitor Iain Gould

By Iain Gould, Solicitor

Sometimes I get frustrated when helping my clients bring a compensation claim against the police.

What appears to be a perfectly straightforward case against the police where compensation should be paid can often result in a hard-fought battle.

When this happens I have no alternative but to issue court proceedings and fight for my clients all the way to a Court hearing.

This is expensive, time-consuming, and stressful for all involved, including the police officers themselves who, like my clients, must endure cross-examination at Court.

I had to take another compensation claim against the police to trial last week because the Metropolitan Police refused to settle.

My client, Luke Appleyard, 21, a student at the University of London, will shortly receive £13,250 from the Metropolitan Police after being attacked by a police dog.

(You can read the full case report here.)

So, taking his compensation claim against the police all the way to a jury trial was worthwhile. But was it really necessary?

Compensation Claim Against the Police for Defenceless Student

Photo of my client Luke Appleyard, who I represented in his compensation claim against the police
Luke Appleyard

Shortly after midnight on Friday 9 October 2009, Luke (pictured and details used with permission), of Carshalton, Surrey, was walking with a friend through Carshalton Park.

The park was dark and quiet.

Suddenly, an Alsatian dog appeared running quickly towards them. Without warning, the dog jumped up and bit Luke on his right forearm, which he had instinctively raised to protect his face.

The dog hung on for what Luke estimates was three minutes before Metropolitan Police officers arrived and released it.

Luke’s arm (shown below after the wounds had been cleaned) was bleeding heavily but the police insisted on searching him before getting medical help.

Photo of Luke Appleyard's arm after he had been attacked by a police dog.
Luke Appleyard’s arm after the police dog attack.

He was later told that the dog had been set on him as a result of mistaken identity, and that the police were searching for two robbery suspects.

Mr. Appleyard was taken by ambulance to hospital where his bite wounds were treated. He has since been left with about 20 scars on his right arm which makes him uncomfortable wearing short sleeves in public.

Luke Appleyard had never been in trouble with the police before. After the unprovoked attack, he:

  • was injured;
  • was upset;
  • suffered nightmares;
  • developed a fear of large dogs; and
  • lost confidence in the police.

As he received no apology or offer of compensation from the police, he decided to take matters further.

He found my details online and asked me to represent him in his compensation claim against the police.

After discussing it with him, I decided to take his claim. I initially represented Luke as a legal aid lawyer but later, when funding was withdrawn, acted on a ‘no win no fee’ basis.

I submitted details of Luke’s claim but the Metropolitan Police denied liability, saying that the police dog handler acted within the police’s guidelines when deploying the dog, ‘Storm’.

They claimed that Luke was running away, that the officer shouted a warning before releasing Storm, and that the force used was reasonable and necessary.

As this was a very different version of events to the one Luke had told me, I had no alternative but to take Luke’s compensation claim against the police to a full jury trial.

Compensation Claim Against the Police Wins at Jury Trial

On Wednesday 11 December, at the conclusion of the three-day trial at the Central London Civil Justice Centre, the jury returned a verdict indicating that they did not believe the Metropolitan Police officers’ account.

They heard evidence that the police officer in control of Storm was 110 metres away from Luke and his friend when the dog was released. The police dog handler claimed that he:

  • was able to make a positive identification from this distance;
  • shouted an audible command to Luke to stop running; then
  • released Storm.

I had seen the police officer’s statement long before the trial and was sure that this was impossible.

Manchester United’s football pitch is 105 metres from goal to goal.

Photo of Manchester United's football pitch.
View of Manchester United’s football pitch.

The officer claimed that he could see further than that distance in the dark and positively identify Luke and his friend as the people they were searching for.

The jury disagreed with the police’s version of events. They were not satisfied that Luke and his friend were running, or that the decision to release Storm was necessary or reasonable.

Paying for a Compensation Claim Against the Police

Instead of apologising and offering fair compensation, the Metropolitan Police fought Luke’s genuine claim so that he had no alternative but to go to an expensive, and unnecessary, jury trial.

The legal costs on both sides in Luke’s case will be many times more than the compensation he is paid. Because he won, all costs will be paid by the Metropolitan Police, who in turn are funded by taxpayers.

At a time when the Metropolitan Police’s funding is being closely examined, I hope those responsible will think long and hard about their conduct.

If you want to make a compensation claim against the police contact me, Iain Gould, using the online form below, on 0151 933 5525, or via my firm’s website.

Contact Me:

 

 

Image credit: cc licensed ( BY ) flickr photo by Paul: http://flickr.com/photos/vegaseddie/6160401568/

Why do police assaults continue eight years after Azelle Rodney’s death?

Iain Gould, Actions Against the Police SolicitorBy Iain Gould, solicitor

On 30 April 2005 an armed police officer of the London Metropolitan Police fatally shot Azelle Rodney (shown below), a passenger in a car believed to have armed criminals inside, in a bungled ‘hard stop’.  Although weapons were subsequently found in the vehicle, Mr. Rodney was not holding a gun when killed by the police.

Investigations by both the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service found no reason to criticise the police’s conduct. No inquest was held, and eventually political pressure persuaded the Lord Chancellor to establish a Parliamentary Inquiry on 10 June 2010.


cc licensed ( BY ) flickr photo shared by 4WardEver Campaign UK

The recently published Azelle Rodney Inquiry Report is critical of:

  • the Metropolitan Police’s planning procedures,
  • the execution of the ‘hard stop’,
  • their handling of the aftermath of the shooting, and
  • concluded that there was no lawful justification for shooting Mr. Rodney so as to kill him.

Specifically, the report criticised the conduct of the ‘hard stop’, a tactic used by the police to ‘box in’ a suspect vehicle and use overwhelming force to shock the occupants into compliance. The report’s authors considered this ‘hard stop’ fell short of Police standards.

They found fault with:

  • the decision to ‘box in’ the vehicle directly outside a pub when better opportunities for the manoeuvre had previously presented themselves,
  • the deliberate ramming of the suspect vehicle on two separate occasions,
  • the officers who alighted from the police vehicles failed to wear caps so identifying themselves as police officers,
  • the officers fired a shotgun into the suspect vehicle’s tyres after it had been rammed and hemmed in when there was no likelihood of the vehicle escaping
  • the disproportionate force used by the police officer who shot Azelle Rodney, who opened fire only 0.06 seconds after his car stopped alongside the suspect vehicle with first six bullets, then followed up with two more shots. Shots 5-8 were found to have been directly to the head.
  • the evidence given by that officer was unreliable. The report found that the officer could not have seen or believed that Azelle Rodney had picked up a gun and was about to use it, despite his earlier statements. It considered that the policeman would be liable in civil and criminal law for the killing as there was no basis for firing the fatal fifth to eighth shots
  • the post-assault procedures, in which Mr. Rodney’s body was left on the pavement for more than 16 hours, his blood was not cleaned away prior to his family attending the scene, and unauthorised press reports were released.

The report recommends that the Metropolitan Police conduct a thorough review of their procedures.


cc licensed ( BY SA ) flickr photo shared by West Midlands Police

Police assaults as a result of ‘hard stop’ action

Our modern police force has evolved to deal with changing threats. In particular, the risks caused by firearms and weapons means that the police have developed a tactic to create ‘shock and awe’ in the minds of their suspects. The police will now use the ‘hard stop’, expletives, physical force, ‘boxing in’ (where police vehicles are used to corner a suspect’s vehicle), and other aggressive behaviour to dominate and intimidate. They justify this by stating that they may have to deal with the threat of lethal force from potentially armed suspects.

The bungled ‘hard stop’ which tragically resulted in Azelle Rodney’s death was over eight years ago. Have the police learned from their mistakes? As two of my cases involving the London Metropolitan Police show, a pattern of unjustifiable police assaults is emerging that may suggest not.

Police assault, hard stops and ‘verbal stunning’

My clients Claire Clarke, James Barber, Nicholas Fairbairn and Ruth Fairbairn were on the receiving end of aggressive police assault tactics, described in an official response to their complaint as ‘verbal stunning’, when they were driving home from visiting friends on 19 April 2010. (You can read a case report here.)

The four friends in their late twenties were driving in Harrow when their car was boxed in by three marked Police cars while executing a ‘hard stop’.

A number of armed police officers surrounded them and trained their weapons on the car. James (the driver) had his car window was smashed, was roughly pulled out, thrown to the glass-covered ground and handcuffed. The armed police officers screamed expletives and contradictory instructions at the terrified friends. Nick and Ruth were also forcibly removed and handcuffed. The friends were separated. After 20 minutes the police explained they had made a mistake, and that they had stopped the wrong car.

All suffered physical and emotional distress as a result. As with Azelle Rodney’s case, the Independent Police Complaints Commission rejected their complaint saying there was no evidence of misconduct. I disagreed and instigated a civil action on their behalf and ultimately recovered compensation for my clients for this police assault on the basis that the police failed to conduct basic checks before executing the ‘hard stop’ on the friends’ car.


cc licensed ( BY SA ) flickr photo shared by Dave Crosby

Police assault with gun during a ‘hard stop’

My client Mr. A had just walked into an underground car park on 04 September 2009 when he was set upon by five or six armed men, all dressed in plain clothes. One of the men approached him and without warning smashed the butt of his gun into the side of Mr. A’s right temple, causing him to fall to the ground.

Mr. A was dragged away from the car park doorway by his attacker.

When Mr. A asked ‘why are you beating me?’ the man said ‘keep your f**king mouth shut’ and struck Mr. A with the butt of his gun again in the right temple.

Mr. A adopted a foetal position on the ground. While defenceless he felt people pulling at his limbs, kicking his heels, ribs and left hip. He was stamped on by the men. Then he was struck with the butt of the gun a third time to the head by the same man, who shouted ‘F**king c*nt, move!’

Mr. A, who was bleeding heavily and in great pain by this time had no idea who was attacking him, or why.

The man with the gun was told to ‘back off’ by a colleague, who came over and said ‘it’s not even f**king him’. Despite this, Mr. A was told that he was being arrested.

It then dawned on Mr. A that he had been repeatedly assaulted by police officers, not gangland thugs. As with Azelle Rodney’s case, the officers had failed to wear caps or other identifying clothing.

Mr. A was arrested (even though the officers would not tell him why), taken to hospital and thereafter a London police station where he was held for over 24 hours before being released, even though the police had clearly arrested the wrong man.

Ultimately, no action was taken against him.

He has suffered serious  injuries which have left him with permanent scars to his face and scalp, and emotional trauma. I am now pursuing an actions against the police claim for his police assault, wrongful arrest & false imprisonment. Mr. A seeks additional compensation for the police’s arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional conduct.

The police have denied liability and refused to apologise for their conduct. I have issued court proceedings on his behalf and the case is ongoing.

Police assault failures

There are chilling similarities between my clients’ cases and that of Azelle Rodney.

Eight years on, when faced with a potentially lethal threat, police officers are still failing to comply with proper procedures, using unnecessary force and mishandling the aftermath, knowing that they will be protected by the IPCC and their solicitors. We can only hope that the criticism of all involved in the Azelle Rodney case will convince the police to clean up their act.

 

If you are a victim of police assault and want to make a claim for compensation against the police, contact me using the online form below, on 0151 933 5525, or via the www.dpp-law.com website.

Contact Me: