news – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Solicitor

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 –

Retrospective Facial Recognition (RFR)
Operator Initiated Facial Recognition (OIFR)
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.

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!

Another Foot In The Door: Section 93 of the Crime & Policing Bill 2025

This week’s blog post comes from my colleague and fellow actions against the police solicitor, John Hagan.

There is a reason why the phrase “An Englishman’s home is his castle” is such a resonant one; it sums up a principle which underpins the liberal and democratic traditions of British society and we infringe upon it at our peril.

I therefore feel compelled to add my voice to the chorus of those who have expressed concern about section 93 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently at committee stage at the House of Commons, and which provides as follows –

93 Electronically tracked stolen goods: search without warrant

(1) In the Theft Act 1968, in the heading of section 26 after “goods” insert “with warrant”.

(2) In the Theft Act 1968, after section 26 insert—

“26A Electronically tracked stolen goods: search without warrant

(1) A constable whose rank is at least that of inspector (a “senior officer”) may authorise a constable to—

(a) enter specified premises, and

(b) search the specified premises for specified items.

(2) A senior officer may give an authorisation under subsection (1) only if satisfied that—

(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that—

(i) the specified items are stolen goods,

(ii) the specified items are on the specified premises, and

(iii) it is not reasonably practicable to obtain a warrant for the entry and search (under section 26 or another enactment) without frustrating or seriously prejudicing its purpose, and

(b) there is electronic tracking data indicating that the specified items (or any of them) are, or have at some time since they are believed to have been stolen been, on the specified premises.

(3) An authorisation may be given orally or in writing.

This clause, if enacted as currently drafted into law, would grant the Police yet further powers to intrude into the ‘inner sanctum’ of our private lives, without the prior oversight of the Court i.e. a new power of entry into a person’s home, without the need for Court approval in the form of a warrant. Also note the vague definition of “electronic tracking data” – any “information as to the location, determined by electronic means, of an item.”

Rob Warner has produced an excellent recent video surveying this problem which I would recommend everyone to watch, on his Crimebodge YouTube channel below:

And for those of you who haven’t read his equally excellent “Copper Stopper” handbook, read about it here.

Not every change is for the best, and sometimes politically expedient amendments to the law risk fixing a system that isn’t broken – or that already has the necessary tools to deal with the problem, provided they are used properly – and risk fuelling authoritarian ‘mission creep’ amongst the agents of the state, infringing fundamental personal liberties and enabling new forms of abuse and exploitation of Policing power.

The best laws are not those which are apparently designed for ‘headline grabbing’ – especially when the problem they purport to address could be fixed without changing the law, and instead by better management and application of existing resources. Section 93 of the new Bill appears to have been drafted to address news reports about Police being unwilling to act upon tracking data showing the location of people’s stolen mobile phones or other easily moveable computing devices; but we should be careful about throwing away our personal freedoms just for the sake of our personal phones – and, in reality, the power which already exists for the Police to apply for a Court warrant to search premises is what should, more efficiently and pro-actively, be utilised in appropriate cases of reported theft. That way, the Court oversight – the guardrails around State intrusion into our family homes which our forebears erected, would be maintained – rather than being further dismantled. Bear in mind that the Police already have wide powers under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to force entry into premises without Court permission –

Under Section 17 of PACE – to arrest wanted persons for serious offences, or if there is an immediate threat to the life or threat of serious injury of an occupant of the premises (“saving life or limb”).
Under Section 18 of PACE – to search premises at which an already arrested person resides.

I personally do not think that we should allow those powers – those gaps in the guardrails – to get any wider.

When I look at the proposed legislation I think of all the ways it could be abused by reckless, authoritarian or negligent Police Officers and the deep harm such abuse of power could cause, not only to the personal lives of those individuals whose homes are violated by a Police intrusion under this law, but also its wider implications in further diluting the principal of the sanctity of our ‘castles’ and injuring society as a whole; wearing down people’s expectations of privacy beneath the tramping feet of Police trespassers as the Police gain evermore ‘rights of way’ over the threshold of our homes. The more wedged the Police Officer’s boot becomes in the door, the more society may, in the long term, come to forget that we ever had a right to close it in their face.

John Hagan, solicitor and specialist in civil actions against the police.

Contemplating these themes, reflect on the following –

The rapidity with which the ill- thought-out emergency legislation brought in to address the Coronavirus pandemic was exploited by Police Officers, some of whom seemed gleeful to have their inner authoritarian enabled, as if they were living in the ‘papers please’ curfew- state of their dreams
The existing exploitation of Police powers of entry into the home – particularly under Section 17 of PACE – the supposed power of entry to “save life or limb” which is, very often, invoked by Officers when in fact nobody’s life or limb is in danger, but the Officer just has a twitchy nose
The many innocent families who have already suffered from mistaken address raids and misinterpretation of electronic data, including IP addresses and vehicle numberplates
Big Brother does not have all the answers, and I caution that we should be very wary about giving his foot-soldiers another excuse to come into our homes, especially one which is going to be based on notoriously imprecise location data, in a country whose cities have a very high population density, often sharing terraced streets or apartment blocks.

Not all change is for the best and the strongest wisdom often has age-old roots. Let us hope that modern day legislators take a proper look before they leap, and come to the same realisation which led to the abolition of the “Smoke Money” Act during the reign of King William and Queen Mary (1688 – 94), which had previously imposed a tax payable to the Monarch on the basis of how many hearths, or fire-places, a house possessed. The preamble to the Act repealing this imposition decried it as contrary to the institutions of English justice, in the following strident terms, which I am tempted to adopt for our present purpose –

“Not only a great oppression to the poorer sort, but a badge of slavery upon the whole people, exposing every man’s house to be entered into and searched at pleasure by persons unknown to him.”

How you can help me

Police Sergeant demoted after punching detainee in the head

Here is yet another example of how, rather like computer- game characters, Police Officers who misconduct themselves and perpetrate assaults or actions which if carried out by a ‘civilian’ would probably be considered criminal, are effectively let off the hook by only having to face professional sanctions – in this case a demotion for Hertfordshire Constabulary Police Sergeant Peter Glover to the rank of Constable.

Glover was found to have committed gross misconduct by using force which was neither “necessary, proportionate or reasonable” when he punched a detainee three times in the head, whilst the detainee was on a bed in a cell at Hatfield Police Station, in February 2023.

The disciplinary panel censured Sergeant Glover’s “failure to make any attempt to de-escalate” or to give any warning before his “unexpected” use of force began.

In relegating Glover to the rank of Constable, rather than dismissing him – which I would argue was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances – the panel said that Glover was not “fundamentally unfit” to be an Officer, but that he had “fallen short with regards to judgment and management in a supervisory role”.

To my mind, the offence that the Officer committed which would have been serious even were he only a Constable in the first place, was all the more aggravated given the responsibility he had not only for leadership and setting the tone for his colleagues, but his duty to proactively ensure the safety and wellbeing of detainees in Police custody – many of whom are in a very vulnerable state due to consumption of alcohol, mental health disturbance or other factors.

Sadly, all too many Officers seem to forget their duty of care and rather than acting as custodians of the welfare of detainees, they fall all too easily into the role of callous and bullying jailors.

Police Officer Charged with Misconduct for Failing to Release Unlawfully Arrested Man from Custody

One of my key roles is to win appropriate compensation for people who have been unlawfully arrested – but I know that every one of my clients would quite happily trade the money that they recover if they were able to get back the time/liberty that was taken from them in such harrowing and disturbing circumstances as an unlawful arrest and incarceration in Police custody.

It is imperative that the Police take seriously their duty, ongoing during every minute of a person’s detention, to consider whether continued detention following arrest is justified and necessary. I am therefore pleased to see criminal charges being brought against an Officer for a failure to immediately release from Custody a man whom he knew to have been unlawfully arrested.

My comments stand whether or not the Officer is guilty of the offence of misconduct in public office – the fact that the charges are being brought shows a proper spotlight of seriousness and scrutiny being shone upon this crucial issue. Compensation is one thing, but the first thing that those who have been unlawfully arrested want is to be released and to be allowed to return to their lives as soon as possible.

PC James Martin of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary has denied the offence awaits trial in 2025.

£300K Compensation for Police ‘Wrong House’ Raids

I was pleased to have the opportunity to talk recently with journalist Matthew Davis, whose report about the scale of the problem of Police ‘wrong door’ house raids has been published in the Express.

As Matthew explains in the article, Police data reveals at least 255 cases over the last three years in which the homes of innocent people were wrongly raided by the Police, resulting in total damages payouts of over £300,000 – although in reality that figure will be much higher, as major Forces such as the Met, West Midlands Police and West Yorkshire Police claimed to be unable to provide information on this issue.

Indeed, I can claim to be personally responsible for over a third of the quoted figure of damages paid out – as you will see by reading my blogs about how I helped one family win £41,000 from Cheshire Police and another win £57,000 from Thames Valley Police.

‘Smarter Policing’ is absolutely the answer to this problem: but I am satisfied that without the spotlight shone upon it by successful compensation claims such as those of my clients highlighted, stupid errors are going to continue to occur, and terrified families will pay the emotional price.

Police Power Attracts Predators

A deeply disturbing case in the news last week was that of ex- Greater Manchester Police Officer Dean Dempster, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl in December 2023 whilst he was on duty. Dempster was subsequently discovered to have downloaded hundreds of indecent images of children, and his sentence of only 9 years imprisonment seems frankly insufficient.

I was particularly struck by the comment of GMP’s Deputy Chief Constable Terry Woods, who stated of Dempster “He is not a police officer; he is a child sex offender, a criminal and he has no right to be near police uniform or serve the public.” This is concerning in its own way, because the fact of the matter is that Dempster was a Police Officer, and to deny that fact is to close one’s eyes to the obvious but chilling reality that predators are specifically attracted to ‘police uniform’ because of the power over others which it grants them, and specifically the opportunity to exploit the vulnerable: domestic violence victims, the mentally unwell and, of course, children and young people.

It is not enough for the Police to say that predators are anathema to the Police, to imply that they are the opposite of ‘true officers’, when so many abusers have chosen the profession because its access to power, violence, the privileged protection it offers and the vices of toxic masculinity common in its culture are attractive to and to some degree enabling of them.

It should not come as a surprise to the Police that they have predators within their ranks, as if they were a choir of angels who have suddenly unmasked a devil in their midst; they should be alive to the danger and constantly on the lookout for such men trying to infiltrate their ranks, their first duty in protecting the public being to protect them from Police Officers who abuse.

Otherwise tragic cases like this, and that of my client who was raped at the age of 13 by Cheshire Police Officer Ian Naude will continue to haunt us all.

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.

Thames Valley Police Pay £57K Damages to Family for ‘Wrong Address’ Raid

One of the simplest mistakes the Police can make is to misread an address and ‘raid’ the wrong property under a search warrant or other planned operation – a ‘schoolboy error’ which causes a terrifying ordeal for the innocent family who experience what can only be described as a ‘home invasion’ – an inversion of what should be a family’s safest space into a theatre of nightmares, particularly for the children of the family.

Despite the number of clients I have represented who have suffered exactly this form of ‘wrong address’ raid, I still remain surprised at quite how prevalent it is; such an easy problem for the Police to avoid, and yet time and time again Force after Force smashes down the wrong door.

My client Arthur Owusu and his family reside in Reading. The street number of their house is 25, and Arthur lives there with his wife Faith, their three school-age daughters and Faith’s brother George. The family have lived there since 2013. They were not just recently arrived tenants, stepping into a property associated with somebody else.

Early one morning in 2022, Arthur was preparing breakfast in the kitchen, whilst his daughters got ready for school upstairs, when he was disturbed by loud banging on the front door.

Arthur went to the door but was given no chance to answer it, for at this moment uniformed Police Officers flooded into his house, having used a battering ram to break-and-enter.

Arthur was immediately seized and handcuffed to the rear by several officers; he was dazed and confused by what was happening, a situation compounded by the fact that English is not his first language.

Officers began to search the premises and located the other family members, who were then escorted into the lounge to join Arthur in temporary captivity, this included Faith and the girls who had been in the process of using the bathroom/ getting ready in their bedrooms and thus were in a state of undress when the Police burst in. It was particularly traumatising for Arthur’s young daughters to see their father being held in handcuffs in their living room, like a criminal.

There are few noises more frightening than that of your house being broken into – the noise of intruders breaking not merely a physical lock or window but the psychological seal of privacy and safety which we take for granted around our family home. Muddy boot prints on the carpet can be scrubbed clean much more easily than the footprints such an experience leaves in the memory – particularly the minds of children and, sadly, it was unsurprising that long after this event was over, Arthur’s young daughters required counselling/ therapy (which I am pleased to say I was able to facilitate for them as part of their claims).

The Officers now explained that they were here to execute a Search Warrant in regards to an individual by the surname of “Jones.” Arthur explained that Mr Jones was known to him – as his next door neighbour; for Mr Jones lived at 25A, and had done so for many years.

The Officers now realised their mistake and released Arthur from his handcuffs (though not before he had suffered bruising/ marking upon his wrists). A senior officer advised the Owusu family that arrangements would be made for their front door to be repaired and the Officers then trooped out, leaving the family bewildered, shaken and upset.

Thankfully, the Police intrusion had lasted for less than half an hour, although it had felt far longer to the family whilst they were undergoing it, such was the intensity of the shock, and its effects would persist for a long time afterwards – as I have already alluded to.

Arthur and his family all suffered with anxiety, mood and sleep disturbance following the incident. Arthur felt a deep shame at being seen by his family in handcuffs – with all the stigma of criminality attached to that degrading piece of Police ‘kit’ – and his youngest daughter, aged only eight at the time, was worried for months afterwards whenever she was apart from him, for fear that the Police had come back to get him.

Getting the ‘wrong house’ with a similar number is an easy mistake to make – but it is absolutely inexcusable when the consequence is not to have a lost letter come through the door, but rather a paramilitary-style break-and-enter Police squad.

Police ‘intelligence’ which makes this kind of elementary mistake really isn’t living up to its name and calls for pushback with the full force of the law.

I was therefore more than happy to help the Owusu family when they consulted me, and I presented claims for trespass to land and breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (the protection of private and family life) on their behalf against Thames Valley Police, along with associated assault and battery (which included the family’s initial fear – particularly on the part of the children – that the intruders might be something worse than misdirected Police Officers).

Although no one was arrested, all of the family were also entitled to sue the Police for false imprisonment; for the 25 minutes or so that the Police were in occupation of the house also counted as a period of detention for its occupants, who were obviously not free to come and go as they pleased. Read here another of my recent blogs in which I explain the legal basis behind such a claim made in very similar circumstances.

Despite such an obvious error on the part of the Police they prevaricated about liability, only admitted after I formally threatened legal action, and even then tried to under–settle the family’s claim for damages. However, I am pleased to confirm that I have recently concluded all of the Owusu’s claims for total damages of over £57,000 – more than twice as much as Thames Valley were initially prepared to offer.

So that is why if the Police wrongly knock down your door – I urge you to rightly come knocking on mine!

My clients’ names have been changed.

How you can help me

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

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.

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.

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

“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.

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:

A public officer;
Exercised a power in that capacity; and
The officer intended to injure the Claimant by his/her acts. This is known as ‘targeted malice’; or
The officer knowingly or recklessly (in the subjective sense) acted beyond his/her powers. This is known as ‘un-targeted malice’; and
The officer’s act(s) caused damage to the Claimant; and
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.

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:

Sending and receiving text messages and telephone calls of a personal and sexual nature to Clare, a victim of domestic abuse.
Requiring Clare to attend at the police station on a number of occasions.
Attending Clare’s home address on a number of occasions.
Instigating and engaging in a sexual relationship with Clare, a victim of domestic abuse.

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.

Should the Police “Arrest First” and Investigate Later?

By Iain Gould, solicitor

The head of the National Crime Agency, Lynne Owens has been in the news. According to The Sunday Times and quoted in The Telegraph, whilst Chief Constable of Surrey Police she told police officers investigating rape cases to “arrest first” and investigate later.

Owens, who is now head of the National Crime Agency, is said to have made the changes when she was Chief Constable for Surrey Police between 2011-2015.

According to the report, minutes from a September 2015 meeting called by the then Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, Kevin Hurley reveal that Owens was asked how the force was going to improve their detection rates for rape.

The minutes record: “The chief constable was keen to ensure officers were robustly pursuing offenders. Officers tended to receive an allegation then wait to make an arrest after gathering evidence. They needed to change this and make an arrest first and then gather the evidence.”

Nick Ephgrave, then Deputy chief constable and who now leads the force, told the meeting that the tactics had raised the rape detection rate from 6 per cent to 15.8 per cent, a significant turnaround in a year.

It is obviously satisfying to see a Chief Constable adopting a robust approach to the investigation of crime but it is imperative that Police forces operate within the legal powers conferred upon them. In my dealings with various Police forces, I am afraid however that tactics of arresting prior to sufficient evidence to form the basis of reasonable suspicion being gathered first are not necessarily limited to Surrey Constabulary. An arrest on suspicion of a sexual crime, such as rape can have serious long-lasting consequences for the person arrested if they were in fact entirely innocent, and have been arrested by the Police simply as part of a ‘fishing expedition’ which effectively amounts to an abuse of Police power of arrest, as I shall explain.

Robert’s Case

I have recently concluded a case on behalf of Robert (name changed for obvious reasons), a student who when just 16 years old, was arrested by North Wales Police on suspicion of rape.

In the summer of 2013, a music Festival took place in North Wales. Robert attended along with several friends.

Towards the end of the festival, a female complainant, Ms A made a complaint to a crisis worker that she may have been raped the previous evening. Ms A ‘s initial account was as follows;

“I went to the toilet block, talking to two lads. I went to a tent….. I don’t remember anything else but I think I have been raped because it hurts down below. I think I remember one of the boys wearing a red puffa jacket”.

Ms A subsequently gave a statement to the police. Her recollection of the evening was vague due to her consumption of a large amount of alcohol. She recalled that the previous evening, she had visited the site toilets with a friend, GH. While she was waiting outside the toilets for GH, she started a conversation with an unknown white male. Ms A started kissing this male. She was then introduced to the unknown male’s friend, “Robert” who was “mixed race” and who was wearing a distinctive red puffa jacket.

Ms A’s next recollection was of consensual oral sex with the white male in a tent. Ms A also recalled something hard being pushed into her vagina. Ms A remembered saying “stop, it hurts and I can’t do this”, getting dressed and then leaving the tent.

Ms A was examined by a paediatrician who concluded that she had received trauma to her genital area and that the marks were consistent with an attempt at intercourse.

GH was interviewed and he recalled he had seen Ms A and the unknown male kissing and then walking off together followed by “Robert”.

Several days later, friends and family of Ms A contacted North Wales Police to report that they had identified the mixed race male in the red puffa jacket introduced as “Robert” as my client.

On the basis of this information, several Police officers travelled to my client’s home address and arrested him on suspicion of rape. Robert was 16 years old, is of mixed race and had never been in trouble with the Police before. He was taken to a Police Station. This was despite the fact that Ms A had never alleged that the mixed race male had any sexual contact with her, but rather his white friend.

At the Police Station and without the least evidential or reasonable foundation, the circumstances of arrest were said to be;

“The Detained Person has been identified as being responsible for rape. Circumstances are that the I/P recalls being in a tent at the festival and being subjected to rape. D/P has been identified via clothing worn and full description of a male seen with the I/P prior to the incident”.

The necessity for the Claimant’s arrest was said to be to “allow the prompt and effective investigation”.

My client was obliged to provide his personal details. He was then searched, his personal belongings including his mobile phone seized, and he was then placed in a holding cell where he was subsequently joined by his mother who had been obliged to travel to the Police Station separately.

Robert was subsequently taken for interview. He answered all questions truthfully and directly. The interview was rather meandering and in fact was a fishing expedition rather than fact based enquiry. On review, it was apparent that the officers had no information whatsoever to implicate Robert. After 58 minutes of questioning, the Duty Solicitor intervened and put it to the interviewing officers that their questions resembled questions which would ordinarily be put to a witness rather than a suspect. The relevant passage of the interview is as follows:

Solicitor: Sorry, the two times she’s described having sex, oral sex with a white man and then sex, you haven’t given any description as to the person she’s having sex with then.

IO: No there is no description actually in the notes here I’ve got.

Solicitor: So that has led you to arrest him as opposed to a voluntary interview or anything.

IO: The clothing description and …

Solicitor: She doesn’t say she’s ……………. red puffa jacket

IO: The jacket also with the description as well, Robert is seen in the vicinity heading in the same direction.

Solicitor: Is that just because you have a name? Because you’ve been able to pick a name up.

IO: Hm hm

Solicitor: You arrested him and used him to get your information, that is disgraceful, Robert is 16 and has never been in trouble before.

IO: I understand the point you’re making. I’ll make a note of that.

Solicitor: I’d like you really to get on and finish this interview because it’s disgraceful

Thereafter, the Police advised Robert that he was to be released on Police bail. The Duty Solicitor again made robust representations as to why Police bail was wholly inappropriate and that Robert should be released NFA (no further action). On the basis of those representations, the issue was reconsidered and a decision made to release Robert without charge.

Finally, in the early hours of the morning, Robert was released. Notwithstanding his release, the Police retained 2 T-shirts belonging to Robert and his mobile phone which were eventually returned several weeks later.

Robert was understandably shocked by what happened to him but equally satisfied that he had done no wrong.

Robert is in my opinion a young man going places and despite his arrest was not going to be deterred from getting on in life. He continued his studies and successfully passed several ‘A’ Levels 2 years later.

Robert was however left with a fear of intimacy with girls; he was concerned that if he developed a relationship with a girl, a similar allegation could be made. He was particularly fearful if he drank leaving gaps in his memories. A Psychologist concluded that this fear represented a chronic adjustment disorder but that with time, he would overcome these issues.

The Law

For any arrest to be lawful, it must be founded on reasonable grounds. This necessitates consideration of whether, objectively, it was reasonable to suspect the Claimant of the offence for which he was arrested. It is also necessary to consider whether the arresting officer honestly suspected the Claimant of the offence for which he was arrested. Further, it is necessary to consider whether the decision to arrest was a lawful exercise of discretion, applying the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness: see Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey (1996)

Castorina was followed in the more recent case of Buckley and others v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2009]. The following was stated by the Court of Appeal in Buckley:

“Suspicion is a state of mind well short of belief. The threshold for establishing reasonable grounds for suspicion is a low one. It is an inherent possibility in the need for diligent investigations of serious offences than an innocent person may be arrested on reasonable grounds. Importantly, the correct approach to judgment upon the lawfulness of arrest is not to separate out each of the elements of the constable’s state of mind and ask individually of them whether that creates reasonable grounds for suspicion; it is to look at them cumulatively, as of course the arresting officer has to at the time.”

It is clear that the test for reasonable suspicion represents a low threshold for the arresting officer to meet. What is required to reasonably suspect a person of an offence falls far short of what would be required to charge them and thereafter to ultimately convict them of the same offence. The relevant information is that which was available to the arresting officer prior to the arrest, not any information that might have been gained afterwards, for example, during interview.

Every arrest must also meet the requirement of necessity. Section 24(5) of PACE 1984 sets out a number of criteria for the consideration of whether an arrest is necessary.

The application of the necessity criteria was considered in Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2011], in which a schoolteacher successfully challenged the lawfulness of his arrest for assaulting a pupil, after he had attended the police station voluntarily. The decision in Richardson was then considered in Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2012]

In Hayes, Hughes LJ, having acknowledged that it might be quite unnecessary to arrest a schoolteacher who had attended the police station voluntarily, said that the correct test for the assessment of whether an arrest met the requirements of necessity was:

“…(1) the policeman must honestly believe that arrest is necessary, for one or more identified section 24(5) reasons; and (2) his decision must be one which, objectively reviewed afterwards according to the information known to him at the time, is held to have been made on reasonable grounds…”

The Claim

On Robert’s behalf, I intimated a claim against the Chief Constable of North Wales Police. Following investigation, liability was denied. In relation to the commission of the offence, the Police asserted that there were clearly reasonable grounds on which the arresting Officer was entitled to suspect that an offence of attempted rape had been committed by Robert:

A complaint of rape had been made by Ms A;
The paediatrician had concluded that Ms A had received acute trauma to her genital area;
The marks were consistent with an attempt at intercourse;
Ms A identified a mixed race male as being present when she began kissing the unknown white make and went back to his tent;
Ms A could recall walking back to the tent with the unknown white male and the mixed race male;
This mixed race male was described as wearing a red puffa jacked and being in his late teens/early twenties;
Robert was 16 years of age and of mixed race.
Enquiries by Mrs A’s friends and family identified that this mixed race make was Robert;
The descriptive match with Robert was sufficiently proximate to implicate him (see inter alia, Armstrong -v- West Yorkshire Police [2008] EWCA);
Ms A had been under the influence of alcohol and accordingly had an impaired personal recollection of events.

In terms of the necessity of Robert’s arrest, his arrest was plainly necessary to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence and the arresting Officers was entitled to form the view, as he plainly did, that the relevant necessity ground for arrest was made out.

As settlement terms could not be agreed, it was necessary to issue Court proceedings.

Court Proceedings

On Robert’s behalf, I argued that:

(a) There were no reasonable grounds to suspect Robert of the commission of the offence for which he was arrested. I relied in particular on the following facts which individually or in aggregate negated reasonable suspicion;

i) Ms A performed oral sex on a white male. Robert was of mixed race

ii) Ms A gave no description of the male who allegedly attempted to rape her.

iii) Despite being able to identify Robert by name and description, Ms A did not allege at any stage that Robert had himself committed the or any offence.

iv) Robert was identified as being an associate of the possible suspect. It was apparent that the Police had arrested him so as to gather information as to the identity of the suspect, not because of any reasonable or otherwise, suspicion to arrest.

(b) The arresting officer did not reasonably believe that lawful grounds for arrest existed;

(c) The arresting Officer did not at the material time honestly and reasonably believe that it was necessary to arrest Robert on suspicion of any offence or for any other lawful reason; alternatively

(d) There were no reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons specified in s24(5) of PACE it was necessary to arrest Robert. There was no evidence that this young man of good character would not have answered questions voluntarily; further or alternatively

(e) The arresting officer failed to have any or any proper regard to the requirements of PACE Code of Practice G and in particular paragraph 1.3. of the said Code which requires that ‘officers exercising the power (of arrest) should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other less intrusive means’; further or alternatively

(f) The arresting officer in deciding whether to arrest Robert failed to exercise his discretion lawfully or at all; further or alternatively

(g) At no material time were there reasonable grounds for believing that Robert’s detention at the police station was necessary for any of the reasons specified in section 37 of PACE or at all.

The arrest and detention having been unlawful, it followed that all touching of Robert amounted to assault (ie to search and take his fingerprints/DNA sample) and that the seizure of Robert’s property amounted to trespass to goods.

As is so often the case, the Police denial of liability was nothing other than strategic manoeuvring and after 6 months of further prevarication, I am pleased to report that the Police agreed to destroy Robert’s personal data (fingerprints, DNA and photograph) and expunge the record of arrest from all local and national Police records and pay compensatory damages of £15,000 plus full legal costs.

The case highlights a more worrying trend in Police tactics employed in the investigation of sexual crimes; ‘arrest first, investigate later’, which may give the victim and Police and Crime Commissioners anxious for positive ‘detection’ rates some comfort but fails to take into account the catastrophic impact it can have on any innocent individual who is caught up in such an investigation.

Read more of my blog posts about actions against the police here.

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:

Section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) (“PACE”), which gives the police the power to search an arrested person on arrival at a police station
the PACE Codes of Practice
College of Policing guidance on control, restraint and searches.

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.

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.

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 14^th 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:

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.

Does an Unjustified Taser Assault Point to a Wider Trend?

Iain Gould solicitor, asks if Taser assaults point to a wider trend.

By Iain Gould, solicitor

I have just settled a disturbing Taser assault case for Cornelius Thomas (details used with permission) against West Midlands Police.

I’m concerned about Mr Thomas’ personal experience, and also what this case says about police use of Tasers.

Taser Assault of Mentally Ill Man

Cornelius, who was aged 35 at the time of the incident, has a psychotic illness which has been diagnosed as bipolar affective disorder.

His condition first appeared in 1999 and he has received help from mental health services from 2001 onwards due to it repeatedly recurring.

On Friday 10 June 2011, he sadly suffered a deterioration in his mental state triggered by a combination of life stressors and a failure to take his medication.

After a mid-afternoon visit by his mental health doctor, Cornelius’ mental health team decided that he should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The team requested police assistance and an ambulance as this involved taking Cornelius to a psychiatric hospital unit and depriving him of his liberty.

Four Officers from West Midlands Police were assigned and, that evening, met the mental health team outside Cornelius’ home in Birmingham.

Cornelius, who was unaware of the decision to section him, had been out of the house with his 8-year-old daughter. At about 8pm he arrived home in his car with his daughter safely in the back seat. He saw two police cars and an ambulance near his house.

What happened next is a matter of dispute but Cornelius maintains that he was manhandled and then Tasered multiple times despite being non-aggressive and simply trying to escape from the officers into the safety of his own home.

In turn, West Midlands Police suggest that Cornelius was violent and uncooperative and in their Defence which was filed at court, admit that Cornelius was forcibly pulled from his car and Tasered four times:

in his chest, then
to his upper torso, then
to his torso again, before
finally in his back.

On each occasion he was Tasered, Cornelius said he felt a surge of electricity, intense pain and fear.

Cornelius told me that each Taser assault resulted in him falling to the ground suffering multiple minor soft tissue injuries, but he managed to get up and move a little closer to his front door.

On the final occasion that Mr Thomas was Tasered, he says that both his hands were in full view and that he was no threat. At this point Cornelius had his back to the police, his left hand on the door handle, and his right hand on the keys in the lock. Despite this, he was electrocuted again.

After the fourth Taser assault brought him to the ground Cornelius was handcuffed and transported to hospital where he was de-arrested and detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Following a medical examination, a Taser barb that had become embedded in the skin of his chest was removed.

Police Taser Assault Compensation Claim

Cornelius initially instructed non-specialist local solicitors who formally submitted a claim saying that West Midlands Police were negligent in their decision to deploy Tasers.

Following investigation, liability was denied, the Defendant maintaining that use of the Taser was “lawful, justified and proportionate in the circumstances”.

In response, his then solicitors advised Cornelius that the prospects of success were not good enough to “justify …proceeding further” and promptly closed their file.

Undeterred, Cornelius sought me out following research on the internet as a specialist in actions against the police and in particular the inappropriate use of Tasers.

In my opinion the claim had been poorly framed and investigated.

Cornelius gave a very credible account of what had happened. On his version of events it appeared to me that the officers had acted with unnecessary aggression and coercion rather than care and compassion.

I thought Cornelius had good prospects notwithstanding what his previous lawyers described as “the glaring inconsistencies between the account given by Mr Thomas and …. the Police Officers involved at the time of the incident when he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act”.

My confidence in Cornelius and his Taser assault claim has now been proven. He has agreed to an out-of-court settlement of substantial damages from West Midlands Police following the issue of court proceedings.

Taser Assaults on Mentally Ill Black People

But what of the wider picture?

I have recently commented on statistics that suggest that 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).

This latest research proves a disproportionate use against a certain ethnic group.

Of that community, can it also be said that there is yet further disproportionate and excessive use of Tasers against those with mental health issues?

Matilda MacAttram of the campaign group Black Mental Health UK, maintains that there is emerging evidence that police are using Tasers against people with mental health problems, particularly those from African-Caribbean communities.

She is quoted as telling the BBC, “There’s an increasing amount of data, both anecdotal and also concrete, which show this supposedly “non-lethal” weapon is being used against people who are in a very vulnerable state”.

Cornelius Thomas would, no doubt, agree.

Contact me for expert advice if you have suffered a Taser assault through no fault of your own.

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.

Are the Police Guilty of Gross Misconduct?

Photo of Iain Gould, solicitor, who discusses gross misconduct in police matters. — Iain Gould, solicitor, discusses gross misconduct in police matters.

By Iain Gould, solicitor

I have previously blogged about the misconduct proceedings brought against two West Midlands Police Officers due to commence today, 26 October.

To recap, my client Alex Faragher called West Midlands Police to lodge a complaint of domestic violence. The Officers assigned to her case, subsequently called her mobile to discuss the allegation. When the call went to answer phone, they inadvertently left an expletive ridden voice mail.

In the voice mail, you can hear these two men calling this victim of domestic violence a “f….. bitch” & a “f….. slag” before suggesting that they “go back, f.…… draft the statement out ourselves and then just get the bitch to sign it”.

Ms Faragher lodged a complaint about the voice mail and the Officers’ subsequent behaviour at the Police station as regards the preparation of her statement of evidence.

Police Misconduct Hearing

I am pleased to report that at a public hearing today, and despite the best efforts of the force’s Professional Standards Department during the course of the investigation to dilute the misconduct so that it related to the indisputable voice mail only, the Officers admitted all allegations of misconduct, i.e. in relation to the voice mail and conduct at the Police Station.

Apparently recognising the seriousness of the situation, one of the officers, PC Guest, repeatedly apologized, according to today’s newspaper reports.

Gross Misconduct in Police Matters

The issue for the tribunal (made up of two senior police officers and an independent lay person) to now decide is whether the Officers’ conduct amounts to just misconduct or whether their behaviour is so serious as to qualify for gross misconduct. So, what’s the difference?

Misconduct is defined as “a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour”.

Gross Misconduct is defined as “a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal”.

(see Para 29 Schedule 3 Police Reform Act 2002).

This is not very helpful.

But, when you recognize that this an employment matter at its heart, things become clearer.

Gross misconduct in that context is either deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence by the employee (police officer) which is so serious that it fundamentally undermines the relationship of trust and confidence between the employee and employer (Chief Constable).

Today, barristers employed by both officers made representations to the panel that the admitted misconduct was simply that, misconduct. The problem for the Officers is that:

the eyes of the world (given that the hearing is in public) are upon them, and
in my opinion, the behaviour (as captured on voice mail) is so extreme that it has brought the force into disrepute.

A finding of gross misconduct and dismissal without further notice must be the only possible sanction.

We should know tomorrow.

Read my blog for more insights into matters involving the police.

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

By Iain Gould, Solicitor

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.

What is facial recognition technology?

Retrospective Facial Recognition

Operator Initiated Facial Recognition

Live Facial Recognition

Policing by Consent?

How you can help me

Share this:

How you can help me

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

How you can help me

Share this:

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons

Taking Action Against Sainsburys

The Mitier They Are, the Mitier They Fall…

Three Key Points To Remember When It Comes To Shoplifting Arrests

How you can help me

Share this:

Update

Share this:

Share this:

What is misfeasance in public office?

Proving Clare’s Claim

Share this:

Robert’s Case

The Law

The Claim

Court Proceedings

Share this:

Arrest and Strip Search

The Law in Strip Search Cases

Police Failures in Paul Ponting’s Case

Share this:

Metropolitan Police Statement

Wrongful Arrest Apology Sought

Complaint Against the Metropolitan Police

Compensation Claim

Decency Demanded

Share this:

The Law in Public Hearings

How Public are Police Disciplinary Hearings?

Police Disciplinary Hearing Access

Police Disciplinary Hearings Restrictions

Consequences of Police Policy

Update

Share this:

Taser Assault of Mentally Ill Man

Police Taser Assault Compensation Claim

Taser Assaults on Mentally Ill Black People

Share this:

Police Disciplinary Tribunal Finding

Disciplinary Tribunal Punishment

Share this:

Police Misconduct Hearing

Gross Misconduct in Police Matters

Share this:

Taser Assault on Innocent Black Man

Addressing Confirmation Bias

Update

Share this: