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.
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.
I have written before about Police Officers who seem to put the thrill of playing ‘cops and robbers’ ahead of the risk to the public when performing unnecessary emergency response or pursuant driving manoeuvres at excessive speeds. Today’s case is about a claim which I have recently settled for my client Jamal, who also became the victim of a Police adrenaline-junkie pursuit which endangered members of the public and resulted in Jamal’s wrongful arrest and his assault at the hands of the Officers concerned – until his father came to the rescue with a cricket bat!
Dangerous (Police) Driving
Jamal is a young man of exemplary character who has high functioning autism and suffers with asthma.
One afternoon in the late Spring of 2020, Jamal, then aged in his mid-20s, was driving home having dropped his mother and sister off at a shopping centre local to their home in Coventry.
Whilst he was driving in an ordinary and unremarkable manner, Jamal became aware of a black Volkswagen Golf which performed a sudden 3-point turn in the road and began to follow him.
Unbeknownst to Jamal, the vehicle in question was an unmarked Police car being driven by PC Newman of West Midlands Police.
The Golf sped up so that it was directly behind Jamal’s vehicle – Jamal could see that there were two men inside the Golf (but neither was wearing Police uniform- they were both very casually dressed). Jamal was, therefore, greatly alarmed when the driver of the Golf began to flash his headlights and sound his horn. He was scared and thought that this might be some kind of road rage incident.
In response therefore, Jamal increased his own speed to get away – and was pursued in turn by the Golf.
There was nothing about the Golf motor car which would have made Jamal believe that it was a Police vehicle, or that its occupants were Police Officers and therefore he was in real fear of criminal aggression as this vehicle began to chase him. To be clear, the Golf did not have any lights, siren or other form of Police display – it was, quite literally, a deliberately ‘undercover’ vehicle.
At one point during the ‘chase’, the Officers later claimed, they had pulled up alongside Jamal and the passenger, PC Gill, had flashed his ‘warrant card’ out of the window – but Jamal denies that this happened, and, even if it did, it was during not before the pursuit began.
As Jamal approached a road junction where the traffic lights were on red, he felt that he had no choice but to breach the red light signal and cross the junction as he feared that if he stopped he may be attacked by the occupants of the Golf.
Fortunately, nothing untoward happened as Jamal ‘ran the red light’ – but he was followed in turn by the Golf, which continued to pursue him.
In a further attempt to evade his unknown pursuers, Jamal took a series of right and left turns, including a short cut across a car park before pulling up outside his own home, where he hoped he would be safe.
Jamal switched off the engine and exited his car, but as he did so, the Volkswagen Golf pulled up behind him.
Jamal walked fast towards the front gate of his house, shouting to his father for help, as a man in plain clothes, whom he now knows to be PC Newman, exited the Golf and ran towards Jamal. The Officer immediately grabbed Jamal and hauled him to the ground; in the process of falling, Jamal banged his right arm and hip against the garden wall.
His forehead then hit the ground and the sunglasses which he was wearing broke upon impact.
PC Newman now lay on top of Jamal with what felt to my client like his full body weight, and forced Jamal’s head down, such that he was struggling to breathe, and his asthma was aggravated.
Jamal was also aware of a second man present – now known to be PC Gill – who was also plain clothed and therefore unidentified as an Officer, and who was brandishing a baton in a threatening manner and shouting “Get down, stay down.”
Meanwhile, Jamal’s father, having heard a ‘bang’ and his son’s distressed calls for help, had grabbed a cricket bat from his garage and raced outside to investigate.
In front of the gates, Jamal’s father could see his son face down on the ground and two men pinning him down. One was kneeling on Jamal’s back.
Jamal’s dad understandably thought that his son was being brutally attacked by thugs and he therefore acted as any father would – he swung the cricket bat and cracked one of the attackers (PC Newman) on the shoulder.
It was only at this point that the two men identified themselves as Police Officers, and PC Newman’s partner, PC Gill, produced his warrant card. Jamal’s dad quite rightly challenged the pair as to their conduct, saying – “Look at how are you’re dressed, it looks like you’ve just come from holiday, your car is not marked, how is anyone to know that you’re police officers?”
PC Gill, attempting to defend their conduct, asserted that Jamal had “zoomed past” them at excessive speed in a “posh area” of town – but then went on to admit that he was only guessing Jamal’s speed, as he had no recording equipment.
Jamal then felt himself being handcuffed to the rear and he was pulled to his feet. He was aware of neighbours in the street watching, and even as fear began to recede it was replaced by a sense of shame and embarrassment, given that his neighbours were witnessing him being manhandled as if he were a criminal.
PC Newman then took Jamal to the Golf, where he was made to sit in the rear passenger seat.
PC Newman accused Jamal of “Driving like a maniac”, although everything Jamal had done had been provoked by the Officers’ unnecessary pursuit of him.
After some time had passed, PC Gill returned to the car, removed Jamal’s handcuffs and he was allowed to exit the vehicle.
Although Jamal naturally felt that he was ‘under arrest’ the fact is that he was not under any form of lawful detention at all – as neither PC Newman nor his partner had arrested Jamal on suspicion of any offence and nor had they invoked any of their stop and search powers. This was, quite literally, an unexplained, unjustified and unlawful assault and captivity of my client.
Without any further attempt at explanation the two Officers then departed the scene. In total, Jamal had been detained by them for approximately 20-25 minutes.
By reason of this incident, Jamal had suffered cuts and bruises to his face, both legs, his hips, both shoulders and his right elbow. He had also suffered cuts and bruising to both of his wrists from the unnecessary application of handcuffs.
Jamal subsequently attended Coventry Central Police Station with his mother and father to make a complaint regarding the Officers’ conduct.
The Police response to the complaint contained the standard bureaucratic wind-baggery and this particularly patronising and offensive remark (apparently alluding to Jamal’s autism)-
“You were verbally warned concerning your behaviour behind the wheel and advice was given to your father as to whether you should be behind the wheel of a two ton vehicle if you struggle to understand what to do when Police require you to stop”
As is par for the course, this ‘internal investigation’ process rejected my client’s complaint with the usual passive- aggressive jargon phrase “The service provided by the Police was acceptable”.
That response was not acceptable to me or my client however, and I was happy to pursue a claim on Jamal’s behalf against the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, instituting Court proceedings when our initial attempt to settle out of Court was rejected.
Defensive Manoeuvres
In response to the claim, West Midlands Police said that this particular ‘Crockett & Tubbs” were deployed on a pre-planned ‘undercover’ operation to apprehend drug dealers. They were said to be simply ‘on the look-out for suspicious activity’ as they did not have any “specific descriptions” of the suspects or their vehicles.
The Officers admitted that all they had seen my client do ‘wrong’ was drive past them at what they felt was an excessive speed – and attempted to extrapolate from this a suspicion that Jamal might be a drug dealer and therefore needed to be made the subject of a high-speed pursuit and violent detention, utilising their powers under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
PC Gill asserted that because Jamal had been ‘driving dangerously’ then he was suspected of being involved in the illegal supply and distribution of drugs. Notably, however, at no point were Jamal or his vehicle searched for any ‘drugs’, strongly suggesting, in my opinion, that this was a post-facto explanation by the Officers for what they had done almost on impulse. Often the Police will act out of an urge to exert power and only later stop and think about whether they actually had any legal powers to do so, dressing up their actions with the closest excuse they have to hand.
It was therefore claimed that the Officers had lawfully detained Jamal pursuant to Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, notwithstanding the fact that even on their own account the Officers admitted that they had failed to give my client the legal information and explanation which is required in a stop and search, and which is known by the acronym of “GOWISELY”.
To put it simply, the two Officers appear to have randomly fastened their attention on to my client – possibly because of his age/ethnicity profile – and thereafter failed to show any appreciation or regard for the fact that my client’s ‘suspicious’ attempt to evade them thereafter was almost certainly and most obviously motivated by the fact that he did not know they were Police Officers, rather than vice versa, given that they were, specifically, on an ‘undercover’ patrol.
In any event, a person’s reaction after they become aware that the Police are interested in them cannot retrospectively justify an absence of reasonable suspicion in the first place.
Yet further, I would challenge any basis on which the Officers argued that any suspicion of such an offence justified a car chase which could have endangered not only their own lives and that of my client, but also that of innocent members of the public: all for nothing.
The End of the Road
I have recently settled Jamal’s claim, not long before it was due to go to Trial, with West Midlands Police agreeing to pay my client £10,000 plus his legal costs.
The Police’s denial of liability was maintained – but I think the facts of the settlement speak for themselves.
There was simply no justification for the Police to have initiated – and then maintained a high-speed pursuit of my client in circumstances where, once they had actually laid hands upon him, they apparently didn’t know what to do with him. Jamal suffered brutal injuries at the hands of the Officers but everyone concerned, including members of the public, could have been even more seriously injured had other vehicles been caught up in the ‘chase’.
Police pursuits must be a matter of the upmost importance and last resort – and here this was never the case.
I am very pleased to give the last word in this blog to my client’s mother, who posted this kind review following our victory –
“When looking online for a solicitor to take action against the police, it was daunting enough. However, Iain stood out with his wealth of experience in achieving impressive results across different police forces. My son, who is a vulnerable adult with high-functioning autism, was involved in a car chase with West Midlands undercover police officers who thought he was “acting suspiciously.” This ended with them using excessive force, wrongly arresting, and detaining him.
From the outset, I felt that Iain showed compassion as well as professionalism in always having my son’s best interests in mind. His communication was clear, concise, and prompt, making my son feel supported and informed throughout the entire process. His attention to detail and commitment ensured that every aspect of the case was meticulously handled.
Thanks to Iain’s hard work, my son achieved a positive outcome and settlement. I would absolutely recommend Iain to anyone needing legal representation in a police case. Five stars well deserved!”
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.
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).
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
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!
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).
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.
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:
No matter how often we read about it in the news today, the form of Police corruption which probably has the greatest power to shock us is that of the Officer who seeks to sexually exploit victims of crime, malevolently targeting women who have suffered domestic violence.
There is something particularly sinister about this form of ‘toxic masculinity’, for the Officers who perpetrate this behaviour are exploiting the Police vantage point of intimate observation into the lives of people who have called for help in a moment of crisis, for their own sexual gratification. Such an Officer is turning the special powers of protection with which he has been trusted, into those of predation.
One person who avoided becoming the physical victim of such an Officer, but who was still emotionally scarred by the experience was my client ‘Julia’.
Between 2014-19, Julia was in a physically and emotionally abusive relationship with a male partner. She was obliged to contact Cambridgeshire Police for help on multiple occasions and ultimately secured a Non-Molestation Order against her (now ex) partner. Notwithstanding this Non-Molestation Order, Julia’s ex-partner continued to harass, threaten and intimidate her.
In April 2020, Julia received message on social media from a ‘Mike Latty’ asking her “Hey, how are you x”. Julia had no idea who ‘Mike Latty’ was and did not respond.
A few weeks later, a terrifying incident occurred when Julia became aware of her ex-partner attempting to force entry to her home. She made an emergency call to the Police and the following information about her was shared over the Police radio –
“It’s [address provided]. We’ve had a call from [name provided] at that location reporting that a male by the name of….bear with me, [name provided] is at the property trying to bang the door down….. Apparently there was a non-molestation order in place, but that has run out and now he’s trying to get into the house. […] we had a report saying that he is armed with a weapon, a blade. He is saying he has a knife although no one has seen the knife at this time. […]
Response Officers then attended Julia’s home, but by the time they arrived, her ex-partner had left the scene.
Shortly after this event, Julia updated her profile to state that her ex-partner had tried to break into her home. She did so in fear of what her ex-partner might do next (knowing that he had not been arrested) and so that there was record of this, should the worst of her fears materialise.
Several hours later, Julia received a second, unsolicited message from ‘Mike Latty’, which directly referred to her home address.
Julia was shocked, and confused as to who this individual was. Indeed, initially, she suspected that ‘Mike Latty’ was in fact her ex-partner, as he had previously tried to contact her using a fake profile.
When she cautiously replied to the message, asking how the sender knew her address, she received the following response – “Saw your status – heard the job. Don’t worry obviously won’t say x”.
From the content of this message, Julia began to (correctly) suspect that ‘Mike Latty’ was a Police Officer. ‘Mike’ messaged asking Julia if she was okay. She replied that she was scared and upset and disclosed to ‘Mike’’ that she had a Non-Molestation Order against her ex-partner which he had breached multiple times, and that she was now in the process of obtaining another Non-Molestation Order.
‘Mike Latty’ continued to engage with Julia through, asking her details about her life and signing off the majority of his messages with the kiss symbol ‘x’.
Furthermore, ‘Mike’ paid Julia various compliments, including the following-
“It’s weird I’ve always found if you get an average looking couple, no problems. Yet a really attractive girl will either be with or be having problems with an ex that’s an arseholes xx”
“Wow. So as well as being ridiculously attractive you also seem pretty cool and clearly smart”.
“At least you know you’ll dead easy get another fella if you haven’t already”
All in all, some 38 messages were exchanged between ‘Mike Latty’ and Julia over the course of 2 days – with the majority of these messages coming from ‘Mike’ and Julia responding to less and less of them, as she became more disturbed and upset by this unsolicited contact from a stranger, and the ulterior motive behind his apparent care and concern dawned upon her. During these messages, ‘Mike’ had provided his personal mobile number and encouraged Julia to contact him.
Julia, already scared and vulnerable by reason of her ex-partner’s campaign against her, came to the horrible realisation that a Police Officer was apparently now trying to prey upon her as well. She knew that his sending these messages was very wrong and she turned to her mother for help.
Around a week later, two Police Officers attended at Julia’s home address to discuss the incident involving her ex-partner.
During this attendance, Julia told the Officers that she had received personal messages from a person she believed was a Police Officer who had heard the incident she had reported over the radio. She explained how she had come to realise that the Officer was preying upon her vulnerability at that time, and then showed the Officers the messages that she had received. From the Officers’ reaction, Julia formed an immediate impression that ‘Mike Latty’ was known to them. As it would transpire, he was, indeed, Police Constable Mike Latimer of Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
Julia had been put into a terrible position by reason of the Police Officer’s attempted exploitation of her. She felt a mix of emotions in making the report – guilt knowing that her actions could lead to the Officer being dismissed; insecurity that Cambridgeshire Police as an organisation might now ‘close ranks’ against her, and fail to properly protect her from her ex-partner, given that she was now a ‘complainant’ against one of their brother Officers; and, worst of all, fear that PC Latimer might seek retribution against her for her actions.
A misconduct investigation was launched by the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) although, shockingly, PC Latimer was allowed to withhold his personal phone and deleted information held on his work phone. During the course of the investigation, Julia learned that she was only one of at least three vulnerable women whom PC Latimer had sought to exploit. She felt very angry about what had been done to her and these other women.
Following the IOPC investigation, it was recommended that PC Latimer face misconduct proceedings, in response to which he promptly resigned from the Force.
A misconduct panel subsequently concluded that had PC Latimer not resigned, he would have been dismissed for gross misconduct. He was placed upon the Police “barred list”, meaning he can never again work for the Police service in any capacity, but, disappointingly in my opinion, escaped criminal prosecution.
Julia’s trust, confidence and faith in the Police significantly deteriorated by reason of the Officer’s exploitative actions. She no longer felt able to report anything to the Police, other than the gravest emergency situations.
After all, what had happened when she turned to the Police on the night when her violent ex-partner attempted to break into her home, possibly intending to do her terrible harm? The man had not been arrested, and instead her emergency call had, sickeningly, been treated as if it were a ‘lonely heart’ advert, or a profile on a dating website.
Already suffering from anxiety and depression, Julia’s lack of trust in authorities and other people generally became heightened to a marked degree, causing her to become ever more isolated and vulnerable.
The Officer’s selfish and sickening actions towards Julia were a gross abuse of the public trust placed in him, and the harm that he could potentially have caused went far beyond the emotional damage that would have been caused to Julia had his ‘grooming’ of her succeeded; in single-handedly turning the Police into a source of distress rather than comfort for Julia, ‘Mike Latty’ was callously stripping from her a level of protection whose loss might potentially cost her her life if, because of his sordid and shocking behaviour, she hesitated in the future to call for help when she needed it.
The seriousness of this form of Police ‘sexploitation’ simply cannot be underestimated.
On Julia’s behalf I pursued a claim against the Cambridgeshire Police for Harassment, Misfeasance in Public Office and Breach of the Data Protection Act.
I am pleased to confirm that I was able to negotiate a significant settlement for Julia, in the form of £14,500 damages, plus her legal costs, from Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
Actions such as this, brought by victims of Police harassment, exploitation, and grooming, are essential in order to counter-act the harm that has been caused to them, redressing the balance of power as the victim becomes the agent of accountability.
Civil claims for compensation are therefore a crucial prong of attack against this most insidious form of abuse of power, with the modern determination of Professional Standards Units to drive the Officers who commit this form of misconduct out of Policing being another, and increased media scrutiny and attention to these cases being a third.
However, it is essential that we keep the pressure up on all three of these fronts and do not allow any relapse into the old Policing culture of semi-toleration of this form of behaviour by Officers, as it is quite clear that despite all the energy being expended in fighting this problem in multiple ways, there remain all too many ‘enemies within’ amongst the ranks of our Police Forces.
You must be logged in to post a comment.