police misconduct – Iain Gould – Actions Against the Police Solicitor

On The Front Line of Civil Rights (Part 1): Public Protest and Police Prejudice

This is a guest post by my colleague and fellow actions against the police solicitor, John Hagan.

My client Gemma Barnes is an animal rights activist and campaigner who often exercises those rights of peaceful protest which should be acknowledged as a fundamental hallmark of a democratic society, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum – “I may disagree with what you say, but I support your right to say it.”

A necessary corollary of this, is that the Police must, whilst maintaining law and order, not fall into a mindset of ‘us versus them’ – as if the Blue team are a rival army lining up against the Red team. Sadly, this is all too often what happens, and Police prejudice and personal hostility towards protestors like Gemma open up a trapdoor of civil rights abuses.

On the morning of 19 February 2022, Gemma attended an animal rights protest at Neat Market in Norwich, the site of a cattle market.

Prior to the events in question, she had been subject to a bail condition not to attend Neat Market Road (which had been the scene of previous protests). However, this condition had been withdrawn by Norwich Magistrates Court on 8 February 2022.

PC Chittock of Norfolk Constabulary recognised Gemma and alleged that she was in breach of her bail condition. Gemma, and some of her companions, explained that the bail condition had been withdrawn, but their protests fell on deaf ears.

At approximately 9:29am, PC Bhogal arrested Gemma for a purported breach of the bail conditions. In response, she clearly and repeatedly explained to PC Bhogal and other officers that the bail condition had been withdrawn. The Officers nevertheless handcuffed her and marched her to a nearby car park, where Police vehicles were located.

In protest at her unlawful arrest, upon reaching the car park, Gemma sat/ lay on the ground thereby offering ‘passive resistance’ to the officers. She did not actively lift a finger against them, but equally she was not going to facilitate what she saw as an unlawful ‘kidnapping’ into custody.

Gemma continued to verbally protest her arrest, and with the help of other protesters, at approximately 9.38am, showed Police Sergeant Rimmer, PC Bhogal, and other officers present, an email dated 8 February 2022 from her criminal defence solicitors which clearly stated that the bail condition had been lifted. Gemma begged the officers to call her Solicitors and/or the Court to confirm the information that she had provided to them, but they refused to do so.

The officers then began forcibly pulling Gemma up by her arms and legs, causing her pain, and attempted to place her into the rear of a police van.

PS Rimmer then ordered that Gemma be searched before being placed into the van. She was accordingly placed back down onto the ground and searched by PC Clark.

The officers then applied ‘leg restraints’ to Gemma (bear in mind, she was already handcuffed, completely outnumbered by the officers and not fighting them) before they lifted and threw her into the rear cage section of the police van. As they did so, PC Green, who was positioned inside the van, grabbed and pulled Gemma’s legs further into the cage. As Gemma was being violently manhandled in the manner described, with none of her limbs under her own control, her handcuffed hands made an accidental, glancing contact with PC Clark’s head (as that officer was bending down over Gemma, at the same time Gemma was being ‘posted’ into the van).

At approximately 9.56am PC Bhogal then further arrested Gemma for allegedly assaulting an emergency worker I.e on the basis of her hands coming into momentary contact with PC Clark. As this was occurring, other protesters tried to film Gemma’s arrest but were repeatedly pushed back by the officers, with far more force than the accidental contact Gemma’s helpless hands had made with PC Clark…

Gemma was then locked in the rear cage section of the Police van.

Click on the “play” arrow below to watch mobile phone footage of the incident, showing Gemma being manhandled into the back of the van.

At approximately 9.57am, unbeknownst to Gemma at the time, but subsequently revealed by body camera footage, PC Chittock, who was sitting in the driver’s seat of the Police van, called to PS Rimmer and informed him – “Serg, Serg, she needs to be de-arrested, it’s Binnsy….”

PC Chittock had just been informed by Acting Inspector Binns, by way of a radio call, that Gemma had been telling the truth about the withdrawn bail condition all along.

When PC Bhogal then climbed into the van PC Chittock informed him – “Mate, the bail’s been lifted apparently, I’ve just had – but we’ll go with it mate, you know.”

In response, and totally uncontrite, PC Bhogal replied – “We’ll go with it, I just acted on the information I had. Right, let’s go mate.”

And so, the two Officers drove Gemma away into custody.

Also unbeknownst to Gemma at the time, at 9.59am whilst still at Neat Market, PS Rimmer received a telephone call from Acting Inspector Binns who informed him that the bail conditions had indeed been dropped, and that “their presence was an admin error.” From the available body camera recording, PS Rimmer’s side of the said conversation was as follows-

“Yeah, when I saw the email I saw something like no conditions but obviously it was still showing on the PNC so I was under the impression it was just no additional ones. Right, fair enough, well she’s just assaulted one of the officers so we’ll run with that instead. Yes, yes, obviously we’ve been under the belief that those bail conditions are still in place. Yes, absolutely, I’ll get the Breckland officer who was assaulted to write a statement when we get back to Breckland and we’ll all put it together, it’s captured on body worn so it’s all good. No, not your fault boss…it’s all good.”

Notwithstanding the clear confirmation which Inspector Binns had provided as to the withdrawn bail condition, to multiple officers, no officer de-arrested my client in respect of either offence, or even ‘let on’ to her that they now knew the truth – surely the minimum courtesy that she deserved.

Instead, the officers all seemed rather pleased with the fact that they now had an additional ‘reason’ to keep Gemma in captivity i.e the minor contact that had occurred between Gemma’s handcuffed hands and PC Clark’s head whilst the officers were lifting and shoving her into the van, in the process of what they now knew to be a wrongful arrest and in circumstances where Gemma obviously did not have full control of either her legs or arms.

On arrival at Wymondham Police Investigation Centre (PIC), shortly after 10:14am, Gemma again and repeatedly protested that the bail condition had been lifted and referenced the email from her solicitor in that regard. In response, despite now knowing that she was telling the truth, PC Bhogal replied – “You will have your day in Court, that email could be from anyone.”

PC Bhogal and PC Chittock were then present throughout my client’s ‘booking in’ process, but at no point did either officer inform the Custody Sergeant that they knew that Gemma’s bail condition had in fact been withdrawn.

PC Bhogal informed the Custody Sergeant that Gemma had first been arrested for breach of bail. In describing this offence, the officer continued to withhold from the Custody Sergeant the crucial information as to the withdrawal of the bail condition and maintained his silence on this issue, even when the Sergeant directly asked Gemma if he could see a copy of the email from her solicitor regarding the bail condition, so as to investigate her ‘alibi.’

PC Bhogal then informed the Custody Sergeant that Gemma had been further arrested for “assault upon an emergency worker”. Whilst describing this offence he stated that Gemma had “elbowed” PC Clark, which was untrue.

Photo of John Hagan, actions against the police solicitor. — John Hagan, actions against the police solicitor.

At approximately 10.25am, the Custody Sergeant, still in the dark as to the true state of affairs known to not only PCs Bhogal and Chittock but also PS Rimmer, authorised my client’s detention in relation to the alleged breach of bail and in relation to the alleged assault upon an emergency worker, the circumstances of which were recorded as “the DP (Detained Person) elbowed PC in the head.”

At 10.28am, Gemma, maintaining that the bail condition had been lifted, cogently questioned the Sergeant why it was necessary for her to be detained for these low-level assault allegations to be investigated (the circumstances of which had all been caught on body worn camera in any event). My colleague Iain Gould has blogged before on many occasions about the importance of the necessity criteria and why an arrest is not lawful simply because of suspicion of an offence – the person’s detention must be necessary in itself for a specific purpose, usually to facilitate the “effective investigation” of the offence.

In response, the Sergeant stated – “We need to establish whether or not there is a breach of Court bail…our responsibility is to put you in front of the Court…”

Once again, PC Bhogal and PC Chittock, who were listening to this interaction, said nothing about their knowledge of the withdrawal of the bail condition.

Gemma was accordingly searched, processed, and placed into a cell in the PIC.

Finally, at 11:22am, the Custody Sergeant recorded in the custody record that he had received – “confirmation from the DP’s solicitor that the bail conditions were lifted but it appears that the court have not updated PNC [Police National Computer]. I have spoken to the DP and informed her that she is now only here for the matter of assaulting an Emergency worker to be investigated.”

Remarkably, this confirmation had not come from any of the Sergeant’s colleagues at varying levels of seniority, who had all known the truth for hours.

At around 11:30am, Gemma was assessed by a Health Care Professional in the PIC. On examination, it was found that she had “bruises and red marks around RT wrist, redness around Left wrist, Says has injury to shoulder. No marks/bruise seen. Requesting Valium, as the Police have caused her to have a mental health episode.” She was prescribed painkillers.

Only at 7:30pm that evening was Gemma interviewed by PC Butcher, in relation to the ‘assault’, and she was not finally released from custody until around 9:10pm, almost 12 hours after her unlawful detention had begun.

Unsurprisingly, a few weeks later, Gemma was informed by the Police that they would not be taking any action in relation to the alleged assault of the emergency worker.

I personally think it was a travesty that she was arrested and detained for that assault charge in the first place, and I consider that arrest to be one that was born plain and simple out of an institutionally biased ‘Police v Protestors’ mentality on the part of the officers, who clearly saw Gemma as a ‘problem’ who needed to be taught a lesson, and were quite happy to seize upon a second excuse to detain her, after the first had vanished into thin air.

Gemma subsequently lodged a complaint which was investigated by Norfolk Constabulary’s Professional Standards Department (PSD). By means of a report dated 1 September 2022, PSD rejected Gemma’s complaint on the grounds that in all respects the “level of service” provided to her was acceptable.

This ‘par for the course’ complaint response/ rejection left Gemma only with the option of suing the responsible parties to obtain redress for her wrongful arrest.

In considering whom to sue, I had to take account of the suggestion that the Magistrates Court might have failed to properly notify the Police of the change in Gemma’s bail conditions, leading to erroneous information appearing on Police computer systems (see the comment that was made in the Custody Record at 11.22am, as highlighted above – effectively, the Police were washing their hands of moral or legal responsibility for that ‘glitch in the matrix’).

It was therefore necessary to pursue claims against both the Chief Constable of Norfolk AND the Ministry of Justice (the Government department who are responsible for the Court Service).

One of the lessons which long experience in suing both the Police and the (many armed!) Ministry of Justice, is that both organisations will be as cryptic as possible about the operation of their databases and how communications are sent between Police, Courts, Border control etc. Often there is no doubt that errors of commission or omission have corrupted a person’s PNC profile, but the problem is finding out whose fingerprints are on the error, in situations in which the private communication channels between law-enforcement agencies are guarded by a deliberate or negligent lack of disclosure and obfuscation.

Here, the MOJ were claiming they had discharged their duty by notifying the Police of Gemma’s change in bail status, albeit a few days later than would have been ideal – whilst the Police were seeking refuge behind this delay and their claim that Gemma had in any event been validly arrested for assaulting PC Clark during the course of the arrest, which the officers honestly believed they were entitled to make. On the face of it, therefore, both Defendants were advancing vigorous defences, despite the fact that everyone agreed that Gemma was entirely innocent of any breach of bail that day.

I am pleased to say, however, that I pride myself on leaving no stone unturned in any aspect of my client’s cases – and especially when it comes to Police disclosure of documents and information, my watchwords are : What else have you got, that you are withholding from us?

In Part 2 of this blog, next week, I will provide the intriguing answer to that question…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a)may search—

(i)any person or vehicle;

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

for stolen or prohibited articles; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My client’s name has been changed.

Harassed by the Police

By Iain Gould, solicitor

According to a joint report just published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), people who have suffered harassment or stalking are often being let down by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service.

The publication of the report is timely in that I have just settled a claim for a young woman who suffered harassment by a Police Officer whom she had turned to for protection.

In or around April 2011, my client who I will call Kate began working as the personal assistant to the owner of an escort agency.

During the course of her work at the agency, Kate became aware that some of those working for the agency were underage. Further, Kate became aware that the owner of the agency was committing sexual offences against a number of women and girls who worked for him, behaving in a threatening manner towards them and otherwise exploiting them. Kate also discovered that the owner of the agency was involved in forging documents for some of the women and girls who worked for him.

On 6 January 2012, Kate bravely reported matters to Merseyside Police notwithstanding that she was scared of the owner of the agency and of the potential consequences i.e. the retribution he might take against her.

The information that Kate provided to the police led to an investigation into the owner of the agency. DS David Stubbs of the Merseyside Police Public Protection Unit (“PPU”) was allocated to the investigation.

Thereafter, DS Stubbs visited Kate at home. During the course of this visit, Kate tried to provide DS Stubbs with relevant information but DS Stubbs asked Kate a number of personal questions instead. Kate felt that DS Stubbs was behaving unprofessionally towards her and did not feel as though she was being taken seriously. Kate’s laptop and personal mobile telephone were seized from her, along with a laptop and two mobile telephones that belonged to the owner of the agency. Kate later gave a video recorded interview in relation to the criminal activities of the owner of the agency.

Thereafter, DS Stubbs visited Kate on a number of occasions, made a number of telephone calls to her and sent her numerous text messages from both his work mobile and his personal telephone. In total, DS Stubbs sent 264 texts to Kate including between 14 February 2012 and 29 February 2012, 73 texts without reply. This included, (for example) between 23:23 on 15 February 2012 and 00:37 on 16 February 2012, 15 texts sent by the Officer without reply and at a time when he was actually on annual leave. The manner in which DS Stubbs would communicate with and treat Kate was personal and/or sexual in content and nature.

For example, in or around February 2012, DS Stubbs sent Kate text messages in which he said that he was divorced and had children. DS Stubbs also said that he would like to take his dog for a walk with Kate.

Subsequently, DS Stubbs sent Kate a text message in which he said that he would like to take her to Cornwall and see her in a bikini. DS Stubbs said that he realised that he “should not be doing this” but that he could not help himself.

In or around March 2012, DS Stubbs sent Kate a message at or around 01:00 with words to the effect of:

“I shouldn’t be saying this to you but you’re gorgeous, you’re a beautiful person inside and out and should be proud of what you have done.”

On another occasion, DS Stubbs sent Kate a text message, saying words to the effect of:

“…hope someone is spoiling you rotten like I would be.”

Increasingly disturbed by DS Stubb’s conduct, Kate told DC X, another female officer involved in the investigation into the escort agency, that she would prefer not to have any further contact with Stubbs. Thereafter, the contact from DS Stubbs decreased. However, Kate would still receive the occasional text message from DS Stubbs, such as:

“Hello trouble, how’s you ;)”

The last time DS Stubbs contacted Kate was on or around 20 August 2012.

Due to DS Stubbs’ conduct, throughout the course of the investigation into and prosecution of the owner of the agency, Kate felt as though the police were using her and testing her. In or around January 2013, after having attended court one day, Kate had a conversation with DC X, whilst being given a lift home. Kate informed DC X of DS Stubbs’ conduct towards her. DC X urged Kate to pursue a complaint about DS Stubbs and advised her that someone would be in touch with her. DC X informed Kate that there had been other complaints about DS Stubbs’ conduct.

Kate did subsequently report matters and attended a video interview where she gave a detailed account of DS Stubbs’ conduct towards her. Around the same time, the owner of the agency was convicted of a number of offences. Kate’s initial report to the police had been central to those convictions being obtained.

Following Kate’s video interview, she received no follow-up or information from the police as to what was being done in respect of the information she had provided on DS Stubbs’ conduct. Consequently, Kate once again began to feel used by the police. After repeated enquiries, Kate was eventually informed that the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) had decided that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case against DS Stubbs but that there would be an internal investigation into DS Stubbs’ conduct instead and that he had been suspended from his duties.

That internal investigation ultimately culminated in a full disciplinary hearing in September 2015. Despite DS Stubbs having used his work mobile telephone to send text messages to Kate, the content of the personal and/or sexual text messages could not be retrieved and so were not available to the disciplinary panel.

The Disciplinary panel found that even though the specific content of the texts could not be proven, they were satisfied that the volume and timing of the messages was way above what could reasonably be expected from an Officer discharging his professional duty. DS Stubbs could offer no reasonable explanation for this, claiming they were for work purposes but offering no record, rationale or evidence as to what this Police purpose was.

Ultimately, DS Stubbs was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Whilst Kate was pleased with the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, and comforted by the thought that DS Stubbs would not be able to exploit or harass other vulnerable young women, she was dismayed and deeply disappointed at the extent to which she had been ‘shut out’ of the investigation process, being kept entirely in the dark for long periods of time as to what was going on. For example, between March 2013 – May 2014, for over a year, Kate received no contact from Merseyside Police and when she did finally manage to get through to someone, she was coldly and uncaringly informed that for the purpose of the investigation into DS Stubbs she had been classified as a ‘witness’ not a ‘victim’ and hence had no right to expect to be kept updated, and no business contacting the force.

The Police also used a bureaucratic excuse not to formally record Kate’s initial report about DS Stubbs as a public complaint, further allowing them to keep her shut out of the process and thereby denying her entitlement to receive a formal written response/ apology for what had occurred.

DS Stubbs’ dismissal was reported upon by local and national press.

As part of a BBC 5 Live investigation, Kate was interviewed as to her experiences. Here is her account:

During the disciplinary process Kate contacted me for advice in relation to her situation.

DS Stubbs’ behaviour in my opinion clearly constituted harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Section 1 of this statutory tort provides that:

1. A person must not pursue a course of conduct –

a. Which amounts to harassment of another; and

b. Which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information, would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

‘Harassment’ is not precisely defined in the Act, although it states that references to harassing a person ‘include alarming the person or causing the person distress’.

As well as showing that the behaviour complained of amounts to harassment, a Claimant must show that the Defendant knew or ought to have know that it amounted to harassment. The test of whether the harasser should have perceived his or her conduct in that way is an objective, rather than a subjective one. So, the Claimant need not show that the harasser appreciated the nature of his or her behaviour, but rather that any other reasonable person would have done so.

The Claimant also has to show that there was a ‘course of conduct’. This must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

A civil claim for damages may be brought in relation to conduct that amounts to harassment as defined by the Act. Damages may be awarded for, among other things, anxiety caused by harassment and for any financial losses resulting from it.

By reason of DS Stubbs’ conduct, Kate suffered anxiety, humiliation and distress; specifically DS Stubbs’ conduct towards Kate caused her to feel helpless, frightened, confused, suspicious and paranoid. At times Kate felt that DS Stubbs was questioning her credibility as a witness. DS Stubbs’ suggestive personal comments to her caused Kate to feel dirty, used, humiliated and embarrassed.

As a result Kate lost confidence and began to hate herself. She developed symptoms of severe anxiety and began to have panic attacks. Kate stopped socialising and disliked being in the company of others. She felt nervous and vulnerable, without any guidance or victim support.

Kate even had thoughts of self-harm and began to have involuntary movements at night, which resulted in her causing injury to herself. She suffered sleep disturbance, including waking during the night and vivid dreams and nightmares of acts of deliberate self-harm.

Kate lost trust in others, especially the Police. Contact with male Police Officers would cause Kate to experience severe anxiety, which could develop into panic attacks, and she became reluctant to speak to the Police.

Following DS Stubbs’ dismissal for gross misconduct, Kate began to fear that he would take revenge, which caused her to feel even more anxious and distressed, particularly when alone at night.

In light of DS Stubbs’ conduct, I was satisfied that Kate had a viable claim. I intimated a claim on her behalf against Merseyside Police and issued protective Court proceedings.

Following investigation, Merseyside Police denied liability (as a matter of course?) and yet indicated that this was a claim that they wanted to (quite rightly) settle. Police Forces are very often reluctant to admit liability, even when in reality they know that they are liable for the wrongdoing of their officers.

In November 2015, as part of her legal case for compensation against the Police I referred Kate to a Psychiatrist, who recommended that Kate undergo a course of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, after which her condition could be further reviewed. Kate went on to have 18 sessions of CBT.

Following further review, it was concluded that Kate had suffered an Anxiety Disorder, which was caused at least, in part, by DS Stubbs’ conduct, which we might rightly call the selfish and callous exploitation of an already vulnerable woman.

At this point, I was able to assess the value of Kate’s claim and Merseyside Police agreed to a Joint Settlement Meeting. After protracted negotiations, Merseyside Police agreed to pay Kate £25,000 compensation plus costs.

The HMIC report, therefore, is welcomed in that it highlights serious cases of Police neglecting the victims of harassment and stalking (whether in person, or increasingly in the ‘digital’ age, on-line) and a culture of, frankly, not treating harassment as a ‘proper’, indeed very threatening and sinister, crime.

What I would also call upon the Police to recognise and tackle as an equal priority is the danger posed to clients such as Kate (and sadly I know from personal experience that her case is far from rare) who are being exploited and harassed by Police Officers themselves, who are abusing the special trust that has been placed in them and seeking, frankly, to take sexual advantage of vulnerable victims of crime. This in itself was highlighted in yet another report published in December 2016 by HMIC reported that abuse of authority for sexual gain was the “most serious” form of corruption facing Police in England and Wales.

One additional factor of concern, highlighted by this case, is the lack of support Kate received from Merseyside Police after making her complaint about DS Stubbs. Whilst her evidence was crucial in helping the force to weed out and remove a rogue, indeed predatory, officer, the Force seemed to have no concern for Kate herself during the long drawn out process. Kate was apparently no longer needed once the Force had her evidence, and the disdain with which they then treated her, apparently failing to recognise her absolutely legitimate interest in the investigation (in which she was the victim and had initiated the complaint) and simply to show her some support and compassion rather than simply ignoring her, added greatly to her emotional anxiety and depression during this very stressful time in her life.

The Force eventually did the right thing in regards to DS Stubbs, but failed to do the right thing by Kate – even to the extent of treating her as an inconvenience or even enemy when she tried to get information about what had happened to her complaint.

Sadly, Kate is not the first victim of crime subsequently subjected to exploitative behaviour by a male Police Officer, and nor do I believe will she be the last; but we can at least hope that in light of the recent reports, Police Forces as institutions will move more swiftly to identify and remove such officers and to treat their victims with proper respect and support.

The Price of Justice

I was pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on Channel 5 last week regarding the case of my client Ivan Martin in the documentary series “Where there’s blame, there’s a claim”.

I think it was understandable that the programme concentrated on the level of damages awarded to Ivan, and the other victims of serious personal injury claims (including the horrific Alton Towers roller coaster crash) who were featured in the episode, as obviously there is widespread interest in the amount of money people can recover in such cases, but I would like to take this opportunity to stress that pounds & pence are far from being the be- all and end- all in these claims, particularly in actions against the police which I handle, as opposed to negligently caused accidents. The victims of police misconduct have very often suffered not as a result of an unintended ‘mistake’ (no matter how catastrophic) but rather quite deliberate conduct – such as the misuse of police powers of arrest or a deliberate assault (in Ivan’s case, being shot in the back with a taser gun in his own home) and have then seen this wrong against them compounded by the officers involved – often as a team or institutionally – trying to deny my client justice by telling quite deliberate lies about their conduct, lies which if believed might result in a criminal conviction and even incarceration – such as the threat Ivan faced when, after being shot by the Officers who came to his home, he was then prosecuted for allegedly assaulting them!

The victims of car crashes or other accidents will first go to hospital to receive treatment, before commencing their fight for compensation, which may or may not be straight forward. My clients will frequently first – after their visit to hospital for injuries inflicted upon them by the Police – have to face prosecution in the Magistrates or even Crown Court on false charges of resisting arrest, obstructing or even assaulting a constable. Only after they have dealt with months of stress and worry, and have cleared their names in the Court, can they bring their own case against the Police in the civil courts.

My clients also often have to go through a lengthy and demoralising process of pursuing a complaint with the relevant Police Force’s professional standards department, resulting most commonly in what feels to many of them distinctly like a ‘whitewash’ of a report – exonerating the investigating officer’s colleagues, and turning blame back onto my client – only to see the same Police Force admit liability/ speedily settle the claim once civil proceedings are commenced, begging the question of the honesty and integrity of the original complaint investigation. Very rare indeed is the apology any Force will offer for the misconduct of its Officers no matter how heinous.

All of this is why I want to stress that whilst compensation in terms of the monetary award of damages is important, the sense of justice being done is always my client’s priority. I think this is in danger of being lost sometimes in media coverage of civil claims which focus only on the amount of “compo”. Indeed, the very title of the Channel 5 series runs the risk of belittling the stories of the deserving people portrayed within it. Yes, we live in a capitalist society where “money makes the world go round” – this is true about everything – jobs, politics, science and medicine – but it does not mean that we only work for money. There is nothing indecent or opportunistic in pursuing a compensation claim after you have been injured or wronged any more than there is in expecting to be paid for the job you do, but in both cases it is about far more than that. We work because we can derive great pride and personal satisfaction from our achievements, irrespective of how much we are paid for them; likewise my clients pursue claims not with pound signs in their eyes, to “grab the money” but for those incalculable but absolutely important things which would otherwise be denied to them – vindication in the eyes of society; self- pride and self- worth; being able to hold to account those invested with special powers over the rest of us, which is absolutely crucial in any liberal democracy; the sense of a wrong being righted and justice being done by the Courts, without which a civil society cannot function, and would run the risk of breaking down into anarchy; to get a fair and proper hearing of their legitimate grievances; to be believed.

This is why I have clients who are prepared to risk exposure to substantial costs in order to pursue a claim where the damages might be only a fraction of that amount – because they are not looking at this ‘claim’ in economic terms but as a matter of principle; they want the feeling of justice won, not money.

This is why another of my clients said these words to me at the conclusion of a very long running and hard- fought case, resulting in a successful outcome at trial after years of stressful litigation –

“thank you so much for believing in me, you’ll never know how much that meant. Without people like you willing to offer support to those who have been wronged, justice would not be possible. The fact you believed in me offered me comfort and gave me the strength to challenge the inappropriate behaviour by people in power, who should be respectful, show integrity and protect. All of which were disregarded in my case causing me 5 years of considerable difficulties and greatly impacted upon my mental health. This not only affected me but also my family. You have now given me the opportunity to put this behind me and continue with my life from where it had stopped 5 years ago. I will always be forever grateful and long may you continue to ensure justice prevails for others who face similar challenges. ”

And this is why Ivan Martin, in his Channel 5 interview wanted to make clear what his priority was in pursuing his claim. Getting that sense of fair play; of those to blame being punished, not a claim rewarded. I will leave the last words to him –

If I was in a job and I done something wrong, there would be consequences for me, so why should they get away with it? I know the rules, they know the regulations, we both should be singing off the same hymn sheet. They do something wrong, consequences for them, end of.

Choosing the Right Lawyer (Part 1)

This is a guest post by my colleague and fellow specialist in civil actions against the police, John Hagan.

When instructing a lawyer to represent you in a claim against the police it is very important that you appoint someone who has the specialist knowledge and breadth of experience necessary to achieve regular success in what can be a complex area of litigation.

There is a certain overlap between claims against the police and general personal injury cases, but I would urge you to beware of putting your case into the hands of a personal injury solicitor, who deals day-to-day with accidental injuries, and who may only be ‘dabbling’ in the area of Actions Against the Police.

Rather, you need a police misconduct claim specialist, and I am pleased to say that I have a 20 year track record of success in these cases. The experience that this has given me and my specialist team in assessing and analysing police claims means that unlike other lawyers who are less experienced, we do not prevaricate.

If I think you have a good case then I will tell you so, and I will push ahead with the case as swiftly as possible. Equally if I believe your case will not succeed I will tell you that as early as I can and I will tell you it straight, and I will not allow the limitation period for your claim to be used up by any faint heartedness or hand wringing on my behalf.

I would like to demonstrate these points by reference to two cases which I have recently settled for £20,000 and £15,000 damages respectively. Both cases involved hard-fought legal battles against West Midlands Police, but I was always confident that we would be successful and was prepared to see both cases through to trial if necessary. Prior to my involvement, as you shall see, both of my clients had in fact consulted other solicitors who, in my opinion, did not have the relevant experience or knowledge to properly analyse and progress the claims as a result of which both clients suffered from delay, indecision and eventually rejection by their solicitors who – WRONGLY – told them that their claims would not succeed…

The case of Ezeji Jackson

My client Ezeji Jackson is a black man who was stopped by the police in 2011 on suspicion of drink driving.

As Ezeji exited his car outside his home address he was approached by 7 police officers who questioned him in a hostile and aggressive manner and almost immediately laid hands on him. Mr Jackson attempted to talk to the officers in order to explain his point of view ie that he did not believe he was over the limit (although he accepts that he had had an alcoholic drink) and that he did not believe that he had been driving dangerously.

Ezeji was a man of good character who worked long hours for the NHS as a mental health care assistant and he was shocked and upset by the immediately hostile attitude of the officers who confronted him. He was completely outnumbered by the 7 police officers and denied displaying any violence towards them whatsoever – the truth of his account in this regard is surely borne out by the fact he was not charged with any offence of assaulting a police officer and nor did any of the officers involved in his arrest end up with as much as a scratch upon them.

Mr Jackson, on the other hand, suffered far worse than a scratch. Given that the officers had almost immediately laid hands upon him and had not properly attempted to talk or reason with him, Ezeji tried to pull away from their grasp in order to avoid being handcuffed. The officers moved in on my client and although what happened in the next few seconds differs between the accounts of Mr Jackson and the police officers, the end result was the same. My client felt a sudden pain in his upper left leg which caused him to scream out in agony, and which felt to him as if someone had kicked him from behind with extreme force. All of the officers involved in fact denied kicking Ezeji’s leg, but six of them admitted that they had simultaneously laid hands on him (three men on either side of my client) and had pulled him to the ground.

My client was left lying on the ground face down, with a cut to the right hand side of his face and enormous pain in his upper left leg. My client’s femur, one of strongest bones in the body, had in fact been broken as he was manhandled to the ground by the police. As a result of this extremely serious injury my client had to undergo two operations and was unable to work, unpaid for the majority of his time off work, for nine months. He and his family suffered considerable financial hardship as a result.

My client initially instructed a firm of personal injury solicitors. That firm subsequently went out of business and in March 2013 Ezeji’s case was transferred to a second firm of personal injury solicitors, who agreed to take his case on a ‘no win no fee basis’.

This second firm subsequently wrote to Mr Jackson in October 2013 advising him that, in their opinion, his prospects of succeeding in the claim were less than 50%.

This decision was said to be based on the following factors:-

That the incident had been investigated by the West Midlands Police Complaints Department who had found that the officers involved had no case to answer in regards to assault.

That it was Ezeji’s word against the statements of seven police officers who were all arguing that the use of force against him was reasonable and required in the circumstances.

That Mr Jackson had been convicted of having been driving whilst over the limit on this occasion.

This was extremely disappointing news for Ezeji to receive. The second firm of solicitors did correctly advise Mr Jackson that the limitation period for his claim would be the third anniversary of the incident ie September 2014. If Court proceedings were not issued by that date, then the right to proceed with the claim would effectively be lost as the limitation period in English Law for a claim involving personal injuries is three years from the date of the incident.

This meant that Ezeji now had less than 12 months in which to find a third firm of solicitors, and one willing to act despite the second firm’s rejection of the claim. Many would be disheartened by being left in such a situation, but fortunately, Mr Jackson got in contact with my firm and instructed us to investigate and pursue his claim.

As Police Claims Specialists we soon determined that Ezeji’s case had merit and we agreed to act on his behalf by way of a ‘no win, no fee’ retainer.

How was it that we were able to come to the CORRECT determination that Mr Jackson’s case in fact did have greater than 50% prospects of success, and why were we not dismayed by the same factors that had put the second firm of solicitors off the case?

Police Complaint

The rejection of our client’s police complaint by the West Midlands Police was known by us to be a ‘par for the course’ in that the vast majority of successful claims in which we represent clients start off with disciplinary complaints being rejected, and then go on to result in an award of damages being made to the Claimant.

There is a simple reason for this and it is that the complaint process is not independent but is handled by an Internal Disciplinary Investigation Team within the police force concerned, whereas a civil claim for compensation will go to Court and be heard by an entirely independent judiciary.

Long experience has taught me that the Police Internal Complaints Procedure is not fit for purpose, and that its agenda often seems to be to attempt to brush complaints under the carpet, with police officers, perhaps naturally, inclined to take the side of other police officers (colleagues in the very force with which they serve) and to favour the accounts of officers on almost all occasions over those offered by the victims of police misconduct.

In my opinion therefore, the second firm of solicitors had put far too much weight on the rejection of our client’s complaint by the police.

The number of police witnesses

Over the years I have represented many clients in successful claims where it is their word alone against that of one or more police officers and I know that it is not simply a numbers game of adding up the witnesses on each side.

We carefully assessed Ezeji’s evidence and concluded, I believe quite rightly, that he would come across as an honest and credible witness.

We carefully analysed the statements of the seven officers involved and noted that whilst all the officers denied delivering or witnessing any kicks or strikes to our client’s leg, none of them were able to offer any alternative explanation as to how he came to sustain such a severe fracture to his upper leg. The officers accounts in regards to how Mr Jackson came to injure his leg were extremely vague and in certain respects contradictory. All of the officers denied either striking or holding the Claimant’s leg as he was taken to the floor by the combined efforts of six police officers, but could offer no explanation as to the fracture of his leg. Furthermore, despite the officers accounts of a violent struggle with a muscular and well built individual, none of the officers had sustained any injury whatsoever (as highlighted above).

Two of the officers alleged that Ezeji was flailing or waving his arms aggressively prior to any attempt being made to handcuff him, but the other five officers present did not apparently see this.

One of the officers stated that Ezeji fell to the ground in an uncontrolled manner, whereas the other officers described our client being lowered to the ground whilst being held by several of them.

Three of the officers described hearing a snapping or popping sound as Mr Jackson was being overpowered and before he was lowered to the ground. The statements of the other four officers however did not say anything about this.

I also crossed referenced the officers’ statements with the accounts given by the police to the doctors at the hospital where Ezeji was transported by ambulance from the scene of the incident. In those records it states:-

“According to police, was being restrained on front, legs crossed behind him and then forced him to flexion at knees. Then sudden crack/pain”.

I noted that this account was completely contradictory of the accounts given in the police officers statements, none of whom talk about the Claimant’s legs being flexed whilst he was restrained on the ground.

So by utilising my experience of cases of this nature, and by a careful and detailed analysis and comparison of the evidence, I was able to come to the conclusion that simply because it was the word of seven men against one did not mean that the police would be exonerated.

Conviction for drink driving

Of course the fact that Ezeji was convicted of having been driving on the night of the incident whilst over the legal blood alcohol limit did present a real problem for the case. I was not proud of my client for having committed this offence, albeit that he had no prior convictions, and he was clearly in the wrong when he committed that offence – however that did not justify the behaviour of the police towards him, and specifically he did not deserve to end up with a severely fractured leg leaving him with permanent pain and scarring as a result of his actions.

The fact of my client’s conviction presented a legal obstacle which it is likely that a solicitor who is not experienced in police misconduct claims, might consider insurmountable.

Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 prevents a claim for assault being brought by a person who suffered the assault whilst in the process of being arrested for the commission of an offence for which he was subsequently convicted (in this case drink driving).

The only way this hurdle can be overcome is to demonstrate to the Court that the assault suffered by the injured person was grossly disproportionate or that the police officers carrying out the assault did not believe that it was necessary in order to prevent the commission or continuation of an offence or to apprehend the person who had committed the offence.

Again, drawing on my experience of similar cases where I have had to deal with the obstacle presented by Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act before my client’s case can proceed to trial, and also by reference to my detailed analysis of the evidence, I was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for the Court to grant Mr Jackson permission to proceed with his claim and to reach a finding that in all the circumstances the police officers acts in causing a fracture to his upper left leg were grossly disproportionate given that:-

The offence which he was suspected of having committed had already come to an end.

The threat posed by Ezeji was minimal given that he was not armed with any weapon, he was outnumbered 7-1 by the police officers who were in attendance, and on the evidence of those officers he did not strike or land any blows upon any of them with any part of his body.

That none of the officers involved in Mr Jackson’s arrest were injured in any way, whereas Ezeji sustained a fracture necessitating multiple hospital operations and a 9 month absence from work.

There was nothing in Mr Jackson’s medical history or records as considered by the Orthopaedic expert who I appointed to prepare a report in his case to suggest that Ezeji was a particularly vulnerable individual who suffered from any medical condition which would have pre disposed him to suffering fractures more easily than any other person in the general population.

A leg fracture in the circumstances of this arrest, is a highly unusual injury to be sustained and spoke in itself of disproportionate force being used. The femur is manifestly one of the longest and strongest bones in the body, and a fracture of the femur, is by common knowledge, an unusual injury to sustain.

Other crucial evidence

In a general personal injury claim there may be only limited classes of documents to obtain, eg hospital records and, if the accident occurred in the course of someone’s employment or at a public place, an accident report form.

In claims against the police numerous documents are generated relating to the arrest of the individual client and the actions of the police officers both before and after the arrest, in the form of computer logs, audio recordings, Custody Suite CCTV footage, interview tapes, police officer notebooks and statements, force medical examiner records etc.

Again, having a solicitor with the appropriate experience to identify all the different categories of document that should be produced by the police in a case such as this, and making sure that none have been overlooked (or deliberately withheld) is crucial.

I sought and obtained from the Defendant disclosure of the Association of Chief Police Officer’s ‘Use of Force’ manual which was the training manual used by West Midlands Police in regards to ‘take down’ techniques at the time of the incident in 2011. This helped to demonstrate, that in my opinion, if a proper technique had been used it is likely that Ezeji’s leg would not have been fractured.

I also obtained the police radio log which showed that only 3 minutes had passed between officers first arriving at the scene and Ezeji being reported as on the floor with a broken leg. Three minutes does not seem a very long time for the officers to have exhausted all avenues of resolution eg talking/reasoning with Mr Jackson– before resorting to violence in a situation in which the crime for which Ezeji was suspected was not itself one of violence, and nor had he assaulted any of the officers present. In other words, was it necessary for the officers to handcuff/lay hands upon Ezeji at all? Again I know from long experience that officers are trained to resolve conflict situation first by none violent methods of communication and negotiation with a suspect unless they are truly threatened with immediate danger which simply could not have been the case here.

I felt that this was another strong factor in my client’s case and gave me the confidence to assure him that we would see his case through to trial if necessary.

The progress of the Court proceedings

As stated above, my firm was instructed by Mr Jackson in October 2013 after his other solicitors had rejected his case.

After analysing the second firm’s file of papers we formally agreed to act on Ezeji’s behalf in December 2013 and set about gathering further evidence from the police.

We sent a formal letter of claim to the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police on behalf of Mr Jackson in May 2014.

In August 2014 West Midlands Police replied denying that any police officer had kicked Ezeji and requesting disclosure of his medical records in order for the case to be further investigated between the parties. There was no admission of liability.

Owing to the approach of the limitation date (September 2014) my firm then issued a Claim Form in the County Court Money Claims Centre to protect Mr Jackson’s right to proceed with the case.

Medical evidence was obtained from an Orthopaedic Consultant in regards to his leg fracture in October 2014.

With the Defendant still having failed to admit liability, despite disclosure of the Claimant’s medical records we accordingly served the Court proceedings, along with the Orthopaedic expert’s report in December 2014.

A Defence was then served by the police in January 2015 in which all liability for Ezeji’s injury was denied and in which the Defendant stated that Mr Jackson should not be allowed to continue with the claim on the basis of Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act (as discussed above).

Accordingly we had to issue an application to satisfy the Court that permission to proceed with the claim for assault against the police should continue, notwithstanding Ezeji’s conviction, and I am pleased to confirm that this was granted by the Court in April 2015.

Thereafter the case proceeded over the following months with the normal steps of exchange of documentary evidence, witness statements and questions to the medical expert with the police continuing to completely deny liability.

On a number of occasions we invited the police to attend a Joint Settlement Meeting with us to attempt to narrow the issues between the parties and secure an out of Court settlement, thereby saving legal costs for all concerned, but this was rejected.

Eventually, the case was listed for a 5 day trial to take place in October 2016.

Then in June 2016 the police put forwards an offer to my client to ‘drop hands’, ie that he discontinue his claim on the basis of no order as to costs. In effect all that was being offered was that my client would be allowed to walk away from the case as if he had lost, without getting any damages but without having to pay any legal costs to the Defendant.

With my support my client quite rightly rejected this offer. I identified the fact that the offer had been made as the first chink in the Defendant’s armour.

Indeed, in July 2016 the Defendant then made an offer to settle my client’s claim for a payment of damages but only in the sum of £3,000.

I advised my client that this was a very low offer in view of the extremely serious nature of the fracture he had sustained to his leg and the permanent damage it had caused to him, even taking into account the litigation risks of him not winning at trial.

Once again with my support therefore, Ezeji rejected the Defendant’s offer.

We however put forwards a counter offer in August 2016 to settle his claim for the sum of £20,000 damages.

We then continued to prepare the case for trial and were only a few weeks away from the trial when at the very end of September 2016 the Defendant accepted our offer and agreed to pay Ezeji £20,000 in compensation for the injuries which he suffered.

It had been a long hard fight over the course of no less than 5 years for my client to achieve justice, but working together with the right firm of solicitors he was able to do so.

Specialist Knowledge

Confidence and perseverance are required to see a challenging case such as Ezeji’s through to successful conclusion.

I am glad that he came to me before it was too late, and that he was not put off by the unduly pessimistic advice he received from his former solicitors who in my opinion did not have the requisite experience to realise that they had a winning case on their hands.

Mr Jackson now has 20,000 reasons to tell his former solicitors why they were wrong!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Principals

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

Basic damages

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

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

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

Aggravated damages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. if the conduct took place in public;

b. a lack of apology from the Police;

c. if the Claimant was physically or verbally abused;

d. if the Police were motivated by prejudice;

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

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

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

Exemplary damages

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

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

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

Chris’ case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Damages

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

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

Aggravated Damages

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exemplary Damages

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Claire’s case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Damages

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

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

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

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

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

Aggravated Damages

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Exemplary damages

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Settlement

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

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

Calculating Compensation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

By Iain Gould, solicitor

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

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

know enough about the law and police procedure to determine if they have a valid complaint and/or potential claim
be mentally strong enough to take action against the police
be determined to find a suitably qualified solicitor they can trust, given the considerable financial risk of litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

Racial Abuse Arrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police Complaint Farce

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

the police could not justify his arrest having failed to obtain the victim’s evidence first, even though the incident occurred over three weeks earlier.
they failed to invite him to attend for a voluntary interview, instead sending 11 officers to his home causing John and his family great embarrassment, shock, and distress.
he had been mistreated during arrest and at the police station.
the police denied his reasonable request for information.
they pre-judged his further detention and delayed his release.

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

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

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

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

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

His complaint was (wrongly) dealt with internally by the Metropolitan Police, rather than being referred to the IPCC. Mr Rutherford described this as “akin to getting Bernard Madoff to investigate customer complaints about his own investment scheme”.
The Inspector who initially investigated the complaint failed to apologise, even though he confirmed that “You were circulated as a suspect on the 05/03/14 to facilitate a prompt and effective investigation and protect a vulnerable person. On reflection, once the vulnerability passed the decision to arrest could have been reassessed and could possibly have been investigated utilising less intrusive methods”.
Dissatisfied with the response, he appealed. The same Inspector dealt with the appeal. In January 2015 he said: “the investigation process could have been progressed without the requirement for arrest however the arrest itself was not unlawful”. Despite this, Mr Rutherford made some progress when the Inspector finally said “I wish to apologise for the distress this incident has caused you and accept our failings in how we progressed this investigation. To be clear, this investigation did not require your detention in custody to secure your account, nor was it necessary to affect a prompt investigation”.
John was dissatisfied with the apology for “distress” only, and, among other things, with the Metropolitan Police’s failure to admit his unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, or to confirm that they had breached professional standards. He appealed to the IPCC.
In March 2015, a year after the arrest, the IPCC confirmed Mr Rutherford’s view that his complaint was not suitable for Local Resolution and should never have been dealt with internally. It also confirmed that the Inspector’s response to the appeal was effectively a re-hash of the initial investigation, and that the matter should be sent back to the Metropolitan Police for a re-investigation.

Instructing an Actions Against the Police Solicitor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better, but not enough.

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

Here’s what John said about my service:

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

Specialist Legal Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Why Police Misconduct Investigations Must Be Reformed

By Iain Gould, solicitor

At 11a.m. on Monday 26 October, two Police officers of West Midlands Police face a disciplinary hearing for gross police misconduct.

The hearing will take place in public. Police disciplinary hearings became public (subject to certain exceptions) on the 1 May 2015. That change, along with others, was aimed to create a “more robust, independent and transparent” police disciplinary system.

But have the reforms into investigations of police misconduct worked? Read on to find out why I think not.

Police Misconduct Allegation

The two West Midlands Police officers due to be brought to account on Monday face an allegation lodged by my client, Alex Faragher in January 2014. (Alex gave me permission to use her details.)

Ms Faragher’s complaint centered on an incident that happened during an enquiry into an alleged domestic violence assault.

Two male officers attended upon her shortly after the incident but Alex was too upset and distressed to provide full details. The officers subsequently tried to contact Alex on her mobile phone but were unable to get through. Accordingly, they left her a message but then failed to hang up properly. Their subsequent conversation was then mistakenly recorded.

In the two-minute recording (an extract of which you can listen to here) one officer allegedly says to the other, “F……. bitch, I specifically said, “you’re not going to give us the run around are you?” “No I want to press charges” she said. “F……. slag”.

A second officer then referred to writing their own version of her witness statement after her boyfriend had been arrested for assault. He can allegedly be heard saying, “Either that or the only other thing we do is go back, f….ing draft the statement out ourselves and then just get the bitch to sign it”.

Later that evening, unaware of the voice recording on her phone, Ms Faragher went to Sutton Coldfield Police Station to give her statement to the same two officers. Ms Faragher believes that her treatment at the Police Station was equally unprofessional because the officers did not take her dyslexia into account. They prepared a statement in her name and on her behalf and persuaded her to sign it without her first being permitted to read it and further because the officers then ignored her requests to amend particular parts of her statement.

It was only upon her return home later that evening that she both saw and heard the voicemail on her phone. After hearing it, she felt “victimised and humiliated”. She said, “They turned up after 6:30pm and tried to call me and mistakenly didn’t hang up. I picked up the conversation they then had in the police car that was recorded as a voicemail. I could not believe what I was hearing.” she said.

Photo of Iain Gould, solicitor, who discusses police misconduct investigation reform. — Iain Gould, solicitor, discusses police misconduct investigation reform.

Police Misconduct Complaint

In line with the policy set by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”), one would assume that the resulting investigation would take a relatively short period of time. When Ms Faragher first complained she gave the police a copy of the recording along with a detailed account of what had happened. She has since co-operated fully with the investigators.

Despite this, it took an investigator from the Force’s Professional Standards Department six months to finalise their investigation and produce their Complaint Investigation Report.

The Report was inadequate, even after all that time and my client’s help. Although both officers were interviewed under caution on the 3 April 2014, the Report failed to identify the officers’ response to the recording and answer a crucial question: do they accept that it’s them?

Both officers did however provide an account of subsequent events at the Police Station. Both maintained that they had acted properly at all times and any allegation of misconduct (in this respect) was denied.

After consideration, the investigating officer decided to not uphold this aspect of the complaint on the basis that there was no evidence available to corroborate either Ms Faragher’s account or the officers’ account.

But the Investigating Officer concluded that the officers had a case to answer in relation to the allegation that they had spoken about Ms Faragher in a discourteous and disparaging manner. This part of the complaint was upheld and will be addressed at the misconduct hearing.

Complaint to the IPCC

Whilst Ms Faragher was pleased that the officers were to be brought to account in relation to the taped conversation, this was only part of her complaint and the fact remained that the officers’ treatment of her at the station was unprofessional.

The decision of the investigator was, in my opinion, perverse, and designed to protect the officers from further scrutiny and a form of damage limitation.

On my advice, she appealed to the IPCC, the independent police watchdog.

On review by the IPCC in December 2014, it was found that whilst there was no evidence available to corroborate either the officers’ account or Ms Farragaher’s account of events at the police station, the taped recording added weight to my client’s complaint, particularly the comment that the officers would “go back, f….. draft the statement out ourselves and then just get the bitch to sign it”.

Accordingly, the IPCC case worker found that on balance, Ms Faragher’s complaint held “more credibility” and therefore upheld the appeal and decided that there was a case to answer for gross misconduct for both the recording and what happened at the police station.

The police disagreed.

In March 2015, West Midlands Police told the IPCC that they did not accept its recommendation that the officers face a Gross Misconduct hearing about events at the Police station.

In May, the IPCC stated that their original decision held and that West Midlands Police should include the additional complaints.

As a result, both will be addressed at Monday’s hearing.

Justice Delayed

On the face of it, West Midlands Police are harbouring two delinquent employees who should be dealt with as soon as possible.

But it has taken nearly two years from when Ms Faragher lodged her complaint to get them to appear before a Gross Misconduct hearing. All the time those officers have continued to work, although they are now reported to be on restricted duties in “non-public facing” roles.

Natural Justice demands that investigations into alleged police misconduct are full and fair, and that disciplinary proceedings are finalised in an expeditious manner.

Maintaining a system where police investigations are undertaken by officers in the same force leads to a perception of bias. And because there is no limit on the extent of investigation process or the time allowed, the most that the IPCC can demand is that the investigation process “should be proportionate to the nature of the complaint”.

The biggest stumbling block in assuring public trust and accountability in the police is the sense that internal discipline is not implemented effectively.

Cases like Alex Faragher’s show that, while reforms like public hearings may help, there is much more to do.

Contact me for help with you police misconduct matter using the online form below or via my firm’s website.

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

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

By Iain Gould, Solicitor

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

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

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

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

Accountability
Fairness
Honesty
Integrity
Leadership
Objectivity
Openness
Respect
Selflessness

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

Honesty and Integrity
Authority, Respect and Courtesy
Equality and Diversity
Use of Force
Orders and Instructions
Duties and Responsibilities
Confidentiality
Fitness for Duty
Discreditable Conduct
Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct

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

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

What’s required is real reform.

Police Misconduct to Continue

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

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

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

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

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

As a result, investigations are often simply a whitewash.

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

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

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

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

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

‘Can We Trust the Police?’- ITV ‘Tonight’ Programme

By Iain Gould, Solicitor

Recently I was interviewed for an ITV ‘Tonight’ programme about trust in the police.

The programme, which deals with police misconduct, will be broadcast on ITV at 7.30p.m. tonight, Thursday 13 February 2014.

As a solicitor who specialises in police misconduct claims the producers sought my input on a number of issues relating to the question of public confidence in the police. They also interviewed one of my clients who had suffered as a result of police misconduct.

The reporters commissioned a survey of 2,000 people. 1 in 5 of those surveyed felt that the police were not on their side. Almost 2 in 5 considered that corruption was a problem within the police.

Police Misconduct Compensation Claims

My clients Peter Garrigan and Karim Allison would agree with the people surveyed who were concerned about perceived police corruption.

Both of them had to fight all the way to civil jury trials to clear their names after they were prosecuted in criminal courts using false evidence submitted by the police.

In my experience, the police fabricate evidence. But they would have the public believe that the police misconduct cases I deal with are rare, and that things are improving. Indeed, David Crompton, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, sought to assure the public that his force was now a ‘very different place in 2012’ compared to the Hillsborough era.

And yet I am contacted on a regular basis by people like Peter Garrigan and Karim Allison. Ordinary men and women who have suffered as a result of police misconduct.

Despite promises that things have changed since:

Hillsborough;
Stephen Lawrence;
Jean Charles de Menezes;
Andrew Mitchell‘s ‘plebgate’ affair; and
countless other scandals,

I am not convinced by the police’s platitudes.

In the past I have supported calls for a Royal Commission (see here). I repeat that call again. It is time that the police account for their actions. It is the only way to restore public confidence.

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

Update

The programme can be seen via the ITV player for a short time by clicking here.

Share this:

How you can help me

Share this:

Update

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

The case of Ezeji Jackson

Police Complaint

The number of police witnesses

Conviction for drink driving

Other crucial evidence

The progress of the Court proceedings

Specialist Knowledge

Share this:

Basic Principals

Basic damages

Aggravated damages

Exemplary damages

Chris’ case

Basic Damages

Aggravated Damages

Exemplary Damages

Conclusion

Claire’s case

Basic Damages

Aggravated Damages

Exemplary damages

Conclusions

Settlement

Calculating Compensation

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:

Racial Abuse Arrest

Police Complaint Farce

Instructing an Actions Against the Police Solicitor

Specialist Legal Help

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:

Police Disciplinary Tribunal Finding

Disciplinary Tribunal Punishment

Share this:

Police Misconduct Hearing

Gross Misconduct in Police Matters

Share this:

By Iain Gould, solicitor

Police Misconduct Allegation

Police Misconduct Complaint

Complaint to the IPCC

Justice Delayed

Share this:

Police Misconduct to Continue

Share this:

Police Misconduct Compensation Claims

My clients Peter Garrigan and Karim Allison would agree with the people surveyed who were concerned about perceived police corruption.

Update

Share this: