2nd October 2021
The news in the United Kingdom has been dominated in the last few days by the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving policing police officer by means of his police powers – for which the murdering police officer received an exceptional whole-life sentence.
There have been some dreadful (if not surprising) responses – such as the preposterous metropolitan police statement that those who doubt the credentials of an arresting officer should ‘wave down a bus’ (see this blog yesterday).
Another inane statement was made by a Conservative politician and crime and police commissioner.
Sarah Everard should have been more “streetwise about the law”:
Police boss criticised after saying women "need to be streetwise" about powers of arresthttps://t.co/kBaH1oR3hG
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) October 1, 2021
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1443936403323248645
*
This strange view that one should challenge an actual police officer prompted memories of an incident last year in Lancashire.
Watch this video of a confrontation – watch it a few times, so the content of the exchange sinks in:
— Stevie (@StevieeeWx) April 18, 2020
*
Here the police officer actually shouts at someone challenging his power of arrest:
“I will make something up…
“Who are they going to believe, me or you?
“Who are they going to believe, me or you?”
*
Presumably the citizen here challenging the police officer was not being streetwise enough.
Presumably the citizen should have waved down a passing bus, so that the bus driver could adjudicate.
*
So whatever happened to this police officer?
The police officer here is conducting himself in such a way as to undermine police officers everywhere, and indeed so as to undermine the rule of law.
Presumably this conduct would have the most serious of sanctions, and this officer would no longer employed be in the police force.
And his colleague stood by watching this happen, as if it was a normal part of a police officer’s working day.
*
Well.
All that happened is that the officer received a mere written warning.
This was reported just over a month ago, some fifteen months after the incident.
All the Lancashire police said was:
“A misconduct meeting has been held in relation to this matter and the officer involved has received a written warning.
“The matter is now concluded.”
The officer is not named and he is presumably continuing with his police work otherwise unaffected by what happened.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) provided more information:
‘At a misconduct meeting in May he accepted breaching the standards of professional behaviour in respect of: integrity, discreditable conduct, authority, respect and courtesy, use of force; and duties and responsibilities.’
Let’s break this down.
This means the police officer accepted he acted:
– with a lack of integrity,
– discreditably,
– with a lack of authority, respect and courtesy, and
– in breach of his obligations in respect of the use of force, respect and courtesy.
And for all these admitted failures, the police officer did not even get a final written warning, let alone anything more onerous.
Perhaps if he is filmed doing this again, he may be given a final written warning – because then it would be really serious.
*
The full IOPC statement is here and it is dated June 2021.
It states (with my comments in brackets):
“During our investigation, which was completed in December, we obtained accounts from the two police officers involved in the incident as well as the complainant and one other man who was there at the time.
‘We reviewed the video footage and a number of other police witnesses provided statements.
[One can bet they did.]
“Neither of the police officers were wearing a body-worn video camera.
[What a surprise.]
“We found that when police arrived, they found themselves blocked by a van and a car. The complainant was one of four men present at the time who were requested to move the vehicles.
[They evidently brought it on themselves.]
“Only part of the interaction between the police officer and the complainant was caught on camera.
[And that presumably lessens the seriousness of the particular exchange recorded.]
“We found one officer had a case to answer for misconduct. At a misconduct meeting in May he accepted breaching the standards of professional behaviour in respect of: integrity; discreditable conduct; authority, respect and courtesy; use of force; and duties and responsibilities.
“He was given a written warning.’
*
The impression given by that last sentence – and the impression the BBC converted into a statement of fact in its report – is that it was the IOPC that imposed the sanction.
But usually the IOPC reports, and it is the particular force that imposes the sanction.
So I asked the IOPC about this yesterday, and they told me:
“at the end of an investigation we determine whether an officer has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. The force will then arrange disciplinary proceedings (if required) and it is for the person (or panel in some cases) in charge of that hearing to determine whether the case is proven and, if so, what the sanction should be.”
So it was the Lancashire police who gave the written warning, and not (as the BBC reported) the IOPC.
*
And what about the police officer who just looked on as this officer shouted his threats about making things up?
The IOPC said:
“The other officer whose conduct we investigated was found to have no case to answer.”
*
Lancashire police assert that the matter is “now concluded”.
Concluded, that is, with a mere written warning, with the officer keeping his anonymity and presumably he is carrying on policing citizens.
And presumably he is also giving evidence regularly in court on which convictions are supposed to rely.
Who is the court going to believe?
Him or the defendant?
A police officer who freely – and loudly – threatens that he will make things up when his credentials are challenged.
And the court will not know any different.
*
“The matter is now concluded.”
But.
The matter is not “concluded” – certainly not in this post Sarah Everard age.
It is not good enough that behind closed doors, in secrecy, mild sanctions are imposed for conduct which even the officer admitted was in breach of so many rules of conduct.
This is ‘closing of the ranks’ – but in a systemic and structural way, rather than as a matter of mere police culture.
And there will be many who will not be surprised at the police misconduct here:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1251578141908361217
Street wisdom is no help.
Waving-down a bus will not make a difference.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1443940430471643152
*
That a police officer who shouts loudly that he will make something up when challenged will keep his job and his anonymity – and will presumably carry on policing citizens and providing evidence to courts – is an absolute counterpoint to the assertions that citizens when confronted with an arresting officer can do anything other than comply.
For who would a court believe?
The serving police officer with a warrant card?
Or the arrestee?
“I will make something up…
“Who are they going to believe, me or you?
“Who are they going to believe, me or you?”
Who indeed.
*****
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.
Suggested donation of £2 as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Thank you. I hope that some of the commenters yesterday, who ‘argued’ that whether or not the person stopped is young, ethnic minority, and so on is totally irrelevant might think again.
But I doubt it.
This case only even made the news again because I contacted Lancashire Constabulary with a freedom of information request asking about the case and then asked the IOPC to update their website with the result. This was Lancashire Constabulary’s response:
“Please note: A misconduct meeting is a different process to a misconduct hearing. The officer within the first question attended a misconduct meeting, whereas the data provided in response to the second question is regarding misconduct and special case hearings.
The officer has attended a misconduct meeting for the incident shown in the article provided.”
This means that he never even faced the possibility of being struck off. The maximum possible punishment for a misconduct meeting is a written warning. After asking for the outcome I checked the IOPCs website for an update which I would expect to see (they are usually really good about updating on cases) but the case was still listed as under investigation. I sent them the following:
“Hi I’ve been in contact with the Lancashire Police regarding the following incident:
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/investigations/accrington-incident-lancashire-constabulary
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/update-investigation-following-incident-accrington-lancashire
“The investigation is listed as “on going” on your website however it’s been made clear to me that your investigation is over and the officer has attended a misconduct meeting.
Can you please confirm the following:
That the investigation listed above has been completed
The conclusions of your report into the officers
And can you confirm if your website will be updated with the correct information”
This was their response:
“Thank you for your email in which you request information about an IOPC investigation.
This investigation is now complete and on 24 August our web site was updated with the following information:
“During our investigation, which was completed in December, we obtained accounts from the two police officers involved in the incident as well as the complainant and one other man who was there at the time. We reviewed the video footage and a number of other police witnesses provided statements. Neither of the police officers were wearing a body-worn video camera.
We found that when police arrived, they found themselves blocked by a van and a car. The complainant was one of four men present at the time who were requested to move the vehicles. Only part of the interaction between the police officer and the complainant was caught on camera.
We found one officer had a case to answer for misconduct. At a misconduct meeting in May he accepted breaching the standards of professional behaviour in respect of: integrity; discreditable conduct; authority, respect and courtesy; use of force; and duties and responsibilities. He was given a written warning.
The other officer whose conduct we investigated was found to have no case to answer.”
This information is available here: Update: Investigation following an incident in Accrington, Lancashire | Independent Office for Police Conduct and on the investigation page corresponding to this matter.
In accordance with our Policy on the publication of investigation reports and summaries, we intend to publish a summary of the investigation and its outcomes in the near future.
We hope you find this helpful.”
4 Days after this it was covered in BBC news. It took multiple FOI requests to find out the result and get them to update their site. Surprising they would forget to update on a case that made national headlines. Shocking that the officer never even faced the possibility to be struck off.
Thank you. A hugely important issue.
I do not believe that these words will do much harm to the credibility of police evidence before London juries for the simple reason that many jurors no longer give weight to uncorroborated police evidence.
Too many of us over many years have encountered occasions on which we know lies have been told.
They will only do harm in areas where the police are generally believed.
Presumably the officers’ badge numbers can be discerned from the video footage and any competent defence barrister can draw attention to the dishonesty of one and the complicity of the other when defending against their testimony in court.
This appears to be normal and expected Police behaviour in places as far apart as London, Lancashire, Kyev, Minsk and Moscow.
If only there were more police officers so that the forces could afford to get rid of the bad apples.
But some would probably close ranks anyway.
It is worth noting that the final say on whether a case to answer goes to a misconduct meeting (misconduct only, can’t be sacked) or a misconduct hearing (gross misconduct, dismissal a possible outcome) sits with the IOPC. If it goes to a hearing, the decision on whether it is proven/not proven, and if proven whether it is misconduct or gross misconduct and what the outcome should be, is that of a panel of three, with a non-police majority including a legally qualified chair.
None of this is to defend the outcome here: but it does suggest that the problem of what to do about unacceptable behaviour in policing sits at a deeper level than simply forces closing ranks or marking their own homework.
The collusion that protects bad officers exists in many other professions where people don’t challenge colleagues or other team members. We’ve seen it everywhere from medicine and the law through to construction and the care sector. We are taught very early on in life not to ‘tell tales’. The offenders are often bullies and that deters other team members from reporting them.
And too often those that do speak out pay a price for standing up and calling out the behaviours. No one wants to hear – managers don’t want the problem/reputational risk etc and peers just want to keep their heads down and hope it all goes away.
There have been discussions previously about having a smaller, more specialist and highly trained police force, focused where they are really needed and have most effect. And looking for other, less expensive solutions for much of the low level, work that currently falls to the police.
Not just Northern Irish. Anyone Irish in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the cases of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six illustrated. I had my own experience of that, as a teenage visitor from Dublin in the 70s, only mild physical abuse compared to what others endured (being shoved repeatedly into a hoarding with protruding bolts and told “your sort” weren’t welcome). The Good Friday Agreement and peace in NI helped, as did the replacement of the Irish as the hated outgroup with Muslims.
“I will make something up… Who are they going to believe, me or you?”.
Appalling, to say the least. And yet, in my modest opinion, this rogue of a policeman (and I don’t mean to justify him!) is a very stupid man as not even a troglodyte would challenge a man in this arrogant manner – unless he KNOWS he can get away with it, which of course is an aggravating circumstance.
Oh dear, where is the kind smiling bobby I met every morning while walking to the bus station when I was studying in London, a century ago?
I presume it is out of time now, but would there be any scope for a judicial review of the disciplinary decision?
Or a private prosectution for misconduct in public office?
This is all too upsetting. Bring back Dixon of Dock Green.
I understand why people may feel it isn’t enough, but (depressingly enough) part of me thinks that more than a written warning would be disproportionately harsh on this particular officer when many others have doubtless done the same with no consequences at all.
Only ‘disproportionately harsh’ if you disregard completely the public interest.
My doubt was how far the public interest would be helped if he was dismissed but the wider culture remained unchanged – but then again I see how stronger action against him might help improve the culture somewhat
Some people have gotten away with crime therefore it would be disproportionately harsh to punish other criminals? Is that your argument?
I think it’s the other way around – previous sanctions were disproportionately lenient.
Perhaps “hypocritical” would have made more sense than “harsh”, but I take your point too
Hear hear.
Reminds me of the other video of the guy who was visiting his mother in the lockdown who was threatened with a tasing by a plain clothed policeman. I never heard any outcome of that incident.
Perhaps in the face of being tased he should have had ‘better street smarts’ and flagged down a passing bus.
A little context, if I may.
A report in the Observer on 3 October records that at least 81 women in the UK have been murdered since Sarah Everard’s death. The murderer was known to the victim in the majority of cases.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/02/the-81-women-killed-in-28-weeks
To add a bit more context, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020 the rate of homicide for 2020 shows a decline of 16% for female victims, and that male victims outnumber female ones by a factor of almost three. Based on those figures we would expect about 100 female homicide victims in 28 weeks – not 81, but it is likely that there are bodies not yet discovered as the 28 week period end very recently. However, overall it is clear that to complain specifically about women being killed means that you think women’s lives are worth more than men’s, or you don’t know the statistics, or you don’t believe in equality and are being sexist.
If you want to campaign for a group who are genuinely at greater risk, look at the statistics for ethnicity. Black people are at about five times the risk of white people of being victims of homicide.
I really hope, Charles, that your invective wasn’t directed personally at me.
Rather, the first point was that a further 81 women have been murdered, yet have not received the same media attention as Sarah Everard.
And the question is: “why not?”
And, secondly, to emphasise that the “mad axeman in a dark alley at midnight” is unusual; most killers are known to the victim.
Thanks for the link to the data, Charles.
As that report says, the gender mix of homicide victims in 2020 was exceptional, but usually there are about twice as many male victims of homicide in England and Wales as female – typically around 400 per year of the former, and about 200 per year of the latter. So around 2 every day – all too frequent, but also relatively unusual.
Why did this case get so much publicity? Well, it was remarkable for the perpetrator: apart from a conviction for the manslaughter of Dalian Atkinson earlier this year, has any other police officer been convicted of homicide in England and Wales since the death of Henry Foley in 1986? Yet something like 20 people die each year in custody or after other police contact.
And then, in addition to the documented “white woman missing” phenomenon, and then the identify of the main suspect, perhaps this case achieved so much initial publicity because relatively few women are killed by strangers. See figure 6: for homicide victims in the year to March 2020 aged over 16, just 13% of 176 offences where the victim was a woman involved a stranger as the perpetrator, compared to 33% of 473 offences where the victim was a man.
A former or current domestic partner was responsible for 35% of female homicides, but only 2% of men. And fully 78% of female homicide victims in the year to March 2020 were killed in or around their home, compared to 38% of men.
As well as sex, age and ethnicity of victims – yes, lots of young black men – it is worth casting an eye to those convicted. 93% men. And 21% of suspects were identified as black, compared to 3% in the general population.
There is a substantial problem here, I wish I knew what we should be doing about that. I’m sure we have a lot to learn from some countries, such as the Netherlands. Not so much from others, such as the US.