1st October 2021
The metropolitan police have published statement in response to the public concern about the case of Sarah Everard, who was murdered by a police officer using his police powers.
The statement is here.
In the final part of the statement there are suggestions about what to do if you are arrested by a lone plain clothes officer, and it concludes with this advice:
‘If after all of that you feel in real and imminent danger and you do not believe the officer is who they say they are, for whatever reason, then I would say you must seek assistance – shouting out to a passer-by, running into a house, knocking on a door, waving a bus down or if you are in the position to do so calling 999.’
Waving down a bus.
Just think about this.
As the estimable Hannah Rose Woods avers:
I am still genuinely trying to get my head around the social structure the Met have pretended to want in which bus drivers are the fourth emergency service providing immediate on-the-ground arbitration between citizen rights and state powers
— Hannah Rose Woods (@hannahrosewoods) October 1, 2021
Imagine the scenes of a person challenging what may be a lawful arrest by stopping a bus and getting the bus driver involved.
It would probably end up with the hapless bus driver being arrested as well.
One gets the sense that the writer of this police statement had, by the end of it, ran out of ideas and was winging it like an unprepared student in the last half-hour of an examination.
But even the other advice in the statement is unrealistic and misconceived.
Anyone challenging arrest can say hello to the offence of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.
They may also say hello to Mr Taser.
*
The Roman poet Juvenal, 100 AD:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(Who watches the watchmen?)Met police, 2021:
Bus drivers https://t.co/6UlqqV0Gs5— davidallengreen (@davidallengreen) October 1, 2021
*
Telling you how to vet whether someone stopping you in the street is actually a plain clothes police officer is rather besides the point, when it is the actual police officers that are the problem.
For this is the problem with the Everard case.
The murderer was a police officer, using police procedure.
The problem is not about public confidence about whether these people are police officers or not.
The problem is that they are police officers.
Here consider these two tweets from the writer Eleanor Penny:
When did it start being a ‘false arrest’? Its perfectly legal for officers to arrest people when they’re not on shift. They arrest people on flimsy pretexts all the time, and then make up justifications later. And people get hurt, assaulted, killed in their custody all the time.
— Eleanor Penny (@eleanorkpenny) September 30, 2021
This isn’t a problem of misused police power, this is a problem of ordinary police power.
— Eleanor Penny (@eleanorkpenny) September 30, 2021
She is absolutely right.
The problem is not that this murder was a ‘wrong un’ – a bad apple, and so on.
A problem is the immunity and impunity with which police officers routinely and casually use their coercive powers.
They know they can use their coercive powers at will, with no real accountability.
The powers of stop and of arrest are so general, and the thresholds they have to meet (or say they meet) are so low, that they can freely inflict what would otherwise would be an assault as they wish.
And even if, in a particular instance, an officer exceeds their authority, there is no real consequence for the officer: a civil action may be brought against the police force, or a complaint may be made, but the officer will continue in their job unaffected.
When you come to believe that a warrant card is a casual device, then – at the extreme – you have the situation in the Sarah Everard case.
An extreme on a scale, and not something isolated.
*
Yesterday this blog set out why the whole-life sentence for the murderer of Sarah Everard was spot-on.
Because the offence was committed by means of the use of police power, then it was so exceptionally serious as to warrant an exceptional sentence.
But.
The misuse and abuse of police powers are relevant in many other situations, and the law – and judges – should similarly be alert to their presence, and not just in the extreme cases.
And it should not be for those facing arrest to vet the credentials of an arresting officer.
Still less wave down a bus driver to get them involved and possibly also arrested.
The problem is about how police officers are, in effect, unchecked and (to use a phrase) a law to themselves, with no real accountability.
And this should not be made the responsibility of the arrestee or potential victim.
That bus has passed.
*****
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.
” the writer of this police statement had, by the end of it, ran out of ideas and was winging it like an unprepared student in the last half-hour of an examination.”
Wonderful – and all too believable – image!
On Today this morning, the former Assistant (I think) Chief Constable of Merseyside was asked what a woman should do if stopped by a plain clothes policeman. She launched into a, no doubt heartfelt, apology to the family of Sarah Everard and by the time she had finished the interviewer seemed to have forgotten the question.
Then later, Jess Philips was asked a similar question and responded – perhaps not unreasonably – that it was the wrong question: that the police should be organised in a way that was protective of, rather than antagonistic to, women alone. But the question still remains: given that there are, I believe, over 100,000 policemen, the chances are that there is, or might be, another particularly rotten apple around. How can we, as law-abiding and supporting citizens, act responsibly and also safely in such situations?
While it is some years since I was in any kind of confrontation with a police officer my impression is that most would not look kindly on a suspect saying “Hang on, I just need to call your station to confirm that you are acting within your powers!” And indeed, in many cases this would be tantamount to obstruction.
Perhaps one straightforward, if inadequate, response would be to say that a policeman off duty and/or out of uniform does NOT possess the powers that he or she has when on duty. I don’t know how many arrests are made by plain clothes officers, but ‘police procedurals’ have given me the impression that it is quite normal to call for back up from the uniformed branch when arrests are to be made. Others will know more.
It would be very odd if a police officer had to be in uniform to effect an arrest, if that arrest took place while he or she was on duty.
There clearly is an issue that police officers in and out of duty abuse their powers.
Solving that issue won’t be easy. Encouraging a more responsible culture in police forces is key. One of the few things May did as Home Sec was confront the police about their bad behaviour, and managed to get boooed by the Police Federation conference. I can’t see Priti Patel confronting the police.
It really is utterly preposterous. There already were witnesses – they witnessed what they took, quite reasonably, to be a legitimate arrest. Flagging down a bus isn’t going to make a difference even if you can manage it with a copper’s boot on your neck.
There’s an issue here too about whether this might be used as a pretext by actual criminals to resist arrest or as a defence. The possibility of a mechanism by which a miscreant could ‘get away’ with resisting is troubling, particularly if it tempts a wrongdoer into violence against an honest officer.
I worry.
The crime is indeed shocking and all the moreso because of the fact that it was perpetrated by one whose very function was supposed to be the protection of the public. I am not a proponent of “whole life tariffs”, but do accept that some people may never safely be released – the only question is can this rightfully be extinguished as a possibility at the outset?
I do have a problem with the knee-jerk reaction that this apalling crime has provoked and share your derision at the farcical suggestions being made as to how an arrestee can query the power of the arrestor. In British policing history, I doubt this case can find a parallel: that an officer used his position to abduct, rape and murder a member of the public, of whom there is no suggestion of criminality. To imply that the public can no longer have faith in the police and that those placed under arrest or concerned passers by should challenge the copper is disproportionate and will harm trust between the public and a body of men and women that (largely) do a stellar job protecting them (Westminster Bridge, the attack on Parliament etc, etc). We are too keen, these days, to trash reputations and move somebody from hero to villain without any due process.
Finally, I am quite sure that the citizens in this land who are the most outraged and disgusted by the man’s conduct are his fellow officers. This near hysterical reaction is a kick in the teeth for an, on the whole, diligent and publicly spirited group of men and women.
‘I doubt this case can find a parallel’
I would aver that this may also be explained by the lack of accountability and supervision: how would we know?
I’d suggest that women feel rather differently.
“Near-hysterical” would appear to illustrate your viewing of this through male eyes only.
Near-hysterical might not be quite the right word, but there is a lot of knee-jerk diagnosis today of simplistic solutions to what is a very complex issue.
Women are getting a lot of attention at the moment, but I’m wondering why “the story of Dalian Atkinson – a black ex-footballer who died after being repeatedly Tasered and then kicked in the head by police officer Benjamin Monk, who was jailed this summer for his manslaughter – didn’t trigger this kind of national outrage.”
I don’t think I was previously aware of this case until I read an article in the Guardian by Gaby Hinsliff today.
The appalling case of Dalian Atkinson was given widespread coverage, both in the press and broadcast news. Whether it triggered national outrage on the same scale as this is another matter.
What I find most odd is the failure by the police to address how vetting and flagging and responding to unacceptable behaviour by police offers including obstructing the justice and how such behaviour will be dealt with, surely these questions could have been anticipated and judged worth of a response.
Ridiculous and surely knowingly stupid advice from the MET.
If a victim of police arrest flags down a bus, the copper will show his warrant card and the bus will be on its way. In the unlikely event of someone calling the police to make whatever confirmation the MET deems necessary, the ‘real’ police will close ranks around the arresting officer. At best the arrestee will end up with a caution and the copper will carry on his work as usual with no sanction.
Knowing someone who was once a victim of an over zealous arresting officer, when faced with a caution at the station they refused the caution as they had done nothing wrong – other than question an officer who had stopped them on their way home for no reason. The desk officer said in that case it goes to court where it will be the officers word against theirs, and who will the magistrate believe? They accepted the caution. This is how they carry on their business, in uniform or not.
Misuse of police power is not at all a new thing in the UK, as many know first hand. My advice to someone wanting to buy the one bad apple story was
I strongly recommend that you listen to this podcast (on systemic corruption in the Met) from start to finish
https://pca.st/podcast/9a56fd70-fe79-0133-9c92-59d98c6b72b8
Then watch the BBC TV series Bent Coppers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/dYwKNJ8ZNngCwNPDYxqLD1/bent-coppers-crossing-the-line-of-duty
Then read the Patten Report on the RUC & review what happened afterwards.
Another point being missed here by the “flag down a bus” suggestion is that a rogue police officer intent on abducting someone isn’t going to wait around for the victim to verify their identity. They’ll just slap the cuffs on. Any physically fit, well-trained police officer would be able to subdue someone in Sarah Everard’s position without giving them time to flag down a bus or call 999. And there’s no way to change that which wouldn’t also make it easier for actual criminals to get away,
Ultimately, we have to trust the police to do their job properly. And that includes allowing them to deal with individuals as they find them when necessary. But it also means that those responsible for overseeing the police have to make sure that that trust is not breached. Trying to place the onus on potential victims of rogue officers to protect themselves is entirely the wrong approach.
We should not forget that Police Officers are drawn from the society they police. Most members of society are law abiding but some are not. Therefore, the same can be said of Police Officers. The difference is that there is supposed to be an enhanced vetting process to enable the Police Service to have a higher percentage of law abiding people within their ranks than the general population. No vetting system is perfect and I am quite sure there are more disturbing revelations to come.
The focus must be placed on the competence of senior police management and the politicians who keep them in place. As reported in one national newspaper today, Cressida Dick’s dossier of shame includes:
2005 In charge of the operation which saw innocent electrician Jean Charles de Menezes shot dead after being mistaken for a terrorist
2014 Sanctioning Operation Midland – the disastrous investigation into VIP child sex abuse allegations
2019 Criticism for ‘Light Touch’ policing of Extinction Rebellion protests which brought areas of London to a halt
2021 ‘Heavy handed’ policing of the vigil for Sarah Everard.
2021 Accused of ‘obfuscation’ for thwarting the Daniel Morgan inquiry team, leading to substantial and expensive delay. The Met was found to be ‘institutionally corrupt’
2021 Ticketless fans storming Wembley arena for the England-Italy Euro’s final.
Her reward for failure – a two year extension of contract. I don’t need to say which politician extended the contract.
Both should go – and go now!
Given the way that they decided to police the vigil for Sarah Everard in March, the fact that they got away with the Ian Tomlinson affair, and the promotion of Cressida Dick to her current post following her involvement in Jean Charles de Menezes’ death, the police presumably think that public disquiet over this sickeningly appalling case will dissipate in a few days.
They need a root and branch reform similar to the one in the medical profession after the Harold Shipman case.
I believe many people are under the delusion that the police are there to protect the public. They are not.
They are primarily the standing army of government created and expected to protect the government from the public.
They have been given ever increasing powers and resources to ensure the government is safe to follow it’s particular policies.
Remember that an army is about force. When two equals claims collide force will win.
To expect an organ of force to be gentle or reasonable is delusional. That individuals within that organ of force abuse their position is to be expected.
What happened with Sarah Everard is numbingly awful, but will happen again as other police abuses continue. Unless a different police are invented these events will continue as will female abuse in the wider society.
How can we expect any kind of meaningful response from a Metropolitan Police Service that is headed by a person who presided over the extrajudicial execution of an innocent man on an Underground train, and was themselves one of the key players in obstructing an investigation for years in way that was described as institutionally corrupt?
Needless to say, she follows usual police practice in marking her own homework, and rejecting any responsibility or fault. Indeed, she has baldly said on the former that in her view no one did anything wrong or unreasonable, and on the latter that she did not obstruct the inquiry, notwithstanding the minute detail of her actions and inactions in the report.
Yet again we have a response which it largely directed at telling women how they should behave to reduce the risk of being abducted, raped and murdered, rather than at reducing the risk that a police officer may abuse their powers. And suggestions are pie-in-the-sky nonsense: “you’re nicked, miss” “excuse me, but first may I inspect your warrant card, and then please hold on while I call your station? ok thanks” It is shameful.
Having read through DAG’s post and the Metropolitan Police statement, I draw the conclusion that it is very unhealthy to live. Those who do, die.
On a wider point, I respectfully suggest that the police no longer view themselves as ‘citizens in uniform’ or as needing to enroll the public’s consent to be policed.
These concepts provided the foundations of police accountability.
It’s hard to say how much of that foundation remains, today. The de Menesez suggests not that much, sadly.
In my personal experience, arrested at the business end of a Heckler & Koch pointed at my vitals by an Armed Response officer, there was no apology or regret when I was later released with no charge after it was established that the complaint was trumped up. Had I remonstrated at the point of arrest, I am sure that I would have been shot, and the outcome subsequently covered up.
We have certainly come along way since Mrs Thatcher courted the Police Federation!
It’s more victim blaming – saying in effect the victim should have checked the credentials of the person trying to arrest them. It’s no different from “you should not have been wearing a short skirt”, “you shouldn’t walk by yourself after dark”, or “you shouldn’t have got drunk”. I’d rather hear about what the police are going to do to rid themselves of these ‘bad apples’ rather than start waving down buses on the off chance (good grief).
“You can politely ask why and how. If the Met encourages the public to question when in doubt that will also put its officers in notice.”
Excuse me, but have you tried ‘politely asking why and how’? If you are white, middle-aged and middle class (or ‘better’) you might get a helpful answer. If you are Black, young, or, heaven help you, both, you will be lucky if the ‘answer’ is only a strong tug on the handcuffs. Your comment, while I am sure well-meant, illustrates the problems of this society, and is of a piece with those who greet any increase in government or police powers with the line ‘If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear’. Even Shakespeare knew how feeble that answer was!
The victim was white middle class…..
Amazing how people tack their habitual rant on to any convenient post. Of course it is easier if you are middle class and older and white but it is not as if the police are out every night wielding night sticks.
Polite questioning wont change things dramatically but over time and with official encouragement it will. Bodycams would be another good addition. Britain starts from a pretty good position to work change. And o. granting more powers is not the right way and I think most of us would be offended to be equated with Priti Patel.
The victim was white and middle class … absolutely. But way to miss the point.
The point is that if you are NOT white and middle class then you may not be any more likely to be raped and murdered by what’s his name BUT any questions to a police officer arresting you will probably not be received so respectfully.
I don’t know how many non-white non-middle class, young people you know. I know a few, and their reaction to being stopped by police, in all too many cases, is weary resignation rather than a readiness to pose legitimate questions. This is very much born of experience.
Surely what Cressida Duck an have said is
‘the perpetrator was an armed officer serving in the Diplomatic Protection Group. Clearly our vetting should have picked up that he was a risk to women.
I will be conducting an enquiry to find out why we did not identify his behaviour before he killed.
Based on the result of that enquiry I will be looking to introduce improved vetting of all potential recruits and serving officers as soon as possible.’
“The murderer was a police officer, using police procedure”
And don’t forget using police issues warrant card and handcuffs. Now ask yourself, why does an off duty officer need to be carrying around his warrant card and handcuffs?
As an immediate response to this incident murder, the police should immediately withdraw all warrant cards and handcuffs from off-duty personnel. In fact I would go as far as to make it a criminal offence to be carrying these items except for a ‘reasonable excuse’ i.e. on duty.
Until the next tragedy when the outcry will be why an off-duty police officer didnt intervening and arrest before loss of life.
Also put it into perspective. How many Sarah Everard are there? The real issues are weeding out homicidal officers and improving training and supervisions that off duty abuse does not happen. Indeed as DAG repeatedly points out uniformed police need calling out in their use of warrant cards and cufflinks too.