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”:
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:
*
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.