Met PC guilty of bus stop assault

[thebraketester]

Jesus Christ. There are more cops there than there were in King Charles’ police escort through central London 2 nights ago. Ridiculous

[Chrisgr31]

Of course the real problem is that fare dodging is rife in London and other big cities.

Those suspected of fare dodging usually have some cock and bull story and are not going to assist the inspectors and the police in their tasks. They’ll give the wrong name and address etc.

So it’s not surprising that when they come across someone who is deliberately being awkward they might draw the wrong conclusions. Not only that that’s almost exactly what the awkward person wants.

[Mrr T]

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"I find that she ought to have been warned that she would be arrested if she did not give her name and address."

"She was never asked her name or address, bearing in mind the nature of the offence or potential offences I have no reason to believe that any criminal enquiry would be frustrated if she was not arrested there and then."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

He didn't set policy, she should have been warned she was liable to arrest if she didn't give her details..he was merely pointing this out.

I am no expert but I am sure there is no requirement, either in law or police policy, to ask someones name and address before arresting. So the deputy judge is making up law.

[Bigends]

Mrr T said:

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"I find that she ought to have been warned that she would be arrested if she did not give her name and address."

"She was never asked her name or address, bearing in mind the nature of the offence or potential offences I have no reason to believe that any criminal enquiry would be frustrated if she was not arrested there and then."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

He didn't set policy, she should have been warned she was liable to arrest if she didn't give her details..he was merely pointing this out.

I am no expert but I am sure there is no requirement, either in law or police policy, to ask someones name and address before arresting. So the deputy judge is making up law.

If they provide a correct name and address then there may be no grounds to arrest and the matter can be dealt with out of custody..so the comments made by the Judge are correct

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 18th May 14:33

[Mrr T]

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"I find that she ought to have been warned that she would be arrested if she did not give her name and address."

"She was never asked her name or address, bearing in mind the nature of the offence or potential offences I have no reason to believe that any criminal enquiry would be frustrated if she was not arrested there and then."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

He didn't set policy, she should have been warned she was liable to arrest if she didn't give her details..he was merely pointing this out.

I am no expert but I am sure there is no requirement, either in law or police policy, to ask someones name and address before arresting. So the deputy judge is making up law.

If they provide a correct name and address then there may be no grounds to arrest and the matter can be dealt with out of custody..so the comments made by the Judge are correct

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 18th May 14:33

Fare evasion is a crime. Therefore an arrest is legal. The fact such cases are often dealt with in another way only matters for a judge if that was the law or police written policy. If it's neither then the judge is making it up. This seems supported by the fact that he is seems to quote no legal basis for his decision.

The is also the slight issue that a policeman has no way of knowing at the time if the name and address are genuine. No mention of that by the deputy judge.

[Earthdweller]

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"I find that she ought to have been warned that she would be arrested if she did not give her name and address."

"She was never asked her name or address, bearing in mind the nature of the offence or potential offences I have no reason to believe that any criminal enquiry would be frustrated if she was not arrested there and then."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

He didn't set policy, she should have been warned she was liable to arrest if she didn't give her details..he was merely pointing this out.

I am no expert but I am sure there is no requirement, either in law or police policy, to ask someones name and address before arresting. So the deputy judge is making up law.

If they provide a correct name and address then there may be no grounds to arrest and the matter can be dealt with out of custody..so the comments made by the Judge are correct

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 18th May 14:33

S25 PACE which required a warning was replaced by SOCPA in 2006

The Judge was incorrect in Law

[The Gauge]

The judge said ..

‘I have examined the video carefully..’

However police officers attending an incident don’t have that same luxury and have to make decisions on the spot. Having to act as instinctively means there will always be lots of times when police officers get things wrong.

I suppose the important thing here is what happens now to the officer. If he’s disciplined too harshly then why would anyone ever want to join the police to risk being disciplined harshly simply for making a mistake? Everyone makes mistakes but the effects on an individual when the police make mistakes differ wildly than say a waiter bringing the wrong food to your table.

So yes, weed out the criminal and corrupt cops, but be careful how we treat those who have simply made a mistake, especially if they had an honest held belief that they were doing the right thing. As for what this cop believed at the time, who knows?

Edited by The Gauge on Saturday 18th May 15:01

[Bigends]

Earthdweller said:

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"I find that she ought to have been warned that she would be arrested if she did not give her name and address."

"She was never asked her name or address, bearing in mind the nature of the offence or potential offences I have no reason to believe that any criminal enquiry would be frustrated if she was not arrested there and then."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

He didn't set policy, she should have been warned she was liable to arrest if she didn't give her details..he was merely pointing this out.

I am no expert but I am sure there is no requirement, either in law or police policy, to ask someones name and address before arresting. So the deputy judge is making up law.

If they provide a correct name and address then there may be no grounds to arrest and the matter can be dealt with out of custody..so the comments made by the Judge are correct

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 18th May 14:33

S25 PACE which required a warning was replaced by SOCPA in 2006

The Judge was incorrect in Law

Agreed - but this from College of Policing

'Although a warning is not expressly required in law, officers should, if practicable, consider issuing one. A warning can point out an individual’s offending behaviour and explain why, if they do not stop, their arrest may be necessary. Such a warning might, if heeded, avoid the need to arrest, or if ignored, support the need to arrest. It may also help to prove the person’s awareness or intent to commit a crime, or help to rebut a defence that they were acting reasonably if this was not the case.'

Why wouldnt you give a warning - save a lot of work and grief in the long run

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 18th May 15:22

[SpidersWeb]

BikeBikeBIke said:

SpidersWeb said:

Do you mean that they can no longer get away with doing what they did in the past and now they actually have to do the job properly, which in this case would have simply meant speaking to the individual before putting the handcuffs on.

The ticket inspector had spoken to her. The police officer had spoken to her. The speaking had failed and it was time to physically stop her and physically check.

And yet neither had asked the person their name and address.

BikeBikeBIke said:

What's changed is that it turns out at least one magistrate thinks it's not reasonable to arrest suspected fare dodgers becaise it's too trivial an offence. Which is bad for this individual policeman but good for the police in general because because if they can't make an arrest they no longer have a role in a crap job that they don't like doing.

No, nothing has changed.

The court was quite clear that if they had refused to provide their name and address then there would be grounds for arrest, but the Met PC hadn't taken that route and instead jumped in with manhandling them to get the handcuffs on before asking that simple question.

[BikeBikeBIke]

SpidersWeb said:

No, nothing has changed.

The court was quite clear that if they had refused to provide their name and address then there would be grounds for arrest, but the Met PC hadn't taken that route and instead jumped in with manhandling them to get the handcuffs on before asking that simple question.

If fare dodging is insufficient reason to arrest someone how can something peripheral to fare dodging be sufficient?

And her address is irrelevant. All that does is add delay. Justice needs to be fast.

Plus what if she loses her evidence she paid in the meantime? She's way better off proving her innocence fast.

Something *has* changed. Before the police were needed to drag people back to prove they'd paid because the ticket inspectors can't do that. Now police are not required because fare dodging is too trivial to warrant an arrest. That might be legally incorrect but it is a change.

And again, everyone is happy now. The police are happy because they don't like being involved in dealing with fare dodgers. Londoners are happy because they don't want suspected fare dodgers arrested becaise they regard it as heavy handed. Users of public transport are happy because fare paying has become voluntary. Win-win. Rejoice!

[Catweazle]

Not the first controversy for the judge. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tan-ikram-and-...

[BikeBikeBIke]

Catweazle said:

Not the first controversy for the judge. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tan-ikram-and-...

Oh it's him. I thought the name was familiar.

Just an openly anti police judge.

Needs to be removed from the role IMHO.

[Mrr T]

Bigends said:

Earthdweller said:

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

Bigends said:

Mrr T said:

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"I find that she ought to have been warned that she would be arrested if she did not give her name and address."

"She was never asked her name or address, bearing in mind the nature of the offence or potential offences I have no reason to believe that any criminal enquiry would be frustrated if she was not arrested there and then."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

He didn't set policy, she should have been warned she was liable to arrest if she didn't give her details..he was merely pointing this out.

I am no expert but I am sure there is no requirement, either in law or police policy, to ask someones name and address before arresting. So the deputy judge is making up law.

If they provide a correct name and address then there may be no grounds to arrest and the matter can be dealt with out of custody..so the comments made by the Judge are correct

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 18th May 14:33

S25 PACE which required a warning was replaced by SOCPA in 2006

The Judge was incorrect in Law

Agreed - but this from College of Policing

'Although a warning is not expressly required in law, officers should, if practicable, consider issuing one. A warning can point out an individual’s offending behaviour and explain why, if they do not stop, their arrest may be necessary. Such a warning might, if heeded, avoid the need to arrest, or if ignored, support the need to arrest. It may also help to prove the person’s awareness or intent to commit a crime, or help to rebut a defence that they were acting reasonably if this was not the case.'

Why wouldnt you give a warning - save a lot of work and grief in the long run

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 18th May 15:22

So we are agreed there is no legal requirement to a) ask for name and address before an arrest, or b) warn of the likely arrest. So on what basis is the deputy judge deciding an arrest was not reasonable so the action became an assault.

I will allow those with more knowledge to confirm. But I believe the reasonableness test for an arrest is very low.

[irc]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Oh it's him. I thought the name was familiar.

Just an openly anti police judge.

Needs to be removed from the role IMHO.

That explains it.

[bitchstewie]

Ignore the judge.

This got through the IOPC and the CPS before going anywhere near a court.

[SpidersWeb]

BikeBikeBIke said:

SpidersWeb said:

No, nothing has changed.

The court was quite clear that if they had refused to provide their name and address then there would be grounds for arrest, but the Met PC hadn't taken that route and instead jumped in with manhandling them to get the handcuffs on before asking that simple question.

If fare dodging is insufficient reason to arrest someone how can something peripheral to fare dodging be sufficient?

She hadn't dodged her fare - she had paid.

BikeBikeBIke said:

And her address is irrelevant. All that does is add delay.

Irrelevant to establish facts - sounds like a job in the Met is right up your street.

BikeBikeBIke said:

Justice needs to be fast.

Duh. The police don't mete out justice, the courts do. And manhandling someone to cuff them because you can't be bothered to ask any questions isn't justice.

BikeBikeBIke said:

Plus what if she loses her evidence she paid in the meantime? She's way better off proving her innocence fast.

You mean the Oyster card she was proffering? Are TFL's systems so poor that it loses the records of who paid with Oyster.

BikeBikeBIke said:

Something *has* changed. Before the police were needed to drag people back to prove they'd paid because the ticket inspectors can't do that. Now police are not required because fare dodging is too trivial to warrant an arrest. That might be legally incorrect but it is a change.

What has changed is that the police are being challenged with their fast and loose 'slap the cuffs' on and ask questions later approach.

BikeBikeBIke said:

And again, everyone is happy now. The police are happy because they don't like being involved in dealing with fare dodgers. Londoners are happy because they don't want suspected fare dodgers arrested becaise they regard it as heavy handed. Users of public transport are happy because fare paying has become voluntary. Win-win. Rejoice!

Or of course the police could simply do their job correctly.

[CoolHands]

She was clearly walking off. According to the judge he should have been calling after her “I must warn you if you don’t give me your address….. errr. ermmmmm…. Hello?”

[119]

SpidersWeb said:

What has changed is that the police are being challenged with their fast and loose 'slap the cuffs' on and ask questions later approach.

Which, considering anyone could be carrying a weapon these days is not surprising so I can’t say blame them.

[SpidersWeb]

119 said:

SpidersWeb said:

What has changed is that the police are being challenged with their fast and loose 'slap the cuffs' on and ask questions later approach.

Which, considering anyone could be carrying a weapon these days is not surprising so I can’t say blame them.

If that's your rational then perhaps they should Taser anyone they approach just in case.

[Mrr T]

bhstewie said:

Ignore the judge.

This got through the IOPC and the CPS before going anywhere near a court.

So every case brought by the CPS results in a guilty verdict. Of cause not. They just decide there is a case to answer. Based on the comments of the judge he seems to be making the law up. Even more important he has not provided any legal basis to support his decision.

The facts suggest the defendant could, maybe even should, have acted differently. However, this is criminal and test is beyond reasonable doubt. On that basis the test of arrest has to be was it unlawful not maybe it was not the best course of action. If the arrest was lawful the assault charge must fail.