Met PC guilty of bus stop assault
Discussion
I don't know the law but I'd have assumed that part of the IOPC and the CPS deciding if there is a case to answer and if there is a reasonable chance of conviction is to consider whether they think the officer acted within the law.
The Guardian said:
The IOPC’s regional director, Mel Palmer, said: “Today, a judge has found that the use of force by PC Lathwood against the woman after her arrest – including the use of handcuffs and holding on to her arm – was unlawful and he has been convicted of assault.
“Any use of force by officers should be reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances. This was a high-profile incident that caused significant concern, particularly in the Croydon community, after footage of the incident was published online.
“We carried out an independent and impartial investigation to establish the facts surrounding this incident, including the actions of the police officers involved.
“The decision to refer a file of evidence to the CPS to consider criminal charges is not something we take lightly and this was done after careful consideration of the evidence, including liaison with the CPS.”
“Any use of force by officers should be reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances. This was a high-profile incident that caused significant concern, particularly in the Croydon community, after footage of the incident was published online.
“We carried out an independent and impartial investigation to establish the facts surrounding this incident, including the actions of the police officers involved.
“The decision to refer a file of evidence to the CPS to consider criminal charges is not something we take lightly and this was done after careful consideration of the evidence, including liaison with the CPS.”
Mrr T said:
So every case brought by the CPS results in a guilty verdict. Of cause not. They just decide there is a case to answer.
They also decide whether there is a realistic chance of conviction.Mrr T said:
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.
If the appeal is successful I will believe you- until then, not.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.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Saturday 18th May 16:46
SpidersWeb said:
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.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Derek Smith said:
As for PR, should the police ignore offenders because some newspapers and keyboard warriors on social media read more into it than actually happens? It's rhetorical of course.
No the Police should do their job without assaulting people Derek.That isn't my opinion I'd assume there's quite a bar to clear before this would have got anywhere near a courtroom.
Sorry but every week there's something about someone from the Met in the news. I've said before that doesn't mean being against the Police but it does suggest that something isn't quite right in the Met.
Perhaps it's a numbers thing perhaps it's a culture thing.
I also assumed the Police might not support TfL operations with the intention of arresting people for not having a ticket but they might be there because people who get caught without tickets may get violent - I might be wrong on that one but it seems a strange by-product to withdraw support because an officer got caught misbehaving.
An arrest is an assault. I mean, it's not difficult. So either we live in the real world or the police arrest no one. I'm glad it's not your opinion, as I might have thought you were being silly.
Here's an idea: if the police make a decision about how they will act in the future, there might be a reason other than the one you seem to be suggesting. The police are there to make arrests. Everything else can be done by the ticket inspector.
As I explained before, the power of arrest for such matters is clear.
BikeBikeBIke said:
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.
Biggy Stardust said:
Mrr T said:
So every case brought by the CPS results in a guilty verdict. Of cause not. They just decide there is a case to answer.
They also decide whether there is a realistic chance of conviction.Mrr T said:
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.
If the appeal is successful I will believe you- until then, not.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.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Saturday 18th May 16:46
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Do you think you know more about everything that happened in this incident than the IOPC and the CPS do?
It was a high profile case, the CPS have form for chucking unpopular high profile cases at the courts so the CPS avoid the blame for letting unpopular people off.The judge's rationale for the guilty verdict has been demonstrated to be wrong. So did the CPS have a different rationale? Or did they just have a case where it was politically difficult to let someone off so kicked it to the courts so the Magistrate would get the blame.
They then got unlucky with the magistrate.
CoolHands said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
The judge's rationale for the guilty verdict has been demonstrated to be wrong.
On a car forum. Just bear that in mind 
Plus the police have been arresting people on suspicion of fare dodging for decades (centuries?) and now all of a sudden a lowly magistrate has decided it was illegal all along. And nobody ever realised before???
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's been explained why with evidence so I'll take that over Plea to Authority Fallacy every time.
Plus the police have been arresting people on suspicion of fare dodging for decades (centuries?) and now all of a sudden a lowly magistrate has decided it was illegal all along. And nobody ever realised before???
What the judge appears to have actually said was that the PC got a bit too handsy before exploring better approaches to the situation. Handcuffs for a mummy with child might be considered a bit much, perhaps.Plus the police have been arresting people on suspicion of fare dodging for decades (centuries?) and now all of a sudden a lowly magistrate has decided it was illegal all along. And nobody ever realised before???
Biggy Stardust said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's been explained why with evidence so I'll take that over Plea to Authority Fallacy every time.
Plus the police have been arresting people on suspicion of fare dodging for decades (centuries?) and now all of a sudden a lowly magistrate has decided it was illegal all along. And nobody ever realised before???
What the judge appears to have actually said was that the PC got a bit too handsy before exploring better approaches to the situation. Handcuffs for a mummy with child might be considered a bit much, perhaps.Plus the police have been arresting people on suspicion of fare dodging for decades (centuries?) and now all of a sudden a lowly magistrate has decided it was illegal all along. And nobody ever realised before???
"I find that bearing in mind the nature of the potential offences, it was not necessary to grab JA's arm at that point, arrest her and handcuff her."
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Saturday 18th May 20:04
BikeBikeBIke said:
Biggy Stardust said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's been explained why with evidence so I'll take that over Plea to Authority Fallacy every time.
Plus the police have been arresting people on suspicion of fare dodging for decades (centuries?) and now all of a sudden a lowly magistrate has decided it was illegal all along. And nobody ever realised before???
What the judge appears to have actually said was that the PC got a bit too handsy before exploring better approaches to the situation. Handcuffs for a mummy with child might be considered a bit much, perhaps.Plus the police have been arresting people on suspicion of fare dodging for decades (centuries?) and now all of a sudden a lowly magistrate has decided it was illegal all along. And nobody ever realised before???
"I find that bearing in mind the nature of the potential offences, it was not necessary to grab JA's arm at that point, arrest her and handcuff her."
'I find objectively that there were not reasonable grounds to suggest that the arrest was necessary for any of the reasons advanced by D.
'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.
'I did not find that he ever honestly believed the arrest was necessary to protect her child, or to prevent injury to herself.
'Those suggestions are completely without foundation and fanciful.
'He said in evidence that all those reasons were in his head at the time prior to arresting her - I simply do not believe him.
'I find upon consideration of the facts that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest was necessary on the grounds advanced by the officers.
'I've no hesitation in concluding that the officer made an error in judgement and overreacted in arresting her.
SpidersWeb said:
Try re-reading it together with the rest that you have overlooked / ignored.
'I find objectively that there were not reasonable grounds to suggest that the arrest was necessary for any of the reasons advanced by D.
'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.
'I did not find that he ever honestly believed the arrest was necessary to protect her child, or to prevent injury to herself.
'Those suggestions are completely without foundation and fanciful.
'He said in evidence that all those reasons were in his head at the time prior to arresting her - I simply do not believe him.
'I find upon consideration of the facts that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest was necessary on the grounds advanced by the officers.
'I've no hesitation in concluding that the officer made an error in judgement and overreacted in arresting her.
None of that undoes the bit about not arresting for fare dodging because it's too trivial.'I find objectively that there were not reasonable grounds to suggest that the arrest was necessary for any of the reasons advanced by D.
'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.
'I did not find that he ever honestly believed the arrest was necessary to protect her child, or to prevent injury to herself.
'Those suggestions are completely without foundation and fanciful.
'He said in evidence that all those reasons were in his head at the time prior to arresting her - I simply do not believe him.
'I find upon consideration of the facts that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest was necessary on the grounds advanced by the officers.
'I've no hesitation in concluding that the officer made an error in judgement and overreacted in arresting her.
Sure, they might do something else at a later point that they can be arrested for but the nature of fair dodging is that, in itself, it's too trivial to warrant an arrest.
Oliver Hardy said:
119 said:
Tango13 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: That's actually funny.
"Because we don't think our officers can behave we've withdrawn them".
They never just say "sorry we got this one wrong" do they.
That's because police officers individually and police forces at an institutional level are incapable of admitting a mistake. "Because we don't think our officers can behave we've withdrawn them".
They never just say "sorry we got this one wrong" do they.
I was once followed home by a British transport plod who informed me I had been speeding on a dual carriageway. When I pointed out that it was a 70 limit, not a 40 as he thought he stood there like a fish out of water, blank facial expression, open mouth and bottom jaw moving up and down...
Then he accused me of driving at 42 in a 40 limit, I pointed out that he couldn't touch me for that as there was zero chance of a conviction. More fish impersonation from him.
Looking back I should've let him give me a ticket just for s
ts and giggles in the court room. You live and learn!
Am reliably informed their firearms units were well away from transport facilities after the Borough Market outrage.
Also BTP are sometimes sworn in north of the border to avoid being in fancy dress only when they cross it. Most Plod powers are in England & Wales.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff