Met PC guilty of bus stop assault
Discussion
CoolHands said:
Do we know if the PC is going to appeal? (Is he allowed to?)
...and if he doesn't appeal will some government body appeal on his behalf against his will because as it stands the Police can't be made to do a bit of the work they hitherto had to do. So TfL desperately need an appeal but nobody else cares.BikeBikeBIke said:
None of that undoes the bit about not arresting for fare dodging because it's too trivial.
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.
It may be trivial but she wasn't stopping to get her payment checked. Someone walking away hasn't given their details. So as she walks away ignoring the TFL staff and police what option other than arrest is there? Follow her home to get her name and address?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.
irc said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
None of that undoes the bit about not arresting for fare dodging because it's too trivial.
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.
It may be trivial but she wasn't stopping to get her payment checked. Someone walking away hasn't given their details. So as she walks away ignoring the TFL staff and police what option other than arrest is there? Follow her home to get her name and address?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.
There are two elements required for a lawful arrest under s24 PACE (as substituted by SOCPA 2006):
1. A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; AND
2. Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.
The Judge's oral summary as published by the Daily Mail does not explicitly address the first element of the PACE test, which may suggests there was no issue regarding the suspicion of an offence. Instead the focus of the oral judgement is on the second element of the test, namely the reasonable grounds for believing an arrest is necessary.
Reasonable belief has a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion. Code G states that reasonable belief does not require that an officer to be satisfied that there is no viable alternative to arrest. However the officer in all cases should consider that arrest is the practical, sensible and proportionate option in all circumstances at the time the decision is made.
Furthermore Code G also notes that although a warning is not expressly required, officers should, if practicable, consider whether a warning which points out the offending behaviour, and explains why, if they do not stop, the resulting consequences may make their arrest necessary. It notes that such a warning, if heeded, might avoid the need to arrest, or, if ignored, support the need to arrest.
The reasonable grounds for necessity as listed in PACE Code G are:
(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;
(c)to prevent the person in question—
(i)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii)suffering physical injury;
(iii)causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv)committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or
(v)causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e)to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f)to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.
We don't have a specific list of the grounds advanced by PC Lathwood but they can be inferred from those addresed in the judge's oral summary as well as certain other grounds being irrelevant, e.g. C(iv) committing an offence against public decency is very unlikely here.
Grounds A and B fail failed on both scenarios because PC Lathwood failed to first ask for her name and address. The first scenario requires that he both not know AND cannot readily ascertain the name/address. By failing to ask, PC Lathwood could not show that he could not readily ascertain the name/address without arresting. The judge reasoned that in the circumstances a honest name/address would likely have been given upon request. The second scenario inevitably fails since PC Lathwood had no name/address to reasonably doubt.
PC Lathwood claimed he also had grounds C(ii) and D in his head at the time but the judge did not find that he ever honestly believed arrest was necessary on these grounds. The judge concluded these suggestions were 'completely without foundation and fanciful', suggesting that the evidence advanced by the defence was weak and did not stand up to scrutiny. It may well be that these grounds were only advanced at a late stage and not recorded in PC Lathwood's contemporaneous records (the old 'it may harm your defence if do you not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court') nor were they evident from the BWV footage when PC Lathwood made the decision to arrest.
The judge observed that the BWV footage shows JA had her oyster card in hand outreached towards the inspectors' machine and that in having it out she may well have touched the machine given the opportunity to do so. That undermines the necessity to arrest to enable prompt and effective investigation (ground E). It is not unreasonable for the Judge to look at the footage and conclude that the incident could have been resolved just as promptly and effectively, if not more so, without resorting to arrest.
Without any of these reasonable grounds to believe the arrest was necessary there was no lawful arrest hence the use of force in this case was assault.
Biggy Stardust said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Do you think you know more about everything that happened in this incident than the IOPC and the CPS do?
Of course. He probably has an anecdote to explain why.I'm not trying to tell anyone the law (read my posts) but I know you don't go directly from complaining in the custody suite to the officer who charged you being investigated and charged and prosecuted for assault.
I'd expect quite a bar has to be met for all that to happen?
Hill92 said:
The Judge did not say that fare evasion is trivial nor has he made policy as claimed here.
Weasel words. He said the offence was not significant enough to warrant an arrest:"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."
And his decision has defacto made policy becaise the policy was to use the police to arrest suspected fare dodgers and now it isn't becaise of this ruling.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'd expect quite a bar has to be met for all that to happen?
Normally yes. But where an unpopular decision needs to me made why would the CPS take the blame for "letting him off" when they can let a judge and jury take the heat?What would change my mind would be if the CPS's rationale for 'guilty' agreed with the judges. I see no evidence that the CPS agree with the judges reasoning at all. If the law is saying there are some offences that the police cannot arrest for without first negotiations over the suspects address then those offences need to be made public. Sprinting after a running suspect with a notepad and pen writing down a (possibly false) address instead of physically stopping them becuse the original offence didn't meet some unwritten criteria seems ludicrous to me. If the CPS think that's the law they could simply say so. So again, feels to my like the rozzer did nothing wrong but the CPS wanted the fallout from that decision to go on a judge/jury not on the CPS.
Hill92 said:
irc said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
None of that undoes the bit about not arresting for fare dodging because it's too trivial.
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.
It may be trivial but she wasn't stopping to get her payment checked. Someone walking away hasn't given their details. So as she walks away ignoring the TFL staff and police what option other than arrest is there? Follow her home to get her name and address?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.
There are two elements required for a lawful arrest under s24 PACE (as substituted by SOCPA 2006):
1. A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; AND
2. Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.
The Judge's oral summary as published by the Daily Mail does not explicitly address the first element of the PACE test, which may suggests there was no issue regarding the suspicion of an offence. Instead the focus of the oral judgement is on the second element of the test, namely the reasonable grounds for believing an arrest is necessary.
Reasonable belief has a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion. Code G states that reasonable belief does not require that an officer to be satisfied that there is no viable alternative to arrest. However the officer in all cases should consider that arrest is the practical, sensible and proportionate option in all circumstances at the time the decision is made.
Furthermore Code G also notes that although a warning is not expressly required, officers should, if practicable, consider whether a warning which points out the offending behaviour, and explains why, if they do not stop, the resulting consequences may make their arrest necessary. It notes that such a warning, if heeded, might avoid the need to arrest, or, if ignored, support the need to arrest.
The reasonable grounds for necessity as listed in PACE Code G are:
(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;
(c)to prevent the person in question—
(i)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii)suffering physical injury;
(iii)causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv)committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or
(v)causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e)to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f)to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.
We don't have a specific list of the grounds advanced by PC Lathwood but they can be inferred from those addresed in the judge's oral summary as well as certain other grounds being irrelevant, e.g. C(iv) committing an offence against public decency is very unlikely here.
Grounds A and B fail failed on both scenarios because PC Lathwood failed to first ask for her name and address. The first scenario requires that he both not know AND cannot readily ascertain the name/address. By failing to ask, PC Lathwood could not show that he could not readily ascertain the name/address without arresting. The judge reasoned that in the circumstances a honest name/address would likely have been given upon request. The second scenario inevitably fails since PC Lathwood had no name/address to reasonably doubt.
PC Lathwood claimed he also had grounds C(ii) and D in his head at the time but the judge did not find that he ever honestly believed arrest was necessary on these grounds. The judge concluded these suggestions were 'completely without foundation and fanciful', suggesting that the evidence advanced by the defence was weak and did not stand up to scrutiny. It may well be that these grounds were only advanced at a late stage and not recorded in PC Lathwood's contemporaneous records (the old 'it may harm your defence if do you not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court') nor were they evident from the BWV footage when PC Lathwood made the decision to arrest.
The judge observed that the BWV footage shows JA had her oyster card in hand outreached towards the inspectors' machine and that in having it out she may well have touched the machine given the opportunity to do so. That undermines the necessity to arrest to enable prompt and effective investigation (ground E). It is not unreasonable for the Judge to look at the footage and conclude that the incident could have been resolved just as promptly and effectively, if not more so, without resorting to arrest.
Without any of these reasonable grounds to believe the arrest was necessary there was no lawful arrest hence the use of force in this case was assault.
My views remain the same. When you say the judge did not believe the defendant honest believed an arrest was necessary. There seems to have been no evidence introduced to support his view. Without some evidence to support that it's pure conjecture. Likely in it self a grounds for appeal.
As for ground E this was after the alleged offence had been committed. So perfectly legal to arrest while the time line is established.
The judge seems also to make much of the nature of the offence. However, that is really should have nothing to do with his decision.
I agree this could and should have been handled better. Some sort of internal disciplinary action, which I think would be on balance of probability should have resulted. However, I find it hard to see it meets criminal standards.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Normally yes. But where an unpopular decision needs to me made why would the CPS take the blame for "letting him off" when they can let a judge and jury take the heat?
Or maybe they thought that the PC's actions looked a bit naughty ( as supported by the verdict) & it should be tried in court.A bit radical I know, but perhaps they were doing their job properly.
XCP said:
Give the woman some money.
It's only taxpayers' money, so who cares? Plenty more where that came from, even though the police scream lack of funds. Let's have the same again tomorrow.I note that "lessons will be learned" wasn't used on this occasion, presumably because they feel they have nothing to learn from all of this.
XCP said:
Conditional discharge. Written warning.
Give the woman some money.
Let's move on.
I have just watched this again but with the volume on. The woman seemed to cause all the issues here and made what should have been a short civil interchange into the drama it turned out to be - she also caused distress to her young son.Give the woman some money.
Let's move on.
Give her some money? I would much rather see her charged.
272BHP said:
XCP said:
Conditional discharge. Written warning.
Give the woman some money.
Let's move on.
I have just watched this again but with the volume on. The woman seemed to cause all the issues here and made what should have been a short civil interchange into the drama it turned out to be - she also caused distress to her young son.Give the woman some money.
Let's move on.
Give her some money? I would much rather see her charged.
If only she'd listened to a much wiser voice. None of it was necessary.
Have noted the detailed legal analysis earlier, despite that it will only alter the decision point as to whether to intervene or not. Then there will be complaints about useless enforcement by people who have never ever faced and had to deal with or de-escalate a confrontational situation.
Biggy Stardust said:
It's only taxpayers' money, so who cares? Plenty more where that came from, even though the police scream lack of funds. Let's have the same again tomorrow.
I note that "lessons will be learned" wasn't used on this occasion, presumably because they feel they have nothing to learn from all of this.
Or don't give her any money and have the expense of an appeal hearing or two, and fighting her claim for compo. Which would you prefer, given that we are where we are?I note that "lessons will be learned" wasn't used on this occasion, presumably because they feel they have nothing to learn from all of this.
272BHP said:
Give her some money? I would much rather see her charged.
What with? Buying a ticket? Being assaulted in a public place? Illegal wearing of handcuffs?My understanding of the law is that in order to charge someone you have to have at least a teeny suspicion that they have committed some form of offence. What teeny suspicion do you have & what offence?
XCP said:
Or don't give her any money and have the expense of an appeal hearing or two, and fighting her claim for compo. Which would you prefer, given that we are where we are?
I take your point; I just regret that things are as they are. God forbid that the PC be accountable for his actions & pay for the damage he's done, obviously.Biggy Stardust said:
272BHP said:
Give her some money? I would much rather see her charged.
What with? Buying a ticket? Being assaulted in a public place? Illegal wearing of handcuffs?My understanding of the law is that in order to charge someone you have to have at least a teeny suspicion that they have committed some form of offence. What teeny suspicion do you have & what offence?
Biggy Stardust said:
I take your point; I just regret that things are as they are. God forbid that the PC be accountable for his actions & pay for the damage he's done, obviously.
I don't know how it works in the Met, but there are sound reasons why Chief Constables are vicariously liable for the civil torts of their officers. Mainly of course because most of those officers haven't two pennies to rub together, comparatively speaking.XCP said:
I don't know how it works in the Met, but there are sound reasons why Chief Constables are vicariously liable for the civil torts of their officers. Mainly of course because most of those officers haven't two pennies to rub together, comparatively speaking.
I thought the CC was responsible for acts carried out within the constables' employment- is illegally assaulting MoPs a part of their duties? Mrr T said:
Biggy Stardust said:
272BHP said:
Give her some money? I would much rather see her charged.
What with? Buying a ticket? Being assaulted in a public place? Illegal wearing of handcuffs?My understanding of the law is that in order to charge someone you have to have at least a teeny suspicion that they have committed some form of offence. What teeny suspicion do you have & what offence?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff