Met PC guilty of bus stop assault
Discussion
Biggy Stardust said:
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?
Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty.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?
Failing to provide identification and details when required to do so.
Take your pick.
Being a s
t mum is sadly not an offence but she is definitely guilty of that as well.272BHP said:
Biggy Stardust said:
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?
Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty.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?
Failing to provide identification and details when required to do so.
Take your pick.
Being a s
t mum is sadly not an offence but she is definitely guilty of that as well.272BHP said:
Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty.
Failing to provide identification and details when required to do so.
Take your pick.
Being a st mum is sadly not an offence but she is definitely guilty of that as well.
Why do you think none of that happened?Failing to provide identification and details when required to do so.
Take your pick.
Being a s
t mum is sadly not an offence but she is definitely guilty of that as well.BikeBikeBIke said:
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.
That statement does not say what you think it does. The potential offence was fare evasion. At the point that PC Lathwood grabs JA's arm, she already has her Oyster card in hand and outstretched towards the inspector's machine. That's why the judge concludes it was not necessary to arrest on ground E."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.
As for the 'policy change', all we know about that is per the Met's statement: “The nature of this kind of fare evasion operation unnecessarily places officers in potentially challenging interactions with the public. Since this incident happened, we have stopped our involvement in supporting Transport for London fare evasion operations, but we continue our presence on the bus network tackling violent crime."
So it predates the ruling and has nothing to do with the Judge. For all we know, the Met have ceased involvement on funding grounds, deployment priorities or hell maybe TfL no longer trust them not to asault their customers!
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?
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.
The prosecution case was summarised thus by Paul Jarvis, Senior Treasury Counsel: "There was no necessity for an arrest."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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-6898917...
The judge concluded "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."
In other words, the Judge accepted the prosecution's case over the defence's.
PACE Code G applies to every arrest under s.24 PACE regardless of the offences involved. That has been the case since SOCPA 2006. Nothing has changed here. It is just the law being applied to this set of circumstances and a police officer's judgement found wanting.
BTW there was no sprinting here.
Biggy Stardust said:
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? XCP said:
Biggy Stardust said:
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? Biggy Stardust said:
XCP said:
Biggy Stardust said:
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? Previous said:
What a waste of time for everyone involved.
Woman with attitude towards fare inspector: Could have just swiped card properly.
Overreacting police officer: Could have just stopped her and said "could you swipe again please - it doesn't appear to have registered"
Actions set against a backdrop of a lack of trust and respect for each other, and here we are.
+1Woman with attitude towards fare inspector: Could have just swiped card properly.
Overreacting police officer: Could have just stopped her and said "could you swipe again please - it doesn't appear to have registered"
Actions set against a backdrop of a lack of trust and respect for each other, and here we are.
Hill92 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
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.
That statement does not say what you think it does. The potential offence was fare evasion. At the point that PC Lathwood grabs JA's arm, she already has her Oyster card in hand and outstretched towards the inspector's machine. That's why the judge concludes it was not necessary to arrest on ground E."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.
As for the 'policy change', all we know about that is per the Met's statement: “The nature of this kind of fare evasion operation unnecessarily places officers in potentially challenging interactions with the public. Since this incident happened, we have stopped our involvement in supporting Transport for London fare evasion operations, but we continue our presence on the bus network tackling violent crime."
So it predates the ruling and has nothing to do with the Judge. For all we know, the Met have ceased involvement on funding grounds, deployment priorities or hell maybe TfL no longer trust them not to asault their customers!
If the deputy judge actually said his decision was based on his view there was no need to arrest. Then the decision will be reversed. Whether there was a need or not what matters is was the arrest lawful.
The withdraw of policing came after the case was brought. The police would not have waited until a verdict was brought.
Mrr T said:
I have not seen the video but I believe she would not initially show her oyster card. I think several customers and her child where telling her to just show the card. Since this is common on buses and trains it hard to see why she would not comply. Any one present would assume the only reason for refusal is that she has not paid her fare. I am sure the defendant came to the same conclusion. Waving the card at the machine does not allow the machine to read it. It needs to be tapped.
If the deputy judge actually said his decision was based on his view there was no need to arrest. Then the decision will be reversed. Whether there was a need or not what matters is was the arrest lawful.
The withdraw of policing came after the case was brought. The police would not have waited until a verdict was brought.
Link to BWV footage released on Friday https://youtu.be/vOIuvaZnPZ8. Earlier footage from a member of public only began after the arrest.If the deputy judge actually said his decision was based on his view there was no need to arrest. Then the decision will be reversed. Whether there was a need or not what matters is was the arrest lawful.
The withdraw of policing came after the case was brought. The police would not have waited until a verdict was brought.
An s24 PACE arrest is only lawful if there is both actual or suspected involvement in a crime AND if there is necessity for the arrest (I.e. one of the statutory grounds). Since the prosecution convinced the judge there was no necessity then the arrest was not lawful.
Hill92 said:
Mrr T said:
I have not seen the video but I believe she would not initially show her oyster card. I think several customers and her child where telling her to just show the card. Since this is common on buses and trains it hard to see why she would not comply. Any one present would assume the only reason for refusal is that she has not paid her fare. I am sure the defendant came to the same conclusion. Waving the card at the machine does not allow the machine to read it. It needs to be tapped.
If the deputy judge actually said his decision was based on his view there was no need to arrest. Then the decision will be reversed. Whether there was a need or not what matters is was the arrest lawful.
The withdraw of policing came after the case was brought. The police would not have waited until a verdict was brought.
Link to BWV footage released on Friday https://youtu.be/vOIuvaZnPZ8. Earlier footage from a member of public only began after the arrest.If the deputy judge actually said his decision was based on his view there was no need to arrest. Then the decision will be reversed. Whether there was a need or not what matters is was the arrest lawful.
The withdraw of policing came after the case was brought. The police would not have waited until a verdict was brought.
An s24 PACE arrest is only lawful if there is both actual or suspected involvement in a crime AND if there is necessity for the arrest (I.e. one of the statutory grounds). Since the prosecution convinced the judge there was no necessity then the arrest was not lawful.
Biggy Stardust said:
Mrr T said:
Changing the scope of vicarious liability would have considerably negative effect on tort.
You mean they'll do fewer illegal assaults if they have to foot the bill personally? Bring it on. 
On the other hand make police officers responsible for tort, get police officers refuse to take any action which might make them liable.
No more assaults, well other than criminals on victims, who know they can just walk away unimpeded.
Mrr T said:
Vicarious liability applies in most employer/employee relationship.
Except in the case of frolic, obviously.Mrr T said:
On the other hand make police officers responsible for tort, get police officers refuse to take any action which might make them liable.
Unlawful/illegal assault, that sort of thing? As I said, groovy.Mrr T said:
No more assaults, well other than criminals on victims, who know they can just walk away unimpeded.
They'd still be allowed to use force, just in accordance with the law. The only stuff that would be a problem is the unlawful/illegal stuff; surely you don't object to that?Previous said:
What a waste of time for everyone involved.
Woman with attitude towards fare inspector: Could have just swiped card properly.
Overreacting police officer: Could have just stopped her and said "could you swipe again please - it doesn't appear to have registered"
Actions set against a backdrop of a lack of trust and respect for each other, and here we are.
Pretty fair summary. Woman with attitude towards fare inspector: Could have just swiped card properly.
Overreacting police officer: Could have just stopped her and said "could you swipe again please - it doesn't appear to have registered"
Actions set against a backdrop of a lack of trust and respect for each other, and here we are.
Just watched the extended video including the preamble, arrest, handcuffing and subsequent release.
I'm no fan of the Police at all, but the woman didn't help matter by deliberately getting hysterical from the outset. I was more concerned for the impact on her child - screaming like this can't be good for him, but I suspect he is used to it. Then right at the end when the arresting officer is trying to unlock the handcuffs and she's struggling and nearly falls into the road, the officer pulls her and says "there's a road there, you daft cow". Is that any way to speak to her?
It's a complete binfire of a lack of trust between Police and public which could have quite easily been avoided with some grown up behaviour on both parts.
What we don't see is why it got to this stage. In a parallel universe this could have happened:
TFL employee: "Excuse me madam, you don't appear to have paid the fare".
Passenger: "well I've just tapped out, so I have"
TFL employee: "oh, well it doesn't seem to have registered, can you do it again please"
Passenger: "Sure, no problems. Technology, eh?"
TFL employee "Yep, I much preferred it when I was a clippy. Have a nice day".
Passenger: "No worries, you too"
Biggy Stardust said:
Mrr T said:
Vicarious liability applies in most employer/employee relationship.
Except in the case of frolic, obviously.Mrr T said:
On the other hand make police officers responsible for tort, get police officers refuse to take any action which might make them liable.
Unlawful/illegal assault, that sort of thing? As I said, groovy.Mrr T said:
No more assaults, well other than criminals on victims, who know they can just walk away unimpeded.
They'd still be allowed to use force, just in accordance with the law. The only stuff that would be a problem is the unlawful/illegal stuff; surely you don't object to that?PurpleTurtle said:
What we don't see is why it got to this stage. In a parallel universe this could have happened:
TFL employee: "Excuse me madam, you don't appear to have paid the fare".
Passenger: "well I've just tapped out, so I have"
TFL employee: "oh, well it doesn't seem to have registered, can you do it again please"
Passenger: "Sure, no problems. Technology, eh?"
TFL employee "Yep, I much preferred it when I was a clippy. Have a nice day".
Passenger: "No worries, you too"
Ticket inspectors do not target individuals. They check everyone. You touch your oyster, or registered contactless card, on the inspectors reader which shows your last entry.
They do not care if you tap out only if you have tapped in. If you fail to tap out you get a maximum fare. Which you have to appeal.
The machine pings when it registers your card so you should know.
The only clip shows her on the pavement. I have to assume she had been asked for the card on the bus but had refused and got off at the next stop.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff