Met officer faces dismissal after racist attack.
Discussion
Maybe it isn't just the Yanks?
"Charlie Harrison stopped Carl Abrahams ‘due to skin colour’ before attack in front of children, judge rules
A police officer jailed for picking on a black father because of his colour and attacking him in front of his children is facing dismissal.
A judge said PC Charlie Harrison, 39, targeted his victim – who was grieving for his dead partner – for a bogus stop because of his race, and then assaulted him.
Harrison was jailed for two years and three months and now faces being drummed out of the Metropolitan police after being convicted of grievous bodily harm.
His victim Carl Abrahams, 47, had been visiting his partner’s grave in east London along with his two teenage sons.
All three have been left traumatised with Abrahams suffering a fractured upper shin after the attack by Harrison, who was part of the Met’s violent crime taskforce, formed to crackdown on violence.
...
Abrahams and his children walked past the officer and without saying anything, Harrison kicked his victim’s knee, toppling him to the ground.
Harrison’s nearby colleagues then rushed out of their cars and a passerby who remonstrated with the officer was threatened with arrest. Harrison later claimed in interview the stop was to look for drugs and guns.
Judge Gregory Perrins said: “Having heard the evidence at trial, I strongly suspect that the reason that you stopped Mr Abrahams and his sons was because they were black.”
The judge later added: “Had Mr Abrahams and his sons been white I suspect that you would have simply drove on by; this was in my judgment a clear case of racial profiling.”
Harrison had tried to justify the stop during an interview by saying: “You don’t find drugs and weapons by remaining in your police car.”
The judge said: “You had no grounds to arrest either Mr Abrahams or his sons, nor did you have any grounds to carry out a stop and search. They had done absolutely nothing wrong nor had they behaved in any way that could be deemed suspicious.
“They were simply a family returning from a cemetery where they had gone to visit the grave of their partner and mother.
The judge continued: “You kicked Mr Abrahams’ leg, deliberately knocking him to the ground. Mr Abrahams was in obvious pain. Although it was suggested at trial that his sons were aggressive and confrontational in the aftermath of the incident, the video footage shows the exact opposite.
“It was your case at trial that Mr Abrahams was aggressive and that you quickly formed the view that he was going to assault you. You therefore used an approved ‘leg sweep’ manoeuvre to take him to the ground where he could be restrained.
“Having heard the evidence at trial I see no basis upon which you could genuinely have thought it necessary to defend yourself from a man walking down the street with his two sons with his hands in his pockets.
“This was a deliberate assault.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/13/me...
"Charlie Harrison stopped Carl Abrahams ‘due to skin colour’ before attack in front of children, judge rules
A police officer jailed for picking on a black father because of his colour and attacking him in front of his children is facing dismissal.
A judge said PC Charlie Harrison, 39, targeted his victim – who was grieving for his dead partner – for a bogus stop because of his race, and then assaulted him.
Harrison was jailed for two years and three months and now faces being drummed out of the Metropolitan police after being convicted of grievous bodily harm.
His victim Carl Abrahams, 47, had been visiting his partner’s grave in east London along with his two teenage sons.
All three have been left traumatised with Abrahams suffering a fractured upper shin after the attack by Harrison, who was part of the Met’s violent crime taskforce, formed to crackdown on violence.
...
Abrahams and his children walked past the officer and without saying anything, Harrison kicked his victim’s knee, toppling him to the ground.
Harrison’s nearby colleagues then rushed out of their cars and a passerby who remonstrated with the officer was threatened with arrest. Harrison later claimed in interview the stop was to look for drugs and guns.
Judge Gregory Perrins said: “Having heard the evidence at trial, I strongly suspect that the reason that you stopped Mr Abrahams and his sons was because they were black.”
The judge later added: “Had Mr Abrahams and his sons been white I suspect that you would have simply drove on by; this was in my judgment a clear case of racial profiling.”
Harrison had tried to justify the stop during an interview by saying: “You don’t find drugs and weapons by remaining in your police car.”
The judge said: “You had no grounds to arrest either Mr Abrahams or his sons, nor did you have any grounds to carry out a stop and search. They had done absolutely nothing wrong nor had they behaved in any way that could be deemed suspicious.
“They were simply a family returning from a cemetery where they had gone to visit the grave of their partner and mother.
The judge continued: “You kicked Mr Abrahams’ leg, deliberately knocking him to the ground. Mr Abrahams was in obvious pain. Although it was suggested at trial that his sons were aggressive and confrontational in the aftermath of the incident, the video footage shows the exact opposite.
“It was your case at trial that Mr Abrahams was aggressive and that you quickly formed the view that he was going to assault you. You therefore used an approved ‘leg sweep’ manoeuvre to take him to the ground where he could be restrained.
“Having heard the evidence at trial I see no basis upon which you could genuinely have thought it necessary to defend yourself from a man walking down the street with his two sons with his hands in his pockets.
“This was a deliberate assault.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/13/me...
Bigends said:
stitched said:
Odd.
At 39 years of age you would expect a certain amount of maturity, Not sure we are seeing the full picture here.
The judge had obviously seen the full picture and decided to lock him upAt 39 years of age you would expect a certain amount of maturity, Not sure we are seeing the full picture here.
Just seems a bit odd to me
stitched said:
Bigends said:
stitched said:
Odd.
At 39 years of age you would expect a certain amount of maturity, Not sure we are seeing the full picture here.
The judge had obviously seen the full picture and decided to lock him upAt 39 years of age you would expect a certain amount of maturity, Not sure we are seeing the full picture here.
Just seems a bit odd to me
La Liga said:
Not so much 'facing' dismissal. Obviously he's going to get dismissed.
He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
Pensions guidance hereHe wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
Not so much 'facing' dismissal. Obviously he's going to get dismissed.
He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
Pensions guidance hereHe wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
La Liga said:
Not so much 'facing' dismissal. Obviously he's going to get dismissed.
He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pension forfeiture is very rare.
Genuine question, directed at someone who I consider to be a decent BiB and answers questions more than most.He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pension forfeiture is very rare.
stitched said:
You make a fair point, and if guilty I hope he loses the lot.
He is guilty. He's been convicted at a crown court trial. If the facts are as stated, how did this guy ever become BiB?
La Liga said:
DeepEnd said:
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
Not so much 'facing' dismissal. Obviously he's going to get dismissed.
He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
Pensions guidance hereHe wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I think it needs to get a few levels above like this sort of thing: https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2018/08/...
stitched said:
If the facts are as stated, how did this guy ever become BiB?
Presumably passed the selection process without demonstrating anything that would prevent him from becoming one. More your thoughts?
La Liga said:
Not so much 'facing' dismissal. Obviously he's going to get dismissed.
He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pension forfeiture is very rare.
I wonder how long it will take for him to be dismissed, bearing in mind he'll be on full pay until that time despite being a convicted criminal. A few months, maybe?He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pension forfeiture is very rare.
stitched said:
You make a fair point, and if guilty I hope he loses the lot.
He is guilty. He's been convicted at a crown court trial. Edited by Biggy Stardust on Tuesday 13th April 23:02
DeepEnd said:
stable Savage is alive and well in 2021. Superintendent Buggerlugs : "Recruit violent criminals into it, Sir"
Chief Constable Slaphead : "That's right Buggerlugs. Very good. So what did you then go and do almost immediately?"
Superintendent Buggerlugs : "Recruited violent criminals into it, Sir"
La Liga said:
o.
It's being 'fast tracked' (special cases).
Practically, with all the minimum time limits in law, two weeks is about as quick as it can go.
Good- it would be nice if the procedure could have been made ready during the trial in case of a highly likely guilty verdict but by public sector standards this is like greased lightning. It's being 'fast tracked' (special cases).
Practically, with all the minimum time limits in law, two weeks is about as quick as it can go.
(I note they haven't even fixed a date to start proceedings as yet.)
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Tuesday 13th April 23:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teSPN8sVbFU&ab...
Anyone have any details on the "SPG"? I assume that was a topical reference at the time?
Edit - found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Patrol_Group
Anyone have any details on the "SPG"? I assume that was a topical reference at the time?
Edit - found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Patrol_Group
Edited by DeepEnd on Tuesday 13th April 23:39
DeepEnd said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teSPN8sVbFU&ab...
Anyone have any details on the "SPG"? I assume that was a topical reference at the time?
Edit - found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Patrol_Group
Special Patrol GroupAnyone have any details on the "SPG"? I assume that was a topical reference at the time?
Edit - found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Patrol_Group
Edited by DeepEnd on Tuesday 13th April 23:39
La Liga said:
DeepEnd said:
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
Not so much 'facing' dismissal. Obviously he's going to get dismissed.
He wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
Pensions guidance hereHe wasn't charged with the racially aggravated offence, so presumably the CPS didn't think that aspect could be proven.
Doubt he'll lose his pension. Pensions forfeiture is very rare.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I think it needs to get a few levels above like this sort of thing: https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2018/08/...
stitched said:
If the facts are as stated, how did this guy ever become BiB?
Presumably passed the selection process without demonstrating anything that would prevent him from becoming one. biggbn said:
So GBH is not enough to lead to a serious lack of confidence in the public service?
Although he wasn't convicted on the racial aspect, the judge did say that 'abuse of power' was a significant aggravating factor, even specifically saying "your actions have the potential to seriously undermine the trust placed in the police by members of the public". So who knows?La Liga said:
biggbn said:
So GBH is not enough to lead to a serious lack of confidence in the public service?
Depends what ‘serious’ means in this context. I interpret it as wide-ranging and lasting. I don’t see this as that.
The police need to make it very clear how seriously they take this.
That said I’m surprised the example of the child rapist kept some of his police pension.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff