PC Awarded Damages Because Firearms Cops Not Deployed
Discussion
Interesting case. Damages reduced as the injured cop chose to enter a house to arrest a male who had earlier escaped from custody rather than cover the exits and wait for assistance/negotiate.
Claim based on the fact no AFOs deployed despite report the escaped suspect was armed with a knife.
https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/pc-injured-...
Claim based on the fact no AFOs deployed despite report the escaped suspect was armed with a knife.
https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/pc-injured-...
Contributory negligence is well established in civil law. I sympathise with the bobby in this case as everyone's instinct is to dive in when the opportunity arises.
I worked as Ops1, in charge of spontaneous incidents, such as this one, until I could pass it on to someone of higher rank or local supervisor. It's tremendous fun as you're working with limited info, trying to conform to standard operating tactics which don't fit any spontaneous incident, least of all the one you're in charge of at the moment, and experience soon teaches you to check all important detail if you can. If not, treat it as iffy. In this case the 'handcuffed' bit.
If the bobby had come away without an injury, he'd have been praised.
A 40% reduction in damages seems to me to be harsh. And not just a bit. Not following SOPs is hardly punished in the Job, unless things go bent. Following them can end up with a lot of criticism, including on PH. There was a case where a body was face down in a small boating lake. SOPs are quite clear on the matter in my force. Specialist units will only enter such lakes. In that case, it was obvious the person was dead. The officers acted sensibly. The title of the thread was PCSOs watched boy drown. Very supportive. Yet they acted as they were told to. I wonder how much their damages would have been reduced had they entered the lake, sustained a cut to their foot, which turned septic, etc.
Just remembered an incident where a PC failed to follow SOPs and was put forward for a commendation. Excellent teaching demo for new officers.
Another case: an off-duty officer jumped onto the tracks of an Underground line, against SOPs, to rescue a woman who'd fallen/jumped in. He said that he'd done so because a member of the public said that they were going to jump in to assist. No one doubted this MoP was fictitious. Comes to something when you have to make up stories to do the humanitarian thing.
I worked as Ops1, in charge of spontaneous incidents, such as this one, until I could pass it on to someone of higher rank or local supervisor. It's tremendous fun as you're working with limited info, trying to conform to standard operating tactics which don't fit any spontaneous incident, least of all the one you're in charge of at the moment, and experience soon teaches you to check all important detail if you can. If not, treat it as iffy. In this case the 'handcuffed' bit.
If the bobby had come away without an injury, he'd have been praised.
A 40% reduction in damages seems to me to be harsh. And not just a bit. Not following SOPs is hardly punished in the Job, unless things go bent. Following them can end up with a lot of criticism, including on PH. There was a case where a body was face down in a small boating lake. SOPs are quite clear on the matter in my force. Specialist units will only enter such lakes. In that case, it was obvious the person was dead. The officers acted sensibly. The title of the thread was PCSOs watched boy drown. Very supportive. Yet they acted as they were told to. I wonder how much their damages would have been reduced had they entered the lake, sustained a cut to their foot, which turned septic, etc.
Just remembered an incident where a PC failed to follow SOPs and was put forward for a commendation. Excellent teaching demo for new officers.
Another case: an off-duty officer jumped onto the tracks of an Underground line, against SOPs, to rescue a woman who'd fallen/jumped in. He said that he'd done so because a member of the public said that they were going to jump in to assist. No one doubted this MoP was fictitious. Comes to something when you have to make up stories to do the humanitarian thing.
I once had a complaint of cowardice and neglect of duty for failing to jump into a river sluice after a suspect we were chasing on foot from a car chase dived in
There were 10 ft banks and fast flowing flood waters
He went in and disappeared
The underwater search unit found his body a couple of miles further down a few days later
If I'd have dived in after him they'd have been pulling out two bodies .. simple as
Headline was "police watch man drown from riverbank"
Fortunately the IPCC as it was then, saw sense and it went nowhere
There were 10 ft banks and fast flowing flood waters
He went in and disappeared
The underwater search unit found his body a couple of miles further down a few days later
If I'd have dived in after him they'd have been pulling out two bodies .. simple as
Headline was "police watch man drown from riverbank"
Fortunately the IPCC as it was then, saw sense and it went nowhere
MadCaptainJack said:
irc said:
Claim based on the fact no AFOs deployed despite report the escaped suspect was armed with a knife.
My reading is that the claim was based on the fact that no AFOs were deployed because the suspect was incorrectly flagged as being in handcuffs.irc said:
MadCaptainJack said:
irc said:
Claim based on the fact no AFOs deployed despite report the escaped suspect was armed with a knife.
My reading is that the claim was based on the fact that no AFOs were deployed because the suspect was incorrectly flagged as being in handcuffs.If someone has literally just run off then it's a fair assumption, anything other than that I'd be planning around him not being in them anymore.
Full details here - the offender was never cuffed at any stage and its not clear why the log recorded that he was.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/kbol43k2/2025s...
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/kbol43k2/2025s...
MadCaptainJack said:
Bigends said:
Full details here - the offender was never cuffed at any stage and its not clear why the log recorded that he was.
' . PC Milne had at no point informed
PC Irvine that C had been placed in handcuffs before escaping. PC Irvine had no basis for
recording that C was in handcuffs.
If he had actually been cuffed, i'm sure that one of the officers would have confirmed he had been cuffed to the front or rear etc
Edited by Bigends on Friday 31st October 18:39
Edited by Bigends on Friday 31st October 18:46
Earthdweller said:
I once had a complaint of cowardice and neglect of duty for failing to jump into a river sluice after a suspect we were chasing on foot from a car chase dived in
There were 10 ft banks and fast flowing flood waters
He went in and disappeared
The underwater search unit found his body a couple of miles further down a few days later
If I'd have dived in after him they'd have been pulling out two bodies .. simple as
Headline was "police watch man drown from riverbank"
Fortunately the IPCC as it was then, saw sense and it went nowhere
Where did the complaint originate? Internally or externally?There were 10 ft banks and fast flowing flood waters
He went in and disappeared
The underwater search unit found his body a couple of miles further down a few days later
If I'd have dived in after him they'd have been pulling out two bodies .. simple as
Headline was "police watch man drown from riverbank"
Fortunately the IPCC as it was then, saw sense and it went nowhere
There's no excuse for such headlines.
Earthdweller said:
I once had a complaint of cowardice and neglect of duty for failing to jump into a river sluice after a suspect we were chasing on foot from a car chase dived in
There were 10 ft banks and fast flowing flood waters
He went in and disappeared
The underwater search unit found his body a couple of miles further down a few days later
If I'd have dived in after him they'd have been pulling out two bodies .. simple as
Headline was "police watch man drown from riverbank"
Fortunately the IPCC as it was then, saw sense and it went nowhere
Well it’s never the other persons decision making is it! There were 10 ft banks and fast flowing flood waters
He went in and disappeared
The underwater search unit found his body a couple of miles further down a few days later
If I'd have dived in after him they'd have been pulling out two bodies .. simple as
Headline was "police watch man drown from riverbank"
Fortunately the IPCC as it was then, saw sense and it went nowhere
Should have stopped… shouldn’t have ran. No, the nasty police are to blame for his choices he made!
Bigends said:
Agreed but never clarified theyd been put on - surely at some stage of the incident someone would have confirmed he'd actually been cuffed but had still been able to make off.
' . PC Milne had at no point informed
PC Irvine that C had been placed in handcuffs before escaping. PC Irvine had no basis for
recording that C was in handcuffs.
If he had actually been cuffed, i'm sure that one of the officers would have confirmed he had been cuffed to the front or rear etc
I would take issue with the claim that "PC Irvine had no basis for recording that C was in handcuffs". There was basis: "when I was putting the handcuffs on" implies that the handcuffs were put on (as opposed to, say, "when I was trying to cuff him"). Certainly Irvine (or Milne) should have confirmed whether or not the suspect was in handcuffs but to say Irvine "had no basis" for assuming so feels a little bit scapegoaty to me.' . PC Milne had at no point informed
PC Irvine that C had been placed in handcuffs before escaping. PC Irvine had no basis for
recording that C was in handcuffs.
If he had actually been cuffed, i'm sure that one of the officers would have confirmed he had been cuffed to the front or rear etc
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff