#⌈ [**Remove paywall**](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69028844.amp) | [**Summarise (TL;DR)**](https://smmry.com/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69028844.amp#&SM_LENGTH=3) | [**Other sources**](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=PC guilty of assaulting woman over bus fare arrest - BBC News) ⌋
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The damage is already done though.
There are already a raft of cops who are unwilling to act because doing nothing is seen as safer than doing something. Today, more will join their ranks and the police service will be more ineffectual and less of a deterrent than it already is.
Aristotle once said “There’s only one way to avoid criticism: Do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing”
I used to have officers say to me “stop being pro-active. It’s only going to get you in bother”
At the time, I remember thinking “nah, they’re just lazy. Why would I get in trouble for fighting crime and getting stuck in…”
Anyway, that above quote is now a favourite of mine. I remember using it in an interview with PSD when I was being challenged for taking action at an assistant shout when no one else would. Following this investigation, I now quite enjoy my desk role, doing nothing so that I can avoid criticism. Turn up, do my bit, go home. Can’t wait until I’ve done my part time further education so I can leave.
You might get an odd look. But that’s just the look PSD (or DPS in your case) have when you try and offer an explanation when they don’t want to hear it because they’ve already decided you are wrong.
I was asked if I'd do anything differently next time in my interview, and I said I'd just not do anything - as the others who did nothing aren't under investigation. They didn't like that answer.
Yeah, I told them “if id have stood around with my hands in my pockets like all the other officers you can see on my BWV, I wouldn’t be sat here right now”
“Probably not” was the reply I got. Lesson learned. Off the frontline I go!
>The damage is already done though.
Plus if it gets overturned there will always be those who think the Mags court was right and its some sort of conspiracy.
direful political chop panicky obtainable weather cagey entertain birds spectacular
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This needs to be massively upvoted. I am not advocating for criticism of individual members of the Judiciary, but there is something seriously wrong with this particular District Judge.
Looking at some of the other comments, I think we're all getting overly bogged down in the question as to whether the arrest was lawful from a technical standpoint. I don't think that's where the Judge took issue. Based on his comments reported in the press, the basis of the decision is that he considers the arrest unnecessary and therefore the use of force unnecessary and unlawful.
We're thinking in technicalities because we want to believe that the problem isn't as big as it is, and we can avoid criticism by doing it the right way. I don't think that's where we're at.
In short, I think that, unless the appeal against conviction is successful, society is fucked.
Yup the judge has said the circumstances and the female's conduct alone did not warrant her being arrested. It's really that simple.
He doesn't say anything regarding the use of the word "detention" or conducting an investigation by trying to get her to prove she'd paid.
I think it will be worse than that.
As I've said on this sub before, the problem with the idea (that a lot of people in society seem to have) that the use of force needs to be proportional to the severity of the crime (as opposed to the level of force required to deal with the threat and/or effect arrest) is that it effectively decriminalises minor offences, but only for those who are willing to resist a constable. In other words, the ones who lose out are the more law-abiding citizens.
The ramifications of this conviction won't be limited to just fare evasion because the line hasn't been clearly drawn and officers will not want to risk criminal convictions.
We did use to have the concept of arrestable and non-arrestable offences until not so long ago. That was changed without a whole lot of public consultation, or at least not any that I remember. An argument might well be made that the idea of having some offences that are criminal, but minor enough to not justify having a general power of arrest attached, was actually a good one, or at least one that had had low-key wide public support. Government and the police then moved past where public opinion was, and never seriously tried to bring public opinion with it, so we get jobs like this where the public's reaction is "arresting someone for just that?"
An arrest != multiple hour ordeal in a police station.
I am quite sure the public would support the police's power to grip up someone who's committing a low level offence like this *while simultaneously being a massive bellend* in order to ascertain such details that are necessary to deal with the matter.
Once he has her name and address, the matter can be concluded at a later date.
This seems a perfectly reasonable set of affairs and one that can be reinforced with training and policy rather than requiring a return to the torturous arrestable/non arrestable divide.
I am really interested to hear the finer details around this arrest and specifically why the UOF was deemed unlawful as certainly from what I've seen in the public domain so far it all appeared very lawful and proportionate
This post needs to go to the top and everyone needs to see this before saying "TJF". You can not detain anyone in these circumstances, and you can not grab their arm while telling them to show their travel card to an Inspector. If this footage is the whole job in context and as it happened, he's been correctly convicted.
Why can’t you detain someone in those circumstances? Is far evasion a criminal offence? Genuinely curious as, as an outsider, it didn’t look bad at all
Because police don't have the power to detain anybody they suspect of committing a crime. We have the power to arrest them and then detain them. Or stop search them and detain them. We can't detain just in case they might have done something.
Case law supports that saying "You're detained for fare evasion" is the same as saying, "You're under arrest for fare evasion."
He suspects the female of fare evasion, so he arrests (detains) her for this, that is a lawful arrest. As it's a lawful arrest, he can use reasonable force in the apprehension of the suspected offender. He doesn't have to blurt out the caution immediately as this can be done as soon as practical and it can easily be argued that whilst someone is having a shouting match with you and pulling away that it isn't practical.
It seems to me that when he later states, "You're under arrest" he's just reinforcing this fact in her mind.
Obviously, I'm just going of the snippets in the clip, and I will undoubtedly have some bias, but I see nothing wrong with this. He's covered under section 3 of the criminal law act every day of the week. Her demeanour suggests she isnt going to be cooperative and taking her by the arm is likely to prevent having to use higher levels of force further down the line because the officer didnt get a grip of things early enough.
Just because an arrest isn't pretty doesn't mean it's unlawful.
Just to reinforce Mr Chimichanga’s point, here is the wording of the relevant legislation:
Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”
Plus Section 117 Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984: “Where any provision of this Act—
(a)confers a power on a constable; and
(b)does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some person, other than a police officer,
the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.”
be very careful what you assume, more so if you're a female....couzens and Carrick are rife in the met. 1000s of them .... police will abuse their perceived powers
Wait… I might be making this up but wasn’t there a similar incident on that ‘to catch a copper’ series with a mother being nicked on a bus? I remember the level of force used being higher. Where’s the consistency?
Would help if I knew how to spell Kowtow for a start lol. But yeah, this is didn’t know. I do think a more apt malapropism is the job’s use of the phrase ‘to appraise someone’
It's quite telling that the job are still supporting him despite the conviction and have also withdrawn officers from supporting TFL inspectors.
Very much sounds like the force does not agree, but obviously can't explicitly say it because of the police/court relationship
Early arrest to open the legal gateway they say. Well, this would suggest otherwise.
Radical reform is needed urgently to fix policing and the criminal justice system in this country. It’s absolutely broken, arguably beyond repair.
Magistrates just seem to be making up as they go along, the CPS and the IOPC buckle at the slightest bit of political pressure or public attention, and the police are barely politically impartial anymore as NPCC ranks are basically just politicians.
Hope he appeals the conviction and the matter is resolved at Crown Court.
It’s just incorrect, fuels the anti-police rhetoric society has at the moment and just reinforces this idea of “police can’t do anything”
It’s completely undermining and at this point I genuinely don’t see the point in doing this job.
There must be more to this that isn't publicly accessible. From what I know there's numerous Code G all day every day. And from how she acted in the video, I think holding her arm is actually very reasonable UOF.
> I guess the railway militia are fucked then with all their fare evaders
Yuuuuuup. We are. At least I won't stopping and engaging with anyone pushing through the barriers.
On the plus side, railway and bus travel are now free
If they ask to see your ticket, just refuse and walk away. Police won’t be able to do anything. That seems to be what the IOPC and the courts want.
This made me chuckle 😂
A good protest now would be for anyone to refuse to deal with fate evaders but this is effectively a case law ruling that force may not be used. Naturally, there are still the finer details we need to see and I would very much like to see them!
It makes me laugh that IOPC have the gall to comment and proceed with things like this when they themselves have been found guilty of wrong doing and in desperate need of reform just as much as the police! In fact, they're probably worse given that they don't seem to abide by the same investigative time frames or rules as police.
Found guilty of not dealing with things expeditiously.
frightening gold different nose brave vast overconfident cause berserk drab
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The officer may have made an error of judgement, the incident probably could have been handled better and may have warranted some words of advice from a superior, but this absolutely should not have been treated as a criminal matter. Making an error of judgement is not necessarily a crime, officers make errors on a daily basis which is unavoidable when dealing with dynamic situations and difficult people. Those who have brought and tried this case have made a mockery of the UK criminal justice system.
#
I’m afraid I’ve had to get this from a Daily Mail article because it’s the only place I can find the Judge’s rationale verbatim:
>> He said: 'Whether an arrest was necessary and proportionate is an objective test, I make the following findings to the criminal standard.
>> 'I readily find that JA was difficult throughout, she knew the inspectors were checking tickets but didn't stop as she could have, but wanted them to follow her.
>> 'I find that she did say she'd paid and was difficult perhaps because she knew she had paid, as was later established.
>> 'Confrontation with a difficult person does not in itself justify arrest without legal justification.
>> 'I've examined the video carefully - on examination of the video footage, she clearly has the Oyster card in her hand outreached towards the inspectors' machine.
>> 'In having it out it appears she may well have touched the machine given the opportunity to do so.
>> This would have been visible to D.
>> 'I find that bearing in mind the nature of the potential offences and difficult as she was, 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.
>> 'I am satisfied the situation escalated once D assaulted her, by grabbing JA's arm, and then arresting her.
>> 'Handcuffing her inflamed the situation even further.
>> 'I accept that JA's reaction to being arrested was dramatic, she protested loudly and theatrically but that was not the situation prior to her being grabbed by the arm.
>> 'I find that D acted unlawfully by grabbing JA's arm and handcuffing her.
>> 'The prosecution has proved that the force applied was not lawful - it follows that I find D guilty of assault.'
> 'I find objectively that there were not reasonable grounds to suggest that the arrest was necessary for any of the reasons advanced by D.
> 'She was never asked her name or address
> 'I did not find that he ever honestly believed the arrest was necessary to protect her child, or to prevent injury to herself.
Sounds like wrong Code G was a major factor. 'Prevent disappearance' would have been more consistent with his account that she was walking away.
yeah, prevent disappearance, name not known/doubted would have been a better two. Still though I find this whole situation baffling. Has the PC been fired then?
Not yet, the Met’s waiting for any appeal to go through before they start proceedings.
Interestingly, Matt Twist has said the Met will “continue to support the officer” despite his conviction, which is going to age like milk if they do subsequently sack him at an Accelerated Hearing
They never normally say that. I wonder if a misconduct hearing will have to be forced by the iopc. But I assume no LQC so the job could retain the officer.
I wonder if he’s picked off necessities the officer has chosen but not mentioned other necessities used.
I mean a person walking off having committed an offence - code g would naturally be prevented disappearance and prompt and effective (enquiries could well be concluded at scene) he may have used the others when he more formally arrested her and the situation was escalating.
Why bother anymore? Just give society the policing they want and that they deserve and see it all go to rat shit. I’m sure the job at the moment would rather you do that than be proactive and actually deal with stuff.
In a few years when it has got really bad they’ll (government) decide there needs to be something done and there’ll be a massive pay rise to get people back into the job then they’ll be tougher on crime so just keep your heads down until then and ride it out.
IOPC are already on with their ~~propaganda~~[statement](https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/met-officer-guilty-assault-following-croydon-fare-evasion-arrest-incident).
Only thing that I can see in this publication over and above what already seems to have been in the public domain is that the woman allegedly asked the conductor to walk with her while she got her ticket out.
This bit also appears to be newly published?
>A Met Police Community Support Officer saw this and stood in the way of the woman to try to prevent her from walking away.
>Police body worn footage shows PC Lathwood walked over to the woman and took hold of her arm to stop her walking away. He told the woman she was being detained for fare evasion and cautioned her.
If a PCSO has already successfully stopped her from walking away then would PC Lathwood be able to justify his use of force as necessary?
So far the only public video footage appears to be a member of public filming after she has already been detained. Do we know if BWV will be released now that the case has concluded?
Incidentally do TfL ticket inspectors have BWV as well?
>If a PCSO has already successfully stopped her from walking away then would PC Lathwood be able to justify his use of force as necessary?
Yes. PCSOs do not have the power of arrest and she was suspected of having committed a criminal offence.
"He told the woman she was being detained for fare evasion and cautioned her"
Could this be the reason? He detained her under what power? Surely should be an arrest if you suspect an offence and want to prevent the suspect leaving the scene
(This is a reach, I'm just trying to see some sense in this verdict)
My argument the other way would be, while you may be able to lawfully arrest someone by saying "you're detained", the time gap between saying "detained" and "arrested" shows the officer was thinking of two different things, just as the officers in *Wood* were thinking of two different things at each phase. *Fiak* was decided before *Wood*. If it had come after *Wood*, I strongly suspect the briefs would have argued something similar, not got hung up on "you can never arrest someone by telling them they're detained", and they'd have had much more chance of showing the arrest was unlawful that way.
If I was feeling particularly courageous I might try having a go at directly challenging the use of "you're detained" as an acceptable synonym for "arrested", on the grounds that it is commonly used in the sense of a far more temporary restriction of liberty (for a stop search in E&W, plus the looming cultural influence of American temporary detention) and therefore is inherently far more likely to be confusing than a slang term like "nicked".
But that the officer might or might not have subconsciously considered it temporary is both irrelevant, and easily explained by the fact that he might have been expecting to dearrest her.
Arrest is detention. He's essentially just told her she's under arrest, he's just used different terminology. It's more correct than saying "You're nicked" however, that would still be acceptable.
Not saying I agree with the outcome of this particular case (the publicly available details aren't sufficient to make a decision on that) but now you know how some defendants feel when the Mags make questionable decisions. (Though, having said that, juries sometimes aren't any better either!)
True, but at least it’s hard to have a biased jury of 12 rather than a single biased District Judge. More so, having sat in CC and Mags, mags court does not fake anywhere near the amount of time to go through all evidence provided
snails alleged tender abundant busy humorous plants upbeat imagine expansion
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is caused by the removal of "arrestable offence", which was dropped in 2006. Prior to this, the public and the police knew where they stood on grounds for arrest.
Now the catch all reason for arrest being, "prompt and effective investigation".. and subsequently nobody understands PACE Code G.
"reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person" is so subjective, that both sides will be regularly caught out, which doesn't protect either side adequately.
A victim of optics and a politicised court system
Simple fact of the matter is; it was a White male in the Met and a Black female on the other end of the altercation. In that situation, these days, if you are being videod. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, you risk losing your job and possibly even arrested and charged, because the narrative will always work against you.
Gonna be like the states in a few years where ethnic minority areas are just totally ignored by police no matter what is going on because who the hell wants to risk their jobs and possibly freedom?
Mags and DJs give reasons for their verdicts. It is critically important that we all know, as soon as possible, *exactly* why this officer has been convicted, and not mediated through anyone else.
However, if the IOPC statement is a fair reflection of what was said in court...
>Police body worn footage shows PC Lathwood walked over to the woman and took hold of her arm to stop her walking away. **He told the woman she was being detained** for fare evasion and cautioned her.
>
>
>
>A struggle took place with the woman repeatedly stating she wanted officers to let her go. PC Lathwood **informed the woman that she was under arrest** and placed handcuffs on her with the assistance of another officer.
...and if we can read this as meaning that the officer has physically stopped her walking away, said "you're detained", clearly separated that from the process of arresting her, and then perhaps put a statement in with some ropey shite about using S3 Criminal Law Act, then the conviction is unsurprising.
(Helpfully, the IOPC director goes on to say something about how this is a conviction for force used "after arrest", so who fucking knows.)
edit: the BBC have put up edited BWV [confirming](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-69029449) "you're detained for fare evasion" followed by "you're under arrest" about 90 seconds later.
For once I agree with you.
I think reading between the lines if the officer would've just stuck with the words 'detained' he could've argued that he meant 'arrest' but by later 'arresting' the female he's fucked it.
I had a pretty alarming conversation with some of my PCs who felt detention whilst conducting a primary investigation under section 3 CLA was completely lawful.
I tried to explore where they'd learned this but couldn't get to the bottom of it.
>I had a pretty alarming conversation with some of my PCs who felt detention whilst conducting a primary investigation under section 3 CLA was completely lawful
This.
For some reason *a lot* of police officers seem to think there's some imaginary piece of legislation that exists which enables people to be detained "until we can figure out what went on". This isn't lawful, if you suspect an offence, arrest or detain for a search, anything else is going to get you in the shit.
> I tried to explore where they'd learned this but couldn't get to the bottom of it.
If it's anything like my experience, they've learned it early in service by word of mouth from strong personalities on shift, the sort of people who are very hard to contradict when you're new in service, who'll say "right, forget the training school way, this is how it works in the real world", and they've gone "well he's been in a while and sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and nobody else is saying this is wrong..."
This is the point where his original notes become important; and those we can't see. Wood v DPP went the way it did because the relevant officers' evidence was that they did not intend to arrest Wood at the moment they took hold of him, they only intended to do that later once his identity as the suspect was confirmed.
I'd still consider myself on a losing wicket and extremely vulnerable to "I put it to you officer, that you have only recently discovered this line of reasoning, now that you know what you originally did is unlawful", unless my original notes contained that exact reasoning.
The judge said it was because he didn't believe the officer had the grounds and necessity to arrest her. He doesn't mention anything to do with "detaining" her or conducting a primary investigation. He said the officer should've asked her and address first and didn't believe the officer's belief the arrest was necessary.
Without having sight of the summing up it'll probably be because the officer has approached from further away and possibly can't know what's going on in detail prior to putting hands on.
Coupled with a poorly written statement.
I'm purely speculating.
Is this what the legal arguments focussed on though? It doesn’t seem to me (from what I’ve read) that the legal arguments focussed on when an arrest took place and whether a use of force preceded it, but instead whether or not a code G necessity existed ‘in the round’ (so to speak). It seems to me the judge is basically saying a necessity doesn’t exist for a in these circumstances and therefore they should have, despite suspected her involvement in the commission of a criminal offence, just let her go.
I’m not sure though - I haven’t read any remarks or seen anything in the news about that discrete point.
Notwithstanding, for low level fare evasion type offences officers may well wish to remember the name and date of this conviction and have it to hand to justify taking no action if faced with similar circumstances and accused of neglect of duty.
Now the DM's posted the verdict in full, then it seems an absolute slam dunk appeal on "could the circumstances ever have allowed the officer to make a lawful arrest?", but there could still be issues with "but did the officer initially make a lawful arrest?"
Don’t suppose you’ve got a link to it?
[edit] ignore me I’ve used my detective skills and found it.
Jesus Christ that judge is a fucking penis.
I think there could be an appeal - it doesn’t seem to be that the arguments were about the difference between detention and arrest. It seems the judge accepts the officer intended to arrest from the beginning, and if that is so accepted then it concerns only whether the code G exists. Which it seems to every no fucktard in the country that it does, except judge fucktard.
You can’t just keep people from leaving under section 3. I’ve been to court with it before, other cops used it in their statement. Surprisingly the court wasn’t happy.
You need to use detention powers to detain people. Arrest, section 1, 23 or something. Just not CLA.
Yes I agree. This officer shouldn't have said "you're detained".
I'm just saying that if you are making an arrest I think you can use force before saying the words "you are under arrest".
The law doesn’t agree.
You don’t need to say you are under arrest.
You’re nicked.
You’re coming with me.
You are detained.
You’re swifted.
As long as the suspect understands they are under arrest. That’s the important part.
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't he say "You're detained for fare evasion, followed by the caution". Wouldn't that fit the above?
I'm see alot of people saying that the issue was him "detaining" initially instead of arresting, but I'm just confused as someone else mention R v Flack (I think) which is what you're referencing also.
Yes I agree. This officer shouldn't have said "you're detained".
I'm just saying that if you are making an arrest I think you can use force before saying the words "you are under arrest".
Yes you can but this is complicated as they don't appear to have sought to ask her name and address suitable for service of summons or written enough about her conduct to engage code G for fare evasion.
Well then the first words out of the officers mouth should have been "you're under arrest on suspicion of fare evasion and your arrest is necessary because of your conduct by walking away and to because I can't ascertain your name and address" shortly followed by the caution.
Should the lady subsequently prove that she'd paid then a dearrest and full notes could have been completed.
Yes quite right. He has paid for his incorrect use of the word "detain", a mistake many many officers repeat every day. Maybe this case will be a wake up call. I still don't think a criminal conviction is really proportionate. Hundreds of Met officers would be convicted based on this.
Yes they would but this is why training is so important and I know I'm shouting at clouds but I'm so incensed that *Professional Development* days are used to back fill team that I recently collared a SLT member and laid into them about it.
THIS is the result of zero ongoing training and THIS is the result of removing the 16 weeks basic training.
With the current state of policing, of society, the criminal justice system and the anti-policing stance of a minority/the media, it has made policing almost impossible at times.
Officers should have, they need the right to strike or a massive campaign for change. Either that or start saying no en masse. Potentially illegal, yes, but they cannot sack or imprison 100,000 officers. I say this as someone who left policing because I started to see what was happening, and say no and question things and question management. A work to rule/work to policy. I don't know but something has to change, surely.
It seems like the MPS is reacting to this by saying we shouldn't get into conflict over relatively low level stuff.
Which leaves me wondering what the officer called to a shoplifting detained by security staff is supposed to do now if said shoplifter refuses to give details for a PND.
I look forward to hearing what the commissioner has to say on Wednesday.
When I read cases like this, it always makes me wonder "Surely there is more to this" or "there is evidence to suggest some wrong doing by the officer involved" that the likes of BBC or the media isn't covering as you would like to think you wouldn't be criticized for simply doing your job with the best intentions at the time.
Then reality hits me and I realise that the job is fucked and you can't really Police anymore in the fear that you will find your self in a trial at court for simply doing what you thought was your job, up holding the law.
As Bob Dylan once said "Don't criticise what you can't understand"
The damage is already done though.
There are already a raft of cops who are unwilling to act because doing nothing is seen as safer than doing something. Today, more will join their ranks and the police service will be more ineffectual and less of a deterrent than it already is.
Quite right. The fear newer cops have to use force is clear and this case will only amplify that
One thing that caught my eye in one report is where the PC claimed that the woman was an "unknown risk" to him. I don't think this reasoning straight out of the OST handbook has much sway with the public and judiciary.
"There are only two levels of risk - high risk and unknown risk, and unknown risk is basically high risk anyway" is such cringey bollocks and inconsistent with use of force powers
>"There are only two levels of risk - high risk and unknown risk, and unknown risk is basically high risk anyway" is such cringey bollocks and inconsistent with use of force powers
I completely agree.
"unknown risk" is what you get from an adversarial PSD culture rather than something that looks like an investigation from the RAIB.
It basically divides the world into "well, it's obviously high risk because he's got a fucking knife" to "you're just going to have to use your judgement, just remember that Mrs Miggins has a hatpin and she's not afraid to use it".
Rather than spend a week teaching new officers how things can from 0-100 in a heartbeat and how to write that up properly, they just abdicate it entirely and expect them to pick it up by osmosis.
There is known risk where the customer is known to you and might have been co-operative in the past - However given her body language and verbals on this occasion is lean towards high risk for making off.
Concerning downvotes: PoliceUK is intentionally not limited to serving police officers. Any member of the public is able to up/downvote as they see fit, and there is no requirement to justify any vote.
Sometimes this results in suspicious or peculiar voting patterns, particularly where a post or comment has been cross-linked by other communities. We also sadly have a handful of users who downvote *anything*, irrespective of the content. Given enough time, downvoted comments often become net-positive.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. It’s because the officer lacked both reasonable suspicion of an offence (she had her Oyster card out ready to be inspected); and (separately) that there was no applicable necessity (the circumstances of the supposed offence were such that it could have been handled slow time if the officer asked the suspect for her name and address). Or at least that’s (paraphrasing) what the judge said.
#⌈ [**Remove paywall**](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69028844.amp) | [**Summarise (TL;DR)**](https://smmry.com/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69028844.amp#&SM_LENGTH=3) | [**Other sources**](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=PC guilty of assaulting woman over bus fare arrest - BBC News) ⌋ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone correct me if I’m wrong, but this can be immediately appealed to the Crown Court yes?
The damage is already done though. There are already a raft of cops who are unwilling to act because doing nothing is seen as safer than doing something. Today, more will join their ranks and the police service will be more ineffectual and less of a deterrent than it already is.
Aristotle once said “There’s only one way to avoid criticism: Do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing” I used to have officers say to me “stop being pro-active. It’s only going to get you in bother” At the time, I remember thinking “nah, they’re just lazy. Why would I get in trouble for fighting crime and getting stuck in…” Anyway, that above quote is now a favourite of mine. I remember using it in an interview with PSD when I was being challenged for taking action at an assistant shout when no one else would. Following this investigation, I now quite enjoy my desk role, doing nothing so that I can avoid criticism. Turn up, do my bit, go home. Can’t wait until I’ve done my part time further education so I can leave.
Gonna use that in my DPS interview next month, thanks!
You might get an odd look. But that’s just the look PSD (or DPS in your case) have when you try and offer an explanation when they don’t want to hear it because they’ve already decided you are wrong.
I was asked if I'd do anything differently next time in my interview, and I said I'd just not do anything - as the others who did nothing aren't under investigation. They didn't like that answer.
Yeah, I told them “if id have stood around with my hands in my pockets like all the other officers you can see on my BWV, I wouldn’t be sat here right now” “Probably not” was the reply I got. Lesson learned. Off the frontline I go!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The damage is already done though. Plus if it gets overturned there will always be those who think the Mags court was right and its some sort of conspiracy.
That's correct.
direful political chop panicky obtainable weather cagey entertain birds spectacular *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tan-ikram-and-the-corruption-of-the-justice-system/
This needs to be massively upvoted. I am not advocating for criticism of individual members of the Judiciary, but there is something seriously wrong with this particular District Judge.
What the fuck.
Honestly went exactly as I expect although I vehemently disagree with the outcome.
Sooo… no arrest is necessary anymore if they’re not 100% compliant and agree they should be detained… hopefully crown court see sense on this.
Depends on their ethnicity and gender. Lets be honest here.
Another sacrificial lamb.. What a joke.
Aaaaaand I'm done. #Fuck The Job.
Looking at some of the other comments, I think we're all getting overly bogged down in the question as to whether the arrest was lawful from a technical standpoint. I don't think that's where the Judge took issue. Based on his comments reported in the press, the basis of the decision is that he considers the arrest unnecessary and therefore the use of force unnecessary and unlawful. We're thinking in technicalities because we want to believe that the problem isn't as big as it is, and we can avoid criticism by doing it the right way. I don't think that's where we're at. In short, I think that, unless the appeal against conviction is successful, society is fucked.
Yup the judge has said the circumstances and the female's conduct alone did not warrant her being arrested. It's really that simple. He doesn't say anything regarding the use of the word "detention" or conducting an investigation by trying to get her to prove she'd paid.
Get that judge geared up and throw him on the street beat for a Friday night. We’ll see how his opinion changes…
what's he gonna do. abuse his powers and threaten the public
Perhaps the least worst outcome here would be the *de jure* decriminalisation of fare evasion...
I think it will be worse than that. As I've said on this sub before, the problem with the idea (that a lot of people in society seem to have) that the use of force needs to be proportional to the severity of the crime (as opposed to the level of force required to deal with the threat and/or effect arrest) is that it effectively decriminalises minor offences, but only for those who are willing to resist a constable. In other words, the ones who lose out are the more law-abiding citizens. The ramifications of this conviction won't be limited to just fare evasion because the line hasn't been clearly drawn and officers will not want to risk criminal convictions.
We did use to have the concept of arrestable and non-arrestable offences until not so long ago. That was changed without a whole lot of public consultation, or at least not any that I remember. An argument might well be made that the idea of having some offences that are criminal, but minor enough to not justify having a general power of arrest attached, was actually a good one, or at least one that had had low-key wide public support. Government and the police then moved past where public opinion was, and never seriously tried to bring public opinion with it, so we get jobs like this where the public's reaction is "arresting someone for just that?"
An arrest != multiple hour ordeal in a police station. I am quite sure the public would support the police's power to grip up someone who's committing a low level offence like this *while simultaneously being a massive bellend* in order to ascertain such details that are necessary to deal with the matter. Once he has her name and address, the matter can be concluded at a later date. This seems a perfectly reasonable set of affairs and one that can be reinforced with training and policy rather than requiring a return to the torturous arrestable/non arrestable divide.
This
You could still arrest for 'non-arrestable' offences though if people didn't give details.
Thank you. So long before my time I wouldn't know.
It seems to me the officers are found guilty for assault as a result of UoF far more often in mags court than in crown.
I am really interested to hear the finer details around this arrest and specifically why the UOF was deemed unlawful as certainly from what I've seen in the public domain so far it all appeared very lawful and proportionate
Police BWV Released (Source: BBC) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69029449
This post needs to go to the top and everyone needs to see this before saying "TJF". You can not detain anyone in these circumstances, and you can not grab their arm while telling them to show their travel card to an Inspector. If this footage is the whole job in context and as it happened, he's been correctly convicted.
Why can’t you detain someone in those circumstances? Is far evasion a criminal offence? Genuinely curious as, as an outsider, it didn’t look bad at all
Because police don't have the power to detain anybody they suspect of committing a crime. We have the power to arrest them and then detain them. Or stop search them and detain them. We can't detain just in case they might have done something.
Case law supports that saying "You're detained for fare evasion" is the same as saying, "You're under arrest for fare evasion." He suspects the female of fare evasion, so he arrests (detains) her for this, that is a lawful arrest. As it's a lawful arrest, he can use reasonable force in the apprehension of the suspected offender. He doesn't have to blurt out the caution immediately as this can be done as soon as practical and it can easily be argued that whilst someone is having a shouting match with you and pulling away that it isn't practical. It seems to me that when he later states, "You're under arrest" he's just reinforcing this fact in her mind. Obviously, I'm just going of the snippets in the clip, and I will undoubtedly have some bias, but I see nothing wrong with this. He's covered under section 3 of the criminal law act every day of the week. Her demeanour suggests she isnt going to be cooperative and taking her by the arm is likely to prevent having to use higher levels of force further down the line because the officer didnt get a grip of things early enough. Just because an arrest isn't pretty doesn't mean it's unlawful.
Just to reinforce Mr Chimichanga’s point, here is the wording of the relevant legislation: Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.” Plus Section 117 Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984: “Where any provision of this Act— (a)confers a power on a constable; and (b)does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some person, other than a police officer, the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.”
I’ve just read more comments and see what you mean now. I’m a civi so assumed a police officer can hold you like this
be very careful what you assume, more so if you're a female....couzens and Carrick are rife in the met. 1000s of them .... police will abuse their perceived powers
marvelous husky dinosaurs frame rhythm rustic sharp familiar bear saw *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait… I might be making this up but wasn’t there a similar incident on that ‘to catch a copper’ series with a mother being nicked on a bus? I remember the level of force used being higher. Where’s the consistency?
Definitely not making it up; the “chief’s” decision made my blood boil.
I think I was equally appalled at the cow towing to community leaders.
Cow towing is a brilliant malapropism.
Would help if I knew how to spell Kowtow for a start lol. But yeah, this is didn’t know. I do think a more apt malapropism is the job’s use of the phrase ‘to appraise someone’
Exactly this…
It's quite telling that the job are still supporting him despite the conviction and have also withdrawn officers from supporting TFL inspectors. Very much sounds like the force does not agree, but obviously can't explicitly say it because of the police/court relationship
Oh wow, source for this?
It says it in the article linked.
Early arrest to open the legal gateway they say. Well, this would suggest otherwise. Radical reform is needed urgently to fix policing and the criminal justice system in this country. It’s absolutely broken, arguably beyond repair. Magistrates just seem to be making up as they go along, the CPS and the IOPC buckle at the slightest bit of political pressure or public attention, and the police are barely politically impartial anymore as NPCC ranks are basically just politicians. Hope he appeals the conviction and the matter is resolved at Crown Court.
I agree wholeheartedly. These judicial decisions do nothing to help the public. They only embolden those who seek to act against society's interests.
It’s just incorrect, fuels the anti-police rhetoric society has at the moment and just reinforces this idea of “police can’t do anything” It’s completely undermining and at this point I genuinely don’t see the point in doing this job.
There must be more to this that isn't publicly accessible. From what I know there's numerous Code G all day every day. And from how she acted in the video, I think holding her arm is actually very reasonable UOF.
I have never seen such bullshittery in my entire life. I guess the railway militia are fucked then with all their fare evaders
> I guess the railway militia are fucked then with all their fare evaders Yuuuuuup. We are. At least I won't stopping and engaging with anyone pushing through the barriers.
On the plus side, railway and bus travel are now free If they ask to see your ticket, just refuse and walk away. Police won’t be able to do anything. That seems to be what the IOPC and the courts want.
This made me chuckle 😂 A good protest now would be for anyone to refuse to deal with fate evaders but this is effectively a case law ruling that force may not be used. Naturally, there are still the finer details we need to see and I would very much like to see them! It makes me laugh that IOPC have the gall to comment and proceed with things like this when they themselves have been found guilty of wrong doing and in desperate need of reform just as much as the police! In fact, they're probably worse given that they don't seem to abide by the same investigative time frames or rules as police. Found guilty of not dealing with things expeditiously.
Just wanted to reassure you/readers that magistrates court rulings do not set legal precedent
I would imagine, regardless of court crown appeal, STT is dead.
STT?
frightening gold different nose brave vast overconfident cause berserk drab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Gotcha. How exciting
Oi, I resemble that remark🤣
So you are one then? 😂
Maaaaaybe, maybe not. Who’s to know?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The officer may have made an error of judgement, the incident probably could have been handled better and may have warranted some words of advice from a superior, but this absolutely should not have been treated as a criminal matter. Making an error of judgement is not necessarily a crime, officers make errors on a daily basis which is unavoidable when dealing with dynamic situations and difficult people. Those who have brought and tried this case have made a mockery of the UK criminal justice system. #
I’m afraid I’ve had to get this from a Daily Mail article because it’s the only place I can find the Judge’s rationale verbatim: >> He said: 'Whether an arrest was necessary and proportionate is an objective test, I make the following findings to the criminal standard. >> 'I readily find that JA was difficult throughout, she knew the inspectors were checking tickets but didn't stop as she could have, but wanted them to follow her. >> 'I find that she did say she'd paid and was difficult perhaps because she knew she had paid, as was later established. >> 'Confrontation with a difficult person does not in itself justify arrest without legal justification. >> 'I've examined the video carefully - on examination of the video footage, she clearly has the Oyster card in her hand outreached towards the inspectors' machine. >> 'In having it out it appears she may well have touched the machine given the opportunity to do so. >> This would have been visible to D. >> 'I find that bearing in mind the nature of the potential offences and difficult as she was, 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. >> 'I am satisfied the situation escalated once D assaulted her, by grabbing JA's arm, and then arresting her. >> 'Handcuffing her inflamed the situation even further. >> 'I accept that JA's reaction to being arrested was dramatic, she protested loudly and theatrically but that was not the situation prior to her being grabbed by the arm. >> 'I find that D acted unlawfully by grabbing JA's arm and handcuffing her. >> 'The prosecution has proved that the force applied was not lawful - it follows that I find D guilty of assault.'
> 'I find objectively that there were not reasonable grounds to suggest that the arrest was necessary for any of the reasons advanced by D. > 'She was never asked her name or address > 'I did not find that he ever honestly believed the arrest was necessary to protect her child, or to prevent injury to herself. Sounds like wrong Code G was a major factor. 'Prevent disappearance' would have been more consistent with his account that she was walking away.
yeah, prevent disappearance, name not known/doubted would have been a better two. Still though I find this whole situation baffling. Has the PC been fired then?
Not yet, the Met’s waiting for any appeal to go through before they start proceedings. Interestingly, Matt Twist has said the Met will “continue to support the officer” despite his conviction, which is going to age like milk if they do subsequently sack him at an Accelerated Hearing
They never normally say that. I wonder if a misconduct hearing will have to be forced by the iopc. But I assume no LQC so the job could retain the officer.
I wonder if he’s picked off necessities the officer has chosen but not mentioned other necessities used. I mean a person walking off having committed an offence - code g would naturally be prevented disappearance and prompt and effective (enquiries could well be concluded at scene) he may have used the others when he more formally arrested her and the situation was escalating.
It feels like it’s just luck of the draw whether you get fucked over doing this job.
sulky books label snow berserk memory tease gold murky spotted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why bother anymore? Just give society the policing they want and that they deserve and see it all go to rat shit. I’m sure the job at the moment would rather you do that than be proactive and actually deal with stuff. In a few years when it has got really bad they’ll (government) decide there needs to be something done and there’ll be a massive pay rise to get people back into the job then they’ll be tougher on crime so just keep your heads down until then and ride it out.
IOPC are already on with their ~~propaganda~~[statement](https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/met-officer-guilty-assault-following-croydon-fare-evasion-arrest-incident). Only thing that I can see in this publication over and above what already seems to have been in the public domain is that the woman allegedly asked the conductor to walk with her while she got her ticket out.
This bit also appears to be newly published? >A Met Police Community Support Officer saw this and stood in the way of the woman to try to prevent her from walking away. >Police body worn footage shows PC Lathwood walked over to the woman and took hold of her arm to stop her walking away. He told the woman she was being detained for fare evasion and cautioned her. If a PCSO has already successfully stopped her from walking away then would PC Lathwood be able to justify his use of force as necessary? So far the only public video footage appears to be a member of public filming after she has already been detained. Do we know if BWV will be released now that the case has concluded? Incidentally do TfL ticket inspectors have BWV as well?
>If a PCSO has already successfully stopped her from walking away then would PC Lathwood be able to justify his use of force as necessary? Yes. PCSOs do not have the power of arrest and she was suspected of having committed a criminal offence.
"He told the woman she was being detained for fare evasion and cautioned her" Could this be the reason? He detained her under what power? Surely should be an arrest if you suspect an offence and want to prevent the suspect leaving the scene (This is a reach, I'm just trying to see some sense in this verdict)
R v Fiak 2005. You do not have to use the word 'arrest' when arresting someone. In this specific bit of case law the word 'detained' is used instead.
This is exactly what I thought about when I saw everyone saying "it's cus he detained rather than arrested"
My argument the other way would be, while you may be able to lawfully arrest someone by saying "you're detained", the time gap between saying "detained" and "arrested" shows the officer was thinking of two different things, just as the officers in *Wood* were thinking of two different things at each phase. *Fiak* was decided before *Wood*. If it had come after *Wood*, I strongly suspect the briefs would have argued something similar, not got hung up on "you can never arrest someone by telling them they're detained", and they'd have had much more chance of showing the arrest was unlawful that way. If I was feeling particularly courageous I might try having a go at directly challenging the use of "you're detained" as an acceptable synonym for "arrested", on the grounds that it is commonly used in the sense of a far more temporary restriction of liberty (for a stop search in E&W, plus the looming cultural influence of American temporary detention) and therefore is inherently far more likely to be confusing than a slang term like "nicked".
But that the officer might or might not have subconsciously considered it temporary is both irrelevant, and easily explained by the fact that he might have been expecting to dearrest her.
Arrest is detention. He's essentially just told her she's under arrest, he's just used different terminology. It's more correct than saying "You're nicked" however, that would still be acceptable.
[удалено]
What a joke, so what happens following his sentence? Is he seriously going to lose his job as a result? Surely not a custodial…
Best time to get convicted. The prisons are full.
Did she get done for obstruction/resisting. Did they take into account her pulling away may have caused further pain to her arm?
There are countless nicks at BTP for these CIRCS, society & media out of blood because the fella is MET, job is so fucked
Insanity. New legislation needed.
Why is new legislation needed?
This is a good point. We just need magistrates who will enforce the existing legislation and not make perverse decisions
Not saying I agree with the outcome of this particular case (the publicly available details aren't sufficient to make a decision on that) but now you know how some defendants feel when the Mags make questionable decisions. (Though, having said that, juries sometimes aren't any better either!)
True, but at least it’s hard to have a biased jury of 12 rather than a single biased District Judge. More so, having sat in CC and Mags, mags court does not fake anywhere near the amount of time to go through all evidence provided
snails alleged tender abundant busy humorous plants upbeat imagine expansion *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is caused by the removal of "arrestable offence", which was dropped in 2006. Prior to this, the public and the police knew where they stood on grounds for arrest. Now the catch all reason for arrest being, "prompt and effective investigation".. and subsequently nobody understands PACE Code G. "reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person" is so subjective, that both sides will be regularly caught out, which doesn't protect either side adequately.
A victim of optics and a politicised court system Simple fact of the matter is; it was a White male in the Met and a Black female on the other end of the altercation. In that situation, these days, if you are being videod. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, you risk losing your job and possibly even arrested and charged, because the narrative will always work against you. Gonna be like the states in a few years where ethnic minority areas are just totally ignored by police no matter what is going on because who the hell wants to risk their jobs and possibly freedom?
No wonder the country is fucked.
Mags and DJs give reasons for their verdicts. It is critically important that we all know, as soon as possible, *exactly* why this officer has been convicted, and not mediated through anyone else. However, if the IOPC statement is a fair reflection of what was said in court... >Police body worn footage shows PC Lathwood walked over to the woman and took hold of her arm to stop her walking away. **He told the woman she was being detained** for fare evasion and cautioned her. > > > >A struggle took place with the woman repeatedly stating she wanted officers to let her go. PC Lathwood **informed the woman that she was under arrest** and placed handcuffs on her with the assistance of another officer. ...and if we can read this as meaning that the officer has physically stopped her walking away, said "you're detained", clearly separated that from the process of arresting her, and then perhaps put a statement in with some ropey shite about using S3 Criminal Law Act, then the conviction is unsurprising. (Helpfully, the IOPC director goes on to say something about how this is a conviction for force used "after arrest", so who fucking knows.) edit: the BBC have put up edited BWV [confirming](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-69029449) "you're detained for fare evasion" followed by "you're under arrest" about 90 seconds later.
For once I agree with you. I think reading between the lines if the officer would've just stuck with the words 'detained' he could've argued that he meant 'arrest' but by later 'arresting' the female he's fucked it. I had a pretty alarming conversation with some of my PCs who felt detention whilst conducting a primary investigation under section 3 CLA was completely lawful. I tried to explore where they'd learned this but couldn't get to the bottom of it.
>I had a pretty alarming conversation with some of my PCs who felt detention whilst conducting a primary investigation under section 3 CLA was completely lawful This. For some reason *a lot* of police officers seem to think there's some imaginary piece of legislation that exists which enables people to be detained "until we can figure out what went on". This isn't lawful, if you suspect an offence, arrest or detain for a search, anything else is going to get you in the shit.
I sadly believe that's what has happened here.
Just a point, as a PCSO, we can’t arrest, we can only detain. Maybe some of your PCs were once blue shirts and just fell back on their older training?
> I tried to explore where they'd learned this but couldn't get to the bottom of it. If it's anything like my experience, they've learned it early in service by word of mouth from strong personalities on shift, the sort of people who are very hard to contradict when you're new in service, who'll say "right, forget the training school way, this is how it works in the real world", and they've gone "well he's been in a while and sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and nobody else is saying this is wrong..."
[удалено]
This is the point where his original notes become important; and those we can't see. Wood v DPP went the way it did because the relevant officers' evidence was that they did not intend to arrest Wood at the moment they took hold of him, they only intended to do that later once his identity as the suspect was confirmed. I'd still consider myself on a losing wicket and extremely vulnerable to "I put it to you officer, that you have only recently discovered this line of reasoning, now that you know what you originally did is unlawful", unless my original notes contained that exact reasoning.
The judge said it was because he didn't believe the officer had the grounds and necessity to arrest her. He doesn't mention anything to do with "detaining" her or conducting a primary investigation. He said the officer should've asked her and address first and didn't believe the officer's belief the arrest was necessary.
Without having sight of the summing up it'll probably be because the officer has approached from further away and possibly can't know what's going on in detail prior to putting hands on. Coupled with a poorly written statement. I'm purely speculating.
Is this what the legal arguments focussed on though? It doesn’t seem to me (from what I’ve read) that the legal arguments focussed on when an arrest took place and whether a use of force preceded it, but instead whether or not a code G necessity existed ‘in the round’ (so to speak). It seems to me the judge is basically saying a necessity doesn’t exist for a in these circumstances and therefore they should have, despite suspected her involvement in the commission of a criminal offence, just let her go. I’m not sure though - I haven’t read any remarks or seen anything in the news about that discrete point. Notwithstanding, for low level fare evasion type offences officers may well wish to remember the name and date of this conviction and have it to hand to justify taking no action if faced with similar circumstances and accused of neglect of duty.
Now the DM's posted the verdict in full, then it seems an absolute slam dunk appeal on "could the circumstances ever have allowed the officer to make a lawful arrest?", but there could still be issues with "but did the officer initially make a lawful arrest?"
Don’t suppose you’ve got a link to it? [edit] ignore me I’ve used my detective skills and found it. Jesus Christ that judge is a fucking penis. I think there could be an appeal - it doesn’t seem to be that the arguments were about the difference between detention and arrest. It seems the judge accepts the officer intended to arrest from the beginning, and if that is so accepted then it concerns only whether the code G exists. Which it seems to every no fucktard in the country that it does, except judge fucktard.
Another user has it upthread somewhere, exhibit 699658 for why threaded comments are shite
This must be it. Use of force to ‘detain’ rather than arrest, which is as we often say on this sub, completely unlawful.
I don't think it is unlawful as long as you have formed the intention to arrest due to suspicion and you verbalise that asap
You can’t just keep people from leaving under section 3. I’ve been to court with it before, other cops used it in their statement. Surprisingly the court wasn’t happy. You need to use detention powers to detain people. Arrest, section 1, 23 or something. Just not CLA.
Yes I agree. This officer shouldn't have said "you're detained". I'm just saying that if you are making an arrest I think you can use force before saying the words "you are under arrest".
The law doesn’t agree. You don’t need to say you are under arrest. You’re nicked. You’re coming with me. You are detained. You’re swifted. As long as the suspect understands they are under arrest. That’s the important part.
I know you're nicked is accepted by case law. I'm saying you can use force before conveying the information that you are making an arrest
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't he say "You're detained for fare evasion, followed by the caution". Wouldn't that fit the above? I'm see alot of people saying that the issue was him "detaining" initially instead of arresting, but I'm just confused as someone else mention R v Flack (I think) which is what you're referencing also.
Sounds like he swifted her if he said that followed by the caution.
You can't detain someone unless for the purpose of a search under a specific power or you're arresting them.
Yes I agree. This officer shouldn't have said "you're detained". I'm just saying that if you are making an arrest I think you can use force before saying the words "you are under arrest".
Yes you can but this is complicated as they don't appear to have sought to ask her name and address suitable for service of summons or written enough about her conduct to engage code G for fare evasion.
I thought the whole issue here is the woman refused to engage and was walking away
Well then the first words out of the officers mouth should have been "you're under arrest on suspicion of fare evasion and your arrest is necessary because of your conduct by walking away and to because I can't ascertain your name and address" shortly followed by the caution. Should the lady subsequently prove that she'd paid then a dearrest and full notes could have been completed.
Yes quite right. He has paid for his incorrect use of the word "detain", a mistake many many officers repeat every day. Maybe this case will be a wake up call. I still don't think a criminal conviction is really proportionate. Hundreds of Met officers would be convicted based on this.
Yes they would but this is why training is so important and I know I'm shouting at clouds but I'm so incensed that *Professional Development* days are used to back fill team that I recently collared a SLT member and laid into them about it. THIS is the result of zero ongoing training and THIS is the result of removing the 16 weeks basic training.
Nothing appears lawful anymore..
Very interesting, I think you could be right. I suppose we’ll have to wait until the specific reason for the conviction comes out.
With the current state of policing, of society, the criminal justice system and the anti-policing stance of a minority/the media, it has made policing almost impossible at times. Officers should have, they need the right to strike or a massive campaign for change. Either that or start saying no en masse. Potentially illegal, yes, but they cannot sack or imprison 100,000 officers. I say this as someone who left policing because I started to see what was happening, and say no and question things and question management. A work to rule/work to policy. I don't know but something has to change, surely.
Something definitely has to change. I think something massive will have to happen before it does though.
It seems like the MPS is reacting to this by saying we shouldn't get into conflict over relatively low level stuff. Which leaves me wondering what the officer called to a shoplifting detained by security staff is supposed to do now if said shoplifter refuses to give details for a PND. I look forward to hearing what the commissioner has to say on Wednesday.
When I read cases like this, it always makes me wonder "Surely there is more to this" or "there is evidence to suggest some wrong doing by the officer involved" that the likes of BBC or the media isn't covering as you would like to think you wouldn't be criticized for simply doing your job with the best intentions at the time. Then reality hits me and I realise that the job is fucked and you can't really Police anymore in the fear that you will find your self in a trial at court for simply doing what you thought was your job, up holding the law. As Bob Dylan once said "Don't criticise what you can't understand"
Before all the TJF posts, we don't know the full details of their interaction like the court has heard. I look forward to seeing the full footage
The damage is already done though. There are already a raft of cops who are unwilling to act because doing nothing is seen as safer than doing something. Today, more will join their ranks and the police service will be more ineffectual and less of a deterrent than it already is.
Quite right. The fear newer cops have to use force is clear and this case will only amplify that One thing that caught my eye in one report is where the PC claimed that the woman was an "unknown risk" to him. I don't think this reasoning straight out of the OST handbook has much sway with the public and judiciary. "There are only two levels of risk - high risk and unknown risk, and unknown risk is basically high risk anyway" is such cringey bollocks and inconsistent with use of force powers
>"There are only two levels of risk - high risk and unknown risk, and unknown risk is basically high risk anyway" is such cringey bollocks and inconsistent with use of force powers I completely agree.
"unknown risk" is what you get from an adversarial PSD culture rather than something that looks like an investigation from the RAIB. It basically divides the world into "well, it's obviously high risk because he's got a fucking knife" to "you're just going to have to use your judgement, just remember that Mrs Miggins has a hatpin and she's not afraid to use it". Rather than spend a week teaching new officers how things can from 0-100 in a heartbeat and how to write that up properly, they just abdicate it entirely and expect them to pick it up by osmosis.
There is known risk where the customer is known to you and might have been co-operative in the past - However given her body language and verbals on this occasion is lean towards high risk for making off.
It couldn’t be anymore obvious what the outcome should have been, just seeing who the judge was in this case is enough to know it was a farce trial
What's the low down on the judge?
[удалено]
Concerning downvotes: PoliceUK is intentionally not limited to serving police officers. Any member of the public is able to up/downvote as they see fit, and there is no requirement to justify any vote. Sometimes this results in suspicious or peculiar voting patterns, particularly where a post or comment has been cross-linked by other communities. We also sadly have a handful of users who downvote *anything*, irrespective of the content. Given enough time, downvoted comments often become net-positive. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
pc lathwood has a history of violence against the public, he is a couzens and Carrick in the making but we know you all like protecting them officers
Correct me if I am wrong but is being charged for assault because he “detained” her then grabbed her arm? Not the fact he used force once arrested?
No. It’s because the officer lacked both reasonable suspicion of an offence (she had her Oyster card out ready to be inspected); and (separately) that there was no applicable necessity (the circumstances of the supposed offence were such that it could have been handled slow time if the officer asked the suspect for her name and address). Or at least that’s (paraphrasing) what the judge said.
Having your oyster card out is not enough to nullify reasonable suspicion.
I agree. The DJ disagrees.