Met PC guilty of bus stop assault

[Ian Geary]

(Could have sworn there was a thread, but can't find it. So)


News out that a met police officer has been found guilty of assaulting a woman at a bus stop

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69028...

It made the news a while back as a video of it went viral. The passenger was asked by a ticket inspector to show a ticket, and it ended with the PC grabbing her arm and cuffiing her.

Long story short: a magistrate feels that was the use of force wasn't necessary, and was therefore assult.

The article sets out she moved away after being asked to show a ticket, which then escalated somewhat.


On a UK map I'm quite local, albeit Surrey/Sussex border feels quite different to Croydon.

I'm not sure what it will do for Londoner's relationship with the Met? but it seems to set a benchmark for the necessity of cuffs/arrest.

[Hill92]

The Daily Mail have published the judge's reasoning:

The judge 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.'

[bitchstewie]

And it's the Met again.

[irc]

Fare evasion going up.

"Since this incident happened, we have stopped our involvement in supporting Transport for London fare evasion operations, "

[bitchstewie]

That's actually funny.

"Because we don't think our officers can behave we've withdrawn them".

They never just say "sorry we got this one wrong" do they.

[119]

Is this the met police, the one that the mayor of London is supposed to be in control of?

Edited by 119 on Saturday 18th May 08:10

[Previous]

What a waste of time for everyone involved.

Woman with attitude towards fare inspector: Could have just swiped card properly.

Overreacting police officer: Could have just stopped her and said "could you swipe again please - it doesn't appear to have registered"

Actions set against a backdrop of a lack of trust and respect for each other, and here we are.

[Tango13]

bhstewie said:

That's actually funny.

"Because we don't think our officers can behave we've withdrawn them".

They never just say "sorry we got this one wrong" do they.

That's because police officers individually and police forces at an institutional level are incapable of admitting a mistake.

I was once followed home by a British transport plod who informed me I had been speeding on a dual carriageway. When I pointed out that it was a 70 limit, not a 40 as he thought he stood there like a fish out of water, blank facial expression, open mouth and bottom jaw moving up and down...

Then he accused me of driving at 42 in a 40 limit, I pointed out that he couldn't touch me for that as there was zero chance of a conviction. More fish impersonation from him.

Looking back I should've let him give me a ticket just for sts and giggles in the court room.

[119]

Tango13 said:

bhstewie said:

That's actually funny.

"Because we don't think our officers can behave we've withdrawn them".

They never just say "sorry we got this one wrong" do they.

That's because police officers individually and police forces at an institutional level are incapable of admitting a mistake.

I was once followed home by a British transport plod who informed me I had been speeding on a dual carriageway. When I pointed out that it was a 70 limit, not a 40 as he thought he stood there like a fish out of water, blank facial expression, open mouth and bottom jaw moving up and down...

Then he accused me of driving at 42 in a 40 limit, I pointed out that he couldn't touch me for that as there was zero chance of a conviction. More fish impersonation from him.

Looking back I should've let him give me a ticket just for sts and giggles in the court room.

I didn't think BTP had any power outside of the "public transport" system.

You live and learn!

[Derek Smith]

bhstewie said:

That's actually funny.

"Because we don't think our officers can behave we've withdrawn them".

They never just say "sorry we got this one wrong" do they.

That's not was said. I'm surprised you are confused.

Every arrest is an assault. The officer grabbed her arm.

A ticket inspector calls to a woman to stop and she refuses. As the court said, the officer made an error of judgement. The judge decided not to believe the officer, which a court is entitled to do. It was an operation against fare evasion. If officers cannot stop suspects from leaving the scene, not a lot of point in having such operations. There have been a number of stated cases over the years with regards application of minor levels of force during arrest and they have always found that it is permissible. This decision is rather contrary to the previous ones so, until it is clarified, to allow the operations to continue would put officers at risk of prosecution.

So there are strong, and compulsive reasons to pull officers from such operations. It's obvious why. No much point in having offenders walk off.

And, according to the Mail, the Met have apologised.

It's only a magistrates court decision so lots of chances for appeals and such. I assume the Fed will support an appeal. Indeed, the Met should as this decision does seem perverse and will compromise a number of operational practices.

So I'd disagree. Not that funny. This decision means that when an officer has reasonable suspicion an offence has been committed, he cannot detain a suspect.

[119]

Derek Smith said:

bhstewie said:

That's actually funny.

"Because we don't think our officers can behave we've withdrawn them".

They never just say "sorry we got this one wrong" do they.

That's not was said. I'm surprised you are confused.

Every arrest is an assault. The officer grabbed her arm.

A ticket inspector calls to a woman to stop and she refuses. As the court said, the officer made an error of judgement. The judge decided not to believe the officer, which a court is entitled to do. It was an operation against fare evasion. If officers cannot stop suspects from leaving the scene, not a lot of point in having such operations. There have been a number of stated cases over the years with regards application of minor levels of force during arrest and they have always found that it is permissible. This decision is rather contrary to the previous ones so, until it is clarified, to allow the operations to continue would put officers at risk of prosecution.

So there are strong, and compulsive reasons to pull officers from such operations. It's obvious why. No much point in having offenders walk off.

And, according to the Mail, the Met have apologised.

It's only a magistrates court decision so lots of chances for appeals and such. I assume the Fed will support an appeal. Indeed, the Met should as this decision does seem perverse and will compromise a number of operational practices.

So I'd disagree. Not that funny. This decision means that when an officer has reasonable suspicion an offence has been committed, he cannot detain a suspect.

It’s no fking wonder the police are struggling to get people to sign up when they could be potentially dragged through the courts because some snowflake got offended by them doing their job.

[bitchstewie]

It's what it boils down to Derek.

Another officer convicted of assault and their reaction is to support the officer (whilst also apologising for his actions) and throw their toys by withdrawing support for fare dodging operations.

Sorry but something is broken with that force.

No doubt appeal after appeal just as when they fked up at the Sarah Everard vigil.

Too many bad apples and some very bad people advising them on PR.

[irc]

Tango13 said:

That's because police officers individually and police forces at an institutional level are incapable of admitting a mistake.

"We apologise to the woman and the wider community who were deeply affected. Anyone who has seen the footage of this incident will be upset by how it escalated into a traumatic situation for a mother and her child. "

That looks a little bit like admitting a mistake to me.

[272BHP]

And the message goes out to all Londoners, don't pay the fare and don't comply with any instruction. The result is that fewer people will pay the fare and prices will inevitably rise.

I do not see cases like this as clear cut. Did the officer escalate too quickly? probably, did the woman refuse to comply and subsequently wasted police time - yes. Reprimand the officer and give the woman community service.

"daft cow" was obviously best left unsaid but clearly accurate none the less.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Watching the footage.

Why wasn't the PC communicating with her?

He could have easily dealt with this. I am arresting you to prevent a breach of the peace (she walks forceably into him, shouting) until we can understand what is going on. Namely....

At no point is he trying to speak.

She would have then said my oyster card.


Understandably she was freaking out, confused as she'd paid and didn't know what she'd done wrong.

[Jasandjules]

Derek Smith said:

So I'd disagree. Not that funny. This decision means that when an officer has reasonable suspicion an offence has been committed, he cannot detain a suspect.

Not realistically though, as she was attempting to use her card to pay was she not? And thought she had done so?

Don't get me wrong, she over reacted but so did the officer, just the officer took it a little too far when just a "have you used your Oyster card/do you have a ticket" might have done the trick at the outset.

[irc]

Jasandjules said:

Derek Smith said:

So I'd disagree. Not that funny. This decision means that when an officer has reasonable suspicion an offence has been committed, he cannot detain a suspect.

Not realistically though, as she was attempting to use her card to pay was she not? And thought she had done so?

Don't get me wrong, she over reacted but so did the officer, just the officer took it a little too far when just a "have you used your Oyster card/do you have a ticket" might have done the trick at the outset.

These joint TFL and police operations. Presumably the TFL staff are the ones checking tickets. So if they indictate to the police that a person has not paid or shown a ticket There is reasonable grounds for that cop to suspect an offence.

This case looks like sending the message that if you rely on info from TFL staff and they get it wrong you are risking an assault conviction.

I am not disagreeing that the cop could have handled it better but if he genuinely thought when he put hands on that she hadn't paid for travel it seems a harsh result which will result in it being harder to deal with ticket fraud.

I assume TFL staff have no powers to detain and rely on police support to stop anybody who just ignores them and walks away.

[SpidersWeb]

272BHP said:

I do not see cases like this as clear cut. Did the officer escalate too quickly? probably, did the woman refuse to comply and subsequently wasted police time - yes. Reprimand the officer and give the woman community service.

Why that way around and not give the officer who overreacted community service and the woman a reprimand for not holding the card out for a second time.

[Derek Smith]

bhstewie said:

It's what it boils down to Derek.

Another officer convicted of assault and their reaction is to support the officer (whilst also apologising for his actions) and throw their toys by withdrawing support for fare dodging operations.

Sorry but something is broken with that force.

No doubt appeal after appeal just as when they [deleted] up at the Sarah Everard vigil.

Too many bad apples and some very bad people advising them on PR.

That's not the reason for their withdrawal. There's no toy-throwing. I'm surprised that you, who closely follow police actions, think so. The police operation is there to arrest those making off without paying a fare if required. If, as seems from this decision, they are not allowed to stop suspects (despite powers of arrest being clear on the point) there's not much point in them being there. I think that's patently obvious.

The police officer merely followed what was probably instructions, and, in any case, standard procedure. You can extrapolate this all you want, and will no doubt, but it is normal procedure, so hardly indicative of a broken force. You seem to think that the force should abandon an officer who acted in a way that for a number of years was perfectly reasonable, and accepted. Yeah, that's the way to gain recruits.

As for PR, should the police ignore offenders because some newspapers and keyboard warriors on social media read more into it than actually happens? It's rhetorical of course.

The decision is from someone presiding at a magistrates' court. I've normally found magistrates use good sense in the main. I've disagreed with decisions but that didn't bother me. One wonders why a judge was sitting.

I expect an appeal, and, if the decision is altered, I will expect all those who went overboard on social media to apologise for overreacting.

What it boils down to is a decision made by a judge which alters the status quo, one that seemed to be accepted by most. Part of their job is to invent new laws as such, although not normally done by a magistrates' court. This must be clarified, otherwise no officer will be able to stop offenders making off without payment. The appeals will cost you and me a lot of money through the courts, but something that changes accepted processes must be clarified.

A small point: everyone is a suspect until they are convicted at court or one of the other ways of dealing with an offender are followed. This woman was a suspect. It would appear that she was trying to make off without payment. Perhaps the officer could have stopped traffic to allow her to cross the road, because if she ain't being dealt with, she should be treated the same as anyone else who's not a suspect.

The Met has problems. Lots off them, most exacerbated by Home Office demands and changes. But stopping suspects isn't one of them, at least, not until any appeals have run their course.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Derek Smith said:

That's not was said. I'm surprised you are confused.

Every arrest is an assault. The officer grabbed her arm.

A ticket inspector calls to a woman to stop and she refuses. As the court said, the officer made an error of judgement. The judge decided not to believe the officer, which a court is entitled to do. It was an operation against fare evasion. If officers cannot stop suspects from leaving the scene, not a lot of point in having such operations. There have been a number of stated cases over the years with regards application of minor levels of force during arrest and they have always found that it is permissible. This decision is rather contrary to the previous ones so, until it is clarified, to allow the operations to continue would put officers at risk of prosecution.

So there are strong, and compulsive reasons to pull officers from such operations. It's obvious why. No much point in having offenders walk off.

And, according to the Mail, the Met have apologised.

It's only a magistrates court decision so lots of chances for appeals and such. I assume the Fed will support an appeal. Indeed, the Met should as this decision does seem perverse and will compromise a number of operational practices.

So I'd disagree. Not that funny. This decision means that when an officer has reasonable suspicion an offence has been committed, he cannot detain a suspect.

Exactly this.

The magistrate has said that suspected fare dodging is not grounds for arrest amd instead the person's name amd address should be taken. So there's no point in tbe police being involved. It's not throwing their toys put of the pram it's complying with the court's current interpretation of the law.