22. Jul. 2010. – 11:43:31
Psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, biologists, physiologists singly, in any combination or permutation will confirm that we have at least two types of memory; short term and long term which explains why centenarians can remember their school days but forget to put in their hearing aid although I have to admit that the fellow beak who didn`t remember who was the defendant and who was his lawyer has sat with me on more than one occasion.
Be that as it may it was whilst reading on BBC online that later today a decision * will be made on whether or not to prosecute a police officer with regard to the death of a newspaper seller at the G20 demo last year that possible unlawful actions by police in the execution of their duty and their outcomes reminded me of what I thought was a long forgotten trial I sat on three years ago; one case amongst many and one I had apparently completely assigned to my long term memory where it had lain dormant like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park waiting to be resurrected with the correct stimulus.
Two young Asian men had been stopped by a police patrol car in the wee small hours whilst cycling in a residential road in a high crime area. The outcome was that one of them was charged with assault of one of the officers in the execution of his duty. In their evidence the police officers gave conflicting reasons why they stopped the pair. The officer against whom the assault was alleged stated that the defendant was looking at the houses in a suspicious manner as they were cycling and he [and his companion] were stopped for that reason. The other officer actually denied that and stated that the reason was the high rate of crime in that area. So they were stopped and searched. The companion had in his possession a mobile phone which the officers told him was listed as having been stolen two years previously in a robbery. He was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the police car awaiting a van to take him to the station. The defendant was clean. He was told to leave the scene. He replied he wanted to stay around until his friend was placed in the van because he thought he had been treated with more force than seemed necessary…neither had offered any resistance. He was warned to go away. A second mobile phone in his friend`s pocket began ringing and the friend knowing it was his mother worried why he was not home asked him to take it from his pocket and answer it. As he approached the same officer to ask that he might do that the officer alleged that the defendant confronted him toe to toe and punched him. He was overpowered, handcuffed and taken to the police station with his friend in the newly arrived van. He was charged with assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty.
At trial a third officer who was driving the car and who made the stop decision did not give evidence or have a statement agreed given in evidence. For the defence both young men gave evidence. Both were of good character and did not appear on the Police National Computer. In order for the charge to be made there had first of all to be a lawful stop and search under PACE. We were not convinced by the conflicting evidence of the officers in this regard. That rendered the arrest of the friend unlawful. We were told by the Crown that they accepted that he had indeed bought the mobile phone in good faith from a recognised dealer and he was released without charge later that day. Again owing to conflicting evidence from the police officers we found that the defendant had acted in self defence from an aggressive police officer who had stopped him the previous week for apparently no valid reason and been told he`d get him next time. This officer in his statement and in examination told us that he was punched in the chest; under cross examination he withdrew that allegation and said there was a failed attempt to punch him which was later denied by the defendant. In addition no evidence was produced that either party had been cautioned before arrest except an assertion by the second officer that the missing police driver had done that.
Not surprisingly this defendant was acquitted. Such cases leave a nasty taste in the mouth. When they occur, knowledge must filter back to a senior officer. I am unaware of what procedures there are if any to consider these results. Perhaps any police officers reading this might enlighten me. Cases of possible police perjury in minor cases or inappropriate conduct allowed to pass without comment could conceivably lead to more serious matters. Public confidence in policing can be achieved only when there is no doubt that at all levels possible misconduct is investigated.
ADDENDUM 18.00 JULY 22nd
* The CPS have announced that no charges will be brought against the police officer who struck the blow filmed for the whole world to see against an innocent bystander at the G20 demo last April. Even at this distance chronologically and as the crow flies the Rodney King case in Los Angeles reverberates. I have a thought at the back of my mind that if the previous incumbent at the head of the CPS were still in office today`s decision would have been different. Over the next few days many lawyers are going to offer their opinions. I am dismayed that this decision has all the appearance of a conspiracy not to see justice done the important word being appearance. There is an old phrase, justice should not only be done; it should be seen to be done.
Today in the eyes of the public justice will be seen as not having been done. That is the failure of this cop out.
Be that as it may it was whilst reading on BBC online that later today a decision * will be made on whether or not to prosecute a police officer with regard to the death of a newspaper seller at the G20 demo last year that possible unlawful actions by police in the execution of their duty and their outcomes reminded me of what I thought was a long forgotten trial I sat on three years ago; one case amongst many and one I had apparently completely assigned to my long term memory where it had lain dormant like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park waiting to be resurrected with the correct stimulus.
Two young Asian men had been stopped by a police patrol car in the wee small hours whilst cycling in a residential road in a high crime area. The outcome was that one of them was charged with assault of one of the officers in the execution of his duty. In their evidence the police officers gave conflicting reasons why they stopped the pair. The officer against whom the assault was alleged stated that the defendant was looking at the houses in a suspicious manner as they were cycling and he [and his companion] were stopped for that reason. The other officer actually denied that and stated that the reason was the high rate of crime in that area. So they were stopped and searched. The companion had in his possession a mobile phone which the officers told him was listed as having been stolen two years previously in a robbery. He was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the police car awaiting a van to take him to the station. The defendant was clean. He was told to leave the scene. He replied he wanted to stay around until his friend was placed in the van because he thought he had been treated with more force than seemed necessary…neither had offered any resistance. He was warned to go away. A second mobile phone in his friend`s pocket began ringing and the friend knowing it was his mother worried why he was not home asked him to take it from his pocket and answer it. As he approached the same officer to ask that he might do that the officer alleged that the defendant confronted him toe to toe and punched him. He was overpowered, handcuffed and taken to the police station with his friend in the newly arrived van. He was charged with assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty.
At trial a third officer who was driving the car and who made the stop decision did not give evidence or have a statement agreed given in evidence. For the defence both young men gave evidence. Both were of good character and did not appear on the Police National Computer. In order for the charge to be made there had first of all to be a lawful stop and search under PACE. We were not convinced by the conflicting evidence of the officers in this regard. That rendered the arrest of the friend unlawful. We were told by the Crown that they accepted that he had indeed bought the mobile phone in good faith from a recognised dealer and he was released without charge later that day. Again owing to conflicting evidence from the police officers we found that the defendant had acted in self defence from an aggressive police officer who had stopped him the previous week for apparently no valid reason and been told he`d get him next time. This officer in his statement and in examination told us that he was punched in the chest; under cross examination he withdrew that allegation and said there was a failed attempt to punch him which was later denied by the defendant. In addition no evidence was produced that either party had been cautioned before arrest except an assertion by the second officer that the missing police driver had done that.
Not surprisingly this defendant was acquitted. Such cases leave a nasty taste in the mouth. When they occur, knowledge must filter back to a senior officer. I am unaware of what procedures there are if any to consider these results. Perhaps any police officers reading this might enlighten me. Cases of possible police perjury in minor cases or inappropriate conduct allowed to pass without comment could conceivably lead to more serious matters. Public confidence in policing can be achieved only when there is no doubt that at all levels possible misconduct is investigated.
ADDENDUM 18.00 JULY 22nd
* The CPS have announced that no charges will be brought against the police officer who struck the blow filmed for the whole world to see against an innocent bystander at the G20 demo last April. Even at this distance chronologically and as the crow flies the Rodney King case in Los Angeles reverberates. I have a thought at the back of my mind that if the previous incumbent at the head of the CPS were still in office today`s decision would have been different. Over the next few days many lawyers are going to offer their opinions. I am dismayed that this decision has all the appearance of a conspiracy not to see justice done the important word being appearance. There is an old phrase, justice should not only be done; it should be seen to be done.
Today in the eyes of the public justice will be seen as not having been done. That is the failure of this cop out.
No comments:
Post a Comment