Met PC guilty of bus stop assault

[Bigends]

BikeBikeBIke said:

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.

This...if shes suspected of fare evasion - obtain name and address and proceed by way of summons. When name and address is refused and the matter cant be proceeded with - then consider arrest.

[bitchstewie]

Derek Smith said:

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.

No the Police should do their job without assaulting people Derek.

That isn't my opinion I'd assume there's quite a bar to clear before this would have got anywhere near a courtroom.

Sorry but every week there's something about someone from the Met in the news. I've said before that doesn't mean being against the Police but it does suggest that something isn't quite right in the Met.

Perhaps it's a numbers thing perhaps it's a culture thing.

I also assumed the Police might not support TfL operations with the intention of arresting people for not having a ticket but they might be there because people who get caught without tickets may get violent - I might be wrong on that one but it seems a strange by-product to withdraw support because an officer got caught misbehaving.

[irc]

BikeBikeBIke said:

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.

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

[SpidersWeb]

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"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."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

[Bigends]

irc said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

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.

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

Call Police who engage with the passenger and require name and address. Then, if refused consider arrest. Haven't watched the whole thing yet..did the officers request her details?

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Bigends said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

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.

This...if shes suspected of fare evasion - obtain name and address and proceed by way of summons. When name and address is refused and the matter cant be proceeded with - then consider arrest.

Or due to vocal/push - bop or police assault. Can always section 30 when calmed down.

[SpidersWeb]

Bigends said:

did the officers request her details?

Before grabbing her to arrest and slap the handcuffs on - no, hence the magistrate reaching the decision they did.

[Gareth79]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

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.

Agreed - it looks like the officer formed an opinion that she could only have evaded the fare, and not considered that somebody might have paid but is a bit annoyed at being stopped after they get off when they just want to go home (and also seeing a bunch of police doing that when they might feel there are more important things to deal with in that area).

Basically it looks like the officers had zero skills at dealing with people.

[Mrr T]

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"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."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

[Bigends]

Mrr T said:

SpidersWeb said:

irc said:

Did the magistrate say what TFL do if someone won't give their name and just walks away?

"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."

Whereas the Met PC decided to grab hold of her and handcuff her before asking any questions.

It was a deputy district judge. His contract should be terminated instantly. It's not the job of judges to set police policy. That's for the police and the government to determine. A judges job is to rule on the law. Not sure where his remarks, see post above, are from. But they are dreadful. A judges job when giving a verdict is to out line both the statute and case law on which he is making his decision. This seems to just be his opinion. It's not binding and I would be surprised if it's not reversed with some stern words for the deputy judge.

He didn't set policy, she should have been warned she was liable to arrest if she didn't give her details..he was merely pointing this out.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Bigends said:

This...if shes suspected of fare evasion - obtain name and address and proceed by way of summons. When name and address is refused and the matter cant be proceeded with - then consider arrest.

No. Just arrest her, walk her back the six paces to the point that would have immediately demonstrated she had paid. Quickest way amd presumably the whole point of having someone with the power of arrest on the spot.

If that process isn't legal then fine - the police no longer need to be involved and it looks to be a job they don't like anyway.

[paulw123]

Police can't win whatever they do these days it's a totally thankless job these days.

[SpidersWeb]

paulw123 said:

Police can't win whatever they do these days it's a totally thankless job these days.

Do you mean that they can no longer get away with doing what they did in the past and now they actually have to do the job properly, which in this case would have simply meant speaking to the individual before putting the handcuffs on.

[Bigends]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Bigends said:

This...if shes suspected of fare evasion - obtain name and address and proceed by way of summons. When name and address is refused and the matter cant be proceeded with - then consider arrest.

No. Just arrest her, walk her back the six paces to the point that would have immediately demonstrated she had paid. Quickest way amd presumably the whole point of having someone with the power of arrest on the spot.

If that process isn't legal then fine - the police no longer need to be involved and it looks to be a job they don't like anyway.

Thats what the officer did and finished up with a criminal record for not following simple procedures.

[nickfrog]

paulw123 said:

Police can't win whatever they do these days it's a totally thankless job these days.

This particular officer obviously needs basic people skill training if he is public facing.

So more orba basic training or selection issue at the Met rathe than anything else.

If it was assault, would a member of the public be allowed to make a citizen's arrest on the officer?

[BikeBikeBIke]

Bigends said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Bigends said:

This...if shes suspected of fare evasion - obtain name and address and proceed by way of summons. When name and address is refused and the matter cant be proceeded with - then consider arrest.

No. Just arrest her, walk her back the six paces to the point that would have immediately demonstrated she had paid. Quickest way amd presumably the whole point of having someone with the power of arrest on the spot.

If that process isn't legal then fine - the police no longer need to be involved and it looks to be a job they don't like anyway.

Thats what the officer did and finished up with a criminal record for not following simple procedures.

Yup.

[Oliver Hardy]

119 said:

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.

Some sympathy with the police here, things get heated and it is all to easy to get things wrong, I could never be a police officer

However delivery drivers get drag through courts when they get things wrong while doing their job, so why shouldn't police officers?

[Oliver Hardy]

119 said:

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!

I sure they don't?

[BikeBikeBIke]

SpidersWeb said:

Do you mean that they can no longer get away with doing what they did in the past and now they actually have to do the job properly, which in this case would have simply meant speaking to the individual before putting the handcuffs on.

The ticket inspector had spoken to her. The police officer had spoken to her. The speaking had failed and it was time to physically stop her and physically check.

What's changed is that it turns out at least one magistrate thinks it's not reasonable to arrest suspected fare dodgers becaise it's too trivial an offence. Which is bad for this individual policeman but good for the police in general because because if they can't make an arrest they no longer have a role in a crap job that they don't like doing.

[Paul Dishman]

Tango13 said:

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.

There was a similar, possibly apocryphal, tale posted on PH a good few years ago which ended when on being threatened with a ticket by a BTP officer the PHer replied “ well as I don’t want a Super Saver Return, I’ll be off..”