Complaints about arrest and detention - Norfolk Constabulary, October 2016

In June 2015 a man called Norfolk Constabulary to report that his neighbours were outside his house with weapons. There was a history of reports of anti-social problems in this area and there existed a policing response plan to calls to this vicinity. Two officers arrived and approached a group standing outside opposite the man’s house, which included the people alleged to have been in possession of the weapons. The group said they had not seen or heard anything to support the man’s allegation.

Officers spoke to the man who made the original call. He said the suspects had put their weapons in their car. Officers searched the car but found nothing. One of the officers arrested the man for wasting police time and for a section 5 public order offence. This was in respect of an allegation made two days earlier by one of the men named by the caller that the man had sworn at him.

The officers conducted a search of the man’s address and seized some of his property. The arresting officer put the man in handcuffs and escorted him to the marked police vehicle outside his home. A member of the group outside videoed this and subsequently uploaded it on to social media. The man alleged that the group made racist noises and that the officers did nothing about it. The officers took the man to custody, where he informed the custody sergeant that he was observing Ramadan. He was in custody for several hours.

The man made a complaint to Norfolk Constabulary a few days after the incident. Due to the serious nature of the complaint it was referred to us for review. We then decided that Norfolk Constabulary should investigate, and suggested a number of considerations to be taken into account.

In his complaint, the man alleged that the officers:

• did not investigate his report properly
• failed to approach the incident with fairness and impartiality
• approached the suspects and their associates before speaking to him
• allowed a suspect to leave the scene
• searched his address and removed his property without proper basis
• failed to act in response to inappropriate behaviour by his neighbours

He also made allegations specifically regarding one officer, saying that he had arrested and handcuffed him with no justification, mishandled his property, had been discourteous and had acted in a discriminatory manner.

The man also made a complaint about the fact he had been detained in custody for several hours when the police were aware that he was fasting for Ramadan and that he was unable to break his fast with his family.

In June 2016, Norfolk Constabulary completed its investigation and reached the conclusion that only one aspect of the complaint was upheld. This was regarding the search of the complainant’s house. It considered this error to be one of performance and not conduct. This resulted in management action, an informal outcome which focuses on officers improving an officer’s performance to prevent similar situations arising in the future.

In July 2016 we were notified that the complainant had appealed against the findings. We reviewed the appeal and original investigation material and, in October 2016, upheld the appeal. We also decided to independently re-investigate the investigation completed by Norfolk Constabulary.

During the investigation a volume of material was gathered and analysed. The Investigator formed the opinion that there was sufficient evidence upon which a panel could find misconduct for two officers in relation to the following:

• failing to treat the matter as a hate crime in accordance with guidance
• allowing a suspect to leave the scene
• searching the man’s home and removing his belongings with no proper basis, as well as the manner in which the search took place
• failing to act with sufficient fairness and impartiality, including failing to challenge inappropriate behaviour by the group outside the man’s home when he was escorted to the police vehicle

The Investigator also formed the opinion that there was sufficient evidence upon which a panel could find misconduct for one of the officers in relation to the following:

• discourteous behaviour towards the complainant
• handcuffing the complainant when there was no necessity to do so
• failing to act with sufficient fairness and impartiality, including hugging a member of the group of suspects

In May 2017 we were informed that one of the officers had resigned in April 2017 and therefore, as a former officer (and as the law stood at the relevant time), no disciplinary proceedings could be brought.

After reviewing our report Norfolk Constabulary disagreed with our recommendation to hold a misconduct meeting for the officer still serving. It suggested management action instead. We considered Norfolk Constabulary’s rationale and directed the force to hold a misconduct meeting.

A misconduct meeting was held in the summer of 2018 for the remaining officer, which concluded the case was proven in relation to the intrusive property search, and that the officer had breached the standards of professional behaviour in relation to authority, duties and responsibility. As the officer had previously received management action following the outcome of the original investigation completed by Norfolk Constabulary and there had been no further re-occurrences, the Chair of the panel concluded that the officer should be given further management advice specifically to familiarise himself with powers of police in relation to searches.