Complaints regarding arrest - Merseyside Police, April 2018

In September 2015 a man made a complaint against Merseyside Police after he and a woman were arrested in March 2015 for obstructing and assaulting police. The incident had escalated from an ongoing neighbour dispute, and attempts by police at serving a harassment warning on the complainant resulted in the subsequent arrest of the man and woman.

The man complained that officers were not fair in serving him and the woman with a harassment warning, that officers had assaulted both (resulting in the woman sustaining a fractured ankle), and that the woman was discriminated in custody about her ethnicity. The man further alleged that officers lied in their statements, and disclosed information to residents about the police case against him.

In October 2015 the complainant and the woman both pleaded guilty to obstructing and assaulting police.

Merseyside Police carried out a local investigation, which they concluded in November 2017, upholding some aspects of the complaint. As a result, eight officers received management action by way of advice.

In December 2017 the complainant appealed against the outcome of the local investigation. In April 2018 we upheld his appeal and decided we would carry out an independent investigation. Initially the upheld appeal determined that we would re-investigate all aspects of the original complaint. However, it was later agreed with the complainant that we would focus on aspects of his complaint he felt were unsatisfactorily dealt with by Merseyside Police.

Our investigators obtained all the original material generated by Merseyside Police during their investigation, including the investigation report. We analysed this, alongside statements, policies and procedures, and body-worn camera footage taken from the incident. We obtained further accounts and documentation where any gaps remained from Merseyside Police’s original investigation report, and analysed these together with the original material.

We investigated the advice a Merseyside Police community support officer (PCSO) gave to the complainant and the decision made by officers to serve him with a harassment warning. We did not uphold this complaint. Based on the evidence we considered there was more evidence than not that the actions of officers and the PCSO were in line with the applicable policies and procedures in relation to the issuing of the harassment warning and that there were no conduct, performance or learning matters to address.

We also investigated an allegation that officers used excessive force and assaulted the complainant on 27 March 2015. In our view, the evidence supported that officers had an honestly held belief that force was necessary to reduce the threat posed by the complainant. It was our opinion that there was insufficient evidence that the officers’ use of force was unlawful and so this part of the complaint was not upheld.

We also investigated a complaint that officers conducted a search of the complainant’s home address unlawfully, which resulted in the unlawful seizure of a mobile phone

After the complainant was arrested, one of the officers went into his home to retrieve the other officer’s handcuffs and their paperwork, which the woman had taken. In our view, the officer did not have consent from the complainant to do this, and appeared to misunderstand their powers under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). In our opinion there was insufficient evidence that any reasonable panel, properly directed, could find misconduct for the officer. We recommended that a learning outcome, via management action, would be most appropriate to address this. We upheld this part of the complaint.

The other officer seized the woman’s daughter’s mobile phone, in order to prevent the evidence being deleted, lost or damaged. The officer did not have the legal power to be on the premises and therefore could not seize the phone under PACE, without consent. In our opinion, there was insufficient evidence that any reasonable panel, properly directed, could find misconduct for the second officer, and that a learning outcome, via management action, would be most appropriate to address the area highlighted. We also upheld this part of the complaint.

We did not uphold a complaint that one of the custody sergeants refused to accept the woman’s self-defined ethnicity and was racially prejudiced, due to lack of evidence.

We investigated an allegation that officers did not request a PIN from the woman’s daughter for her mobile phone, resulting in the loss of potential evidence. We found insufficient evidence and did not uphold the complaint.

The evidence indicated that Merseyside Police failed to secure the custody CCTV footage and we upheld this complaint. We were of the view that the officer who failed to secure the footage made a mistake and that this could be appropriately dealt with by way of learning, via management action.

We found insufficient evidence to support the complainant’s allegation that Merseyside Police inappropriately disclosed information about the case to his neighbours. We did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Our investigation highlighted some gaps in knowledge for Merseyside Police officers in relation to PACE powers of entry, arrest, search and seizure for summary and indictable offences.

We completed our investigation in December 2019.

After reviewing our report Merseyside Police the force agreed that three officers would receive management action regarding their powers of entry, search and seizure, and advised that the officer who had failed to secure the custody CCTV footage had already received management action.

The force also confirmed that it delivers learning to new recruits regarding powers of entry, search and seizure. It will also arrange for Merseyside Police ‘Academy’ to circulate refreshed guidance to the force on police officer powers in relation to entry, search and seizure.

We agreed that their proposals were appropriate.