Incompetence, Negligence or Corruption?
What follows is, to the best of my knowledge, a true and accurate account of my experience with a complaint against Northumbria Police regarding the mistreatment of my elderly father. The police responses are, almost without exception, indicative of incompetence, negligence or corruption. It is obvious that the complaints procedure is rigged against the public and that the IOPC is a willing partner in this.
My father made an initial approach to Northumbria Police, which received a response from Chief Superintendent Ged Noble who was at the time Temporary Assistant Chief Constable. This extremely busy individual offered to visit my parents to deliver the apology and explanation they deserved. In the event he made two visits to them and one to me. Normally an attempt at local resolution is made by an inspector, often over the phone, but this matter required the attention of an Assistant Chief Constable.
However, once it became apparent that we were going to pursue a complaint, Noble lost interest. He dutifully replied to emails for a while, then abruptly ceased to do so. I was then informed that Detective Sergeant Hirst of Professional Standards was to be my point of contact. At the time we believed, as Norhtumbria Police intended us to, that the matter was being taken very seriously. Experience shows that what was really happening was an attempt to manipulate us into dropping the matter.
When that failed, Noble ceased to respond to my queries. Two formal complaints followed, both of which were blatantly whitewashed and rubber-stamped by the IOPC. It is possible that this was a perfect storm of negligence and/or incompetence, but on balance of probabilities that seems unlikely. The only other explanation is that the complaints procedure or at least the handling of ours, is corrupt.
Northumbria Police knew from the start its officers had acted in a grossly heavy-handed and unlawful manner, but preferred to deflect blame or simply lie about what happened rather than holding its personnel to account. There is nothing to be done about this; they control the whole process and have refused to discuss the matter further. However, the truth can and indeed must still be told.
My father made an initial approach to Northumbria Police, which received a response from Chief Superintendent Ged Noble who was at the time Temporary Assistant Chief Constable. This extremely busy individual offered to visit my parents to deliver the apology and explanation they deserved. In the event he made two visits to them and one to me. Normally an attempt at local resolution is made by an inspector, often over the phone, but this matter required the attention of an Assistant Chief Constable.
However, once it became apparent that we were going to pursue a complaint, Noble lost interest. He dutifully replied to emails for a while, then abruptly ceased to do so. I was then informed that Detective Sergeant Hirst of Professional Standards was to be my point of contact. At the time we believed, as Norhtumbria Police intended us to, that the matter was being taken very seriously. Experience shows that what was really happening was an attempt to manipulate us into dropping the matter.
When that failed, Noble ceased to respond to my queries. Two formal complaints followed, both of which were blatantly whitewashed and rubber-stamped by the IOPC. It is possible that this was a perfect storm of negligence and/or incompetence, but on balance of probabilities that seems unlikely. The only other explanation is that the complaints procedure or at least the handling of ours, is corrupt.
Northumbria Police knew from the start its officers had acted in a grossly heavy-handed and unlawful manner, but preferred to deflect blame or simply lie about what happened rather than holding its personnel to account. There is nothing to be done about this; they control the whole process and have refused to discuss the matter further. However, the truth can and indeed must still be told.
Overview
In October 2016 my elderly father was the subject of an unsubstantiated allegation that he had threatened a pair of youths. In fact, he did tell the youths they should not be dropping litter on the street, but there was no hint of a threat. The police never investigated this allegation beyond the initial statement, but have since cited the allegation as fact in response to our complaints.
Around the same time this allegation was made (Tuesday 27th September 2016), a vaguely described man in an equally vaguely described red hatchback car allegedly exposed himself to a woman in the same general area. The officer assigned to investigate this, PC Mair, decided there might be a connection between the two incidents – my father has a red car – but was about to take some days off. He generated a wanted package and went on leave.
What followed was not the action of a single individual. We were told in response to the original complaint that ‘it was agreed’ – though not with whom – that the matter could wait until the assigned officer returned from his leave. A colleague, PC Lilley, went with Mair to make the arrest when he did return. The harm done to my family is due to the actions of all three officers, not merely the one who made the arrest.
Northumbria Police decided to arrest an elderly man in connection with a sex offence despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part. The decision to arrest was made on Tuesday morning but with the intention it would not be implemented until Friday night when Mair came back on duty.
Nothing happened for the next few days, and when Mair came back on duty at 10PM on Friday night he was busy with something else. On Saturday night he went to the home of my elderly father and arrested him away from his terminally ill wife, who needed constant care. My father was in police custody from 11PM to around 3AM.
Northumbria Police will not explain these actions. Their National Decision Model requires that they consider several factors, including what alternatives are available and how the decision might affect public perception of policing. If this model was followed then they should be able to explain the decision process to us. Instead all we get is evasion and carefully-worded corporate waffle that does not really mean anything.
Many options were available but Northumbria Police went straight to ‘arrest’ in order to investigate a very tenuous possible link between two vehicles. This resulted in my father being arrested in connection with a sex offence, which has long-term consequences even if – as in this case – you are proven to be innocent. Northumbria Police should be be able to explain the decision process that led to inflicting these consequences on an old man, but they cannot or will not do so.
If there was a good reason why Northumbria Police took these actions, then by now they would have told us what it is. It seems obvious that there is no good reason and they are simply trying to avoid repercussions for what they know perfectly well was a horrendous mistake that caused misery to an old man and his dying wife.
The key questions in this matter are obvious even to someone who is not a trained investigator. In addition they were explicitly asked on more than one occasion. Northumbria Police has repeatedly evaded these questions and cannot possibly be unaware they have done so. There are only three possible explanations: incompetence, negligence or corruption.
The key questions are:
1. Why did PC Mair and those who consented to this action consider it was necessary to arrest an elderly man late at night when they had several days in which to make a more proportionate response?
2. Does Northumbria Police consider this an appropriate way of handling such a matter?
Around the same time this allegation was made (Tuesday 27th September 2016), a vaguely described man in an equally vaguely described red hatchback car allegedly exposed himself to a woman in the same general area. The officer assigned to investigate this, PC Mair, decided there might be a connection between the two incidents – my father has a red car – but was about to take some days off. He generated a wanted package and went on leave.
What followed was not the action of a single individual. We were told in response to the original complaint that ‘it was agreed’ – though not with whom – that the matter could wait until the assigned officer returned from his leave. A colleague, PC Lilley, went with Mair to make the arrest when he did return. The harm done to my family is due to the actions of all three officers, not merely the one who made the arrest.
Northumbria Police decided to arrest an elderly man in connection with a sex offence despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part. The decision to arrest was made on Tuesday morning but with the intention it would not be implemented until Friday night when Mair came back on duty.
Nothing happened for the next few days, and when Mair came back on duty at 10PM on Friday night he was busy with something else. On Saturday night he went to the home of my elderly father and arrested him away from his terminally ill wife, who needed constant care. My father was in police custody from 11PM to around 3AM.
Northumbria Police will not explain these actions. Their National Decision Model requires that they consider several factors, including what alternatives are available and how the decision might affect public perception of policing. If this model was followed then they should be able to explain the decision process to us. Instead all we get is evasion and carefully-worded corporate waffle that does not really mean anything.
Many options were available but Northumbria Police went straight to ‘arrest’ in order to investigate a very tenuous possible link between two vehicles. This resulted in my father being arrested in connection with a sex offence, which has long-term consequences even if – as in this case – you are proven to be innocent. Northumbria Police should be be able to explain the decision process that led to inflicting these consequences on an old man, but they cannot or will not do so.
If there was a good reason why Northumbria Police took these actions, then by now they would have told us what it is. It seems obvious that there is no good reason and they are simply trying to avoid repercussions for what they know perfectly well was a horrendous mistake that caused misery to an old man and his dying wife.
The key questions in this matter are obvious even to someone who is not a trained investigator. In addition they were explicitly asked on more than one occasion. Northumbria Police has repeatedly evaded these questions and cannot possibly be unaware they have done so. There are only three possible explanations: incompetence, negligence or corruption.
The key questions are:
1. Why did PC Mair and those who consented to this action consider it was necessary to arrest an elderly man late at night when they had several days in which to make a more proportionate response?
2. Does Northumbria Police consider this an appropriate way of handling such a matter?
The Incident
On Tuesday 27th September 2016 my father was in Ashbrooke, looking for the church where his choir would be singing that weekend. A pair of late-teens schoolkids threw down a pocketful of litter in front of him. Taken aback, my father blurted out something like ‘you can’t do that, that’s just stupid’.
The youths subsequently called the police and claimed my father (76 years old, 5’ 3”, suffering from back trouble and not in good health) had threatened them. The police never investigated this allegation beyond taking an initial statement, but later cited it as fact in response to our complaint. They did say that the conduct described in the allegation – even if it had been true – ‘did not amount to a criminal offence’. Some parts of the youths' statement are physically impossible, such as the claim my father leaned out of the passenger window of his car to deliver the alleged threats.
So, at this point there was an allegation that Northumbria Police had not investigated, claiming that my father had done something that would not be an offence even if it had happened.
At around the same time as this was taking place, a man described as being 40-50 years old allegedly exposed himself to a woman in a nearby part of town. The offender was described as driving a small red hatchback, possibly a volkswagen Golf or Polo. My father’s car was a small red hatchback of an entirely different make. The police knew this as a result of the malicious allegation against him.
The imagined similarity between a vaguely described red hatchback driven by a man of 40-50 and the red car owned by my 76-year-old father is the sole reason he was arrested.
On Tuesday morning, Northumbria Police had the following information:
Victims
1. Two 17-year-old males; ‘children’ by legal definition but physically grown men.
2. Adult woman accompanied by young child; according to police statement the incident was directed at the adult rather than the child.
Whilst both incidents involve people legally defined as children there is little to indicate a threat to children in the commonly understood sense.
Nature of Incident
1. Alleged threatening behaviour described by the police as ‘not amounting to a criminal offence’.
2. Alleged indecent exposure.
These are significantly different types of incident. There is no evidence of my father's involvement in Incident 2 (because he was not involved!) and Incident 1 - even if the allegation were true - does not constitute not an offence.
Description of Perpetrator
1. White male aged in his sixties wearing glasses, later identified from car registration as a 76-year-old male.
2. Male aged late 40s-early 50s wearing glasses.
The extremely vague description at Incident 2 slightly overlaps that of the known person at Incident 1... and a vast number of other people too.
Description of Vehicle
1. Small red car, later identified from registration as a Hyundai Getz.
2. Bright red car, unsure of make or model but believed by the victim to be a VW Polo or Golf.
Again, the extremely vague description at Incident 2 partially overlaps but in this case also partially contradicts known vehicle at Incident 1.
In response to our complaint, Northumbria Police stated there are ‘striking similarities’ here, but what is obvious is the sheer vagueness of it all. An investigation might well have been in order but any competent police officer should be able to see they were making at best a tenuous connection.
No evidence that my father had committed any offence existed at this or any other time. The allegation made by the youths was of conduct that would not be an offence even if it were true. There was no direct evidence of involvement in the sex offence (because he had nothing to do with it!). The police were merely investigating a possible link between two vehicles based on an extremely vague description.
It is hard to see how any of this could be seen as sufficient to merit arresting a 76-year-old man on suspicion of a sex offence. It most certainly does not warrant taking him out of his home and away from his terminally ill wife at 11PM, then detaining him until nearly 3AM when more than four days had been available in which to make a more suitable approach.
The youths subsequently called the police and claimed my father (76 years old, 5’ 3”, suffering from back trouble and not in good health) had threatened them. The police never investigated this allegation beyond taking an initial statement, but later cited it as fact in response to our complaint. They did say that the conduct described in the allegation – even if it had been true – ‘did not amount to a criminal offence’. Some parts of the youths' statement are physically impossible, such as the claim my father leaned out of the passenger window of his car to deliver the alleged threats.
So, at this point there was an allegation that Northumbria Police had not investigated, claiming that my father had done something that would not be an offence even if it had happened.
At around the same time as this was taking place, a man described as being 40-50 years old allegedly exposed himself to a woman in a nearby part of town. The offender was described as driving a small red hatchback, possibly a volkswagen Golf or Polo. My father’s car was a small red hatchback of an entirely different make. The police knew this as a result of the malicious allegation against him.
The imagined similarity between a vaguely described red hatchback driven by a man of 40-50 and the red car owned by my 76-year-old father is the sole reason he was arrested.
On Tuesday morning, Northumbria Police had the following information:
Victims
1. Two 17-year-old males; ‘children’ by legal definition but physically grown men.
2. Adult woman accompanied by young child; according to police statement the incident was directed at the adult rather than the child.
Whilst both incidents involve people legally defined as children there is little to indicate a threat to children in the commonly understood sense.
Nature of Incident
1. Alleged threatening behaviour described by the police as ‘not amounting to a criminal offence’.
2. Alleged indecent exposure.
These are significantly different types of incident. There is no evidence of my father's involvement in Incident 2 (because he was not involved!) and Incident 1 - even if the allegation were true - does not constitute not an offence.
Description of Perpetrator
1. White male aged in his sixties wearing glasses, later identified from car registration as a 76-year-old male.
2. Male aged late 40s-early 50s wearing glasses.
The extremely vague description at Incident 2 slightly overlaps that of the known person at Incident 1... and a vast number of other people too.
Description of Vehicle
1. Small red car, later identified from registration as a Hyundai Getz.
2. Bright red car, unsure of make or model but believed by the victim to be a VW Polo or Golf.
Again, the extremely vague description at Incident 2 partially overlaps but in this case also partially contradicts known vehicle at Incident 1.
In response to our complaint, Northumbria Police stated there are ‘striking similarities’ here, but what is obvious is the sheer vagueness of it all. An investigation might well have been in order but any competent police officer should be able to see they were making at best a tenuous connection.
No evidence that my father had committed any offence existed at this or any other time. The allegation made by the youths was of conduct that would not be an offence even if it were true. There was no direct evidence of involvement in the sex offence (because he had nothing to do with it!). The police were merely investigating a possible link between two vehicles based on an extremely vague description.
It is hard to see how any of this could be seen as sufficient to merit arresting a 76-year-old man on suspicion of a sex offence. It most certainly does not warrant taking him out of his home and away from his terminally ill wife at 11PM, then detaining him until nearly 3AM when more than four days had been available in which to make a more suitable approach.
Police Response Tuesday-Friday
Police Response on Tuesday 27th September
PC Mair was assigned to investigate the sex offence. He decided that there might possibly be a connection with the red car reported by the youths in Ashbrooke. He was due to go on leave for a few days so he generated a wanted package and left.
The ‘wanted package’ means that PC Mair decided to arrest my father at that point. There was no direct evidence of any offence, just a possibility that his red car might be the one reported at an incident. We have asked – many times – for an explanation of why an arrest was deemed necessary. All we can get out of Professional Standards (PSD) is that ‘a wanted package was generated which showed the need to arrest’ – they expect us to believe that a need existed but they will not explain why their officer thought so.
We have asked what alternatives were considered and why they were rejected – such as why was my father not permitted to attend a police station voluntarily? We have not received an answer and PSD have behaved like they think they do not need to explain this decision.
The reason for this is that there was no good reason. PC Mair generated a wanted package because it was the most convenient way to deal with this job – for him – and he wanted to be off on his leave. Did it seem a bit heavy-handed to arrest an old man for a sex offence just because he had a red car? Were any alternatives considered? Would Mair have done something different if he had not been about to go on leave? Northumbria Police has ignored these questions every time we have asked them.
Police Response on Wednesday 28th September
Northumbria Police did not take any action. If there was a perceived threat to children sufficient to merit an arrest then it should have been carried out immediately. The lack of response indicates that Northumbria Police did not consider the matter urgent.
Police Response on Thursday 29th September
Northumbria Police did not take any action. If Northumbria Police consider the matter urgent enough to justify arresting an old man late at night then they are effectively admitting they failed to protect any hypothetical victims by not acting sooner.
Police Response on Friday 30th September
The intent was to carry out the arrest when Mair came back on duty on Friday night. In the event he was busy elsewhere. No other officer took any action regarding this matter. If the perceived threat to children was sufficient to merit arrest, then one should have been made by this point.
PC Mair was assigned to investigate the sex offence. He decided that there might possibly be a connection with the red car reported by the youths in Ashbrooke. He was due to go on leave for a few days so he generated a wanted package and left.
The ‘wanted package’ means that PC Mair decided to arrest my father at that point. There was no direct evidence of any offence, just a possibility that his red car might be the one reported at an incident. We have asked – many times – for an explanation of why an arrest was deemed necessary. All we can get out of Professional Standards (PSD) is that ‘a wanted package was generated which showed the need to arrest’ – they expect us to believe that a need existed but they will not explain why their officer thought so.
We have asked what alternatives were considered and why they were rejected – such as why was my father not permitted to attend a police station voluntarily? We have not received an answer and PSD have behaved like they think they do not need to explain this decision.
The reason for this is that there was no good reason. PC Mair generated a wanted package because it was the most convenient way to deal with this job – for him – and he wanted to be off on his leave. Did it seem a bit heavy-handed to arrest an old man for a sex offence just because he had a red car? Were any alternatives considered? Would Mair have done something different if he had not been about to go on leave? Northumbria Police has ignored these questions every time we have asked them.
Police Response on Wednesday 28th September
Northumbria Police did not take any action. If there was a perceived threat to children sufficient to merit an arrest then it should have been carried out immediately. The lack of response indicates that Northumbria Police did not consider the matter urgent.
Police Response on Thursday 29th September
Northumbria Police did not take any action. If Northumbria Police consider the matter urgent enough to justify arresting an old man late at night then they are effectively admitting they failed to protect any hypothetical victims by not acting sooner.
Police Response on Friday 30th September
The intent was to carry out the arrest when Mair came back on duty on Friday night. In the event he was busy elsewhere. No other officer took any action regarding this matter. If the perceived threat to children was sufficient to merit arrest, then one should have been made by this point.
Police Response on Saturday 1st October
Nothing was done during the day. If a threat to children was perceived, then action should have been taken by this point. However, it was simply more convenient to wait until Mair returned to duty. This happened at 10PM on Saturday night, and he ‘made it a priority’ (so we are told in response to our complaint) to deal with this matter. Mair and his colleague Lilley went to the home of a 76 year old man at 10:25 or so on Saturday night intending to arrest. It is obvious that elderly people might be asleep at that time, and that if they have some circumstance that might make them vulnerable then this will be aggravated by approaching them late at night. An organisation claiming to be PROUD TO PROTECT should be able to present a solid reason for taking such a heavy-handed and potentially harmful action.
No explanation has been offered to us for this decision, other than the fact that nobody else in the whole of Northumbria Police had done anything about the matter in the past few days, Northumbria Police Professional Standards Department have stated that the delay of four days was ‘not excessive’. It was also insinuated by PSD that the reason Mair arrested my father late at night on Saturday was that nobody else had done anything all week. This is irrelevant, and typical of the flimsy justifications made throughout the whole whitewash process. The failure to act of some members of an organisation is not a reason for another member of that organisation to take action that harms someone.
This matter was not urgent enough for anyone to have done anything since Tuesday morning, and nothing had changed. There had been more incidents, no new evidence or allegations. There was no danger of evidence being destroyed or the suspect disappearing from the house where he had lived for 50-odd years. Why then was it suddenly necessary to go around to an old man’s house – maybe get him out of bed – with the intent of arresting him?
The answer, of course, is that it was not.
If the police were rushing to prevent something terrible from happening, a late-night arrest might be reasonable. That was not the case; they were conducting a routine enquiry into a tenuous possibility that there might be a link between two incidents. There was quite simply no need to be at my father’s house at that time of night.
Northumbria Police were able to choose how and when to handle this matter. They chose to investigate the possibility that a vaguely described red car might be the same as another red car by arresting an old man in the middle of the night, and have made it clear that they think there is nothing wrong with this.
No explanation has been offered to us for this decision, other than the fact that nobody else in the whole of Northumbria Police had done anything about the matter in the past few days, Northumbria Police Professional Standards Department have stated that the delay of four days was ‘not excessive’. It was also insinuated by PSD that the reason Mair arrested my father late at night on Saturday was that nobody else had done anything all week. This is irrelevant, and typical of the flimsy justifications made throughout the whole whitewash process. The failure to act of some members of an organisation is not a reason for another member of that organisation to take action that harms someone.
This matter was not urgent enough for anyone to have done anything since Tuesday morning, and nothing had changed. There had been more incidents, no new evidence or allegations. There was no danger of evidence being destroyed or the suspect disappearing from the house where he had lived for 50-odd years. Why then was it suddenly necessary to go around to an old man’s house – maybe get him out of bed – with the intent of arresting him?
The answer, of course, is that it was not.
If the police were rushing to prevent something terrible from happening, a late-night arrest might be reasonable. That was not the case; they were conducting a routine enquiry into a tenuous possibility that there might be a link between two incidents. There was quite simply no need to be at my father’s house at that time of night.
Northumbria Police were able to choose how and when to handle this matter. They chose to investigate the possibility that a vaguely described red car might be the same as another red car by arresting an old man in the middle of the night, and have made it clear that they think there is nothing wrong with this.
The Arrest
The police account of what happened is very different from my father’s, but they agree in some ways. Mair and Lilley entered my father's home and Mair questioned him in a bullying and belligerent manner. Lilley looked at the floor or the walls. His whole demeanour showed he considered the situation embarrassing and inappropriate. Unfortunately Lilley lacked a spine to go with his misgivings. Despite a duty to prevent his colleague taking inappropriate actions he took the easier path of shuffling his feet uncomfortably.
By not intervening Lilley condoned the arrest and is therefore responsible for the harm caused. He is also a liar. My father went to the police station voluntarily despite the difficulties it caused him, and was arrested there despite obviously being willing to cooperate. This proves that he would have cooperated if approached to take a voluntary interview. Lilley's account of the arrest, however, claims that the arrest took place at the house. It did not.
Originally I assumed Lilley had simply made a mistake, but I no longer believe that. It seems likely that Lilley's account is intended to undermine the complaint by removing the proof that my father would have cooperated. However, there is still no reason to suppose my father would not have cooperated. If his account is true then he did cooperate. If Lilley's version of events is true then my father was never given the opportunity. This raises the question: why not? either way, there is no reason to believe my father would not have cooperated voluntarily so an arrest to force him to answer questions is clearly unjustified.
Be that as it may, an arrest was made, and the reason given for it was ‘for the protection of a child or other vulnerable person’. Nobody was in more danger from my father as he got ready for bed at 10:30 Saturday night than had been for the four previous days – and Northumbria Police has said it finds nothing wrong with its lack of action during that time. So if it was not urgently necessary to arrest my father in order to protect children during the whole of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, why was it suddenly necessary late on Saturday night?
Obviously, it was not. This was simply the time Northumbria Police chose to do it. In response to our complaint, Northumbria Police provided an account of what they did, but no explanation of why these actions were taken.
In addition to conducting his questioning in a manner that amounted to bullying a confused and vulnerable old man, Mair displayed a complete lack of empathy and professional concern about the welfare of my family. My father protested that he could not leave my mother, who needed constant care. PC Mair said he could come back the following night at the same time – creating the same problem all over again – but offered no other options. My father was not offered the option to be questioned during the day.
My father was approached by the police at a time of their choosing. They picked a moment when he was tired, and sufficient time had passed that he struggled to recall his movements on Tuesday morning. Notably he forgot to mention that he had been at the doctor’s surgery with my mother at a time that would make it impossible to be involved in the sex offence. He has spent many nights lying awake torturing himself with what he might have said if only his memory were better – he has such a bad memory that he has taken tests to see if he is developing Alzheimer’s Disease – or if he had been approached in a way that let him think more clearly.
My father was taken to Southwick Police Station where he was arrested and then locked in a cell. He was subsequently interviewed until around 3AM – at the time of day when the human body is at its lowest ebb. In addition, he was gravely concerned for the welfare of his wife, who was terminally ill and needed his constant support. These circumstances impaired my father’s ability to present his case properly, and contributed to additional trauma for both my parents.
During the night, my mother woke up and panicked upon finding out what had happened. This caused unnecessary distress to a terminally ill woman. She was so shocked that she staggered and fell – and with her spinal problems this was agonisingly painful. This simply would not have happened if my father had been approached at a more civilised time.
My father declined a solicitor in the hope of getting home to her more quickly, and also because he naively thought one was not necessary if you are innocent. This raises additonal questions. Northumbria Police went and got him at a time of their choosing, and there was no need to wait for a solicitor. Why then was he confined in a cell before being questioned?
If the delay was due to interview rooms being busy, then this gives the lie to the assertion by Mair that duration in custody was reduced by the timing of the arrest 'compared to a busy time during the day'. If the interview rooms were not busy then why was the custody period unnecessarily extended?
It should also be noted that my father had explained to the officers that he needed to take care of my mother who was very ill. All concerned knew they were putting an elderly and very sick person at risk by detaining my father and are therefore responsible for the harm she suffered.
All of this could have been avoided if Northumbria Police had approached my father in a sensitive manner or at a sensible time of day rather than blundering in whenever it was convenient for them.
By not intervening Lilley condoned the arrest and is therefore responsible for the harm caused. He is also a liar. My father went to the police station voluntarily despite the difficulties it caused him, and was arrested there despite obviously being willing to cooperate. This proves that he would have cooperated if approached to take a voluntary interview. Lilley's account of the arrest, however, claims that the arrest took place at the house. It did not.
Originally I assumed Lilley had simply made a mistake, but I no longer believe that. It seems likely that Lilley's account is intended to undermine the complaint by removing the proof that my father would have cooperated. However, there is still no reason to suppose my father would not have cooperated. If his account is true then he did cooperate. If Lilley's version of events is true then my father was never given the opportunity. This raises the question: why not? either way, there is no reason to believe my father would not have cooperated voluntarily so an arrest to force him to answer questions is clearly unjustified.
Be that as it may, an arrest was made, and the reason given for it was ‘for the protection of a child or other vulnerable person’. Nobody was in more danger from my father as he got ready for bed at 10:30 Saturday night than had been for the four previous days – and Northumbria Police has said it finds nothing wrong with its lack of action during that time. So if it was not urgently necessary to arrest my father in order to protect children during the whole of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, why was it suddenly necessary late on Saturday night?
Obviously, it was not. This was simply the time Northumbria Police chose to do it. In response to our complaint, Northumbria Police provided an account of what they did, but no explanation of why these actions were taken.
In addition to conducting his questioning in a manner that amounted to bullying a confused and vulnerable old man, Mair displayed a complete lack of empathy and professional concern about the welfare of my family. My father protested that he could not leave my mother, who needed constant care. PC Mair said he could come back the following night at the same time – creating the same problem all over again – but offered no other options. My father was not offered the option to be questioned during the day.
My father was approached by the police at a time of their choosing. They picked a moment when he was tired, and sufficient time had passed that he struggled to recall his movements on Tuesday morning. Notably he forgot to mention that he had been at the doctor’s surgery with my mother at a time that would make it impossible to be involved in the sex offence. He has spent many nights lying awake torturing himself with what he might have said if only his memory were better – he has such a bad memory that he has taken tests to see if he is developing Alzheimer’s Disease – or if he had been approached in a way that let him think more clearly.
My father was taken to Southwick Police Station where he was arrested and then locked in a cell. He was subsequently interviewed until around 3AM – at the time of day when the human body is at its lowest ebb. In addition, he was gravely concerned for the welfare of his wife, who was terminally ill and needed his constant support. These circumstances impaired my father’s ability to present his case properly, and contributed to additional trauma for both my parents.
During the night, my mother woke up and panicked upon finding out what had happened. This caused unnecessary distress to a terminally ill woman. She was so shocked that she staggered and fell – and with her spinal problems this was agonisingly painful. This simply would not have happened if my father had been approached at a more civilised time.
My father declined a solicitor in the hope of getting home to her more quickly, and also because he naively thought one was not necessary if you are innocent. This raises additonal questions. Northumbria Police went and got him at a time of their choosing, and there was no need to wait for a solicitor. Why then was he confined in a cell before being questioned?
If the delay was due to interview rooms being busy, then this gives the lie to the assertion by Mair that duration in custody was reduced by the timing of the arrest 'compared to a busy time during the day'. If the interview rooms were not busy then why was the custody period unnecessarily extended?
It should also be noted that my father had explained to the officers that he needed to take care of my mother who was very ill. All concerned knew they were putting an elderly and very sick person at risk by detaining my father and are therefore responsible for the harm she suffered.
All of this could have been avoided if Northumbria Police had approached my father in a sensitive manner or at a sensible time of day rather than blundering in whenever it was convenient for them.
Lawfulness of the Arrest
There can be no doubt that this matter was handled in a grossly heavy-handed manner. Northumbria Police have asserted that the arrest was lawful, but this is not the case.
To be lawful, an arrest must satisfy two criteria. The arresting officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect a person’s involvement, suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence and must have reasonable grounds to believe an arrest to be necessary at that time.
This alone makes the lawfulness of the arrest highly dubious. The first incident 'did not constitute a criminal offence' in the words of Northumbria Police, even if it had happened as alleged. Therefore there is no lawful arrest to be made regarding this matter. The second incident apparently did constitute a criminal offence, if it happened as alleged. However, the only suggestion my father could be connected to it was his possession of a small red car.
To inflict the trauma and embarrassment of arrest on someone on such flimsy grounds is unacceptable. To do so late at night after several days in which a more proportionate response could have been made is worse. If if it were somehow lawful this action would still be heavy-handed to the point of being cruel. A police force that considers this an appropriate way of handling such a matter is morally bankrupt and unworthy of public support.
At this point the custody sergeant made himself part of the incident by authorising detention.
To quote the College of Policing:
'Only the custody officer can authorise or refuse to authorise detention. This decision can only be made after the custody officer has personally listened to the grounds for arrest from the officer who has brought the detainee into custody.
[...]
Detention is always the last resort and custody officers should authorise detention only when it is necessary to detain rather than when it is convenient or expedient. The decision should not be seen as a rubber-stamping of the necessity to arrest but as a separate independent decision. This determination of necessity continues throughout the time in custody and should be regularly reviewed...'
Northumbria Police decided to arrest on Tuesday morning but arranged for the arrest to be carried out on Friday night. This was planned and agreed by (presumably) Mair's superior. In the event the arrest was carried out on Saturday. This deliberate delay invalidates all the reasons an arrest might be deemed necessary.
According to PACE, there are six reasons why an arrest might be deemed necessary and therefore lawful. None of those apply, so the arrest was not lawful.
(a). To enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained
This obviously does not apply. Northumbria Police already knew who my father was.
(b). Correspondingly as regards the person’s address:
This obviously does not apply. Northumbria Police already knew where my father lived.
(c) to prevent the person in question:
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
There was never any evidence that my father might do any of these things. The decision to arrest in several days' time indicates that Northumbria Police did not consider any of these actions imminent or even likely. If they did, then the decision to leave my father at large for several days would be reckless and negligent. Since Northumbria Police PSD has stated they are not concerned about the delay it is clear that no concern existed about any of these possibilities.
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question.
This might apply when the health (physical or mental) or welfare of a child or vulnerable person is likely to be harmed or is at risk of being harmed, if the person is not arrested in cases where it is not practicable and appropriate to make alternative arrangements to prevent the suspect from having any harmful or potentially harmful contact with the child or vulnerable person.
This is the reason given for the arrest. However, the fact that a decision was made to do nothing for several days then arrest at a prearranged time indicates that it does not apply. No child or other vulnerable person was any more at risk on Friday or Saturday night than during the preceding several days. If Northumbria Police considered children or vulnerable people were at risk then the decision to wait would be reckless and negligent. PSD has indicated the delay was 'not excessive' and did not appear to be concerned about it. Therefore, it is clear that arrest was not necessary at the time it was made.
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question. See Note 2E
This may arise when it is thought likely that unless the person is arrested and then either taken in custody to the police station or granted ‘street bail’ to attend the station later, see Note 2J, further action considered necessary to properly investigate their involvement in the offence would be frustrated, unreasonably delayed or otherwise hindered and therefore be impracticable. Examples of such actions include:
(i) interviewing the suspect on occasions when the person’s voluntary attendance is not considered to be a practicable alternative to arrest, because for example:
In short, there is no reason whatsoever why an arrest at 10:30 on Saturday night could be considered necessary. My father could have been asked to attend a voluntary interview at any time in the preceding days, or the next morning. No reason has ever been given why he was not, but the reason is obvious. This was a routine job, which was handled in the most convenient manner possible without due regard to the welfare of the supposedly presumed-innocent, vulnerable subject. Rather than undertake the minor inconvenience of a handover, Northumbria Police left the job with Mair in the full knowledge that his shift pattern would result in a late-night arrest.
Even if an arrest had been necessary to facilitate investigation - and there is no indication my father would not have cooperated - the matter could have been handled sensitively, with an approach at a civilised time or a request to attend a voluntary interview. Instead Northumbria Police chose to act in an arrogant, high-handed and reckless manner which harmed and is still harming an entire family.
To reiterate: 'Detention is always the last resort and custody officers should authorise detention only when it is necessary to detain rather than when it is convenient or expedient.'
If there were some reason why this last resort was necessary, Northumbria Police would have presented it. The fact they have instead obfuscated the matter is a clear indication that there was no lawful reason for the arrest. It was simply convenient for the personnel involved and the force as a whole to behave this way.
To be lawful, an arrest must satisfy two criteria. The arresting officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect a person’s involvement, suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence and must have reasonable grounds to believe an arrest to be necessary at that time.
This alone makes the lawfulness of the arrest highly dubious. The first incident 'did not constitute a criminal offence' in the words of Northumbria Police, even if it had happened as alleged. Therefore there is no lawful arrest to be made regarding this matter. The second incident apparently did constitute a criminal offence, if it happened as alleged. However, the only suggestion my father could be connected to it was his possession of a small red car.
To inflict the trauma and embarrassment of arrest on someone on such flimsy grounds is unacceptable. To do so late at night after several days in which a more proportionate response could have been made is worse. If if it were somehow lawful this action would still be heavy-handed to the point of being cruel. A police force that considers this an appropriate way of handling such a matter is morally bankrupt and unworthy of public support.
At this point the custody sergeant made himself part of the incident by authorising detention.
To quote the College of Policing:
'Only the custody officer can authorise or refuse to authorise detention. This decision can only be made after the custody officer has personally listened to the grounds for arrest from the officer who has brought the detainee into custody.
[...]
Detention is always the last resort and custody officers should authorise detention only when it is necessary to detain rather than when it is convenient or expedient. The decision should not be seen as a rubber-stamping of the necessity to arrest but as a separate independent decision. This determination of necessity continues throughout the time in custody and should be regularly reviewed...'
Northumbria Police decided to arrest on Tuesday morning but arranged for the arrest to be carried out on Friday night. This was planned and agreed by (presumably) Mair's superior. In the event the arrest was carried out on Saturday. This deliberate delay invalidates all the reasons an arrest might be deemed necessary.
According to PACE, there are six reasons why an arrest might be deemed necessary and therefore lawful. None of those apply, so the arrest was not lawful.
(a). To enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained
This obviously does not apply. Northumbria Police already knew who my father was.
(b). Correspondingly as regards the person’s address:
This obviously does not apply. Northumbria Police already knew where my father lived.
(c) to prevent the person in question:
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
There was never any evidence that my father might do any of these things. The decision to arrest in several days' time indicates that Northumbria Police did not consider any of these actions imminent or even likely. If they did, then the decision to leave my father at large for several days would be reckless and negligent. Since Northumbria Police PSD has stated they are not concerned about the delay it is clear that no concern existed about any of these possibilities.
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question.
This might apply when the health (physical or mental) or welfare of a child or vulnerable person is likely to be harmed or is at risk of being harmed, if the person is not arrested in cases where it is not practicable and appropriate to make alternative arrangements to prevent the suspect from having any harmful or potentially harmful contact with the child or vulnerable person.
This is the reason given for the arrest. However, the fact that a decision was made to do nothing for several days then arrest at a prearranged time indicates that it does not apply. No child or other vulnerable person was any more at risk on Friday or Saturday night than during the preceding several days. If Northumbria Police considered children or vulnerable people were at risk then the decision to wait would be reckless and negligent. PSD has indicated the delay was 'not excessive' and did not appear to be concerned about it. Therefore, it is clear that arrest was not necessary at the time it was made.
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question. See Note 2E
This may arise when it is thought likely that unless the person is arrested and then either taken in custody to the police station or granted ‘street bail’ to attend the station later, see Note 2J, further action considered necessary to properly investigate their involvement in the offence would be frustrated, unreasonably delayed or otherwise hindered and therefore be impracticable. Examples of such actions include:
(i) interviewing the suspect on occasions when the person’s voluntary attendance is not considered to be a practicable alternative to arrest, because for example:
- it is thought unlikely that the person would attend the police station voluntarily to be interviewed.
- it is necessary to interview the suspect about the outcome of other investigative action for which their arrest is necessary,
In short, there is no reason whatsoever why an arrest at 10:30 on Saturday night could be considered necessary. My father could have been asked to attend a voluntary interview at any time in the preceding days, or the next morning. No reason has ever been given why he was not, but the reason is obvious. This was a routine job, which was handled in the most convenient manner possible without due regard to the welfare of the supposedly presumed-innocent, vulnerable subject. Rather than undertake the minor inconvenience of a handover, Northumbria Police left the job with Mair in the full knowledge that his shift pattern would result in a late-night arrest.
Even if an arrest had been necessary to facilitate investigation - and there is no indication my father would not have cooperated - the matter could have been handled sensitively, with an approach at a civilised time or a request to attend a voluntary interview. Instead Northumbria Police chose to act in an arrogant, high-handed and reckless manner which harmed and is still harming an entire family.
To reiterate: 'Detention is always the last resort and custody officers should authorise detention only when it is necessary to detain rather than when it is convenient or expedient.'
If there were some reason why this last resort was necessary, Northumbria Police would have presented it. The fact they have instead obfuscated the matter is a clear indication that there was no lawful reason for the arrest. It was simply convenient for the personnel involved and the force as a whole to behave this way.
Mair's Decision Process
It is reasonable to assume that PC Mair knew he was going to the home of a 76 year old (this information would be available when my father’s address was obtained using the registration of his car), and that many old people are asleep at that time of night. He also could reasonably be expected to know that many older people are vulnerable for many reasons, and that an approach late at night might aggravate any vulnerabilities that existed.
PC Mair also knew or ought to know that being arrested at 11PM or so will lead to being in detention at the police station and under questioning until the early hours of the morning – around 3AM in this case. This is certain to be more traumatic and upsetting for the subject than being arrested during the day.
Northumbria Police will not explain why PC Mair decided that an arrest was necessary, nor why he chose to do it at a time that would be more than usually traumatic for the subject. The reason given for the arrest was 'for the protection of a child or other vulnerable person'. Did Mair really think my father would abandon his sick wife and go out looking for someone to be a threat to in the early hours of the morning? If not, then why could this matter not have been handled the next morning? It had already waited four and a half days, which we are told was 'not excessive'.
Mair had absolutely no idea what the circumstances of the subject (my father) were, other than his age. He did not know what vulnerabilities might exist or if there was some reason why an approach late at night was particularly inappropriate. In fact, he knew very little at all about the situation but went to my parents’ home ‘blind’ as it were, without making any attempt to determine, mitigate or manage the risks.
In the event, there were three people in the house when Mair arrived, all of whom suffered from some condition that would define them as vulnerable. I have chosen to omit some details of my family’s circumstances since this is a public document. What remains is damning enough.
At that time my mother was in constant severe pain due to spinal surgery for a herniated disc that had not gone well. She was also suffering from the late stages of pancreatic cancer, though a diagnosis had not yet been made. My father was aware that if she was woken up she would not get back to sleep that night.
My father was mentally fragile as a result of being a victim of crime some years ago, and in addition was nursing his gravely ill wife of 50 years. He has an amazing talent for mending broken things but is completely unable to deal with bureaucracy and officialdom as a result of his earlier trauma. My mother always dealt with matters of that sort for him.
Mair could not have known how vulnerable the family were, but he did know that he had no information on the subject. The National Decision Model requires consideration of ‘what do I not know?’. Did Mair consider the possibility that my father and his family might be extremely vulnerable? If so, what factor outweighed that risk so greatly that Mair had to arrest him at 11PM on Saturday night rather than arranging for someone to approach him 12 hours later at 11 in the morning? Or did he just mindlessly carry out a decision he had made on Tuesday morning without giving any thought to what could go wrong?
Like many other questions, this has not been answered by Northumbria Police. Again, if there were good reasons Northumbria Police would have presented them rather than sending a Temporary Assistant Chief Constable round to our houses - on three occasions - to talk around the subject and say nothing meaningful.
PC Mair also knew or ought to know that being arrested at 11PM or so will lead to being in detention at the police station and under questioning until the early hours of the morning – around 3AM in this case. This is certain to be more traumatic and upsetting for the subject than being arrested during the day.
Northumbria Police will not explain why PC Mair decided that an arrest was necessary, nor why he chose to do it at a time that would be more than usually traumatic for the subject. The reason given for the arrest was 'for the protection of a child or other vulnerable person'. Did Mair really think my father would abandon his sick wife and go out looking for someone to be a threat to in the early hours of the morning? If not, then why could this matter not have been handled the next morning? It had already waited four and a half days, which we are told was 'not excessive'.
Mair had absolutely no idea what the circumstances of the subject (my father) were, other than his age. He did not know what vulnerabilities might exist or if there was some reason why an approach late at night was particularly inappropriate. In fact, he knew very little at all about the situation but went to my parents’ home ‘blind’ as it were, without making any attempt to determine, mitigate or manage the risks.
In the event, there were three people in the house when Mair arrived, all of whom suffered from some condition that would define them as vulnerable. I have chosen to omit some details of my family’s circumstances since this is a public document. What remains is damning enough.
At that time my mother was in constant severe pain due to spinal surgery for a herniated disc that had not gone well. She was also suffering from the late stages of pancreatic cancer, though a diagnosis had not yet been made. My father was aware that if she was woken up she would not get back to sleep that night.
My father was mentally fragile as a result of being a victim of crime some years ago, and in addition was nursing his gravely ill wife of 50 years. He has an amazing talent for mending broken things but is completely unable to deal with bureaucracy and officialdom as a result of his earlier trauma. My mother always dealt with matters of that sort for him.
Mair could not have known how vulnerable the family were, but he did know that he had no information on the subject. The National Decision Model requires consideration of ‘what do I not know?’. Did Mair consider the possibility that my father and his family might be extremely vulnerable? If so, what factor outweighed that risk so greatly that Mair had to arrest him at 11PM on Saturday night rather than arranging for someone to approach him 12 hours later at 11 in the morning? Or did he just mindlessly carry out a decision he had made on Tuesday morning without giving any thought to what could go wrong?
Like many other questions, this has not been answered by Northumbria Police. Again, if there were good reasons Northumbria Police would have presented them rather than sending a Temporary Assistant Chief Constable round to our houses - on three occasions - to talk around the subject and say nothing meaningful.
Northumbria Police Responses
The first complaint was dealt with by an Inspector Craig, whose bias is obvious. It may be that
· · The First Complaint
· · My father initially approached Northumbria Police without making a formal complaint. He was visited at his home by Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, Area Force Commander. The matter was discussed and my father took away from the discussion the understanding that all information relating to the arrest would be expunged. We have since been told that Noble could not have said this as he was not empowered to do so, but this is what my parents understood was to happen.
In early 2017, shortly after being diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, my mother was hospitalised for a time and returned home for what would be the last three weeks of her life. During this time my father was informed that in fact details of his arrest would be retained since it was connected with a sex crime, despite the fact that there was never any evidence against him regarding such an offence. This means that at any time, though no fault of his own, my father could be put through the whole experience again.
Having been informed that the record would in fact not be expunged my father decided to pursue a complaint. The response to the complaint makes no attempt to explain the bizarre decision to do nothing for best part of a week then arrest a vulnerable old man in the middle of the night, and raises other questions – among other things it cites an unproven allegation as fact and presents a version of the arrest that is untrue.
The complaint was partially upheld but upon reaching the settlement phase Northumbria Police decided that their actions were in fact lawful. My father chose not to go to court over an insultingly small amount of compensation, since the money is irrelevant and he cannot face the stress of a court case. What he wants is an admission that the arrest was inappropriate, and Northumbria Police seem to have decided this is not the case.
The response to this complaint also cites the allegation made (by the youths) against my father as if it were fact. The police never investigated this matter; if they had they would have found that the allegation is baseless and that the youths were guilty of an offence of littering. Despite this, the complaint response cites the allegation as fact. This seems to be a presumption of guilt. They also have stated he has ‘admitted’ to this incident, which is misleading.
My father was indeed involved in an incident in Ashbrooke, but it was one in which he spoke up when he saw youths engaging in anti-social behaviour and was punished with a malicious allegation. He did not threaten anyone and most certainly has not ‘admitted’ to doing so. The statement that he did, made in response to both complaints, appears to be a misrepresentation of the circumstances intended to make the actions of Northumbria Police seem a little less unreasonable. PSD was made aware of our concerns but seem to think there is nothing wrong with any of this. They continue to take the line that my father has ‘admitted’ to the incident.
My father did not admit to the incident as described in the allegation, for the very good reason that it is the invention of an angry youth who was upset at being told he should not drop litter wherever he pleased. My father did not admit to threatening anyone, but Northumbria Police continues to pretend he has.
I have indicated to the police that I would like to see the interview transcripts to determine just what they claim my father has ‘admitted’ to. It may be that the questioning my father faced in the early hours of the morning was vague and leading, or they may simply be interpreting what was said in a manner that supports their position. However, they continue to be vague about exactly what they are claiming he ‘admitted’ to.
This is one of a number of concerns I have about the way this matter was handled. Lack of clarity and transparency has greatly assisted Northumbria Police in evading responsibility for its actions, and contributes to an overall impression that far from being the forthright and honest people we used to admire, Northumbria Police can best be described as ‘a bit slippery’ when someone tries to get a straight answer out of them.
Muddying the waters has worked well for them in this matter – they have successfully evaded consequences from both complaints. However, it has completely destroyed our trust in Northumbria Police. Considering our viewpoint when this all started, that is damning.
· · The First Complaint
· · My father initially approached Northumbria Police without making a formal complaint. He was visited at his home by Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, Area Force Commander. The matter was discussed and my father took away from the discussion the understanding that all information relating to the arrest would be expunged. We have since been told that Noble could not have said this as he was not empowered to do so, but this is what my parents understood was to happen.
In early 2017, shortly after being diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, my mother was hospitalised for a time and returned home for what would be the last three weeks of her life. During this time my father was informed that in fact details of his arrest would be retained since it was connected with a sex crime, despite the fact that there was never any evidence against him regarding such an offence. This means that at any time, though no fault of his own, my father could be put through the whole experience again.
Having been informed that the record would in fact not be expunged my father decided to pursue a complaint. The response to the complaint makes no attempt to explain the bizarre decision to do nothing for best part of a week then arrest a vulnerable old man in the middle of the night, and raises other questions – among other things it cites an unproven allegation as fact and presents a version of the arrest that is untrue.
The complaint was partially upheld but upon reaching the settlement phase Northumbria Police decided that their actions were in fact lawful. My father chose not to go to court over an insultingly small amount of compensation, since the money is irrelevant and he cannot face the stress of a court case. What he wants is an admission that the arrest was inappropriate, and Northumbria Police seem to have decided this is not the case.
The response to this complaint also cites the allegation made (by the youths) against my father as if it were fact. The police never investigated this matter; if they had they would have found that the allegation is baseless and that the youths were guilty of an offence of littering. Despite this, the complaint response cites the allegation as fact. This seems to be a presumption of guilt. They also have stated he has ‘admitted’ to this incident, which is misleading.
My father was indeed involved in an incident in Ashbrooke, but it was one in which he spoke up when he saw youths engaging in anti-social behaviour and was punished with a malicious allegation. He did not threaten anyone and most certainly has not ‘admitted’ to doing so. The statement that he did, made in response to both complaints, appears to be a misrepresentation of the circumstances intended to make the actions of Northumbria Police seem a little less unreasonable. PSD was made aware of our concerns but seem to think there is nothing wrong with any of this. They continue to take the line that my father has ‘admitted’ to the incident.
My father did not admit to the incident as described in the allegation, for the very good reason that it is the invention of an angry youth who was upset at being told he should not drop litter wherever he pleased. My father did not admit to threatening anyone, but Northumbria Police continues to pretend he has.
I have indicated to the police that I would like to see the interview transcripts to determine just what they claim my father has ‘admitted’ to. It may be that the questioning my father faced in the early hours of the morning was vague and leading, or they may simply be interpreting what was said in a manner that supports their position. However, they continue to be vague about exactly what they are claiming he ‘admitted’ to.
This is one of a number of concerns I have about the way this matter was handled. Lack of clarity and transparency has greatly assisted Northumbria Police in evading responsibility for its actions, and contributes to an overall impression that far from being the forthright and honest people we used to admire, Northumbria Police can best be described as ‘a bit slippery’ when someone tries to get a straight answer out of them.
Muddying the waters has worked well for them in this matter – they have successfully evaded consequences from both complaints. However, it has completely destroyed our trust in Northumbria Police. Considering our viewpoint when this all started, that is damning.
The Civil Settlement: My father’s solicitor asked for a very small sum considering the damage caused, but we were never interested in the money. What we wanted was an admission that the arrest should not have happened. However, when the time came to settle Northumbria Police changed their stance from ‘you clearly deserve an apology’ to a statement that they would not settle as they say their actions were lawful. My father would be forced to struggle through a court case – which he is too traumatised to face – in order to obtain compensation he does not want. All we want is an admission that this should not have happened, and Northumbria Police have indicated that they are quite happy with everything their officers did so no such admission will be made.
Who is to blame? Northumbria Police are quite sure it is not them. There were reasons (but they will not tell us what they were) for deciding to make an arrest on Tuesday and carrying it out late at night on Saturday. They are allowed to arrest people at any time if they think it is necessary (but they will not explain to us why they thought it was necessary). So they think they have nothing to explain.
PC Mair and his colleague Lilley are not, Northumbria Police claim, responsible for the outcome of their actions because they could not have predicted how vulnerable my elderly parents were before they arrived at the house at 10:30 on Saturday night. And my sister’s instability cannot be a factor because my father – tired, flustered, under pressure and worried that his sick wife would be woken up – did not adequately explain how unstable she is.
So their position has gone from ‘you clearly deserve an explanation and apology’ to finding ways that their failure to safeguard vulnerable people is somehow my father’s fault for being too vulnerable to deal with the situation Northumbria Police chose to place him in.
· · What Do We Think Of This?
· ·
Northumbria Police clearly was in a position to handle this matter at a time of their choosing, and chose to do it late at night for reasons they will not explain. They created a situation that would aggravate any vulnerabilities that existed and would result in an elderly man being questioned in the early hours of the morning. They could not have known how vulnerable my family was, but they created a situation where those vulnerabilities resulted in serious consequences.
We have repeatedly asked for an explanation but no good reason has been offered to us. So we return to our original suspicions – that all of this happened because the police took the easiest and simplest approach to getting a routine job done. In so doing they failed to consider the implications for the subject, and inflicted immense suffering on an innocent old man and his dying wife.
Up to this point it was all just a stupid, tragic mistake. It could have been resolved with an apology and a sincere effort to make amends. But instead they have chosen to obfuscate the issue, to make spurious excuses and to hide behind a rigged complaints procedure that they control. They know they have harmed innocents by their actions, but rather than ‘doing the right thing’ like their literature says they do they have instead chosen to try to get away with it.
They know they have caused tremendous harm to innocent people, but they have just gone about their business and forced us to struggle through a legal process in order to prove wrongdoing.
Well, we all know who else behaves like that….
We have repeatedly asked for an explanation but no good reason has been offered to us. So we return to our original suspicions – that all of this happened because the police took the easiest and simplest approach to getting a routine job done. In so doing they failed to consider the implications for the subject, and inflicted immense suffering on an innocent old man and his dying wife.
Up to this point it was all just a stupid, tragic mistake. It could have been resolved with an apology and a sincere effort to make amends. But instead they have chosen to obfuscate the issue, to make spurious excuses and to hide behind a rigged complaints procedure that they control. They know they have harmed innocents by their actions, but rather than ‘doing the right thing’ like their literature says they do they have instead chosen to try to get away with it.
They know they have caused tremendous harm to innocent people, but they have just gone about their business and forced us to struggle through a legal process in order to prove wrongdoing.
Well, we all know who else behaves like that….
When you make a complaint about the actions of the police, they first decide whether to record it as a complaint or reject it for one of various reasons. They then write a set of allegations they propose to investigate and then investigate them. They get to decide if their answer is adequate and even if they have totally misinterpreted your allegations or failed to address key points you are not allowed to repeat the complaint – they will simply reject it as repetitious. You can appeal to the IOPC, but as I have discovered this is fairly pointless.
So basically they decide what questions they are going to ask themselves and whether their answers are satisfactory. Now that might be acceptable if complaints were handled in a competent, professional and fair manner.
My experience is that they are not.
· · The First Complaint
· · My father initially approached Northumbria Police without making a formal complaint. He was visited at his home by Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, Area Force Commander. The matter was discussed and my father took away from the discussion the understanding that all information relating to the arrest would be expunged. We have since been told that Noble could not have said this as he was not empowered to do so, but this is what my parents understood was to happen.
In early 2017, shortly after being diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, my mother was hospitalised for a time and returned home for what would be the last three weeks of her life. During this time my father was informed that in fact details of his arrest would be retained since it was connected with a sex crime, despite the fact that there was never any evidence against him regarding such an offence. This means that at any time, though no fault of his own, my father could be put through the whole experience again.
Having been informed that the record would in fact not be expunged my father decided to pursue a complaint. The response to the complaint makes no attempt to explain the bizarre decision to do nothing for best part of a week then arrest a vulnerable old man in the middle of the night, and raises other questions – among other things it cites an unproven allegation as fact and presents a version of the arrest that is untrue.
The complaint was partially upheld but upon reaching the settlement phase Northumbria Police decided that their actions were in fact lawful. My father chose not to go to court over an insultingly small amount of compensation, since the money is irrelevant and he cannot face the stress of a court case. What he wants is an admission that the arrest was inappropriate, and Northumbria Police seem to have decided this is not the case.
The response to this complaint also cites the allegation made (by the youths) against my father as if it were fact. The police never investigated this matter; if they had they would have found that the allegation is baseless and that the youths were guilty of an offence of littering. Despite this, the complaint response cites the allegation as fact. This seems to be a presumption of guilt. They also have stated he has ‘admitted’ to this incident, which is misleading.
My father was indeed involved in an incident in Ashbrooke, but it was one in which he spoke up when he saw youths engaging in anti-social behaviour and was punished with a malicious allegation. He did not threaten anyone and most certainly has not ‘admitted’ to doing so. The statement that he did, made in response to both complaints, appears to be a misrepresentation of the circumstances intended to make the actions of Northumbria Police seem a little less unreasonable. PSD was made aware of our concerns but seem to think there is nothing wrong with any of this. They continue to take the line that my father has ‘admitted’ to the incident.
My father did not admit to the incident as described in the allegation, for the very good reason that it is the invention of an angry youth who was upset at being told he should not drop litter wherever he pleased. My father did not admit to threatening anyone, but Northumbria Police continues to pretend he has.
I have indicated to the police that I would like to see the interview transcripts to determine just what they claim my father has ‘admitted’ to. It may be that the questioning my father faced in the early hours of the morning was vague and leading, or they may simply be interpreting what was said in a manner that supports their position. However, they continue to be vague about exactly what they are claiming he ‘admitted’ to.
This is one of a number of concerns I have about the way this matter was handled. Lack of clarity and transparency has greatly assisted Northumbria Police in evading responsibility for its actions, and contributes to an overall impression that far from being the forthright and honest people we used to admire, Northumbria Police can best be described as ‘a bit slippery’ when someone tries to get a straight answer out of them.
Muddying the waters has worked well for them in this matter – they have successfully evaded consequences from both complaints. However, it has completely destroyed our trust in Northumbria Police. Considering our viewpoint when this all started, that is damning.
· · The Second Complaint
· · A few hours before my mother died, my father asked me to take over handling this matter. He is simply unable to face it. I agreed, initially approaching my MP who forwarded my email concerning the matter to the Chief Constable. This resulted in a confused set of communications and a refusal to consider the matter.
I was also in communication with (then) Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, who had visited my parents twice and my home once. I raised a new complaint which revolved around five key points – three of which had not been considered in the first complaint and two which arose from it. This was rejected out of hand by Northumbria Police as ‘repetitious’ of the first complaint.
An appeal to the (then) IPCC produced a response that the complaint could not possibly be repetitious as it dealt with issues arising from the first (this would have been obvious to anyone who actually read it) and Northumbria Police was required to record it after all.
Professional Standards then produced a list of allegations they proposed to investigate, ostensibly drawn from my complaint. In fact, they bore little resemblance to it and seemed to be tailored to an easy rejection. Northumbria Police write the allegations then investigate them. This gives them a unique ability to duck awkward questions by arranging for them not to be asked.
I naturally requested changes. Some were implemented (badly); others were ignored for some reason. These were in the middle of the document and would have been missed had I not gone over it very carefully. If that had happened Northumbria Police would never have had to answer some of the questions I was posing. I requested more changes, which were implemented in an equally shoddy manner . Eventually I wrote a draft set of allegations and asked PSD to use mine rather than the ones their staff were producing.
It is obvious that PSD were simply dashing off a quick response without giving the matter due attention. A cursory read-back would have indicated how poor their efforts were; some allegations were so badly written that I was unsure what they were about even though it was me that raised the initial complaint. Others did not make sense or contained errors that would have been obvious had the author troubled themselves to read back what they had written. The lack of professionalism shown in these communications is worrying.
They couldn’t even mis-spell our names consistently, and in some cases sentences just didn’t make sense. If this is how Professional Standards communicate, how can the public have any faith in them?
· · Response to the Second Complaint
· · As expected, Northumbria Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) rejected all but one of my allegations. Their response entirely fails to address many of the allegations made in the complaint, and makes no attempt to answer the key questions – why arrest an old man away from his dying wife in the middle of the night when you have had several days to make a more suitable approach?
One point was upheld. PSD conceded that PC Mair could have done a better job of informing my father that no further action would be taken against him. He has received ‘management action’ over this failing.
The only problem is that PC Mair was not responsible for this failing and the complaint was not directed at him. Those responsible, the staff at the front desk at the police station on October 29th, were ignored in the PSD response. The fact that the only point to be upheld was upheld against the wrong people sums up the whole process.
There were other problems with the response. We pointed out that the account of the arrest provided by the police is wrong, and as an illustration I noted that they claim the arrest took place at 10:55 at the house and he was at the custody suite (a 10-minute drive away) at 11:05. My father could not make that trip in that time to save his life – it would take him most of the available time to get off his chair and out to the police van.
Professional Standards responded to this by telling us that PC Mair never claimed the whole interaction took place over 10 minutes, and pointed out the account of how he got there at 10:25. So our allegation that the account of the arrest is wrong was rejected.
Of course, we never said Mair claimed the whole interaction took place over 10 minutes. We said that the timing between the arrest and arrival at the police station was impossible to achieve. We said that as an indication that other parts of the account might also be incorrect, which was the focus of the allegation.
So, they dealt with our allegation by pretending we’d said something quite different (and which was, not coincidentally, very easy to disprove) and ignoring the allegation we actually made. This was not the first wild misinterpretation that had occurred. The original set of allegations they created from my complaint was particularly creative, and one was so badly written I was not sure what it was about despite having made the original complaint.
I wrote to Northumbria Police expressing my concern over the conduct of their Professional Standards Department. Nobody troubled themselves to answer. I have now approached the Police and Crimes Commissioner about the matter.
· · The IOPC
· · I was obviously not satisfied that PSD had dealt fairly with my complaint – they ignored the usual questions and failed to address any of the important issues – but the IOPC response was particularly worrying. They have told me that some matters I most definitely did bring up in the complaint were not present. It is worth noting that PSD write the allegations they propose to investigate from the text of the complaint. I had assumed what they distilled out of my complaint adequately encapsulated it, but the IOPC seems to disagree.
They also say that some items included in my complaint are outside their remit and need to be raised with Northumbria Police. I had already raised these points in my complaint and was appealing to the IOPC on the grounds that they had not been considered. Since any renewed attempt will be rejected as repetitious by PSD these questions will never be answered.
The whole process seems to be designed to protect the police rather than ensure a professional standard.
Perhaps most worrying, the IOPC stated that the one part of my complaint to be upheld was ‘proportionate’. However, as I pointed out in my appeal to them, this was upheld against the wrong person. They condoned PSD’s decision to recommend management action against one officer when my complaint was clearly directed at others.
Let me restate that: PSD ‘upheld’ my complaint but against the wrong officer. I pointed this out to the IOPC but they rejected my assertion and are presumably quite happy for consequences to fall on the wrong people.
It is not possible to have any faith in such a body.
· · The Current Situation
· · My father still has PTSD and cannot sleep at night. This is affecting his physical as well as mental health. Northumbria Police know this but other than some vague words of sympathy they are not interested.
I have written to the Home Office and my MP, among others, and I intend to continue my efforts to hold Northumbria Police to account for their actions. I promised to do so at my mother’s bedside as she lay dying… this is a promise I have to keep.
· · Other Failings
· · In December 2016 Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, Area Force Commander (at the time Temporary Assistant Chief Constable), promised my father an apology and explanation. He seemed very helpful and sympathetic at the time, but it is notable that once it became apparent we were not going to politely go away, T/ACC Noble seems to have lost interest. In December 2017 Noble told me in an email he would try to set up a meeting aimed at getting me answers to my questions. That never happened, and my requests for an update have gone unanswered.
My father was delighted when I told him about ACC Noble’s offer, but since then I have had to repeatedly tell him ‘no, they’ve gone quiet about it and aren’t answering when I ask’. Letting him down like that is worse than never showing an interest at all. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the personal intervention of the Area Force Commander was not, after all, a sign that Northumbria Police actually cared about what they had done to an elderly and vulnerable man… it was just a damage-control exercise and was for their benefit, not ours.
I would be very pleased to be proven wrong on that, but on balance of probabilities it seems unlikely.
Likewise, at the original meeting the Area Force Commander told my family that a case study might be created so that Northumbria Police could learn from this matter. He also told us in his initial letter that we deserved an explanation and an apology. None of that seems likely to ever happen, and when I asked about the case study I received no response at all.
To put that another way… if the Area Commander cared enough in late 2016 to mid 2017 to visit us at home and to say we deserved an apology, why is it that we still do not have the answers he promised?
There is also the matter of my father’s treatment at Southwick Police Station. He had been bailed to attend the police station on October 29th, and duly did so.
My father was terrified of what might happen to him, mainly because it might take him away from my mother when she needed him the most. We have been – unhelpfully – informed that he ‘need not have worried’ and that ‘there is nothing to worry about if you are innocent’ but the fact is he did worry… and as circumstances have demonstrated even if you are innocent you can still be arrested in the middle of the night.
At the police station my father was informed – if that is the right word – that no further action would be taken. This was not done in a professional or respectful manner. Indeed, my father’s treatment at the police station was offhand to the point of being insulting, and deeply offended my mother who accompanied him. Essentially the officers present called to one another ‘no further action?’ ‘yeah’ without actually engaging with my father. As well as being insulting this left him unsure the matter was ended and contributed to his ongoing distress.
We protested this treatment in the second complaint. PSD upheld this, and PC Mair was, allegedly, given management action by way of words of advice. Of course, he had nothing to do with it and that part of the complaint was not directed at him, but PSD do not seem to care about that… and the IOPC consider their decision ‘proportionate’.
The whole matter might have quietly gone away but for the rude and uncaring treatment my father received at the police station. My mother was sufficiently outraged that she resolved there would indeed be further action. Had those officers on duty at Southwick Police Station troubled themselves to be civil to a frightened old man, this matter would have quietly gone away.
The matter was brought back to life by another incident of police misconduct. By July 2017 I was running out of options and thought I might have to give up. An unrelated incident caused me to take a renewed interest. Essentially I was subjected to the worst piece of aggressive, persistent, bullying tailgating I have seen in 30 years of motoring.
This was perpetrated by a police van on an otherwise empty dual carriageway. The van got so close I could not see the radiator grille in my mirror... and stayed there. I estimate it was less than 1m from my back bumper at 50mph. This was not an effort to make me go faster or get out of the way; it was on a dual carriageway which was otherwise empty. There was no reason for it other than blatant bullying.
When I reported the incident the sergeant who investigated it did a great job and far exceeded my expectations – it is notable that he is front-line staff and not associated with PSD – but the officers involved simply said it had not happened and naturally were believed. Unable to do anything about that, I was sufficiently annoyed that I took another look at my father’s case and found a number of new avenues of approach.
This matter has twice been stirred into life by the misconduct of police officers. Had my parents been treated decently at the police station in October 2016 they would not have complained. Had the officers in that van not lied about tailgating me – or not placed me in danger in the first place – then I would not have re-examined the matter.
There is a lesson to be learned here: don’t antagonise people who have a legitimate grievance against you.
When I wrote to Mr. Noble and asked why my second complaint had been rejected as repetitious when it clearly is not, he asked PSD to give me an explanation. They wrote back and told me what ‘repetitious’ means. What they did not do was address my question, and further communication on the subject produced no more useful response.
There have been (many) other failings along the way. Many could have been avoided by PSD taking a little more care over their responses – making sure their communications were not riddled with obvious mistakes, for example, or actually addressing all of the points raised instead of missing some out in the middle.
The overall impression, though, is that nobody cares.
· · What Do We Want?
· · What we want has never changed.
This is not and has never been about compensation. It is about harm done to a vulnerable old man by the people who claim they are ‘Proud to Protect’. What we need is answers and some indication that Northumbria Police cares even a little about something more than merely avoiding consequences.
We want Northumbria Police to look at these actions in the context of their outcome, and ask: Was that what we intended? Is it a desirable outcome? Are we happy for this to be used as an example of how we work?
If the answer to any of those questions is ‘no’ then we expect Northumbria Police to want to find out what went so badly wrong in a routine investigation. We want them to admit that they should not have taken the actions they did and to start trying to help the victim. We want to see some proof – in the form of actions and outcomes – that they really do care.
At present there is no evidence of that. Even after this matter was brought to the attention of the area force commander and the professional standards department (PSD), there is still no specific guidance in place for the treatment of elderly and vulnerable people, at least according to an FOI Act query I submitted. Indeed, according to comments made by Northumbria Police, they think there is nothing wrong with getting elderly people out of bed over a routine matter. Clearly it is only a matter of time before someone else is put through a similar ordeal.
· · Final Comments
Northumbria Police also seems to think that it is impossible to predict that arresting an old man in the middle of the night might have negative consequences, and that the fact that its officers could not have known just how serious those consequences would be somehow absolves them of responsibility for their actions.
It does not.
So basically they decide what questions they are going to ask themselves and whether their answers are satisfactory. Now that might be acceptable if complaints were handled in a competent, professional and fair manner.
My experience is that they are not.
· · The First Complaint
· · My father initially approached Northumbria Police without making a formal complaint. He was visited at his home by Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, Area Force Commander. The matter was discussed and my father took away from the discussion the understanding that all information relating to the arrest would be expunged. We have since been told that Noble could not have said this as he was not empowered to do so, but this is what my parents understood was to happen.
In early 2017, shortly after being diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, my mother was hospitalised for a time and returned home for what would be the last three weeks of her life. During this time my father was informed that in fact details of his arrest would be retained since it was connected with a sex crime, despite the fact that there was never any evidence against him regarding such an offence. This means that at any time, though no fault of his own, my father could be put through the whole experience again.
Having been informed that the record would in fact not be expunged my father decided to pursue a complaint. The response to the complaint makes no attempt to explain the bizarre decision to do nothing for best part of a week then arrest a vulnerable old man in the middle of the night, and raises other questions – among other things it cites an unproven allegation as fact and presents a version of the arrest that is untrue.
The complaint was partially upheld but upon reaching the settlement phase Northumbria Police decided that their actions were in fact lawful. My father chose not to go to court over an insultingly small amount of compensation, since the money is irrelevant and he cannot face the stress of a court case. What he wants is an admission that the arrest was inappropriate, and Northumbria Police seem to have decided this is not the case.
The response to this complaint also cites the allegation made (by the youths) against my father as if it were fact. The police never investigated this matter; if they had they would have found that the allegation is baseless and that the youths were guilty of an offence of littering. Despite this, the complaint response cites the allegation as fact. This seems to be a presumption of guilt. They also have stated he has ‘admitted’ to this incident, which is misleading.
My father was indeed involved in an incident in Ashbrooke, but it was one in which he spoke up when he saw youths engaging in anti-social behaviour and was punished with a malicious allegation. He did not threaten anyone and most certainly has not ‘admitted’ to doing so. The statement that he did, made in response to both complaints, appears to be a misrepresentation of the circumstances intended to make the actions of Northumbria Police seem a little less unreasonable. PSD was made aware of our concerns but seem to think there is nothing wrong with any of this. They continue to take the line that my father has ‘admitted’ to the incident.
My father did not admit to the incident as described in the allegation, for the very good reason that it is the invention of an angry youth who was upset at being told he should not drop litter wherever he pleased. My father did not admit to threatening anyone, but Northumbria Police continues to pretend he has.
I have indicated to the police that I would like to see the interview transcripts to determine just what they claim my father has ‘admitted’ to. It may be that the questioning my father faced in the early hours of the morning was vague and leading, or they may simply be interpreting what was said in a manner that supports their position. However, they continue to be vague about exactly what they are claiming he ‘admitted’ to.
This is one of a number of concerns I have about the way this matter was handled. Lack of clarity and transparency has greatly assisted Northumbria Police in evading responsibility for its actions, and contributes to an overall impression that far from being the forthright and honest people we used to admire, Northumbria Police can best be described as ‘a bit slippery’ when someone tries to get a straight answer out of them.
Muddying the waters has worked well for them in this matter – they have successfully evaded consequences from both complaints. However, it has completely destroyed our trust in Northumbria Police. Considering our viewpoint when this all started, that is damning.
· · The Second Complaint
· · A few hours before my mother died, my father asked me to take over handling this matter. He is simply unable to face it. I agreed, initially approaching my MP who forwarded my email concerning the matter to the Chief Constable. This resulted in a confused set of communications and a refusal to consider the matter.
I was also in communication with (then) Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, who had visited my parents twice and my home once. I raised a new complaint which revolved around five key points – three of which had not been considered in the first complaint and two which arose from it. This was rejected out of hand by Northumbria Police as ‘repetitious’ of the first complaint.
An appeal to the (then) IPCC produced a response that the complaint could not possibly be repetitious as it dealt with issues arising from the first (this would have been obvious to anyone who actually read it) and Northumbria Police was required to record it after all.
Professional Standards then produced a list of allegations they proposed to investigate, ostensibly drawn from my complaint. In fact, they bore little resemblance to it and seemed to be tailored to an easy rejection. Northumbria Police write the allegations then investigate them. This gives them a unique ability to duck awkward questions by arranging for them not to be asked.
I naturally requested changes. Some were implemented (badly); others were ignored for some reason. These were in the middle of the document and would have been missed had I not gone over it very carefully. If that had happened Northumbria Police would never have had to answer some of the questions I was posing. I requested more changes, which were implemented in an equally shoddy manner . Eventually I wrote a draft set of allegations and asked PSD to use mine rather than the ones their staff were producing.
It is obvious that PSD were simply dashing off a quick response without giving the matter due attention. A cursory read-back would have indicated how poor their efforts were; some allegations were so badly written that I was unsure what they were about even though it was me that raised the initial complaint. Others did not make sense or contained errors that would have been obvious had the author troubled themselves to read back what they had written. The lack of professionalism shown in these communications is worrying.
They couldn’t even mis-spell our names consistently, and in some cases sentences just didn’t make sense. If this is how Professional Standards communicate, how can the public have any faith in them?
· · Response to the Second Complaint
· · As expected, Northumbria Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) rejected all but one of my allegations. Their response entirely fails to address many of the allegations made in the complaint, and makes no attempt to answer the key questions – why arrest an old man away from his dying wife in the middle of the night when you have had several days to make a more suitable approach?
One point was upheld. PSD conceded that PC Mair could have done a better job of informing my father that no further action would be taken against him. He has received ‘management action’ over this failing.
The only problem is that PC Mair was not responsible for this failing and the complaint was not directed at him. Those responsible, the staff at the front desk at the police station on October 29th, were ignored in the PSD response. The fact that the only point to be upheld was upheld against the wrong people sums up the whole process.
There were other problems with the response. We pointed out that the account of the arrest provided by the police is wrong, and as an illustration I noted that they claim the arrest took place at 10:55 at the house and he was at the custody suite (a 10-minute drive away) at 11:05. My father could not make that trip in that time to save his life – it would take him most of the available time to get off his chair and out to the police van.
Professional Standards responded to this by telling us that PC Mair never claimed the whole interaction took place over 10 minutes, and pointed out the account of how he got there at 10:25. So our allegation that the account of the arrest is wrong was rejected.
Of course, we never said Mair claimed the whole interaction took place over 10 minutes. We said that the timing between the arrest and arrival at the police station was impossible to achieve. We said that as an indication that other parts of the account might also be incorrect, which was the focus of the allegation.
So, they dealt with our allegation by pretending we’d said something quite different (and which was, not coincidentally, very easy to disprove) and ignoring the allegation we actually made. This was not the first wild misinterpretation that had occurred. The original set of allegations they created from my complaint was particularly creative, and one was so badly written I was not sure what it was about despite having made the original complaint.
I wrote to Northumbria Police expressing my concern over the conduct of their Professional Standards Department. Nobody troubled themselves to answer. I have now approached the Police and Crimes Commissioner about the matter.
· · The IOPC
· · I was obviously not satisfied that PSD had dealt fairly with my complaint – they ignored the usual questions and failed to address any of the important issues – but the IOPC response was particularly worrying. They have told me that some matters I most definitely did bring up in the complaint were not present. It is worth noting that PSD write the allegations they propose to investigate from the text of the complaint. I had assumed what they distilled out of my complaint adequately encapsulated it, but the IOPC seems to disagree.
They also say that some items included in my complaint are outside their remit and need to be raised with Northumbria Police. I had already raised these points in my complaint and was appealing to the IOPC on the grounds that they had not been considered. Since any renewed attempt will be rejected as repetitious by PSD these questions will never be answered.
The whole process seems to be designed to protect the police rather than ensure a professional standard.
Perhaps most worrying, the IOPC stated that the one part of my complaint to be upheld was ‘proportionate’. However, as I pointed out in my appeal to them, this was upheld against the wrong person. They condoned PSD’s decision to recommend management action against one officer when my complaint was clearly directed at others.
Let me restate that: PSD ‘upheld’ my complaint but against the wrong officer. I pointed this out to the IOPC but they rejected my assertion and are presumably quite happy for consequences to fall on the wrong people.
It is not possible to have any faith in such a body.
· · The Current Situation
· · My father still has PTSD and cannot sleep at night. This is affecting his physical as well as mental health. Northumbria Police know this but other than some vague words of sympathy they are not interested.
I have written to the Home Office and my MP, among others, and I intend to continue my efforts to hold Northumbria Police to account for their actions. I promised to do so at my mother’s bedside as she lay dying… this is a promise I have to keep.
· · Other Failings
· · In December 2016 Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, Area Force Commander (at the time Temporary Assistant Chief Constable), promised my father an apology and explanation. He seemed very helpful and sympathetic at the time, but it is notable that once it became apparent we were not going to politely go away, T/ACC Noble seems to have lost interest. In December 2017 Noble told me in an email he would try to set up a meeting aimed at getting me answers to my questions. That never happened, and my requests for an update have gone unanswered.
My father was delighted when I told him about ACC Noble’s offer, but since then I have had to repeatedly tell him ‘no, they’ve gone quiet about it and aren’t answering when I ask’. Letting him down like that is worse than never showing an interest at all. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the personal intervention of the Area Force Commander was not, after all, a sign that Northumbria Police actually cared about what they had done to an elderly and vulnerable man… it was just a damage-control exercise and was for their benefit, not ours.
I would be very pleased to be proven wrong on that, but on balance of probabilities it seems unlikely.
Likewise, at the original meeting the Area Force Commander told my family that a case study might be created so that Northumbria Police could learn from this matter. He also told us in his initial letter that we deserved an explanation and an apology. None of that seems likely to ever happen, and when I asked about the case study I received no response at all.
To put that another way… if the Area Commander cared enough in late 2016 to mid 2017 to visit us at home and to say we deserved an apology, why is it that we still do not have the answers he promised?
There is also the matter of my father’s treatment at Southwick Police Station. He had been bailed to attend the police station on October 29th, and duly did so.
My father was terrified of what might happen to him, mainly because it might take him away from my mother when she needed him the most. We have been – unhelpfully – informed that he ‘need not have worried’ and that ‘there is nothing to worry about if you are innocent’ but the fact is he did worry… and as circumstances have demonstrated even if you are innocent you can still be arrested in the middle of the night.
At the police station my father was informed – if that is the right word – that no further action would be taken. This was not done in a professional or respectful manner. Indeed, my father’s treatment at the police station was offhand to the point of being insulting, and deeply offended my mother who accompanied him. Essentially the officers present called to one another ‘no further action?’ ‘yeah’ without actually engaging with my father. As well as being insulting this left him unsure the matter was ended and contributed to his ongoing distress.
We protested this treatment in the second complaint. PSD upheld this, and PC Mair was, allegedly, given management action by way of words of advice. Of course, he had nothing to do with it and that part of the complaint was not directed at him, but PSD do not seem to care about that… and the IOPC consider their decision ‘proportionate’.
The whole matter might have quietly gone away but for the rude and uncaring treatment my father received at the police station. My mother was sufficiently outraged that she resolved there would indeed be further action. Had those officers on duty at Southwick Police Station troubled themselves to be civil to a frightened old man, this matter would have quietly gone away.
The matter was brought back to life by another incident of police misconduct. By July 2017 I was running out of options and thought I might have to give up. An unrelated incident caused me to take a renewed interest. Essentially I was subjected to the worst piece of aggressive, persistent, bullying tailgating I have seen in 30 years of motoring.
This was perpetrated by a police van on an otherwise empty dual carriageway. The van got so close I could not see the radiator grille in my mirror... and stayed there. I estimate it was less than 1m from my back bumper at 50mph. This was not an effort to make me go faster or get out of the way; it was on a dual carriageway which was otherwise empty. There was no reason for it other than blatant bullying.
When I reported the incident the sergeant who investigated it did a great job and far exceeded my expectations – it is notable that he is front-line staff and not associated with PSD – but the officers involved simply said it had not happened and naturally were believed. Unable to do anything about that, I was sufficiently annoyed that I took another look at my father’s case and found a number of new avenues of approach.
This matter has twice been stirred into life by the misconduct of police officers. Had my parents been treated decently at the police station in October 2016 they would not have complained. Had the officers in that van not lied about tailgating me – or not placed me in danger in the first place – then I would not have re-examined the matter.
There is a lesson to be learned here: don’t antagonise people who have a legitimate grievance against you.
When I wrote to Mr. Noble and asked why my second complaint had been rejected as repetitious when it clearly is not, he asked PSD to give me an explanation. They wrote back and told me what ‘repetitious’ means. What they did not do was address my question, and further communication on the subject produced no more useful response.
There have been (many) other failings along the way. Many could have been avoided by PSD taking a little more care over their responses – making sure their communications were not riddled with obvious mistakes, for example, or actually addressing all of the points raised instead of missing some out in the middle.
The overall impression, though, is that nobody cares.
· · What Do We Want?
· · What we want has never changed.
This is not and has never been about compensation. It is about harm done to a vulnerable old man by the people who claim they are ‘Proud to Protect’. What we need is answers and some indication that Northumbria Police cares even a little about something more than merely avoiding consequences.
We want Northumbria Police to look at these actions in the context of their outcome, and ask: Was that what we intended? Is it a desirable outcome? Are we happy for this to be used as an example of how we work?
If the answer to any of those questions is ‘no’ then we expect Northumbria Police to want to find out what went so badly wrong in a routine investigation. We want them to admit that they should not have taken the actions they did and to start trying to help the victim. We want to see some proof – in the form of actions and outcomes – that they really do care.
At present there is no evidence of that. Even after this matter was brought to the attention of the area force commander and the professional standards department (PSD), there is still no specific guidance in place for the treatment of elderly and vulnerable people, at least according to an FOI Act query I submitted. Indeed, according to comments made by Northumbria Police, they think there is nothing wrong with getting elderly people out of bed over a routine matter. Clearly it is only a matter of time before someone else is put through a similar ordeal.
· · Final Comments
- ·
Northumbria Police also seems to think that it is impossible to predict that arresting an old man in the middle of the night might have negative consequences, and that the fact that its officers could not have known just how serious those consequences would be somehow absolves them of responsibility for their actions.
It does not.
