Our Experiences with Northumbria Police and their Complaints Procedure 2016-2018
After two formal complaints, an attempt at local resolution and an intervention by my MP, we still have not received an adequate explanation for the actions taken by Northumbria Police in September/October 2016. Of course, their Professional Standards Department (PSD) says they did nothing wrong. The IPOC (former IPCC) has simply rubber-stamped this decision – even the part of the complaint they upheld against the wrong officer.
When all this began I was extremely pro-police, and throughout I have wanted nothing more than to find there was some good reason for their actions. However, after the PSD whitewash and the broken promises I can now only conclude that Northumbria Police is arrogant, high-handed and reckless, and that its Professional Standards Department exists only to protect it from the consequences of its actions.
Policing in the UK is built on the principle of public consent.
We did not consent to this.
When all this began I was extremely pro-police, and throughout I have wanted nothing more than to find there was some good reason for their actions. However, after the PSD whitewash and the broken promises I can now only conclude that Northumbria Police is arrogant, high-handed and reckless, and that its Professional Standards Department exists only to protect it from the consequences of its actions.
Policing in the UK is built on the principle of public consent.
We did not consent to this.
An 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 decided that 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.
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. I would have expected the police to at least 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.
Nothing happened for the next few days, but when the officer came back on duty at 10PM 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.
If there was a good reason why they 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.
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 decided that 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.
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. I would have expected the police to at least 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.
Nothing happened for the next few days, but when the officer came back on duty at 10PM 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.
If there was a good reason why they 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 Allegation
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’.
So, at this point there was an allegation that they had not investigated, claiming that he had done something that would not be an offence even if it had happened.
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’.
So, at this point there was an allegation that they had not investigated, claiming that he had done something that would not be an offence even if it had happened.
The Sex Offence
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 and my father’s car is of a similar sort. The police knew this as a result of the malicious allegation against him.
The 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.
So this is what Northumbria Police were working with on Tuesday morning:
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 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.
The police say there are ‘striking similarities’ here, but what strikes me 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.
So... No evidence that my father had committed any offence existed at this 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.
But that is what they did.
The 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.
So this is what Northumbria Police were working with on Tuesday morning:
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 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.
The police say there are ‘striking similarities’ here, but what strikes me 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.
So... No evidence that my father had committed any offence existed at this 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.
But that is what they did.
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, I believe, 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
Nothing. Not a thing. Not one of the officers on duty on any shift that day thought the matter was urgent enough to do anything.
Police Response on Thursday 29th September
Still nothing. If this was in any way urgent then you’d expect them to have done something by now…?
Police Response on Friday 30th September
Nope. Nobody thought this was urgent enough to go find this old man who (allegedly) threatens youths in a manner that does not constitute a criminal offence and drives a red car that might be the vaguely described one at the sex offence incident. But then PC Mair returned to duty at 10PM Friday night… and did nothing. We are told that he was busy with something else.
It is quite obvious from all this inaction that this was not considered an urgent matter. Not by any of the officers on duty over the intervening days, and not by Professional Standards who have described the delay as ‘not excessive’ and have never even hinted they find anything wrong with not dealing with the matter on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.
The conclusion we can draw is that this was a matter that could be dealt with whenever the police chose to do so. There was no pressing need to do anything at any given time.
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, I believe, 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
Nothing. Not a thing. Not one of the officers on duty on any shift that day thought the matter was urgent enough to do anything.
Police Response on Thursday 29th September
Still nothing. If this was in any way urgent then you’d expect them to have done something by now…?
Police Response on Friday 30th September
Nope. Nobody thought this was urgent enough to go find this old man who (allegedly) threatens youths in a manner that does not constitute a criminal offence and drives a red car that might be the vaguely described one at the sex offence incident. But then PC Mair returned to duty at 10PM Friday night… and did nothing. We are told that he was busy with something else.
It is quite obvious from all this inaction that this was not considered an urgent matter. Not by any of the officers on duty over the intervening days, and not by Professional Standards who have described the delay as ‘not excessive’ and have never even hinted they find anything wrong with not dealing with the matter on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.
The conclusion we can draw is that this was a matter that could be dealt with whenever the police chose to do so. There was no pressing need to do anything at any given time.
Police Response on Saturday 1st October
Nothing was done during the day. Once again, every single officer on duty and their superiors all decided that this matter was not urgent enough to do anything.
But then PC Mair returned to work at 10PM on Saturday night, and ‘made it a priority’ (so we are told in response to our complaint) to deal with this matter.
Why?
Why was this suddenly so urgent that it just had to be dealt with late at night when it had not been worth anyone’s time for several days? In their response to our second complaint PSD suggested that the reason nobody had done anything up to this point might be something to do with police budget cuts. They didn’t know for sure and had not tried to find out, but that might be it.
Mair and his colleague Lilley went around to the home of a 76 year old man at 10:25 or so on Saturday night. It should be pretty 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. You’d expect the people who say they are PROUD TO PROTECT would need a better-than-average reason for taking such a heavy-handed and potentially risky 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, Was this a problem? Their Professional Standards Department say that it was not; that the delay of four days was ‘not excessive’. Yet it has been insinuated by PSD that the reason Mair arrested my father late at night on Saturday was that nobody else had done anything all week.
The failure of some members of an organisation to act is not a reason for another member of that organisation to take action that harms someone. Indeed, the fact that nobody else in the whole of Northumbria Police thought this matter was urgent enough to act upon might suggest that Mair’s decision to deal with it late at night could be a bit suspect.
Unless of course Northumbria Police thinks it is fine to take elderly people out of their homes in the middle of the night if that’s when it is convenient for them to investigate a possible connection between two vaguely described vehicles…. According to PC Mair and PSD, they do indeed think that.
Be that as it may, the matter was not urgent enough for anyone to have done anything since Tuesday morning, and nothing had changed. No more incidents, no new evidence or allegations. No danger of evidence being destroyed or the suspect disappearing from the house where he had lived for 50-odd years. But perhaps there was some reason why it was suddenly necessary to go around to an old man’s house – maybe get him out of bed – with the intent of arresting him?
If the police were rushing to prevent something terrible from happening or swooping on some criminal mastermind, this might be reasonable. But no; 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.
But then PC Mair returned to work at 10PM on Saturday night, and ‘made it a priority’ (so we are told in response to our complaint) to deal with this matter.
Why?
Why was this suddenly so urgent that it just had to be dealt with late at night when it had not been worth anyone’s time for several days? In their response to our second complaint PSD suggested that the reason nobody had done anything up to this point might be something to do with police budget cuts. They didn’t know for sure and had not tried to find out, but that might be it.
Mair and his colleague Lilley went around to the home of a 76 year old man at 10:25 or so on Saturday night. It should be pretty 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. You’d expect the people who say they are PROUD TO PROTECT would need a better-than-average reason for taking such a heavy-handed and potentially risky 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, Was this a problem? Their Professional Standards Department say that it was not; that the delay of four days was ‘not excessive’. Yet it has been insinuated by PSD that the reason Mair arrested my father late at night on Saturday was that nobody else had done anything all week.
The failure of some members of an organisation to act is not a reason for another member of that organisation to take action that harms someone. Indeed, the fact that nobody else in the whole of Northumbria Police thought this matter was urgent enough to act upon might suggest that Mair’s decision to deal with it late at night could be a bit suspect.
Unless of course Northumbria Police thinks it is fine to take elderly people out of their homes in the middle of the night if that’s when it is convenient for them to investigate a possible connection between two vaguely described vehicles…. According to PC Mair and PSD, they do indeed think that.
Be that as it may, the matter was not urgent enough for anyone to have done anything since Tuesday morning, and nothing had changed. No more incidents, no new evidence or allegations. No danger of evidence being destroyed or the suspect disappearing from the house where he had lived for 50-odd years. But perhaps there was some reason why it was suddenly necessary to go around to an old man’s house – maybe get him out of bed – with the intent of arresting him?
If the police were rushing to prevent something terrible from happening or swooping on some criminal mastermind, this might be reasonable. But no; 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.
What PC Mair Knew
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'.
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'.
What PC Mair Did Not Know
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 sister Alyson was also at the house. She is mentally ill and sometimes highly unstable. An event like seeing her father taken away by the police could trigger an episode which my mother would be totally incapable of dealing with.
My father was mentally fragile as a result of being a victim of crime (and being hung out to dry by his insurers) some years ago, and in addition was nursing his gravely ill wife of 50 years as well as trying to support his very troubled daughter. 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.
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 sister Alyson was also at the house. She is mentally ill and sometimes highly unstable. An event like seeing her father taken away by the police could trigger an episode which my mother would be totally incapable of dealing with.
My father was mentally fragile as a result of being a victim of crime (and being hung out to dry by his insurers) some years ago, and in addition was nursing his gravely ill wife of 50 years as well as trying to support his very troubled daughter. 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.
The Arrest
The police account of what happened is very different from my father’s, but they agree in some ways. 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. Why? We cannot get a straight answer to that question.
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 given the chance to come in to the police station voluntarily the next morning or any other, more suitable option.
My sister Alyson woke up at this point and after some discussion my father very reluctantly agreed to leave her to look after my mother. Although well-intentioned, Alyson’s mental instability could have resulted in an episode that my mother would not be able to deal with. This gravely worried my father as he went with the police to Southwick Police Station.
My father was approached by the police at a time of their choosing. They picked a time when he was tired, worried that his wife and/or daughter might be woken up – with different but potentially serious consequences in each case – 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 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 sister Alyson was forced to confront the fact that she had said the words that caused my mother this distress. To her credit she dealt extremely well with the situation, but given her mental instability it could have been very serious.
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.
Obviously, it was not. This was simply the time Northumbria Police chose to do it. Why? We cannot get a straight answer to that question.
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 given the chance to come in to the police station voluntarily the next morning or any other, more suitable option.
My sister Alyson woke up at this point and after some discussion my father very reluctantly agreed to leave her to look after my mother. Although well-intentioned, Alyson’s mental instability could have resulted in an episode that my mother would not be able to deal with. This gravely worried my father as he went with the police to Southwick Police Station.
My father was approached by the police at a time of their choosing. They picked a time when he was tired, worried that his wife and/or daughter might be woken up – with different but potentially serious consequences in each case – 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 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 sister Alyson was forced to confront the fact that she had said the words that caused my mother this distress. To her credit she dealt extremely well with the situation, but given her mental instability it could have been very serious.
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.
What Do Northumbria Police Think of This?
We have had some mixed messages during the two complaints and one attempt at local resolution. In December 2016 the Area Force Commander, Chief Superintendent Ged Noble, wrote to my father saying he proposed to visit him at home to provide the explanation and apology we clearly deserved. He later made a second visit to deliver an update and in March 2017 came to my house to discuss the matter with me.
That’s three visits by the area commander. I would be interested to know how often that happens.
We have no way of knowing if this personal intervention was a genuine attempt at resolution or a political gambit aimed at smoothing ruffled feathers in the hope of making the issue quietly go away. Either way it produced no useful outcome from our point of view. But whether this was about them avoiding consequences or actually helping us, the fact that a senior officer came to visit us indicates that they knew something had gone badly awry.
Local resolution did not produce a satisfactory result, so we made a formal complaint, followed by another. From these we have received a rather different message.
Was it reasonable to handle the matter this way? According to PC Mair there was nothing wrong with arresting an elderly man at 11PM Saturday night, as this resulted in ‘only’ four hours in custody. That might have been longer, Mair says, if the arrest had taken place at a busy time.
They want us to believe it was actually somehow beneficial to be arrested in the middle of the night! There is so much wrong with this. Mair made this statement response to our complaint and PSD repeated it as a justification for his actions. So presumably Northumbria Police actually believes this nonsense.
Mair seems completely unaware (or perhaps does not care) that being arrested late at night is more unpleasant than being arrested during the day, and being questioned until 3AM makes it far more difficult to account for yourself. No reduction in custody time will offset the trauma of being taken away from your sick wife and put in a cell at night. Nor will it make facing questioning in the early hours of the morning any less unpleasant.
It seems to have escaped the notice of Northumbria Police that the time in custody would have been much shorter or actually eliminated if they had let my father attend the police station on a voluntary basis. We have asked why they did not do so, but they will not answer that question. Indeed they have repeatedly ignored us when we asked if it was even considered.
It is also a little… questionable… that Mair thinks the custody suite would be less busy at 11PM Saturday night than at another time of the week. As I understand it this is on average the busiest time, along with Friday night. There could be no reasonable expectation that the custody suite would not be busy at that time.
Why was the decision made to arrest as opposed to some other course of action? Northumbria Police will tell us only that the decision was made to arrest: ‘a wanted package was generated’, but not why they decided this was necessary. We have made it clear we want an explanation of the decision process that led to this action, but they will not answer that question.
Why was nothing done from Tuesday to Saturday? Northumbria Police have told us that they do not know and have no intention of trying to find out. They offered some speculation that it might be because of police budget cuts or something, but this was not backed by any evidence or any form of investigation – it was simply an excuse pulled out of the air.
Why arrest an elderly man late at night when there is no urgent need? Northumbria Police have offered no explanation for Mair’s actions, other than the fact that nobody else had done anything by the time he came back to work after his days off. They offered no reason why this matter would require immediate action. They did concede, in response to our first complaint, that a more proportionate response might have been to do something else. Nothing useful came of that admission of course.
The fact is that this matter was handled when it was convenient for the police. There was no pressing need to do it at that time, but Mair chose to take this course of action. I believe that he simply carried out his decision to arrest (made on Tuesday and never explained to us) without re-evaluating the situation or considering the implications.
Is it normal to arrest elderly people in the middle of the night over non-urgent matters? A Freedom of Information Act request produced a lengthy response which came down to ‘yes it’s normal if it’s necessary’ but did not explain what would make it necessary. This lack of transparency even whilst complying with the relevant legislation is typical of Northumbria Police; they seem very reluctant to give a straight answer to any question and are skilled at waffling around the subject without providing any useful information.
Are you proud of how this matter was handled? Are you happy to see your own relatives treated this way? Nobody will answer these questions.
What about the consequences for my family? Northumbria Police have more or less ignored our assertions about some consequences, such as the trauma suffered by my mother, as there is no proof. The rest, they say, needs medical evidence before it can be considered. This is available and has been offered but they are not interested in it. We have been told we can make a claim for civil settlement. They think that will somehow absolve them of the responsibility for their actions.
In any case, they say, they see nothing wrong with arresting an elderly man late at night over a routine enquiry, and that their officers are not responsible for the outcome of their actions since they could not have predicted how vulnerable my family were.
I would argue that since Northumbria Police created the situation that led to my family’s suffering then they are indeed responsible for the outcome of their actions. The fact that they made an approach at a time that would obviously aggravate any vulnerabilities that existed without making any attempt to discern the subject’s situation is reckless at best.
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.
That’s three visits by the area commander. I would be interested to know how often that happens.
We have no way of knowing if this personal intervention was a genuine attempt at resolution or a political gambit aimed at smoothing ruffled feathers in the hope of making the issue quietly go away. Either way it produced no useful outcome from our point of view. But whether this was about them avoiding consequences or actually helping us, the fact that a senior officer came to visit us indicates that they knew something had gone badly awry.
Local resolution did not produce a satisfactory result, so we made a formal complaint, followed by another. From these we have received a rather different message.
Was it reasonable to handle the matter this way? According to PC Mair there was nothing wrong with arresting an elderly man at 11PM Saturday night, as this resulted in ‘only’ four hours in custody. That might have been longer, Mair says, if the arrest had taken place at a busy time.
They want us to believe it was actually somehow beneficial to be arrested in the middle of the night! There is so much wrong with this. Mair made this statement response to our complaint and PSD repeated it as a justification for his actions. So presumably Northumbria Police actually believes this nonsense.
Mair seems completely unaware (or perhaps does not care) that being arrested late at night is more unpleasant than being arrested during the day, and being questioned until 3AM makes it far more difficult to account for yourself. No reduction in custody time will offset the trauma of being taken away from your sick wife and put in a cell at night. Nor will it make facing questioning in the early hours of the morning any less unpleasant.
It seems to have escaped the notice of Northumbria Police that the time in custody would have been much shorter or actually eliminated if they had let my father attend the police station on a voluntary basis. We have asked why they did not do so, but they will not answer that question. Indeed they have repeatedly ignored us when we asked if it was even considered.
It is also a little… questionable… that Mair thinks the custody suite would be less busy at 11PM Saturday night than at another time of the week. As I understand it this is on average the busiest time, along with Friday night. There could be no reasonable expectation that the custody suite would not be busy at that time.
Why was the decision made to arrest as opposed to some other course of action? Northumbria Police will tell us only that the decision was made to arrest: ‘a wanted package was generated’, but not why they decided this was necessary. We have made it clear we want an explanation of the decision process that led to this action, but they will not answer that question.
Why was nothing done from Tuesday to Saturday? Northumbria Police have told us that they do not know and have no intention of trying to find out. They offered some speculation that it might be because of police budget cuts or something, but this was not backed by any evidence or any form of investigation – it was simply an excuse pulled out of the air.
Why arrest an elderly man late at night when there is no urgent need? Northumbria Police have offered no explanation for Mair’s actions, other than the fact that nobody else had done anything by the time he came back to work after his days off. They offered no reason why this matter would require immediate action. They did concede, in response to our first complaint, that a more proportionate response might have been to do something else. Nothing useful came of that admission of course.
The fact is that this matter was handled when it was convenient for the police. There was no pressing need to do it at that time, but Mair chose to take this course of action. I believe that he simply carried out his decision to arrest (made on Tuesday and never explained to us) without re-evaluating the situation or considering the implications.
Is it normal to arrest elderly people in the middle of the night over non-urgent matters? A Freedom of Information Act request produced a lengthy response which came down to ‘yes it’s normal if it’s necessary’ but did not explain what would make it necessary. This lack of transparency even whilst complying with the relevant legislation is typical of Northumbria Police; they seem very reluctant to give a straight answer to any question and are skilled at waffling around the subject without providing any useful information.
Are you proud of how this matter was handled? Are you happy to see your own relatives treated this way? Nobody will answer these questions.
What about the consequences for my family? Northumbria Police have more or less ignored our assertions about some consequences, such as the trauma suffered by my mother, as there is no proof. The rest, they say, needs medical evidence before it can be considered. This is available and has been offered but they are not interested in it. We have been told we can make a claim for civil settlement. They think that will somehow absolve them of the responsibility for their actions.
In any case, they say, they see nothing wrong with arresting an elderly man late at night over a routine enquiry, and that their officers are not responsible for the outcome of their actions since they could not have predicted how vulnerable my family were.
I would argue that since Northumbria Police created the situation that led to my family’s suffering then they are indeed responsible for the outcome of their actions. The fact that they made an approach at a time that would obviously aggravate any vulnerabilities that existed without making any attempt to discern the subject’s situation is reckless at best.
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….
Experiences With The Complaints Procedure
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
It would appear that Northumbria Police thinks it is acceptable to arrest a vulnerable 76-year-old at 11PM and detain him until 3AM in order to investigate the possibility that his car might be the vaguely described red hatchback present at an alleged incident. Northumbria Police also seems to think that doing this to an elderly person is fine because the custody suite will surely be less busy at 11PM on a Saturday night than, say, 11AM Wednesday morning and that the reduced custody time that will most certainly result will outweigh the trauma of being arrested in the middle of the night.
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.
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.