Questions Surrounding the Arrest
Being required to attend a police station ‘voluntarily’ to answer questions under caution is undoubtedly a stressful and upsetting experience, especially if it is suggested that you have committed a disgusting act such as threatening children or exposing yourself. Being taken to a police station under arrest and locked in a cell before being questioned is worse.
Being arrested and locked in a cell at midnight then questioned into the early hours of the morning is even worse than that. Doing this to someone when they are tired at the end of the day ensures that the time spent in custody makes the experience as unpleasant as it can possibly be, even if they have not been taken away from a gravely ill wife who needs constant assistance.
This is what Northumbria police inflicted upon to my father even though they had done nothing for several days up to that point. They created a situation in which he had to sit in a cell late at night worrying about his wife before trying to answer questions about his movements and actions several days earlier. He was tired and extremely stressed, which made it particularly difficult to recall details or present a cogent account of his actions.
Northumbria Police cautioned my father that if he failed to mention something he later relied upon it would harm his defence, and created a situation in which it was particularly difficult to remember much at all. He did indeed forget some details and presented a rather confused account of his actions.
When someone is arrested in connection with a sex offence, there are long-term consequences whether or not they are ever charged. This resulted from the Ian Huntley case, and is intended to draw attention to someone who has a history of arrests in connection with sex offences but where no further action could be taken. Among other implications, anyone who has been arrested in connection with a sex offence will become a person of interest whenever a similar offence is committed.
I was at one time sure I fully understood this process, but later communications with Northumbria Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) suggest that some of the information I have been given was rather less accurate or informative than I had thought. This was not much of a surprise – it seems that Northumbria Police believe that the less the public know about their practices, the easier it will be to deflect complaints or concerns.
Be that as it may, it is certain that being arrested in connection with a sex offence has consequences whether or not you are charged, let alone guilty. In my father’s case, the only way to avoid these consequences was to provide a good account of his movements on Tuesday 27th September which proved he could not have been involved in the sex offence. This would, as I understand it, have prevented the arrest which led to all other consequences.
In fact proof existed that would have satisfied this requirement. My father was accompanying my mother to a doctor’s appointment in a room full of witnesses around the time. If only he had thought to mention that.
Why did he not?
That was entirely due to the circumstances created by Northumbria Police.
Being arrested and locked in a cell at midnight then questioned into the early hours of the morning is even worse than that. Doing this to someone when they are tired at the end of the day ensures that the time spent in custody makes the experience as unpleasant as it can possibly be, even if they have not been taken away from a gravely ill wife who needs constant assistance.
This is what Northumbria police inflicted upon to my father even though they had done nothing for several days up to that point. They created a situation in which he had to sit in a cell late at night worrying about his wife before trying to answer questions about his movements and actions several days earlier. He was tired and extremely stressed, which made it particularly difficult to recall details or present a cogent account of his actions.
Northumbria Police cautioned my father that if he failed to mention something he later relied upon it would harm his defence, and created a situation in which it was particularly difficult to remember much at all. He did indeed forget some details and presented a rather confused account of his actions.
When someone is arrested in connection with a sex offence, there are long-term consequences whether or not they are ever charged. This resulted from the Ian Huntley case, and is intended to draw attention to someone who has a history of arrests in connection with sex offences but where no further action could be taken. Among other implications, anyone who has been arrested in connection with a sex offence will become a person of interest whenever a similar offence is committed.
I was at one time sure I fully understood this process, but later communications with Northumbria Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) suggest that some of the information I have been given was rather less accurate or informative than I had thought. This was not much of a surprise – it seems that Northumbria Police believe that the less the public know about their practices, the easier it will be to deflect complaints or concerns.
Be that as it may, it is certain that being arrested in connection with a sex offence has consequences whether or not you are charged, let alone guilty. In my father’s case, the only way to avoid these consequences was to provide a good account of his movements on Tuesday 27th September which proved he could not have been involved in the sex offence. This would, as I understand it, have prevented the arrest which led to all other consequences.
In fact proof existed that would have satisfied this requirement. My father was accompanying my mother to a doctor’s appointment in a room full of witnesses around the time. If only he had thought to mention that.
Why did he not?
That was entirely due to the circumstances created by Northumbria Police.
Circumstances of the Arrest
Northumbria Police came to my father’s house at 10:25 or so on Saturday night, asking questions about where he had been on Tuesday morning. He has a very poor memory at the best of times, and was at this point tired and not thinking clearly. His terminally ill wife was asleep upstairs and he knew that if the police activity woke her it would be upsetting for her. He wanted to spare her that, and in any case she was in such pain that once awake she would not get back to sleep. My father also did not really know what was going on. The sex offence was not mentioned until my father got to the police station. The police account of the arrest claims it was but this is incorrect.
The officer leading the questioning was described by my father as ‘like a dog with a bone’. It is notable that he had already decided to arrest on Tuesday morning and was now carrying out his decision upon returning from leave.
So. Under pressure, confused, tired and worried about his wife’s welfare, a vulnerable old man failed to present a sufficiently solid defence that an officer who had already decided to arrest him might be dissuaded. As a result he was taken to the police station and put in a cell, then questioned until around 3AM.
Naturally, my father was found to have nothing to do with the sex offence, and upon approaching Northumbria Police he was told by the Area Force Commander that he clearly deserved an apology and an explanation. The Area Force Commander made three personal visits regarding this matter, which strongly suggests he thought something had gone awry.
But in the end the results of these actions stand. The Area Force Commander offered to appeal the decision to retain my father on the police intelligence database but this was refused. We were told he had not presented sufficiently good evidence to require his removal, so deleting his records would be a risk they simply could not take.
There was never any evidence against him of a sex offence, of course. His red hatchback car had come to the attention of the police through a malicious allegation of conduct which in the words of the police ‘did not amount to a criminal offence’, and a vaguely described red car was reportedly present at the sex offence incident. The only ‘evidence’ that he might be involved in this sex offence was the possible link between vehicles. He did not match the description of the suspect in the sex offence.
So… to get on this intelligence database my father had only to be in possession of a similar vehicle to one alleged to be present at an incident. But to avoid being flagged as a potential sex offender he had to present solid evidence that he could not possibly be involved. And he had to do so in the early hours of the morning whilst tired and desperately worried about his terminally ill wife, having spent some time locked in a cell with nothing to do but worry. This was four days after the incident; plenty of time to have made a more suitable approach and long enough for my father to become confused about some details of his movements on Tuesday.
This is the situation Northumbria Police created when they chose to arrest a 76 year old man in the middle of the night. Their Professional Standards Department think they have done nothing wrong, but the Area Commander took a personal interest which sends a different message. Either way, they created this situation and they are responsible for the consequences.
We have been asking why these actions were taken since October 2016. Although PSD seems to think we have had an adequate explanation, we have not. From various complaints and other communications I have managed to discern some facts. My conclusions are drawn from the information available to me; information provided in many cases by Northumbria Police.
The officer leading the questioning was described by my father as ‘like a dog with a bone’. It is notable that he had already decided to arrest on Tuesday morning and was now carrying out his decision upon returning from leave.
So. Under pressure, confused, tired and worried about his wife’s welfare, a vulnerable old man failed to present a sufficiently solid defence that an officer who had already decided to arrest him might be dissuaded. As a result he was taken to the police station and put in a cell, then questioned until around 3AM.
Naturally, my father was found to have nothing to do with the sex offence, and upon approaching Northumbria Police he was told by the Area Force Commander that he clearly deserved an apology and an explanation. The Area Force Commander made three personal visits regarding this matter, which strongly suggests he thought something had gone awry.
But in the end the results of these actions stand. The Area Force Commander offered to appeal the decision to retain my father on the police intelligence database but this was refused. We were told he had not presented sufficiently good evidence to require his removal, so deleting his records would be a risk they simply could not take.
There was never any evidence against him of a sex offence, of course. His red hatchback car had come to the attention of the police through a malicious allegation of conduct which in the words of the police ‘did not amount to a criminal offence’, and a vaguely described red car was reportedly present at the sex offence incident. The only ‘evidence’ that he might be involved in this sex offence was the possible link between vehicles. He did not match the description of the suspect in the sex offence.
So… to get on this intelligence database my father had only to be in possession of a similar vehicle to one alleged to be present at an incident. But to avoid being flagged as a potential sex offender he had to present solid evidence that he could not possibly be involved. And he had to do so in the early hours of the morning whilst tired and desperately worried about his terminally ill wife, having spent some time locked in a cell with nothing to do but worry. This was four days after the incident; plenty of time to have made a more suitable approach and long enough for my father to become confused about some details of his movements on Tuesday.
This is the situation Northumbria Police created when they chose to arrest a 76 year old man in the middle of the night. Their Professional Standards Department think they have done nothing wrong, but the Area Commander took a personal interest which sends a different message. Either way, they created this situation and they are responsible for the consequences.
We have been asking why these actions were taken since October 2016. Although PSD seems to think we have had an adequate explanation, we have not. From various complaints and other communications I have managed to discern some facts. My conclusions are drawn from the information available to me; information provided in many cases by Northumbria Police.
Why Was the Decision Made to Arrest on Tuesday?
We have repeatedly asked why PC Mair chose to generate a wanted package, i.e. decided upon arrest rather than another approach such as asking my father to attend a police station voluntarily. We have asked for a full explanation of the decision process, including what alternatives were considered and why they were rejected.
All PSD will give us is that ‘a wanted package was generated with demonstrated the need for arrest’. This is not an answer to the question we asked. If a need to arrest existed then they should be able to explain to us what that reason was.
It is my belief that what really happened was PC Mair was due to go on leave for a few days and took the easiest option for him. He did not consider the implications of arresting an elderly person in connection with a sex offence or the impact upon the subject of such an accusation.
All PSD will give us is that ‘a wanted package was generated with demonstrated the need for arrest’. This is not an answer to the question we asked. If a need to arrest existed then they should be able to explain to us what that reason was.
It is my belief that what really happened was PC Mair was due to go on leave for a few days and took the easiest option for him. He did not consider the implications of arresting an elderly person in connection with a sex offence or the impact upon the subject of such an accusation.
Why Was Nothing Done From Tuesday Morning to Saturday Night?
Northumbria Police PSD have told us they think it might have been something to do with a lack of resources due to police cuts but they do not know and do not propose to find out. They do not consider the delay excessive and were not interested in our statement that the delay affected my father’s ability to remember his movements on Tuesday, i.e. that it impaired his ability to account for himself.
Why nothing was done is less important than the fact that PSD considers there was nothing wrong with failing to act for several days. This demonstrates that Northumbria Police did not consider the matter urgent or serious enough to act at any time in those four and a half days.
Why nothing was done is less important than the fact that PSD considers there was nothing wrong with failing to act for several days. This demonstrates that Northumbria Police did not consider the matter urgent or serious enough to act at any time in those four and a half days.
Why Did Northumbria Police Choose to Make the Arrest Late at Night?
PSD has conveyed to us that PC Mair thinks it was not inappropriate to arrest at 11PM on Saturday night because this ‘reduced time in custody’ as compared to a busier time.
This is just plain stupid. Firstly, PC Mair could have no reasonable expectation that the custody suite would be less busy on Saturday night at 11PM – arguably one of the busiest times of the week on average! Secondly, this response completely ignores the fact that my father was locked in a cell at midnight worrying about his terminally ill wife. No reduction in custody time could offset this.
I do not believe that PC Mair considered this factor at the time of the arrest. It is merely a flimsy excuse made after the fact. If he genuinely does believe this then he is not fit to wield powers of arrest. The fact that PSD presented this to me as a reason to reject my complaint suggests that perhaps Northumbria Police actually does believe this sort of nonsense. I hope not.
No other reasons have been offered to us why the arrest was made at that time, other than the fact that Mair had returned to duty to find that nothing had been done.
PSD has already told us that there was nothing wrong with the lack of action from Tuesday morning to Saturday night. Nothing had changed at that time, other than the fact that PC Mair was back on duty. This indicates that the only reason this matter was handled in this way is that Northumbria Police (i.e. PC Mair) chose to do so. Whether this was a bad decision made by an individual officer or a wider failing is an open question. What is clear is that Northumbria Police took these actions and is responsible for their outcome.
We have repeatedly asked about Mair’s decision process when he chose to make this arrest at this time. What options were considered and why were they rejected? Was the impact of being arrested in connection with a sex offence late at night considered? Why was my father not given the opportunity to attend a police station voluntarily instead of being subjected to the indignity of being taken away in a police van late at night?
This decision process has never been explained. We have been told by PSD that they can see nothing wrong with what was done, but this is not an answer to our question. Harm was done, and we want to know about the decisions that led to it.
It is my belief that Mair simply carried out his prior decision to arrest without giving it any further thought. In so doing he created a situation in which it was unusually difficult for an elderly man to account for himself, and inflicted unnecessary suffering upon my family. I believe that his actions were high-handed and reckless, and that Northumbria Police has displayed enormous arrogance in refusing to consider the harm that was done.
This is just plain stupid. Firstly, PC Mair could have no reasonable expectation that the custody suite would be less busy on Saturday night at 11PM – arguably one of the busiest times of the week on average! Secondly, this response completely ignores the fact that my father was locked in a cell at midnight worrying about his terminally ill wife. No reduction in custody time could offset this.
I do not believe that PC Mair considered this factor at the time of the arrest. It is merely a flimsy excuse made after the fact. If he genuinely does believe this then he is not fit to wield powers of arrest. The fact that PSD presented this to me as a reason to reject my complaint suggests that perhaps Northumbria Police actually does believe this sort of nonsense. I hope not.
No other reasons have been offered to us why the arrest was made at that time, other than the fact that Mair had returned to duty to find that nothing had been done.
PSD has already told us that there was nothing wrong with the lack of action from Tuesday morning to Saturday night. Nothing had changed at that time, other than the fact that PC Mair was back on duty. This indicates that the only reason this matter was handled in this way is that Northumbria Police (i.e. PC Mair) chose to do so. Whether this was a bad decision made by an individual officer or a wider failing is an open question. What is clear is that Northumbria Police took these actions and is responsible for their outcome.
We have repeatedly asked about Mair’s decision process when he chose to make this arrest at this time. What options were considered and why were they rejected? Was the impact of being arrested in connection with a sex offence late at night considered? Why was my father not given the opportunity to attend a police station voluntarily instead of being subjected to the indignity of being taken away in a police van late at night?
This decision process has never been explained. We have been told by PSD that they can see nothing wrong with what was done, but this is not an answer to our question. Harm was done, and we want to know about the decisions that led to it.
It is my belief that Mair simply carried out his prior decision to arrest without giving it any further thought. In so doing he created a situation in which it was unusually difficult for an elderly man to account for himself, and inflicted unnecessary suffering upon my family. I believe that his actions were high-handed and reckless, and that Northumbria Police has displayed enormous arrogance in refusing to consider the harm that was done.
Why Are Northumbria Police Not Concerned About the Damage They Did?
The problem, in part, is the way PSD works. They require us to make specific allegations against specific individuals which they then choose whether or not to uphold. It is thus possible to lose sight of the big picture and trivialise the outcome. They are also able to ignore obvious issues if they were not the subject of a specific allegation. This means that a complainant, working with incomplete information, has to make exactly the right allegation. If not, PSD can simply ignore the matter.
It would appear that PSD’s role is not ‘to ensure Northumbria Police meet appropriate professional standards’ but ‘to respond to allegations and complaints’ which is not the same thing at all.
We, on the other hand, are forced to live with the big picture. Harm was done and we want an explanation. We want Northumbria Police to look at the outcome and ask how a routine enquiry could produce such a disaster… assuming of course it cares at all. We want Northumbria Police to determine what went wrong and who was at fault rather than forcing us to make allegations based upon vague information and taking an adversarial stance.
As I have stated elsewhere, this could all have gone away with a few kind words. Instead Northumbria Police is forcing us to live with the consequences of its actions and has successfully defended itself against two attempts to bring it to account. We should not have had to do that; an organisation that is ‘Proud to Protect’ should care that it ended up traumatising an innocent old man and should want to make amends or at least prevent another such incident. Instead it has (figuratively speaking) just shrugged and walked away.
It would appear that PSD’s role is not ‘to ensure Northumbria Police meet appropriate professional standards’ but ‘to respond to allegations and complaints’ which is not the same thing at all.
We, on the other hand, are forced to live with the big picture. Harm was done and we want an explanation. We want Northumbria Police to look at the outcome and ask how a routine enquiry could produce such a disaster… assuming of course it cares at all. We want Northumbria Police to determine what went wrong and who was at fault rather than forcing us to make allegations based upon vague information and taking an adversarial stance.
As I have stated elsewhere, this could all have gone away with a few kind words. Instead Northumbria Police is forcing us to live with the consequences of its actions and has successfully defended itself against two attempts to bring it to account. We should not have had to do that; an organisation that is ‘Proud to Protect’ should care that it ended up traumatising an innocent old man and should want to make amends or at least prevent another such incident. Instead it has (figuratively speaking) just shrugged and walked away.
In Summary
Northumbria Police chose to take actions that placed an elderly man in a position where his ability to account for himself was impaired and which imposed needless stress and anxiety upon him.
A summary of the key events and the explanation offered to date looks like this:
It should be clear that this is not satisfactory. We have still not been furnished the explanation promised by the Area Force Commander. The same individual told me he would try to convene a meeting to get me answers to my questions. I never heard anything else about this and my queries now go unanswered.
It is my belief that this whole matter was a stupid, tragic mistake. An overworked police officer made a bad decision and we are suffering for it. But rather than admit an error and try to make amends Northumbria Police has resorted to obfuscation and blame deflection, making feeble excuses that just make its personnel look worse. If they did not control their own complaints procedure they would have never got away with this conduct.
All they had to do was put their mistake right and apologise; to demonstrate through their actions that they cared. They have chosen instead to take an adversarial stance, to defend themselves against our complaints and to essentially just ignore the issue in the hope that it will eventually just go away.
These are not the actions of an organisation that cares in the slightest.
A summary of the key events and the explanation offered to date looks like this:
- PC Mair generated a wanted package on Tuesday morning which ‘demonstrated a need to arrest’. We have asked for this ‘need’ and the decision process surrounding it to be explained to us but have never received an explanation.
- PC Mair went on leave and nobody else did anything. We have been told this is not a problem, i.e. there was no urgent need to carry out an arrest during Tuesday-Saturday.
- PC Mair arrested my father late at night away from his sick wife. The only explanation we have been offered is that nobody else had done anything… which we have been told was not a problem.
It should be clear that this is not satisfactory. We have still not been furnished the explanation promised by the Area Force Commander. The same individual told me he would try to convene a meeting to get me answers to my questions. I never heard anything else about this and my queries now go unanswered.
It is my belief that this whole matter was a stupid, tragic mistake. An overworked police officer made a bad decision and we are suffering for it. But rather than admit an error and try to make amends Northumbria Police has resorted to obfuscation and blame deflection, making feeble excuses that just make its personnel look worse. If they did not control their own complaints procedure they would have never got away with this conduct.
All they had to do was put their mistake right and apologise; to demonstrate through their actions that they cared. They have chosen instead to take an adversarial stance, to defend themselves against our complaints and to essentially just ignore the issue in the hope that it will eventually just go away.
These are not the actions of an organisation that cares in the slightest.
