chaos4122

Veteran cop probed by own force after finding CCTV missed by detectives investigating vicious attack on his son

27 posts in this topic

23 hours ago, Radman said:

Minor in nature I know but my Mrs had her number plates nicked last year from her car, she reported it to the local police and knowing what I know over how stretched they are I decided it best to go round the nearby buisinesses and see if they had any footage overlooking the area where her car was/asked if any local employees saw anything.

Got a call two weeks later from the officer in case and I told him that I already checked the CCTV in area and spoke to local buisinesses for witnesses.

He told me "Oh thanks for that" and wrote the job off as there wasnt anything.

People have a right to ensure justice is done and have a right to follow things up themselves.

I personally believe the father acted in the best interest of his family and ultimately society - whoever flagged this up to supervision needs a good hard look in the mirror.

Providing you didn't act in your capacity as a Police Officer I see no issue with this.  Identifying yourself as a Police Officer to access to CCTV at the garage however may be an issue for your force I am guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

1 hour ago, funkywingnut said:

Providing you didn't act in your capacity as a Police Officer I see no issue with this.  Identifying yourself as a Police Officer to access to CCTV at the garage however may be an issue for your force I am guessing.

I didnt need to, the manager was very accomodating.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

1 hour ago, funkywingnut said:

Providing you didn't act in your capacity as a Police Officer I see no issue with this.  Identifying yourself as a Police Officer to access to CCTV at the garage however may be an issue for your force I am guessing.

There is nothing to stop him identifying himself and acting in his capacity as a Police Officer. In Peter's case it brought about a correct conclusion and successful prosecution, which would not have happened .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Providing you didn't act in your capacity as a Police Officer I see no issue with this.  Identifying yourself as a Police Officer to access to CCTV at the garage however may be an issue for your force I am guessing.


I would of thought that doing investigation / CCTV enquires and not identifing yourself as an officer would get you in more trouble... The force could argue that your are trying to hide something or get to the suspect, becouse of conflict of interest, before the oic does.

As long as your doing it with integrity and are honest, documenting everything they I don't think you would have to worrie.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using the Police Community App

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Radman said:

I didnt need to, the manager was very accomodating.

It's all in how you approach them

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

There is nothing to stop him identifying himself and acting in his capacity as a Police Officer. In Peter's case it brought about a correct conclusion and successful prosecution, which would not have happened .

I bet the force policy would disagree. 

Adhoc collection of evidence on a whim with a personal involvement will result in some difficult questions at court I would argue. Purposefully conducting investigative actions without authorisation (not initial response) surely is against the force policy.  I honestly don't know, as it's not my Force. 

Edited by funkywingnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

9 hours ago, funkywingnut said:

 ...

Adhoc collection of evidence on a whim with a personal involvement will result in some difficult questions at court I would argue. ...

...

Questions like what? 

Surely the honest answer to the 'difficult questions' would be 'I went the extra mile because it was the wife's car.' or 'My son was beaten senseless, so I had another look at the CCTV.' I don't think we should not do things because of the prospect of 'difficult questions' if we did that, we'd never go to work (or leave the station when we got there). So long as you're honest about how and why you obtained the evidence, there shouldn't be a problem.*

 

 

*Obviously I mean 'there shouldn't be any more problems than there normally are when it comes to getting evidence admitted in court.'

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

20 hours ago, funkywingnut said:

I bet the force policy would disagree. 

Adhoc collection of evidence on a whim with a personal involvement will result in some difficult questions at court I would argue. Purposefully conducting investigative actions without authorisation (not initial response) surely is against the force policy.  I honestly don't know, as it's not my Force. 

There is nothing that the force can disagree with. He was a Police Officer and saw that a complaint of crime had not been dealt with correctly. How can you be criticised for acting within your roll as a Constable.  Did a not too dissimilar thing when my daughter had her car stolen, found the car, found the thief who was successfully prosecuted.

Oxford Road in Manchester is the main A34 into the city passing the University complex and is absolutely full of CCTV camera's, both private and public.

I have know of many officers who have received a Chief Constable's commendation for actions taken whilst off duty.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


There's two ways to complete the same task and each has a different result.

1. Make CCTV/House to House enquiries of your own. If any lead comes to fruition pass this straight to the OIC.

2. Seize CCTV, take MG11s from witnesses you find and directly involve yourself in the investigation.

1 is ethical, lawful and commendable.

2 is stupid and will lose you your job and taint the case.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Clearly some potential issues here with force policy and those involved but as always not a lot of detail in the article.

Did they really close down a GBH as outcome 18 within a few hours or would it have been passed to a DC in time? We don't know.

The Det Supt went and found the CCTV. Good on him, I would've too. What did he do after that though? Did he make a call or send an e-mail pointing out the oversight and asking for a review or did he use his rank to apply pressure to the attending officers or involve himself further in an unprofessional manner? We don't know.

Did the attending officers turn up from their previous job on a busy NTE shift, find someone knocked out with the attacker gone, scoop them up, record a crime after some very brief enquiries and resume to their next emergency job under massive pressure from Comms? Probably but we don't know for sure.

You can't expect a response cop to conduct a full investigation into a serious and complex crime within half an hour between jobs. It's as simple as that!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


You can't expect a response cop to conduct a full investigation into a serious and complex crime within half an hour between jobs. It's as simple as that!


But would you not expect a response cop to make reference to the possibility of CCTV evidence being in existence when criming a job? They should have identified that key line of enquiry and that should have been picked up by the Officer who it was assigned to.

I have worked in different forces who took very different approaches to when a job could be closed down. One in particularly was ridiculously pedantic in what was needed to be done and others were more lax. A more 'balanced' force I worked for decided to put some training on at our nick as the quality of crime recording was not good enough (Specials and Regs) and I always remember who much it was emphasised that reference should always be made to the potential presence of CCTV and to list any potential key lines of enquiry that were known.

On this occasion, it seems that the matter shouldn't have been closed down so quickly.


Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

The Det Supt went and found the CCTV. Good on him, I would've too. What did he do after that though? Did he make a call or send an e-mail pointing out the oversight and asking for a review or did he use his rank to apply pressure to the attending officers or involve himself further in an unprofessional manner? We don't know.

 

I suspect both. But the outcome for him was just an informal sanction. It sounds like (apart from his son's injuries) it was all blown out of all proportions?

 

He is clearly still aggrieved (why run off to the Daily Mail and criticise the force that you have worked for all your life and alienate yourself from former colleagues?), yet I wonder whether it was him creating all the noise in the system? Did he try to get the Officers involved stuck on?

 

Most people would understand his anger but I am not sure that Officers concerned would have been formally dealt with unless someone complained? If he did complain, then I can understand why his actions were also scrutinised too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now