Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

The victim was attacked with a machete.

 

Date - 5th September 2018
By - South Beds News Agency

 

A teenager accused of a machete attack in Watford town centre had the case against him dropped on Tuesday after the judge ruled police had broken rules on CCTV identification.

The 17-year-old from Edgware was charged with attempted murder following a stabbing near McDonalds in Watford High Street at around 2pm on Thursday March 8.

After two police officers viewed the CCTV he was arrested. 

The dreadlocked teenager told the police he was at his family's home in Watford that day saying: "I ain't the only black person with long hair."

During the attack the 23-year-old victim was punched, a large machete was produced and he was repeatedly struck. He fell to the ground, crashed into a market stall and was chased for a short while into an alleyway, where he was found bleeding.

In hospital he was treated for a very deep wound to the left wrist that went through to the bone. He refused to make a complaint to the police or give his name.

During five days of legal argument at St Albans Crown Court, defence barrister Mark Kimsey argued evidence from officers who looked at CCTV footage in a control room at Watford police was unsafe.

They had not signed in and out of the control room and no contemporaneous record was kept of the officers'  identification of the suspect.

In her ruling, Judge Marie Catterson said the officers had made "flagrant and wholesale" breaches of the rules. 

She said there had been a "total disregard" for the code on CCTV identification under the Police and Criminal Evidence rules.

She asked for a transcript of her ruling to be sent to Hertfordshire Chief Constable Charlie Hall saying the situation regarding CCTV identification at Watford police station last March "leaves a lot to be desired."

The judge said: "An important training issue about codes of practice on identification needs to be addressed urgently."

Prosecutor, Beverly Cripps offered no evidence against the youth on charges of attempted murder, an alternative of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and possessing an article with a blade.

Hertfordshire Constabulary said in a statement: "This has been a challenging investigation which led to evidence being gathered and charges being brought by the Crown Prosecution Service.

"We will be seeking further clarification around the ruling and will conduct a review of the investigation and our procedures accordingly. 

"It would therefore be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time."

View On Police Oracle

[Reasonable Man + 1,230]

Hopefully a salutary lesson in doing things correctly.

[sierragolf95 + 55]

So let me get this straight, this guy has been caught on camera hacking someone with a machete, but people are worried that the cops didn't sign in or out? Some people need to get their priorities straight. As a CCTV Operator it's my responsibility to log who comes in and out of my control room as well as my responsibility to make sure that copies of footage are made within the guidelines and all the paperwork is complete, because until that is done, I'm still the one responsible for the data. Even at that though, paperwork comes second place to catching someone that dangerous. Typical defence lawyers, takes a special kind of fool with absolutely no moral compass to worry about technicalities when at the end of the day this guy is clearly a nasty piece of work.

[SD + 683]

3 hours ago, sierragolf95 said:

So let me get this straight, this guy has been caught on camera hacking someone with a machete, but people are worried that the cops didn't sign in or out? Some people need to get their priorities straight. As a CCTV Operator it's my responsibility to log who comes in and out of my control room as well as my responsibility to make sure that copies of footage are made within the guidelines and all the paperwork is complete, because until that is done, I'm still the one responsible for the data. Even at that though, paperwork comes second place to catching someone that dangerous. Typical defence lawyers, takes a special kind of fool with absolutely no moral compass to worry about technicalities when at the end of the day this guy is clearly a nasty piece of work.

Try reading all the words before you have a rant. They breached PACE and cops know if you do evidence can be binned.

[HazRat 762]

3 hours ago, sierragolf95 said:

Typical defence lawyers, takes a special kind of fool with absolutely no moral compass to worry about technicalities when at the end of the day this guy is clearly a nasty piece of work.

You’re probably right, but t we need to follow the Code of practice for identification.

[Ether + 1,391]

Oh dear, that doesn’t look particularly professional. 

Everyone makes mistakes tho. 

[Mac7 808]

3 hours ago, sierragolf95 said:

So let me get this straight, this guy has been caught on camera hacking someone with a machete, but people are worried that the cops didn't sign in or out? Some people need to get their priorities straight. As a CCTV Operator it's my responsibility to log who comes in and out of my control room as well as my responsibility to make sure that copies of footage are made within the guidelines and all the paperwork is complete, because until that is done, I'm still the one responsible for the data. Even at that though, paperwork comes second place to catching someone that dangerous. Typical defence lawyers, takes a special kind of fool with absolutely no moral compass to worry about technicalities when at the end of the day this guy is clearly a nasty piece of work.

 

 

No. That’s the point. There is a discrepancy over the ID of the perpetrator. He is saying he wasn’t there and the cops are saying he was (in simple terms). As they have not followed the correct procedures to ID him (Pace code D and R v Turnbull) then the charges have been dropped.

This is why my ID statements for years now have always had a few opening lines to say how I’ve complied with code D and then include R v Turnbull as required in the body of the statement.

 

 

[SD + 683]

1 hour ago, Funkywingnut said:

Oh dear, that doesn’t look particularly professional. 

Everyone makes mistakes tho. 

Reads less like a mistake and more like a complete ignorance of basic policing!

[Hyphen + 693]

It doesn’t sound good in the story, clearly there has been an issue here. In fairness, it sounds a pretty weak case anyway and the fact that the CCTV was not clearly identifying the suspect it was hardly an open and shut case. There wasn’t even a victim complaint in the case.

Definitely food for thought though, ID is probably one of the weakest areas in terms of codes of practice for front line cops.

 

[Hyphen + 693]

2 minutes ago, SD said:

Reads less like a mistake and more like a complete ignorance of basic policing!

It is a difficult mistake to explain really, agreed. As I mentioned above I think it is a weak area in general and maybe this is a wake up call for people to brush up.

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

"case disintegrates after officers fail to sign into CCTV control room"

Another fine example of incomplete, sensationalist journalism giving a misleading impression that's intent on provoking a negative reaction.

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Billy Blue Tac

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

Does PACE require people to sign in to rooms?

[Ether + 1,391]

7 minutes ago, Indiana Jones said:

Does PACE require people to sign in to rooms?

God I hope not, lost count of how many times I have recovered CCTV and done nothing more than viewed it and noted the time of recovery. 

[Ether + 1,391]

4 hours ago, SD said:

Reads less like a mistake and more like a complete ignorance of basic policing!

Does it? For a beat cop who just goes to view a bit of CCTV. 

Maybe I’m ignorant of the same, I think we have to be careful not to support a system that is devoid of common sense and decency. 

[Radman + 2,163]

As my Sergeant once said to me and a colleague:

"I.D issues will come back and #### you in court lads."

Wise words, he was an ex-DI in the HO.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Radman