'Officer acted within guidelines but is being fed to the wolves'

[Fedster 1,039]

Government urged to 'keep its promise' as officer faces threat of dismissal over method used to stop moped-enabled crime.

Tactical contact: End of the road for the moped-enabled crime (stock image)

Date - 8th May 2019
By - Nick Hudson - Police Oracle

10 Comments

 

Rank and file have reacted with dismay at an officer being “fed to the wolves” as he faces dismissal for tactics authorised by police chiefs and backed by politicians and the public to stop moped-enabled crime.

The Police Federation has called on the government to “keep its promise” as PC Edwin Sutton waits to learn his fate this afternoon when a disciplinary panel decides whether he breached professional standards by using a “dangerous” method to stop a teenager escaping after a suspected handbag theft.

The Met Police officer is accused of driving his vehicle into the path of a moped being ridden by a 17-year-old in Erith, south-east London, on May 21, 2017.

The collision left the teenager, who was not wearing a helmet, with head injuries and a broken foot. He was discharged from hospital a few days later and later pleaded guilty to several criminal offences.

An Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation concluded that the officer should not face criminal charges but recommended gross misconduct proceedings.

Police began using the technique of knocking suspects off their mopeds, known as “tactical contact”, in late 2017 to help tackle an epidemic of moped crime in London, where suspects sped off after staging snatch robberies.

The Met says “hard stops” have been instrumental in reducing moped-enabled crime in London by more than 50 per cent in a year.

PC Sutton’s hearing at the Empress State Building in south west London comes just days after Home Secretary Sajid Javid announced plans to change the law to give police greater protection and figures which showed the tactics had slashed moped crime.

But Met Police Federation chairman Ken Marsh blasted: “What message does this case send? We believe this officer acted within guidelines, but is being fed to the wolves.

“It is not right.”

Federation lead on driver training and pursuits Tim Rogers said the government needed to keep its promise to protect police drivers when they were tackling criminals.

Mr Rogers said: “The government is happy to take credit for robust tactics used by officers in London to tackle moped crime.

“They agree the law has to change to legitimise the tactics. But they have failed to find the parliamentary time in order to make the change.

An IOPC statement said: “Last August we welcomed government proposals for changes to the law, guidance and practice surrounding police pursuits.

“We will investigate deaths or serious injuries following police contact and do so based on whether the officers followed their own force guidance, and policies and current legislation as determined by parliament.

“Police officers are entitled to use force that is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances.”

View On Police Oracle

Previous discussion 

https://police.community/topic/189850-met-police-scooter-crash-video-released-as-iopc-investigates/#comments

 

[Traffic Rat 287]

From MetPol sources elsewhere

NO CASE TO ANSWER

[Fedster 1,039]

Police driver, 49, who faced sack for knocking ‘moped mugger’ off bike is cleared of misconduct as his treatment by force watchdog is labelled an 'absolute travesty'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7006771/Police-driver-49-faced-sack-knocking-moped-mugger-bike-cleared-misconduct.html

[Mac7 748]

“Not acting could be negligent.” Is this therefore now officially “damned if you do damned if you don’t?”

 

Whilst I welcome the decisions, who would use this tactic until legislation is introduced? I’m not sure I will.

 

This poor cop has had 2 years of facing not only criminal charges but the sack as well. No doubt that’s had a career lasting affect on him.

 

I’m not sure the IOPC are completely to blame. It would have been the Meta decision to carry out gross misconduct proceedings. The IOPC May have directed the Met to pursue it had they not followed their recommendations, but that is hypothetical.

 

[Barbalar 4]

“Not acting could be negligent.” Is this therefore now officially “damned if you do damned if you don’t?”
 
Whilst I welcome the decisions, who would use this tactic until legislation is introduced? I’m not sure I will.
 
This poor cop has had 2 years of facing not only criminal charges but the sack as well. No doubt that’s had a career lasting affect on him.
 
I’m not sure the IOPC are completely to blame. It would have been the Meta decision to carry out gross misconduct proceedings. The IOPC May have directed the Met to pursue it had they not followed their recommendations, but that is hypothetical.
 

It was a hearing directed by the IOPC. They have pushed for prosecution and Gross misconduct at every stage.

[Hyphen 667]

This has to stop. The irony is that these bumbling buffoons at the IOPC actually undermine confidence in policing and the investigative process. Their high profile witch hunts and blunders do anything but inspire confidence.

The other issue is the general public and politicians support these robust tactics. It isn’t in anyone’s interests to drag this out for so long.

I’m all for prompt investigations where there are suggestions of criminality or corruption, other than that there is no reason for things to drag on like they do. Personally the IOPC aren’t fit for purpose and should frankly be disbanded.

Thank goodness the officer was cleared and some common sense was applied, however, it still feels like a bit of a lottery. The longer these things go on the more of a laughing stock British policing will become.

[Zulu 22 3,600]

Thank goodness that this tribunal had a sensible Chairperson and the correct decision was made. Will this result deter the IOPC, I do not think there is a chance in hell. Other officers will find themselves in the same position. There is no guarantee that a future chair will be as sensible  You just need one who is left wing orientated and of the same thought process as the IOPC. They should be damned but, they won't be.

I am all for the process of stopping these criminal scooter riders but is essential that we/you receive backing from the very top.

[SD 323]

I’m struggling to have sympathy for cops who have been advised time and time again NOT to do it as they risk prosecution but carry on regardless. Yes we should have exemptions but we don’t so until we do stop doing it! Crime will sore, the public will be outraged and then perhaps change will happen. Till then my team get told not to pursue under any circumstances.

[Zulu 22 3,600]

1 hour ago, SD said:

I’m struggling to have sympathy for cops who have been advised time and time again NOT to do it as they risk prosecution but carry on regardless. Yes we should have exemptions but we don’t so until we do stop doing it! Crime will sore, the public will be outraged and then perhaps change will happen. Till then my team get told not to pursue under any circumstances.

Depends if you want to do the job or be a uniform carrier. The change needs to come from the very top. Mobile criminals will prosper unless stopped. 

This case stems from before the edict was given about stopping motor scooters. Those illegal users only have themselves to blame but the officers do need some form of indemnity from prosecution. 

[SimonT+ 892]

My pursuit qualification is up this month. My force has not booked my next lot of training and I'm supposed to chase it up. 

I'm not sure why and I don't intend to get it refreshed. I have blues, they can kerp their pursuit. 

 

[SD 323]

4 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

Depends if you want to do the job or be a uniform carrier. The change needs to come from the very top. Mobile criminals will prosper unless stopped. 

This case stems from before the edict was given about stopping motor scooters. Those illegal users only have themselves to blame but the officers do need some form of indemnity from prosecution. 

Actually our job is to act lawfully, not break it to me make things work. You know...like you swore an oath to do.

[David 4,865]

3 hours ago, SD said:

Actually our job is to act lawfully, not break it to me make things work. You know...like you swore an oath to do.

Which they would be doing if they were given the backing (and indemnity) to actually perform their role.

I fully support the police in making tactical contact with criminal behaviours and it's time they were fully supported in doing so.

[SD 323]

2 hours ago, David said:

Which they would be doing if they were given the backing (and indemnity) to actually perform their role.

I fully support the police in making tactical contact with criminal behaviours and it's time they were fully supported in doing so.

I WANT cops to be able to do it. I WANT them to be protected should they do so. What I’m advocating is a refusal to do it (as it’s breaking the law) till we get the legal protection to do so. If the law is an ass it’s not my job to make it work by putting my liberty on the line.

[Reasonable Man 850]

Depends if you want to do the job or be a uniform carrier. The change needs to come from the very top. Mobile criminals will prosper unless stopped. 
This case stems from before the edict was given about stopping motor scooters. Those illegal users only have themselves to blame but the officers do need some form of indemnity from prosecution. 

You don’t get to do the job or carry a uniform with a criminal conviction.

[David 4,865]

20 hours ago, SD said:

I WANT cops to be able to do it. I WANT them to be protected should they do so. What I’m advocating is a refusal to do it (as it’s breaking the law) till we get the legal protection to do so. If the law is an ass it’s not my job to make it work by putting my liberty on the line.

Which is what I said, isn't it?