PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

British police are the best in the world and provide great value for money
reca
post Sun, 14 Jun 2020 - 11:07
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 212
Joined: 9 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,463



Couple arrested over Gatwick Airport drone chaos receive £200,000 police payout

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/gatwi...n-a4468526.html

“This is an issue which can only be resolved by a court. However, we recognise that things could have been done differently and, as a result, Sussex Police have agreed to pay you compensation and legal costs.”

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Sun, 14 Jun 2020 - 11:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 14 Jun 2020 - 20:13
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



This case highlighted in this film by Channel 4 shows how people (and in this case a black person) can be done over by the police. If you can't afford a lawyer - which he could - it can be hard to fight.

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-bla...month-nightmare
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Sun, 14 Jun 2020 - 22:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



Apparently they received a £55,000 compensation payment. Their legal team are chasing for payment of £145,000 in "legal costs" after the out-of-court settlement.

"Sussex Police said the compensation payment is £55,000 and is still in discussion over costs."
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/18516480.ga...k-drone-arrest/


This post has been edited by Steve_999: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 - 22:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Itchy Bootmore
post Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 12:20
Post #4


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 711
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
From: Somewhere in Paradise.... NOT.
Member No.: 1,508



A family member of mine was arrested at gunpoint (weapon held to them at very close proximity, cocked and safety off) via a hard stop some years ago on charges of abetting terrorists. They were questioned, ostensibly with a solicitor present though this could not be verified at the time and was found to be true only some of the time. They were eventually let go, and it was acknowledged they had nothing to do with any incident, group or activities whatsoever. The Police force in question admitted a false arrest. They would not issue a public apology, a compensation amount eventually offered for loss of business, reputation and stress of the ordeal was a risible amount (even for the time) of just 4 figures, and this was not to be acknowledged publicly.

It was made very clear that the costs of taking this to court to gain any meaningful compensation were going to be absurdly astronomical given the State and Police Force were going to be defending their reputation, careers, policies and practices.

I believe they all got told to go away.


--------------------
"I love it.... I need it..... I bleed it.....
Eight cylinders, all mine....
Alright, hold tight, I'm a highway star......"
bleeooowwrrgghhhh!!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 19:51
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Itchy Bootmore @ Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 13:20) *
The Police force in question admitted a false arrest.

There's got to be more to it than that. If the arrests were made based on information believed to be true by the arresting officer, the arrest would normally be lawful no matter how mistaken the officer may later turn out to be.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 20:38
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



There is no such thing as a false arrest (accept perhaps thing you are under arrest when you are not?)..... wrongful, unlawful or perhaps totally justified but mistaken seems to fit your description.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 07:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



So the police can do anything they like then ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 11:00
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 08:50) *
So the police can do anything they like then ?

No, to be lawful the arrest has to meet the requirements of section 24 of PACE (reasonable grounds of suspicion based on articulable facts or information, and the arrest must also meet the necessity test under PACE).

However the arrest does not become unlawful simply because the information that an officer relied upon in good faith to make an arrest later turns out to be incorrect (or else the police could only arrest someone where that person's guilt is a certainty rather than a suspicion, and this would mean that arrest and interview would cease to be an investigative tool).

If the officer is acting in bad faith, he does not have the reasonable grounds for suspicion or the arrest is not necessary (see for example R (oao TL) v Surrey Police [2017] EWHC 129 (Admin)), then the purported arrest is not an arrest at all. Rather, it's a case of false imprisonment and kidnapping.

False arrest is an Americanism that has no meaning I know of in English law, and has likely come up as the result of someone looking at too many youtube videos.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 11:01


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Itchy Bootmore
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 12:52
Post #9


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 711
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
From: Somewhere in Paradise.... NOT.
Member No.: 1,508



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 12:00) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 08:50) *
So the police can do anything they like then ?

No, to be lawful the arrest has to meet the requirements of section 24 of PACE (reasonable grounds of suspicion based on articulable facts or information, and the arrest must also meet the necessity test under PACE).

However the arrest does not become unlawful simply because the information that an officer relied upon in good faith to make an arrest later turns out to be incorrect (or else the police could only arrest someone where that person's guilt is a certainty rather than a suspicion, and this would mean that arrest and interview would cease to be an investigative tool).

If the officer is acting in bad faith, he does not have the reasonable grounds for suspicion or the arrest is not necessary (see for example R (oao TL) v Surrey Police [2017] EWHC 129 (Admin)), then the purported arrest is not an arrest at all. Rather, it's a case of false imprisonment and kidnapping.

False arrest is an Americanism that has no meaning I know of in English law, and has likely come up as the result of someone looking at too many youtube videos.


Well.... whatever, dude..... It's a paraphrase / figure of speech. "Wrongful arrest" if you like.The sentence conveyed the intended meaning which you clearly understood as you then proceeded to engage with that meaning and deconstruct it, for some reason. If it wasn't "wrongful" then why offer compensation. The point is - they should never have been arrested in the first place. It was an over-reaction by the state and its forces.

Are you accusing me of looking at too many YouTube videos? To what end?

This post has been edited by Itchy Bootmore: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 12:53


--------------------
"I love it.... I need it..... I bleed it.....
Eight cylinders, all mine....
Alright, hold tight, I'm a highway star......"
bleeooowwrrgghhhh!!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 13:00
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Itchy Bootmore @ Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 13:52) *
Well.... whatever, dude..... It's a paraphrase / figure of speech. "Wrongful arrest" if you like.The sentence conveyed the intended meaning which you clearly understood as you then proceeded to engage with that meaning and deconstruct it, for some reason. If it wasn't "wrongful" then why offer compensation. The point is - they should never have been arrested in the first place. It was an over-reaction by the state and its forces.

I'm just pointing out that, as a matter of legal terminology, there's no such thing as a "false arrest" in the UK. As I understand it, in the US a false arrest is is where an officer arrests someone without probable cause (which is the legal test that must be met over there). In the UK as I understand it, either the arrest is lawful, or there is no arrest at all and the officer could be guilty of assault, false imprisonment and/or kidnapping.

QUOTE (Itchy Bootmore @ Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 13:52) *
Are you accusing me of looking at too many YouTube videos? To what end?

No, I'm accusing you of using an Americanism, whether that's due to youtube videos or not I have no idea smile.gif


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
reca
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 15:50
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 212
Joined: 9 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,463



There is no such thing as 'false arrest' in UK law? rolleyes.gif



"All of that shows that there was a false arrest and false imprisonment thereafter, which were maliciously procured by the defendant."

Barkhuysen v Hamilton [2016] EWHC 2858 (QB)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 16:52
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (reca @ Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 16:50) *
Barkhuysen v Hamilton [2016] EWHC 2858 (QB)

A fascinating read!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
reca
post Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 17:38
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 212
Joined: 9 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,463



On New Year's Day 2013 the defendant made a report to the police, alleging that in the early hours of that morning she had seen the claimant having sexual intercourse with one of her pigs.

Is a famous case, did it on my course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here