Please see this.
Now read this.
Sickening and disappointing.
One wonders what the verdict on Special Constable Peter Lightfoot will be.
UPDATE - 2 AUGUST 2010
Peter Lightfoot has been found guilty of assault.
Astonishingly complacent IPCC statement is here. It was all just a training error it seems, and Mr Aspinall was basically just asking for it...
FURTHER UPDATE - 2 AUGUST 2010
Search for "Lightfoot" in the document here, which appears to pre-date the assault on Aspinall.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Oh, and remember the police frequently sue for defamation. However, if they choose to sue me, I will spend the next two or so years of my life seeking to extend the Derbyshire principle to cover statements about police officers in the performance of their duties...
Saturday, 31 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
Shocked, very shocked and ashamed this has been done in 'our' name. I can't add anything further I am so angry.
I'm surprised he wasn't charged with criminal damage to the tarmac...
The senior officer present (a sergeant) was acquitted of assault. Maybe that's fair enough. But if the special constable is found guilty, shouldn't the ranking officer bear some culpability for failing to exercise his authority to stop the continued and blatant assaults that the SC was inflicting? He can hardly have failed to notice they were going on.
I am appalled by this and, even allowing for the fact that we were not at the trial and listening to the evidence, it is extremely hard to see how a jury could reach this verdict.
We will await the other verdict with interest.
Awful.
Does anyone have a view on what the chances of a successful civil prosecution for damages would be, given the lower standard of proof required for civil cases?
Are there any charities which help fund civil actions in cases such as this?
Robin
Verdict is in. Guilty. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr_020810_lightfoot.htm
"IPCC Commissioner Ms Naseem Malik said: It is clear from the evidence that Mr Aspinall was drunk, aggressive and causing a nuisance. He was exhibiting the kind of behaviour that police officers have the unfortunate duty to deal with on a regular basis. That is why officers are trained to deal with such individuals in a professional manner. However in this incident Special Constable Lightfoot's training would appear to have been replaced by a red mist. His actions were violent, excessive and unjustified."
Sounds fair to me. What exactly do you object to in this?
Let's try not to get sucked in to the tabloid view that just because Lightfoot acted with unacceptable violence, Aspinall must therefore be a saint, and all police officer's uniformly evil. It's perfectly possible (probable, indeed) that Aspinall acted like a violent drunken thug, and then Lightfoot acted like a violent angry thug. One of them has been demonised by the press and bloggers, will probably go to jail, and will certainly lose his job. The other, has been consistently described as a war hero in the press, has been permitted to put his side of the story unchallenged, and has his own conviction for assault overturned (and mostly ignored).
@Kincaid: "I'm surprised he wasn't charged with criminal damage to the tarmac..."
A. P. Herbert got there over 80 years ago in his account of the (fictional) case of R v. Haddock:
"It is a principle of English law that a person who appears in a police court has done something undesirable, and citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognized categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable."
'It's perfectly possible (probable, indeed) that Aspinall acted like a violent drunken thug'
Where's the evidence of that, Jake? Was it his deadly finger-pointing? Or are we counting his biting the legs of one of his attackers after they brought him to the ground?
I am always cautious about commenting too much on a specific case where I only have a little bit of the information. But I am still prepared to, it seems, go against the flow here and make some contrary comments. For a start, imagine the same video with a different "videocops" style voiceover, particularly if footage also existed of him being thrown out of a nightclub for drunkenness, apparently abusing an asian doorman and interfering with a paramedic attempting to treat someone. I suspect that it would not be difficult to present the same footage in a way which leaves a very different impression.
Some people behave in such a way as to need extreme restraint, and there have been one or two moments in my professional career where I have been very grateful for the presence of large police officers prepared to deal with someone determined to use violence to stop me doing my job. Those of you who have not faced such a situation, I suggest that you should be very relieved, as it is not a nice experience.
This was not, as far as the evidence I have seen shows, another Ian Tomlinson, suffering an unprovoked attack. I am perfectly prepared to accept that SC Lightfoot crossed a line which should not have been crossed, but the position of that line has only been conclusively determined long after the event by arguments between lawyers in a courtroom, where none of the participants were exposed to danger, nor had any responsibility to protect bystanders. And then only for this specific event.
Another contrast with the Ian Tomlinson case: JoK seems, as I am, very unhappy that the full evidence there is not to be put before a jury. In this case, from his original post before today's verdict, he appears unhappy with the jury's verdict on the other two officers. What is it to be? Do we trust a jury to weigh the evidence properly, or not, or only when they come to an approved verdict? Personally, I think that that is a far more important issue than whether or not a particular officer crossed a particular line in a particular incident.
@Black Guardian -
The evidence of it has appeared in court in two (or four?) instances that I am aware of. Firstly, Aspinall's own trial for Assault Police (for which he was found guilty) and secondly at the trials of the three officers who arrested him, all of whom made reference to his behaviour as a justification for their actions. Two of them, remember, were agreed with by the jury.
Yes, amongst other things that may not appear on the video, I am counting his biting the legs of the arresting officers as they attempted to detain him. The finger pointing is less of an issue, although it could certainly contribute to an impression of a drunken and agressive man. I don't know, I wasn't there.
"Black Guardian said...
'It's perfectly possible (probable, indeed) that Aspinall acted like a violent drunken thug'
Where's the evidence of that, Jake?"
From the BBC website "The court heard claims the ex-soldier, who had drunk about nine pints of beer, had interfered with a paramedic who was trying to treat a woman and racially abused an Asian doorman."
More than enough to justify his arrest. but not the assault he suffered. If Lightfoot thought his actions proportionate, why lie about it?
'The court heard claims...' Help me out here. Was that for the conviction that was overturned? What does that mean for the 'claims', then?
Is the Court of Appeal decision quashing Aspinall's conviction available on the net? I've tried the bailii.org site and not been able to find it searching on "Aspinall".
Relativists have long ago made it difficult to 'believe what one reads' for language can no longer be assumed innocent of the company it keeps!
Context, when considering video evidence, is clearly also problematic.
The CCTV film of Aspinall's assault by PC Lightfoot (as the court has, for now, determined it to be) has been read in several different ways.
It first appeared in the original case before Wigan magistrates.
(from Mailonline 1st December 2008)
"On September 22, at Wigan magistrates' court, the officers read statements claiming Mr Aspinall had been behaving violently.
Despite viewing the footage, magistrates found him guilty of the assaults, sentenced him to community service and gave him a suspended-prison sentence. They also ordered him to pay £250 compensation.
...
On November 13 at Liverpool Crown Court, Judge Phipps saw the [same] footage and asked: 'Where is this man of violence? I am shocked and appalled at the level of police violence shown here.'
The judge said he had 'great concerns' about the CCTV footage and questioned the truthfulness of the officers' statements.
'I would go as far as to say the statements contain untruths,' he added."
Seen in that light, IPCC Commissioner Ms Naseem Malik's observation that 'Mr Aspinall was drunk, aggressive and causing a nuisance' seems tendentious, possibly even actionable.
Mr Aspinall's behaviour could be adduced only from evidence presented by the police (one of whom has now been convicted of perjury), from CCTV (which depends rather on how you 'read' what is happening) or from independent witnesses (about whom there is no mention).
If the police themselves are unwilling to control the 'rotten apples' within their ranks (and thanks to video evidence we are all begining to know who they are) and the IPCC appears incapable of reacting to the steady loss of public confidence in the police service, 'policing by consent' will have become virtually impossible.
Not being familiar with the Derbyshire principle myself, I did a bit of googling. The rule is simply that:
"a local authority does not have the right to maintain an action of damages for defamation."
The judgement is available online here. It is short and readable.
"Mojo said...
A. P. Herbert got there over 80 years ago in his account of the (fictional) case of R v. Haddock: "
Is It A Free Country?
Taken as factual by an American legal publication, in an article that proudly ended with the statement that it could never happen in an American Court.
At least it came to court: fatalities never do.
Do, please, feel free to contradict me: it would greatly reassure me to be told that there has ever been a criminal prosecution following a death in Police custody or following a 'reasonable use of force' by the Police.
As for Lightfoot, I would say that he was ill-advised - although every legal professional will someday meet a client who is perversely determined to act against his own interests - as he could argue that a violent suspect sometimes needs a sharp physical shock to pacify him before he injures himself or the arresting officer, 'and I was horrified that this did not appear to work and a repeated blow was necessary…' Not a watertight defence but it'd float in a case with a deeply repellent defendant and a sympathetic jury; and it's infinitely better than resorting to perjury.
I am, of course, entirely unqualified to offer anything that might be considered legal advice, and I offer my personal opinions purely as a matter for discussion and debate.
Nile,
Ill advised? You appear to suggest that a legal adviser would be providing him with an account of events. I hope that is not how you see defence briefs operating.
Tang0
From the 1891 case quoted in Derbyshire:
A corporation may sue for a libel affecting property, not for one
merely affecting personal reputation
What happened between 1891 and 2009 to allow the British Chiropractic Assiciation to sue Simon Singh?
Jack of Kent,
Do the police frequently sue for defamation? I wasn't aware of any cases?
Tang0
I've been confused and disturbed by the 'sickening and disappointing' comment since the post went up.
Different jobs carry different risks. A doctor might administer the wrong dose of medicine, killing the patient; the judge might allow the bail application, and the defendant goes on to kill; the soldier might machine-gun the bus bomber, to find it was a school bus; the social worker might accept the mother's explanation about the bruises, and the child is battered to death the following week.
Faced with having to interpret such scenarios, and perhaps to offer an opinion or judgement, we will somehow place them in context. That context might be the surrounding information we are provided with by the media, our own experiences or those of friends or relatives with similar jobs, the received wisdom of our group - and also our own prejudices.
We saw recently with Shirley Sherrod what can happen when a short video clip is taken out of context and I'm sure that other readers of the blog will have tutted as loudly as I did at Fox News, the super-fast news cycle and the stupidity of the White House's response.
Yet here, with the short video clip which prompted this blog post, the author and commenters seem quite happy to continue to damn two individuals who have been unanimously acquitted by a jury. A jury which had an opportunity to examine in some detail a great deal more contextual information than is available to us.
As a police officer I often face violence or the threat of violence, and have to use force.
The risk for me is that the force that I use might be, or be judged to be, unreasonable or indeed that the force used by a colleague I am with might cross that line, or be judged to have done so.
If and when officers are alleged to have committed a criminal offence it is my understanding that they are *more* likely to end up in court than a non-police officer in similar circumstances (and rightly so) due to the public interest test.
There is certainly no feeling from myself and my colleagues that if we do something wrong that we'll be 'protected' in some way by a shady, benevolent triumvirate of senior officers, the CPS and parliament. Quite the opposite.
'Yes', you might say, 'but using force is a horrible thing to do, so *don't do it*, then you won't face that risk.'
I don't think that that is a realistic position. If there's anyone here who genuinely feels that we can do without a police service of some kind or that we can have a completely pacifist one, then fair enough.
For those of you who can't take that position, then please think hard about the kind of police service you want, and if you're not prepared to be in it yourself then think how you can constructively support and when necessary hold to account the people who do that distasteful job for you.
In doing so, acting with a little more thought and intelligence than Rick from The Young Ones would be good.
It's tempting in a forum such as this one to shout 'Fascists!' into the echo chamber. It might make you feel good, but it is facile and ultimately destructive.
Who or what are you sickened and disappointed by?
The behaviour of the two individuals who were acquitted?
The jury's decision based on the evidence they heard at the trial?
Please explain.
Rory - Whilst this might be what you feel on the front line and in some cases may be absolutely true, many of us do not recognise the image you portray.
Just in the last few years we have had Stockwell, the G20, harassment and agression towards peaceful protesters and regular s.44 stops of photographers for no apparently justifiable reason. It is not surprising therefore that whilst none of these actions has resulted in even the slightest punishment for officers involved many are mistrustful of the police to act responsibly and police themselves.
In response to Alex B
What you're saying is at the heart of the problem.
You're conflating a number of very different unrelated issues, and using them to characterise 'the police'.
This is happening in a blog post which shows a short video titled with the military rank of the (off duty and out of uniform) soldier who was arrested, links to a verdict passed unanimously by a jury on two individuals who appear in that video, and which then calls their acquittal, those individuals, or the jurors themselves (it's not clear to me) 'sickening and disappointing.'
I completely agree that there are many elements of policing and the criminal justice system which need to be questioned and hopefully changed, that there are corrupt police officers, that there are bad laws and poor training.
What I would hope though is that that debate can be tackled in an intelligent and liberal way, without the police becoming some kind of 'out-group' as the gathered skeptics succumb to Daily-Mail-think in the name of righteous anger at the pigs.
I'm a reader of this blog because I'm a small-l liberal. I'm interested in law, and dislike its abuse. I'm a skeptic, a photographer, a humanist. I also happen to be one of about 100,000 people in the UK who are police officers for a living.
Seemingly though, if I were to be accused of a crime and to stand trial - and even acquitted - a range of specific and non-specific wrongs which are nothing to do with me personally would be held against me.
If anyone tried doing that with a member of any other group you'd all be up in arms, and JoK would be going all pro bono on them. It is no better than the unquestioning belief in the police which (I'm told) used to prevail in the courts.
I'll happily engage in discussion about any of those specific issues, though I have no more knowledge about them than you other than the perspective of being a police officer for nine hours a day, but my original questions to JoK still stand...
Who or what are you sickened or disappointed by?
The behaviour of the two individuals who were acquitted?
The jury's decision based on the evidence they heard at the trial?
Well it seems the Sc went over the top, but maybe that was understandable. If you've ever experienced the violence that drunks can display, it can be frightening and it usually all kicks off in a second. There is hardly time to think what to do, so we shouldn't judge too harshly. But at the same time we can't have cops going over the top with gratuitous violence. Its a difficult balance to strike and when looked at in hindsight it is easy to say 'he got it wrong'
Rory,
you need to note that the original post was prior to the verdict. I.e. "sickening and disappointing" refers to the behaviour on the CCTV footage. Not the subsequent trial process.
The word "disappointing" is also used by Chief Constable Garry Shewan in his post-trial comment.
It must be at times well nigh impossible to measure out the appropriate level of violence (which any restraint is) in a street situation. It makes it all the more important that individuals such as Lightfoot are not accepted.
So to turn the question around a bit: what would you have done, if you had been Lightfoot's colleague
a) on the scene
b) later, where he lied to the court
Of course there will be "rotten apples". But the key it seems to me is how they are dealt with by their own system *in the absence of incriminating CCTV footage*.
Dan - the comment 'sickening and disappointing' was actually subsequent to the first two verdicts of innocent, and directly following a link to a story about the verdicts of innocent.
I think it is clear in the context that Jack of Kent is, for some reason, unhappy with the fact that the first two officers were found innocent. I would be interested to hear him explain why this is.
My bad - missed that.
But my point (and questions to Rory) become maybe even more pertinent.
Do you find the behaviour of the other officers to be acceptable?
Rory worries that "the police" get a bad name. But what are these other officers if not "the police", in contrast to the "rotten apple"?
And *if* the perjury conviction related to the events on the video, how was that possible given that these officers were witnesses?
'You're conflating a number of very different unrelated issues, and using them to characterise 'the police'.
They are not unrelated. They all have something very specific in common: the behaviour of the police. A uniform(ed) group. That's why we are in this forum. It is the whole point of the discussion. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
First that, then this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10888435
hooligans everywhere; the barbarians aren't just at the gates
Dan - does it really matter whether or not Rory, or me, or you, think that the behaviour of the other officers is acceptable, based on a very limited piece of evidence, when a jury presented with the full prosecution evidence found them not guilty? That is, as I have already said, my great concern with JoK's description of, well, something, not absolutely clear what, as "sickening and disappointing." To me, it sounds worryingly like approving of trial by Jury only if that jury produces a verdict JoK approves of.
I will go a bit further and ask of what relevence to the verdict it is to give Lance Corporal Aspinall's full military title, or, as in the linked article, to point out that he has done a tour of duty in Afghanistan? I have not, nor, I presume, have you: Would that make it any more or less acceptable if you or I had been the arrestee in that incident? Of course not, so why make an issue of it, unless you are trying a too-common legal and media attempt to conflate something about the victim with the severity of the offence.
It should not matter if the arrestee is a VC recipient or a recidivist troublemaker in deciding whether or not the officers behaviour was acceptable, only how the arrestee behaved at the time.
Rory - Agree with pretty much all that you say, even though that doesn't, I hope, make me an unquestioning supporter of all police action - e.g. it is almost as worrying that none of Simon Harwood's colleagues came foreward about the Ian Tomlinson incident before he was identified. But some people appear to think that if someone is prepared to violently resist arrest, the police should back down and let them go and do as they wish. I would love to gather a group of such people, divide them in two, and charge one half with defending the other half from a bunch of friday night nightclub drunks.
Dan in answer to your question:
Was the behaviour of the other officers "acceptable"?
I refer you to your own earlier point:-
It must be at times well nigh impossible to measure out the appropriate level of violence (which any restraint is) in a street situation.
In response to DrJ,
Just on a side issue a number of Metropolitan officers (including Harwood) came forward to the Met and then the IPCC on 8th April - the day the footage was released - and presumably the first opportunity they had to realise that Tomlinson was one of the hundreds of people they had come across that day.
Tang0
In response to the last anonymous comment, the police officers certainly came forward at their first opportunity once they realised that the attack on Tomlinson had been caught on video, and the accounts of his death previously given by the Met/CoLP were therefore untrue.
As I introduced the term 'rotten apple' into this discussion, might I respond to some of the defensive commentary.
If policing by consent is to be convincing, we need a clear and open way for failures whether by individual police officers or by groups of police officers, or by forces within the police service to be brought to light and properly addressed.
The 'Lightfoot' prosecution can, of course, be seen in a positive light - individual police officers are not above the law and they can be successfully prosecuted.
But three policmen were involved in what is recorded in the CCTV material.
We assume all three officers were involved in the original prosecution of Mr. Aspinall and that the prosecution of all three following an independent investigation of what actually happed when Aspinall was 'arrested' suggests that all three were considered culpable.
So, one asks, why was only one police officer successfully prosecuted after the quashing of the verdict in the original case brought against Mr Aspinall?
Although a court of law has acquitted two or the three officers, it would be helpful to this discussion, if somebody could point to what distinguished Lightfoot's role (where a prosecution has been successful) from that of the other two (who have been found innocent of the charges brought against them).
I ask for clarification not because I believe the other officers are not innocent but because it is unclear from the limited facts we presently have how this can be so.
Why SC Lightfoots actions were judged to be assault whilst the other two officers actions were judged to be lawful?
Because when the court viewed the whole incident in slow motion, in conjunction with hearing testimony from witnesses at the scene, expert witnesses and the officers themselves, the court believed that 2 officers had used "reasonable" force whilst one officer had not.
Certain techniques in restraining and handcuffing a non compliant prisoner are justifiable and may even be home-office approved as well. Each officer played a different role in the restraint and each officer was asked to justify his actions.
Tang0
As I understand it the charges were as set out here
ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6650961.ece
"Greater Manchester Police officers Sergeant Stephen Russell, Pc Richard Kelsall and Special Constable Peter Lightfoot, who are all based in Wigan, are charged with assault and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Special Constable Lightfoot also faces a charge of perjury."
I understand now how the assault charges were considered; what about "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" which I assume relate to the conduct of all three officers after the arrest - for example, the statements made by each officer that led to the charging of Mark Aspinall, evidence given in court during Aspinall's trial and/or appeal, and so on?
Do we have any sources for these either from the original trial, the Aspinall's appeal or the most recent trial?
Interesting blog JOK.
Although you are Of Kent I doubt you would know the origins of door steward licensing schemes ?
In fact when L Richard Taylor (tory) was Mayor of Ramsgate in the 1980s he called for any ideas to address early hours vandalism etc.
After speaking to police and social services and probation he met me (former Head Bouncer for Pleasurama at Ramsgate)
I explained to him that the way club/pub licensing opposition worked in the resorts was that clubs were "Dissuaded" from calling police under threat of licence renewal opposition.
This created a situation in which the bouncers held the trenches whilst the night shift police luxuriated in the chateau well out of the firing line and with artificially created low public disorder figures. (The "Chateau to the rear of the lines often being a pub at Westgate where occasionally we bouncers would call on our way home after an arduous night protecting the public in the police absence and we would let the police car tyres down. Funny when stories of probationary constables knocking up local residents at 5 AM to borrow footpumps ...)
However if the Home Office had acted on the report as submitted then police would have been exposed to training by professionals (Door stewards) and incidents such as under discussion thereby minimized.
I recall an unfortunate glassing incident in 1981 which led to us throwing out seven men. These were off duty police. WE consequently banned off duty Kent police from the club. I must say the ambience improved and the number of immature "Catalyst" men reduced.
L/Cpl Aspinall had served in both Iraq and Afghanistan (I served in neither, but being older, in Borneo, NI and the Falklands) but that did not give hinm any extra rights to be disorderly.
I once hitched a lift from Gen Sir Frank Kitson, who asked me why the red-top papers were making a fuss of "Task Force Heroes" who were being done for rape. I had no reasonable answer.
Here it seems that the JNCO was a bit drunk and lippy. The police' self-control snapped (perhaps they were suffering from PMT?) and they went for him. I too am staggered at the acquittals, having seen the CCTV, but the warrior status of the victim is an irrelevance, IMHO.
Those following these matters will be interested to read the following:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7940630/Four-Met-officers-to-be-charged-with-assault-on-terrorism-suspect-Babar-Ahmad.html
and particularly:
"Simon Clements, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "Babar Ahmad was arrested by the officers on suspicion of terrorism offences. Mr Ahmad suffered a number of injuries during that arrest, including heavy bruising to the head, neck, wrists and feet.
"The Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence on how those injuries were caused from the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2004.
"We took the view at that time that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction of anyone involved.
"Following Mr Ahmad's successful civil proceedings for compensation from the police in the High Court last year, his solicitors asked the CPS to look at the evidence again.
"The Director of Public Prosecutions asked the Special Crime Division to do so. We have now completed our review of the evidence.
"Our conclusion is that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge four of the officers involved in the arrest of Mr Ahmad with causing actual bodily harm to him, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861." "
I wonder how this might help those pushing for a review of the DPP decision in the Tomlinson case and leave open the possibility of a private action by Aspinall against Lightfoot.
Can anyone explain why the two police officers were not charged with and convicted of joint enterprise?
Because there is no evidence at all that they had the common purpose of assaulting Mr Aspinall?
Hhhmmm intent perhaps, the officers were acting in a joint legal enterprise to arrest Aspinall not a joint criminal enterprise to assault him. Same reason that working out in the same gym as the woman stealing the towels wouldn't open you up to a joint enterprise prosecution.
I think? Can anyone manage a better example?
The way the police get away with criminal activity makes me angry. The two officers who were aquitted lied to the court so how come they've walked away scot free?
Also I've searched Google and this blog but I cannot find a definition of the Derbyshire principle. Please help.
BBc reports that Peter Lightfoot has been sentenced to 3 years in prison http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11152883
Post a Comment