Nottinghamshire Police In Action

Policeman 'threatened to kick woman's door down' after being called to home by bailiff

A woman claimed she fought with police in her home after they answered a call from a bailiff.

At a police misconduct hearing, she said trouble erupted when house keys were prised from her hands as she stood indoors with two officers.

They accused her of imprisoning them when she locked the door in an effort to keep the bailiff out of the house in Bestwood, she claimed.

"I quickly unlocked the door and had the keys in my hand. That is what they were fighting me for.

"I have got the right to try to protect myself. I can remember screaming out - my auntie was outside and I was shouting for help.

"The officer had that spray thing. I was physically attacked," said the woman who told the hearing that handcuffs damaged a wrist.

Sergeant Jonathan Flint is disputing an allegation he is guilty of gross misconduct during the incident on April 24, 2017. If he loses the case, he risks being sacked.

His lawyer Sarah Barlow asked the woman whether she recalled being prosecuted for police obstruction in 1989.

"Vaguely, vaguely, it was a long time ago. I stick up for myself, stick up for my rights," she replied.

The hearing was told a bailiff had arrived to collect a £400 debt and had put a wheel lock on what he believed was her car.
 
He called police when he believed a parcel had been stolen from the back of his car after the arrival of two men. His vehicle was also damaged.

Matthew Hardcraft, for Nottinghamshire Police, said officers had no legal right to help a bailiff enter a house to seize items.

"There is no power to force entry," said Mr Hardcraft.

But he said there was evidence Sgt Flint told the woman: "I will kick the door through in five seconds."

When she did not react, he is alleged to have added: "Now do it or I'll put it through. Simple."
 
Mr Hardcraft said the officer acted wrongly by threatening to use a CS spray inside the woman's home.

If the spray had been released, it could have affected the officers as well as the woman so it was "an utterly idle threat," added Mr Hardcraft.

The hearing continues.

She should be bringing a prosecution under section 26 .We all know how a misconduct hearing will turn out.

26Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges

(1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—

(a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and

(b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.

(2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).

(3)The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)a constable of a police force in England and Wales;

(b)a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;

(c)a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;

(d)a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;

(e)a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

(f)a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—

(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or

(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and

(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).

(6)The first case is where—

(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(8)An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.

(9)In this section—

“benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;

“United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.

(10)References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.

(11)Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.