Latest from CrimeBodge

This is from Crimebodge .It concerns a solicitor who specialises in litigation against plod. It should not be
taken as an endorsement for this solicitor ,it is posted because of the information it contains.

Will the Police learn their lesson? The illegal strip-search of a minor.

by Iain Gould

Historically, the term ‘juvenile’ as used in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) has referred to a child under 17. Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA) extended the definition of ‘juvenile’ for the purposes of PACE to include any child or young person who appears to be under the age of 18, establishing the same protections for all those aged under 18 and bringing the definition into line with that of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Safeguards for children/young people

PACE incorporates a number of safeguards for children/young people caught up in the criminal justice system. Any contact between a child and police officers can be very frightening and distressing and have long-term adverse consequences for vulnerable young minds which are still in the process of maturing. The need for such protective measures should be self-evident. Self-evident to all except for some Police Officers it seems.

I have just concluded a claim for John, a young man from Merseyside who’s just turned 19. Back on 23rd February 2017, John was just 16 and as is evident from his custody photograph taken that day, a young-looking 16.

At the time, his older brother, Kevin was dating a girl from Scarborough (Lauren). The weekend before, Lauren had come over and stayed with Kevin and his family. On the 23rd February, Kevin agreed to drive Lauren home. John had never been to Yorkshire before so went along for the ride.

Upon arrival at Lauren’s home address in Scarborough, Kevin parked up and he and Lauren went inside leaving John sat in the front passenger seat.

A short while later, a Police van pulled up close by and a number of officers alighted and surrounded the car in which John was sat before one of them opened the front passenger door and asked him where the driver was. John explained that his brother was the driver, that he was in a house close by and that he would be back soon.

An officer instructed John to step onto the pavement.

John was required to provide his name and date of birth, which he did, thereby indicating that he was a minor, which was apparent in any event.

John was then told that he would be taken to the police van. John was escorted to the van by two officers. He was instructed to step inside the vehicle, whereupon he was told he was to be subjected to a “strip search.” No legal justification or grounds for the search were provided to him.
Unlawful intimate strip-search

John was instructed to pull down his track suit bottoms and underwear, whereupon the officers conducted an extremely intimate search.
Wrongful arrest

To his complete shock John was then informed that he was under arrest on suspicion of possession of cannabis, irrespective of the fact that no drugs had been found upon him.

John was then detained in the police van for an extended period of time (in excess of 60 minutes) until he was transported to Scarborough police station, which was no more than a mile away , where his detention continued.

Following arrival at Scarborough police station, details of John’s arrest were reported to the custody officer, but details of the strip/intimate search were not disclosed, nor was the negative result of such searches.

Despite John requesting that his father be promptly informed of his arrest, John’s dad was not in fact informed until some three hours later by which time he was unable to attend the police station to act as appropriate adult. Consequently it was necessary for a representative from the Youth Offending Team to do so.

John was obliged to provide fingerprints and a DNA sample and was then detained in a cell until the appropriate adult arrived whereupon he was interviewed. After six hours in custody, John was finally released. In due course, John received confirmation that no further action would be taken.

The facts of the case would form a great quiz for trainee police cadets as to what Codes of Practice were breached except for the sad fact that this catalogue of terrors was actually perpetrated against a real person. Focusing just on the search, what did the officers do wrong?

The strip/intimate search was conducted in the absence of an appropriate adult to which John was entitled.
No authorisation for the search was provided by an Inspector.
John was not told of the legal authority for the search.
John was not told of any legal grounds for the search.
John did not provide, nor could he provide, consent to the search.
The strip/intimate search was carried out by a police officer, when it ought to have been carried out by a Registered Medical Practitioner or Nurse.
No documentation of the search was kept or maintained, thereby breaching section 3 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Contrary to Code A paragraph 4.2B, no record of the search was made in the custody record.
The officers knew that the fact and/or manner of the strip/intimate search rendered it unlawful or a breach of the Codes of Practice but conducted it regardless.
The officers knew that the fact and/or manner of the strip/intimate search (in the dark, in a van, without giving reasons or legal authority and without any appropriate adult) was highly distressing and embarrassing to John but conducted it regardless.

In short, the search was carried out with wholesale disregard for every significant safeguard guaranteed pursuant to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Formal complaint

Upon John’s release from police custody, John’s dad – having been notified of what had happened – immediately lodged a formal complaint which was subsequently investigated by the North Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department. Following investigation, the Professional Standards Department conceded that the actions of their officer were in breach of

(i) the statutory provisions relating to strip searches in the Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984, and

(ii) the relevant Codes of Practice thereto.

Disciplinary action was brought against the two officers who had carried out the search.
Civil claim

Once the complaint investigation had been concluded, I was instructed to pursue a civil claim for compensation on behalf of John. Sadly but unsurprisingly and notwithstanding the findings of the Professional Standards Department, the Chief Constable denied liability and it was necessary to issue court proceedings.

I am pleased to report that following issue John’s case has now settled for £10,000.00 damages, plus costs.

This settlement is a fair award of compensation but monetary compensation was not the priority for John and his family. As John’s dad said to me just last week, by bringing this action, the family wanted to expose this abuse of police power in the hope that other children/young people will not suffer as John did. The power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is wholly dependent upon public approval of their actions and behaviour and on their ability to police by consent. The carrying out of illegal strip-searches on children is a gross abuse by officers of the trust and extraordinary power placed in their hands by our society, and it is for the good of everyone that such abuses be highlighted and prevented, in so far as possible, from occurring in the future.

A child’s first real experience of the Police should not be the degrading and humiliating one which John underwent. If the Police want the next generation to have trust and confidence in them, they should learn the lesson of this case well.

(All names changed.)
Spread the Word:

EmailTwitterFacebookRedditMore

Related

Tommy Robinson's Failed Lawsuit - Ignorance, Arrogance and FakeryMay 28, 2019In "Articles"

How I Successfully Sued Armed Police with a Single Letter of ClaimMay 3, 2019In "Articles"

Suing the police for unlawful seizure of goodsNovember 16, 2016In "Resources"
About author
Rob Warner
Subscribe
Get discounts and offers, information and freebies before they appear on the site.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Crimebodge on Youtube

Hi Dave

Followed Iain Gould for a while and he does some good stuff and represents people all over the UK, certainly a good guy against po-lice fraud, corruption, and abuse of power.

He's a little minkey...have you got a bum in your car...where's Kato when you need him....my little oriental friend...ha ha ha..

Lets be clear on this, the lice who could barely speak English (the PC agenda again) was driving a local car, and everyone heard him say "it is my word against yours" which means they have no evidence, but why? because local cars are not fitted with any calibrated speed equipment which means there is nothing admissible in court. Traffic cars on the other hand do carry calibrated speeed equipment and of a type which is admissible in court, along with (usually) a second accurate speed monitoring system which is usually a GPS based system which calculates speed and distance along with video recording of the event.

I pretty much Regard this channel as a sister channel to Crime Bodge.
"Police Abusing Powers",
Great Video , that begs the question,
If they do this to their own , what will they do to the average Joe ?

I just put this up in a new link, didn't know you'd put here SOS but it is f**king disgusting & is proof if we didn't know already how politicised the police are...ex coppers I'd got to know in recent years have stated they left the police because it had become politicised.

This totally undermines the law and is merely another way of recording information against people, and indoctrinating many others that it is acceptable because its the lice, didn't a Mr Hitler and Mussolini do basically the same thing?

This is important because its actually the same thing the PND is doing as unlike the PNC system the PND system has no regulation and anything can be put on it by aly lice at anytime.

daveiron wrote:

Arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, frequently abused by those PIGS (Police Idiots Gone Soft).

Since when have the police been members of the public?

Something else to add with all the ever increasing snowflake society, i suggest those in particular who use Facebook/Twitter, add a notice stating they accept no liability for other peoples emotions as it is upto any individual to control there mind & emotions....or something else along those lines.

Any thought on this & also for further use in other aspects of our life as the thought police excel & everyone goes soft (as was intended), please pop this in a new thread if you think worthy of debate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/right-offended-does-not-exist-judge-says-court-hears-police/

The “right to be offended” does not exist, a judge has said, as the High Court hears that British police forces are recording hate incidents even if there is no evidence that they took place.

Mr Justice Knowles made the remark on the first day of a landmark legal challenge against guidelines issued to police forces across the country on how to record "non-crime hate incidents".

The College of Policing, the professional body which delivers training for all officers in England and Wales, issued their Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) in 2014, which states that a comment reported as hateful by a victim must be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.

Mr Justice Knowles expressed surprise at the rule, asking the court: “That doesn’t make sense to me. How can it be a hate incident if there is no evidence of the hate element?

Thanks pitano, If you or anyone else finds the outcome of this case please post it.

pitano1 wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/right-offended-does-not-exist-judge-says-court-hears-police/

The “right to be offended” does not exist, a judge has said, as the High Court hears that British police forces are recording hate incidents even if there is no evidence that they took place.

Mr Justice Knowles made the remark on the first day of a landmark legal challenge against guidelines issued to police forces across the country on how to record "non-crime hate incidents".

The College of Policing, the professional body which delivers training for all officers in England and Wales, issued their Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) in 2014, which states that a comment reported as hateful by a victim must be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.

Mr Justice Knowles expressed surprise at the rule, asking the court: “That doesn’t make sense to me. How can it be a hate incident if there is no evidence of the hate element?

Nice find, it further proves that the police are politicised, hate is an emotion & is not wrong as we all hold emotions of love, hate, anger & joy. To put into perspective if someone raped someone's daughter & they knew who had committed the crime & in turn attacked the rapist because they hated them for what they are & what they've done - would that ne a hate crime as hate instigates the attack of the rapist? Well no it wouldn't because rapists are not classed & used in the Marxist doctrine to pursue a destructive agenda, alien peoples brought to these isles & their cultures along with unnatural sexual behaviour are handed the card instead. Amongst this it also creates resentment & 'hatred' all cleverly intended to do just that.

We can all claim to be offended by someone's opinions or actions but it is upto any individual to deal with their own emotions, to add to this there are many who have issues with what they are & become upset when others mention this.

The 'hate' agenda as above comes from the ADL who belong to the tribe who have used Marxism to collapse this country & is been used to further eradicate opposistion to it & stifle freedom of speech beside the ongoing psychological warfare where people fear speaking freely.

Just like 'terrorism' is also been used as a tool.

To the offended "grow a pair!"

I think most know what should be done to these coppers.

They cannot stop you under 163 of the RTA, they can only use 163 AFTER you have been stopped for committing a criminal offence, have committed a criminal offence, or are about to commit a criminal offence.

So, why have you been stopped and specifically what crime have I committed? what reason do you have to suspect I have no driving license, none, then no prima facie evidence, instant claim going in; and as for insurance, have you done a PNC check and if so it told you the vehicle is insired so now you are caught lying.

Are you sure about that mate,  163 & 164 looks pretty clear to me,unless you take the route of definitions
regarding ,driver / vehicle etc.

However date of birth ,can only be hearsay as no one can remember being born let alone noting the date
at the time.