SALLY HAWKINS
Authority Member
PCA, POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
Dear Mr Jarman
I am writing about the complaint you made against police on 13 February 2003.
Your complaint has been investigated by the Complaints & Discipline Unit of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary. In the course of the investigation the officers concerned were interviewed, statements were taken from witnesses and relevant police records obtained. The investigation was then reviewed by a chief officer and has now been submitted to the Authority. The role of the Authority, which is totally independent of the police service, is to satisfy itself that the complaint has been properly investigated and to decide if there is sufficient evidence to justify misconduct proceedings against any officer.
As explained in the enclosed note, in reviewing the allegations made in your complaint, I have to consider whether there is a realistic prospect of proving to a tribunal that the officers' behaviour fell below the standard set out in the Police Code of Conduct. This has to be proved on the balance of probabilities, which means that a tribunal must find that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true. This is a flexible standard according to the seriousness of what is alleged.
The investigation into your complaint
The investigating officer has noted that you emigrated to the United States of America and as such he has communicated with you via email. You complain that you were unlawfully arrested and detained. You also complain about the failure of officers to deal with your allegation of theft/damage concerning your car.
PS Millican says he arrived at the incident along with PC Trevorrow. The officer says the wheel clamping employee told him that he had found a firearm in a locked case in the insecure boot of your car. PS Millican says he proceeded to resolve the matter relating to the wheel clamping and then made enquiries with the firearms licensing office regarding your possession of the weapon. He says that the initial decision from the licensing office was to seize the licence, weapon and any other ammunition in the vehicle for them to follow up and make enquiries.
PS Millican says that the duty inspector, Inspector Palmer, was made aware of the incident and he spoke to her about what action should be taken. He says he made enquiries and was told that there were concerns about you being in possession of firearms and this was due to the information on the police national computer. He says that Inspector Palmer advised him that it would be best to arrest you for obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
The officer says that, in accordance with the instructions given by the inspector, he arrested you for possession of a firearm and ammunition without a valid licence. He says you were taken to Southmead custody unit where he advised PS Wardrop about the situation.
PS Millican says that PS Wardrop made further enquiries with the licensing office and they asked for a report to be sent to them and suggested the officers visit your home address in search of other firearms. The officer says you were never booked in and after 30 minutes of making enquiries they de-arrested you and asked you to sign a consent form for the search of your house.
The record of the telephone conversation between PS Millican and the licensing office confirms the licensing officer's request to search your home.
PS Millican says you did not make any direct claim to him about any damage to your vehicle and, if you had done so, he would have raised a crime report. He says there was no indication that the doors or the CD player in the car had been forced. The officer says he noted that the front driver's door handle was hanging off but you did not want to report it as a crime.
PC Trevorrow's account is consistent with that of PS Millican. He also says that you did not make any allegation of criminal damage to your vehicle.
I have read the pocket notebooks of the officers and neither of them makes any reference to criminal damage to your car.
Inspector Palmer says she decided whether or not you would be arrested. In making her decision she had concerns for public safety arising both from your behaviour and from information she had received regarding your criminal convictions, especially a bomb hoax in America in 1998. The Inspector says you were arrested for not holding a valid licence. Records show that Inspector Palmer was given incorrect information by the communications operator regarding your previous convictions.
Police records show that on 23 July 1999 you were issued a certificate to acquire and keep black powder of UN numbers 0027/0028. The certificate expired on 22 July 2002.
The records also show that a renewal notice was sent to you on 21 May 2002 and that as no reply had been received by 3 September 2002 the record was cancelled and filed until further notice.
The explosives liaison officer noted that, as your certificate to acquire and keep explosives expired on 22 July 2002, any acquisition or possession of explosives after that date is not legal and contravenes the control of Explosives Regs 1991 and the Explosives Act 1875.
PS Wardrop says you were brought into the custody area by PS Millican and PC Trevorrow. He says that having discussed the circumstances of your arrest, he found there were insufficient grounds to detain you and believes your arrest was carried out based on instructions given by Inspector Palmer.
The firearms enquiry officer says he was advised of the incident and says his advice was for the firearms to be seized whilst a search is carried out at your home.
The wheel clamping official says that, while clamping a car, it is normal practice for him to look round to make sure the car is secure. On checking your car, he found that the boot was open. He says he looked in the boot only to find a firearm there. He immediately closed the boot and could see no signs of forced entry to the vehicle. He also denies using any force on the locks.
A member of staff at the restaurant says he observed the wheel-clamping official and did not see him force open or break into your car.
According to your telephone conversation with the police, you state that a clamping firm has clamped your car but you have no problem with that. You say that the clamping official tried to remove the firearms from the case in your boot. You also inform the police that the firearm is in a proper gun case, padlocked, which is in the boot of the car but you want to take the firearm away because you cannot walk off and leave it. You allege that the clamping official tried to grab it out of your hand.
According to the telephone record between the restaurant staff and police, you tried to get the firearm out of the boot but the clamping official prevented you from doing this and at this stage he shouted at the restaurant staff to call the police.
My decision
The investigating officer has stated that your arrest and detention were unlawful and were the result of an unfortunate combination of circumstances. The officer states that the communications operator passed inaccurate information to Inspector Palmer and Sergeant Millican about your arrest in America. He says the communications operator advised both officers that the arrest led to your conviction for an offence when in fact the police records show the matter was resolved. The officer also notes that she failed to advise the officers that the Firearms Licensing Office staff were aware of your other criminal convictions. He recommends advice for the operator regarding her actions in this case, as she did not meet the required standard.
The investigating officer also recommends Inspector Palmer should receive advice as she should have known that the offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage would not have been applicable in these circumstances. He also states that the officer seems to have limited grasp of the facts of the case and of the provisions of Section 16 of the Theft Act.
The investigating officer found that your attempt to report damage or attempted theft to the two officers was unconvincing and says the case is not substantiated.
I have considered carefully the recommendations of the investigating officer and I am satisfied that there is a realistic prospect that a tribunal would find that Inspector Palmer should have a better grasp of the facts of the case and of the provisions of section 16 of the Theft Act. Having taken into account all of the circumstances, I conclude that Inspector Palmer should receive advice in relation to this respect of your complaint. Advice is a form of discipline similar to a verbal warning, and is neither given nor received lightly.
On the remaining aspects of your complaint I am not satisfied that a tribunal would find that the officers' actions fell below the required standard and I conclude that disciplinary action is not justified.
Yours sincerely
SALLY HAWKINS
Authority Member
PCA 10 Great George Street London SW1P 3AE � Tel 020-7273 6450 � Fax 020-7273 6401 � www.pca.gov.uk
The independent body established by Act of Parliament to oversee complaints by members of the public against the conduct of police officers