This week, at a uPSD near you, a police officer will be arrested for no justifiable reason. The Necessity Test as provided by Code G of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will be applied to a police officer  who will be arrested to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence which invariably will be so old that the sunshine will have bleached the Reg 14a notice received by the officer.

Recently, in my area we have had a police officer arrested for complaints which are three months old and the reason given for the arrest was for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence. It has to be noted that this officer is living at the address which is registered with his own HR department, he has been working for the three months whilst the complaint was initially investigated and then asked to parade at a local police station for interview. He was then arrested and, although representations were then made on his behalf, it fell on deaf ears.

Very often these matters for which officers are arrested turn out to be nothing more than a fishing expedition and it is clear to me that the only reason for the arrest is to put pressure on the officer. Why is it that uPSD are not taken to task by solicitors? I don’t know the answer to this but I do know that complaining appears to be a waste of time as the people you complain to are the same people who investigate their own procedures.

For the record, the officer was arrested for an assault matter which occurred off duty. What was the purpose of the arrest? Possibly it was to allow the investigators to take sample for DNA purposes from the officer but, had they asked, he would have done so immediately, mainly because the allegation was a pack of lies and he was eventually found not to be culpable. Did the uPSD care that they had embarrassed the officer by locking him up in a police station where the staff knew him? Not a chance! No doubt they went away proud of another statistic they had left behind and another disillusioned officer in their wake.

Just as long as they satisfy the wayward whim of a miscreant member of the public who is free to make allegations in the knowledge that there is no comeback to a malicious allegation.

I find it very interesting to note that we have  two very similar stories now appearing in the press but will there be a differing outcome? You cannot fail to have seen the newspaper reports about the Protection officer engaging in an affair with Alan Johnson’s wife and, now it would appear, Alan Johnson’s Personal Assistant. I have always known the consequence of being investigated by the “Moral Police” is significantly worse than being investigated by normal uPSD. This is usually because of the self righteous attitude of the investigator. Marital affairs have been commonplace in the police and will continue to be commonplace in the future.

It is obvious from the reports that the officer was a competent officer and was able to do the job he was employed to do. By all accounts Mrs Johnson was not vulnerable, she knew exactly what she was doing and now the newspaper reports indicate she wants a divorce. So in essence, the protection officer will lose his job and/or face criminal investigation simply because the Met are embarrassed. If the activity had taken place with a member of the public with a lesser profile would we really be at this point?

Nice Trousers

Consider this scenario, a public official is contacted by a vulnerable lady who seeks his assistance. The Public Official forms a sexual relationship with the vulnerable female which lasts for 8 years and it is apparent that he meets her in his capacity as a public official to engage in the act of sex. If this public official was a police officer not only would he be sacked but he would be facing a criminal enquiry in respect of Misconduct in a Public Office. But because he is a Lord connected to the Conservative party he will face no such consequence. Lord Strathclyde just like John Prescott who  had an affair with his employee, they realise that they can “dip their wick” whilst engaged in their official capacity as a public official with no real consequence. They know that only police officers get done for Misconduct in a Public Office!!

Noble Cause Corruption……..I rest my case!!

Say "No" to the Nuremberg Defence.

The Nuremberg Defence is a commonly used response to many Criminal and Misconduct matters that face accused officers. Commonly, it arises when the accused officer outlines a course of conduct which they then justify by stating that their line manager told them to do it or was aware of them doing it. It dates back to the 1940′s as “I was ordered to do it” was the main line of defence used at the Nuremberg Trials I really, really have to re-iterate that it does not minimise or mitigate any irresponsible activity of an accused officer and, in fact, it will fail today just as readily as it failed in 1946. In fact, it may even go towards making the accused officer look like a total prat particularly if the person who has “ordered” them to do it totally denies the matter.

One is more equal than the other. Can you tell which one?

The denial from the Line Manager always seems to be accompanied by a halcyonic, halo glow circling their already angelic face. It is a combination which melts the heart of any uPSD officer because they realise they can stitch the accused officer up with an honesty and integrity issue which we all know means the sack. We also all know that it is every uPSD officer’s dream to get someone sacked whether they are worthy of it or not.

The application of the Nuremberg Defence is significantly flawed in police circles primarily because the level of actual belief of a version of events rises the higher the rank you are. By this I mean that a Sergeant is always believed above a Constable, an Inspector is always believed more than a Sergeant and so on. Therefore any assertion that you were ordered to do it loses the impact as a result.

Take this as a word of advice, if you have cocked up and you know it, don’t blame someone else without clear and unchallengable proof otherwise you just double the troubles you are in.

Picture the scene. Two of our finest uPSD in open necked shirts, 2 days’ beard growth, unbrushed hair, dirty shoes and trousers with numerous creases – none of which are vertical in an interview room somewhere in a metropolis. Also present is a solicitor of considerable renown, a Fed Rep who is a detective and an accused officer who is also a detective. The Defence “Team” are finely turned out, dressed in suits with ties (three windsor knots, no less), polished shoes and sweetly scented with deodorant and after shave.

The background to this matter is that the Detective has been accused of fraud. The specific circumstances are not really necessary but it is important to realise that the Detective is not culpable either criminally or misconduct. It is a malicious allegation against him. We all experience them and understand that the process needs to grind on before we can get to the other side and get on with the rest of our lives. He has about 27 years police service, of which 24 is within the CID arena, specialist units, Regional and National Crime Squad, etc. He is a man of considerable experience and talent who is recognised by everyone as a classic exponent of a competent and efficient Police Officer dedicated to his work.

The interview started and the Detective was cautioned. He was then asked by the uPSD to explain what he understood the caution to mean!!!!!

What is with having police officers explain the caution? Why do uPSD caution an officer and then have him or her explain the meaning of the caution back to them? Do they not realise that the bit at the beginning of your career where they spend tens of thousands of pounds whilst you learn the caution is the one and only time that any police officer should be asked to explain the caution? Is it uPSD doing an audit to see if they got value for money or is there a government department collating how many police officers don’t understand the caution?

I am actually considering getting in the sh1t just so, when asked to explain the caution I can say, “I understand the caution to mean that I do not have to say anything but it may harm my defence if I do not mention when questioned something I later rely on in court. Anything I say may be given in evidence.” To upSD: When administering the caution during the interview, if you are speaking English to an English speaking person and they don’t understand English then change the friggin’ caution!!!!!

The interview lasted 4 hours in total, that is the actual tape time. We started at 9am and finished at just passed 3pm. Of the 4 hours of tape, the estimate is that an hour of it was re-cap. That is where the uPSD go back over the accused officer’s comments in order that they understand what the accused officer is trying to say. What a load of bollocks! I have never understood the re-cap. I suspected it is a comfort blanket for the interviewer whilst he thinks about whether he has covered all the aspects of the matter under investigation. Or it could have been a way of putting a bit more pressure on the officer by keeping him in the interview room. I have never experienced the length of re-cap in the real world that is produced by a uPSD re-cap.

What is the point? Does a denial in the main interview have to be re-denied in a re-cap? Similarly, does an admission to something in the main interview have to be re-admitted in the re-cap before it becomes an admission? Why not just invent a re-cap and be done with the other three hours of interview and we can all go home early?

I often wonder why uPSD officers think that they can laugh and joke with an accused officer at court or during an interview. Is it something to do with their warped sense of perspective and their wish for ultra correctness in that they fail to realise that they are the target for venom and spite almost as soon as they walk out of earshot. Do they really think that the officer is going to miraculously be their friend after they have tried to have them convicted. Recently, I heard of a uPSD officer, upon hearing that the officer had been found not guilty at court for an assault matter, invited him for a coffee at a Starbucks around the corner. After being politely told no, the uPSD officer then had the gall to pass the innocent officer a telephone number and state that they were “available to talk if there was any welfare need.” I nearly choked on my bile when I heard it.

At a recent interview, I witnessed two star turns from uPSD laugh and joke about the mistakes they made during the interview. They forget the caution (and laughed). They switched the tape off before giving the end time (and laughed). They turned a laptop on during the interview (and laughed) when the opening windows sound drowned out a question. After a change of tapes they forgot to give the caution correctly again (and laughed). The best of it was that during the disclosure they actually handed over a copy of the officer’s notebook and within it was their interview plan. Dumb and Dumber were brilliant during the first tape when they could not find the plan in their paperwork and we eventually had to hand it back. All on tape, unfortunately for them. Oh how we laughed (to ourselves and professionally, of course).

It got me thinking about the type of individual who enters into a department designed to get your mates convicted of criminal offences and/or sacked. What is their career aim? Once again, I have no issue with a bent cop being charged and convicted but, as there are so few bent cops, the uPSD seem to spend enormous amounts of time pinning charges on to innocent cops and formulating conspiracies out of thin air. When your average CID officer can put together an armed robbery file whilst still dealing with all the rubbish thrown at him in a matter of weeks why do uPSD take months and years to put a file together for harassment?

Undercover uPSD

I have a theory. It is because most of the uPSD are officers who cannot actually do the job in the real world. They work in the closeted environment where they know that they can get away with almost anything. They have neither the skill, ability, tenacity or courage to go out and deal with an angry man. Most appear to have been uPSD for a substantial part of their service which very often means they don’t know the law or the correct protocols to a sufficient standard. If only they were competent we would have less officers facing trumped up investigations and less stress and turmoil in their career. We would have timely investigations and any erroneous cop would be able to be properly investigated.

Thanks for the emails I have had to noblecausecorruption@hotmail.co.uk.

Most of you will recognise this offence. It used to be reserved for officers caught shagging on duty but now it is often used for convicting officers of offences when the uPSD can’t be arsed proving a substantive offence. Generally it is a charge which follows an investigation (I use that term lightly) which has involved an element of utter incompetence by a uPSD officer such as trying to prove a GBH when the injury is actually only a sec 39 Common Assault and running out of time. You know the sort of enquiries.

How to spot your uPSD!

The ones where it doesn’t look good because the TV footage has been edited to show the violent officer bits.  It isn’t in the public interest to have the true picture shown as that does not sell newspapers or TV advertising. The old press adage of why let the truth get in the way of a good story applies. There is an injury involving a broken nail extension or a hair being put out of place which the uPSD perceive to be grievous but a doctor readily identifies it as a minor injury but only after the 6 month time limit has run out for common assaults.

The uPSD then set about proving the Misconduct in a Public Office offence instead of looking to investigate the event and providing the evidence to the appropriate authority. Too often, in my experience, do they statement those who can provide damning evidence and day book entry those who support the defence. A recent experience of a colleague is a case in point. Facing a excessive use of force matter the evidence in the form of cctv and a statement from the baddie was damning. Thanks goodness for an old detective fed rep who looked at those persons who hadn’t provided a statement but were mere entries in a pocket notebook and spoke to them. Four statements later the picture had changed and the evidence now supported the actions of the accused officer. What happened to the uPSD officer ~ NOTHING. One can only surmise what the outcome would be if the shoe were on the other foot.

I have often wondered why only Police Officers ever seem to get convicted of this offence. Surely there are other public officers and certainly some of them must have been caught bonking their secretary over their desk, perhaps. MP’s must be public officials, councillors? Fire Officers, nurses, there must be others. What other jobs constitute public office?

The elements of misconduct in public office are:

a) A public officer acting as such.

b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.

c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.

d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.

It is intriguing why I cannot find a single occupation other than police officers facing this offence. Why is this? Are all cops so bad that they all go around on heat looking for the moment to strike or are we all so deliberately bad at our jobs that we deserve to be prosecuted. This is further confirmed by the plethora of good news stories about nurses who fall for their patient or firemen marrying the damsel in distress saved from a burning tower but none of them get their private life hauled in front of the courts and I am sure there is probably a little bit of the old touchy feely jiggery pokey thing going on even when on duty.   After all, my investigations have uncovered that the uniform of fantasy for most women is the fireman’s even though the stories about Policeman’s Balls are legend. A recent “nursie” story spoke of a marriage between a soldier and a nurse as soon as he got out of hospital following injury. Good Luck to them both but do you really think that there wasn’t just a little bit of light relief going on? I don’t know and I don’t really care. I have news for uPSD’s of all occupations, there is probably a little bit of shagging going on behind the scenes of any good news story without one whiff of scandal.

You have been found guilty of looking harassed in a public place. This is Misconduct in a Public Office and you shall rot in jail for LIFE

The more sinister aspect to this love tryst is the fact that I could understand that shagging on duty was a Misconduct in a Public Office. We are all aware of those rogue officers whose actions should lead to charges but now the uPSD and the CPS are using Misconduct in a Public Office for nearly everything else meaning we have officers facing serious criminal charges for minor offences. We have officers being routinely investigated for Misconduct in a Public Office because it is the new uPSD buzzword. It’s never a Reg 15 notice for just theft, perjury and assault any more, there has to be a Misconduct in a Public Office allegation. A message for uPSD. Investigate realistic offences and you might shorten your next enquiry by a couple of years.

The Power of WordPress

Interestingly, as I sit and write, I have been emailed a copy of a Cambridge Law Journal titled: Police behaving badly – the abuse of misconduct in office (Attoney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 2003), re [2004] EWCA Crim 868; [2005] Q.B. 73 (CA (Crim Div)). R – v – W [2010] EWCA Crim 372; [2010] 3 W.L.R 165 (CA (Crim Div)).

Spookily, it talks about a sense of unease in the Court of Appeal of a police officer being prosecuted for misconduct in a public office rather than a simple fraud or theft. In the quoted case, which I won’t reproduce here, the officer has been convicted and successfully appealed to retrial. I don’t know what the result is but I anticipate that the local uPSD have “incompetented” themselves out of a theft or fraud conviction because they have over egged the pudding.

Next Time: How to spot your average uPSD officer and the role requirements to “stick it to a colleague.”