The Police and Corruption
by an ex-police officer.
How and why miscarriages of justice
occur can be difficult to explain to the lay person. The root cause of the majority
of cases is due to poor investigation in the initial stages of the enquiry. To explain
this it is necessary to understand the role of investigating police officers and
their own perceptions of right and wrong, truth and justice.
Initially most people
join the police service through a desire to serve the public, by making a contribution
to society by helping to maintain law and order and protect the vulnerable from the
criminal element. They join as honest men and women. It would be true to say that
the majority of police officers spend the best part of 30 years of their lives believing
this and that they are doing whatever is necessary, to achieve these objectives.
By
doing what they believe is necessary, however, does not mean they are filling a role
in accordance with the expectations of the public. It does not mean they are adhering
to the rules of evidence or procedure. The general public go about their business
unaware that the police officers they have so much faith in, regularly and routinely
abuse their powers. The public perception is that the police get it right most of
the time and that any failure is merely a blip, a tragic mistake that does not happen
often. The truth is that police officers often get it wrong. Why do they so often
get it wrong, and why do police officers adopt the attitude that whatever they do
is in the best interests of society?
The artificial world you become part of when
you join the police service becomes a way of life. You are surrounded by either the
good or the bad, without realising it you become prejudiced. The good you will perceive
to be your colleagues, the victims of crime or older members of society. The bad
will be the younger element which you will further put into categories by either
race, creed or by where they live. These perceptions are reinforced by the people
you meet everyday.
You become part of a state controlled framework which endorses
your actions as a police officer whether those actions are within or outside the
rules, providing the end result is perceived to justify the means. Winning is a result,
losing is to fail, and a police officer is trained to win, whether that be an argument
with a motorist or a court case. Not all police officers are bad, they are not, that
goes without saying, but the problem arises in that some believe that in order to
achieve their objectives they often have to bend the law to get a result. Obviously
the officers who adopt this approach do so from a very early stage and as their career
progresses they tend to deal with cases of a more serious nature. The corruption
becomes more serious and the consequences for the victims of that corruption ever
more devastating.
Truth is NOT an essential part of an investigation. All the investigating
officer is interested in is getting a conviction. His skill is measured by his superiors
on the basis of results. In any investigation the police have the upper hand from
the outset. They have access to all of the initial evidence either from witnesses
or documents. They have access to vast resources, such as expert witnesses and manpower.
The defence on the other hand are constrained by receiving the evidence second hand
from the police and only in documentary form. They have no access prior to trial
of the police witnesses. What a witness says in a statement, is all the defence gets
and from that, they have to try and establish the truth. Statements taken from witnesses
will only contain those points relevant to the police case. The defence is also heavily
constrained by the cost and resources they have available.
The police service is well
aware of these constraints placed on the defence and exploit that knowledge to the
full. It is very easy for the investigating officer to take a suspect and a set of
circumstances and to fit those circumstances around that suspect. It is much more
difficult to be faced with a crime and find the person who definitely did it, without
there being any doubt. This is at the heart of all miscarriages of justice and police
corruption.
Gamekeeper turned Poacher.
I now work on the other side of the fence trying
to defend those accused. This is a true case to illustrate the above.
I interviewed
an 18 year old client in our office. He had previously been arrested and charged
with affray (fighting in the street). He had no previous convictions. He told me
he was innocent and had not done the things that the police had accused him of. During
my interview he told me that another youth whom he barely knew had stolen his property.
He remonstrated with this youth in the foyer of the flats where he, the client lived,
a very rough area. The offender attacked the client for accusing him of stealing
his property. The offender was getting the better of the client when the client was
joined by an occupant of one of the flats upstairs. The fight continued in a small
garden area outside the flats between the neighbour and the offender.
The client stood
and watched the pair fighting. The police arrived and came running up the path to
the flats, the client was thankful the police had arrived as he thought they would
assist him in getting his property back. The neighbour (unbeknown to the client)
was wanted on a warrant by the police, he saw the officers coming, ran past the client
pushing him into the foyer of the flats, and escaped through the back door. The offender
got up and also ran off, in a different direction. The communal door to the foyer
closed locking out the pursuing police officers who then hammered on the door. Dazed,
the client got to his feet and opened the door, the officers proceeded to beat-up
the client and then arrested him for affray.
The police statement said they arrived
at the scene to see the client, the neighbour and the offender all fighting in the
garden area of the flats. As they approached, according to the statement, the neighbour
attacked one of the officers then ran into the flats followed by the client. The
officers pursued them both and having gained access to the flats arrested the client
in the foyer to the flats after a struggle. The words, “having gained access to the
flats” rang an alarm bell. I knew these flats well, all the flats in the area have
a communal door which close by means of a powerful spring. Once the door is closed
you either need a key to get into the foyer or a resident has to open it from the
inside.
I asked the client if he had any involvement with the fighting in the garden.
He insisted he had just stood there and watched the other two. It was clear he did
not realise the significance of the communal door, he said he was standing in the
doorway holding the door open. I explained that this was important because if he
was holding the door open, he could not have been involved in the fighting. I asked
him whether there was any way the door could have stayed open without him holding
it, I asked him if anyone else was there to hold the door open. He said no. I put
him in my car and drove to where he lived. The only way of keeping the door open
was by holding it.
The conclusion was obvious, the neighbour could not have escaped
through the flats unless the client had held the door open, and if the client was
holding the door, he could not have been involved in the fighting. I knocked on the
doors of a number of the flats that overlooked the garden area, and found a witness
who lived on the first floor. He knew the client by sight and the flat he lived in.
He told me he remembered the incident well. Hearing a disturbance he had looked out
of the window and seen two youths fighting. He saw the client standing holding the
door open, her saw the two youths run away, he did not see any of the youths assault
any of the police officers, In fact the youths had started running while the police
were still some distance away. One youth (the neighbour) ran into the flats the other
in another direction. He then heard the police banging on the communal door and shouting
for entry. The door opened and the police went inside, he then heard raised voices
which he presumed to be the police officers.
So why did the police state the client
had been involved in the fighting. They were annoyed that the culprits had escaped,
they were further annoyed at not being able to gain access to the flats, once having
beaten-up the client they were obliged to arrest him and justify his injuries. They
had chosen to fit up the client with a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 3
years imprisonment. They were so arrogant they hadn't even bothered to consider whether
their story would stand up in court. They believed the court would accept their version
of events instead of some spotty youth from a poor area who until this time had stayed
free of trouble.
Police Verbals.
Police verbals is a common phrase used by a lot of youths who fall
fowl of the law. In every criminal offence the police are aware that they have to
prove certain points to prove their case.
“I HAD IT FOR MY OWN PROTECTION” - is used
to suggest that the suspect intended, should the need arise, to use something as
an offensive weapon. Typical cases include ones where the suspect has a hammer, spanner
or other tool in his car or on his person. The suspect is stopped by the police and
asked to account for his possession of the item. The subjects first response will
be an innocent explanation. The police officer will then conduct a series of well
rehearsed questions. Eventually putting it to the subject that if the need arose,
would he consider using the item to defend himself. The suspect unwittingly replies
that he would and is then arrested.
“IT CROSSED MY MIND THAT IT MIGHT BE STOLEN” -
is used to prove the attempted handling of stolen goods. The Criminal Attempts Act
makes it possible for a suspect to ‘attempt to handle stolen goods’ even if the goods
can not be proven to have been stolen. To prove criminal intent all the officer has
to do is to find the suspect in possession of goods which the suspect cannot properly
account for. This usually occurs when the subject has found property in the street
or bought property from another person, as opposed to buying it from a shop.
“I WAS
LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING WORTH TAKING” - is used to prove attempted theft.
When a suspect is found at or in a place where he ordinarily has no right to be,
such as a derelict building, a yard or other place, being in such a place is not
an offence. The suspect may be wanting to sleep there or may just be exploring. The
police officer may however be suspicious. Again a well rehearsed series of questions
is posed by the officer which culminates in the suspect admitting (with a chuckle)
that if he did find anything worth taking he may have taken it. Suspects readily
admit to this because they believe as they have not taken anything they have not
done wrong. However by admitting possible intent they can be arrested, charged and
convicted. The police do not have to prove theft or that there was anything worth
taking.
This kind of miscarriage of justice happens every day of the week. The defence
has enormous difficulty in disproving what the client has alleged to have said to
the police officer. Courts usually believe the police version of events.
The Police Service is given enormous powers and is on the whole unaccountable for its actions. Judicial process and legislation like the Criminal Procedure and Investigation act which covers the disclosure of evidence, ensures that the odds are heavily weighted against those accused by the police and prosecuted by the state. The old maxim that you are 'innocent until proved guilty' is entirely redundant in practise. Miscarriages of justice and police corruption are endemic within the criminal justice system.
Quote
"No action will be taken against any Police Officer of the Metropolitan
Police
Force as a result of the [Operation Countryman] enquiry because
to do so would damage
the morale of the Metropolitan Police Force"
Margaret Thatcher 1979
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org