October 2023: Met police 'trapped in a lie' – and not for the first time
Disciplinary hearing dismisses two police officers who had lied about smelling cannabis on athlete Ricardo dos Santos during a high-profile stop and search encounter in 2020
Dear StopWatchers,
Welcome to our October newsletter! This month, the Met police were issued with an ‘accelerated cause of concern’ warning from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, because of the force’s failures in relation to missing children and child sexual exploitation (HMICFRS, 6 Oct). Officers openly defied orders from chief commissioner Sir Mark Rowley by continuing to wear badges associated with far right movements ‘and linked to white supremacy’ (The Guardian, 14 Oct). The Home Office released its official stop and search stats, but forgot to remove an internal note on one of the spreadsheets that said: ‘Reason for arrest is dodgy so maybe we shouldn’t publish it’ (BBC Verify, 3 Oct). Police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), announced that 12 Met employees were being investigated for misconduct over the handling of allegations against the serial rapist and former PC David Carrick (The Guardian, 18 Oct). A police officer in Birmingham was suspended after Tasering a 14-year-old during a ‘neighbour dispute’ (BBC News, 18 Oct), and armed officers in Hackney, east London, pointed submachine guns at a 13-year-old Black boy after ramming him off his bike (The Guardian, 19 Oct). So, all in all, a pretty standard month in UK policing.
This month was also apparently the perfect time for BBC One to air a ‘puff piece’ for the Met: ‘Should our national broadcaster be in the business of helping the police court public sympathy rather than genuinely earn back the public trust […]?’ asked one reviewer of the hour-long ‘showreel for the good guys’. Curiously, the documentary ‘doesn’t mention that Louise Casey’s report found that the force might need to be dismantled to have a chance to purge it of all the rot therein’ (The Guardian, 24 Oct). Funny that!
This month at StopWatch:
We brought a successful legal challenge against the Home Office over their failure to release an Equality Impact Assessment relating to section 60
Our director, Habib Kadiri, spoke on an ‘Art Not Evidence’ panel hosted by Warner Music Group for Black History Month. Habib also attended their ‘Annual Grantee Convening Music & Movement: The Global Cypher’ in New York, connecting with other organisations fighting racism and injustice around the world
Stats on the knife crime prevention orders (KCPOs) pilot scheme obtained via FOI by our research and policy officer, Holly Bird, were featured in a news story in The Independent: ‘Ministers urged to scrap knife-crime ‘ASBOs’ after Black men and boys disproportionately hit’
We shared our views on analysis that showed that IOPC investigations are taking three times as long to complete compared to three years ago (Byline Times, 9 Oct) and on the aforementioned stop and search stats slip-up (BBC Verify, 3 Oct)
One of our volunteers wrote about Labour’s future criminal justice policy in a new post on our blog (if you ever want to write something for the blog, please do get in touch!)
Topics in this newsletter include:
Met officers found guilty of gross misconduct for stop and search of Black athletes Ricardo dos Santos and Bianca Williams
An update on our research project on SVROs
And in Terrible Tech, campaigners slam policing minister Chris Philp for his ‘Orwellian nightmare’ of a policy proposal
Please enjoy our roundup of stories below.
Met officers found guilty of gross misconduct over stop and search of Ricardo dos Santos and Bianca Williams
On Wednesday 25 October, two Met police officers, PC Jonathan Clapham and PC Sam Franks, were found guilty of gross misconduct by a police disciplinary panel in relation to a stop and search of athletes Ricardo dos Santos and Bianca Williams in 2020. The two officers were dismissed without notice and will be banned from working in policing. The three other officers involved were acquitted of gross misconduct, but will be subject to the reflective practice review process.
Responding to the outcome of the case on social media, the Met initially posted a statement on X (formerly Twitter) acknowledging that PCs Clapham and Franks were dismissed ‘after lying following a stop and search’. However, they quickly deleted the original tweet, removing the allusion to lying (click the image below to see the two statements side by side).
Case background
In July 2020, police stopped Williams and dos Santos driving in west London on their way back from training with their baby in the car. Officers claimed that the athletes had driven through a red light (they had not). After officers pulled over dos Santos and Williams outside their home, the encounter escalated from a traffic stop to a full stop and search, and they handcuffed and searched the pair on suspicion of possessing drugs and weapons. Nothing was found.
The police watchdog (the IOPC), who initiated the misconduct hearing, presented the case against the officers. Usually, the police force in question would present the case during a misconduct hearing using the IOPC’s evidence, but new powers allowing the IOPC to present the case themselves were invoked as the Met ‘disagreed with some of [the IOPC’s] findings in relation to the gross misconduct allegations’ (IOPC, 25 Oct).
Hearing outcome
The panel chair said PCs Clapham and Franks had become ‘trapped in a lie’ regarding their claim that they could smell cannabis on dos Santos, who was regularly drug tested, and did not take or possess drugs. However, the allegation that race played a role in the officers’ treatment of dos Santos and Williams was found ‘unproven’. Responding to this part of the panel decision, StopWatch director Habib Kadiri said:
StopWatch is disappointed that the intimidatory tactics of the officers who stopped Ricardo and Bianca were not fully recognised in the panel's decision.
Although two of the officers have been found guilty of gross misconduct, the entire unit has been let off the hook for discriminatory behaviour obvious to any Black person who has been stopped in a vehicle in London.
We fear that police officers will feel emboldened to continue to perform vehicle stops in an overtly aggressive manner, especially towards Black people, many of whom know that Driving While Black carries a heightened risk of harassment and abuse from the Met.
Driving While Black
According to Home Office figures, Black people are searched five-and-a-half times more often than white people, and roughly five times more often searched for drugs (on the self-defined and officer-observed ethnicity identification metric). Although the panel found the influence of race on the officers’ actions ‘unproven’, dos Santos wrote on Twitter:
The allegations made by the police officers that I was guilty of bad driving, threatened violence and drugs were dishonest. I believe these false allegations were based on racist stereotypes and show that very little has changed in the policing of London since the Stephen Lawrence case. If we can’t trust the Police to be honest and accept when they have bought into the stereotyping of black people, what hope is there. I don’t believe the panel has been brave enough to view what the Casey report has already clearly stated, which is that the @metpoliceuk is institutionally Racist.
An update on our project on Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs) as the pilot scheme hits the six-month mark
SVROs allow police officers to stop and search those subject to an order in a public place at any time, any number of times – without the usual need for ‘reasonable suspicion’. In other words, they give police ‘the power of unlimited harassment’. A two-year pilot scheme was launched back in April this year. So, what have we learnt six months into the pilot?
In the last project update, ‘SVROs: What is the Home Office trying to hide?’, we looked at the Home Office’s refusal to provide a complete response to a freedom of information (FOI) request we submitted about the SVRO pilot and its evaluation. Since then, we’ve received a couple more responses to subsequent FOI requests, which we submitted to the four police forces participating in the scheme: Merseyside, Thames Valley, West Midlands, and Sussex.
The numbers so far
The responses we received show Merseyside Police have issued almost ten times as many SVROs as Thames Valley Police since the pilot scheme began in April. According to their FOI responses, Merseyside had issued 38 SVROs, West Midlands six, and Thames Valley four. Despite the 20 working days timeframe set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Sussex Police have not yet responded to our request.
However, since Merseyside Police’s response to our FOI on October 9, on October 18 they published an update on their website claiming to have secured a total of 44 SVROs since April. This implies that six SVROs were issued in a period of just nine days in the Merseyside area. Superintendent Phil Mullally said Merseyside officers would ‘relentlessly target’ those subject to an SVRO (BBC News, 18 Oct).
Who’s on the receiving end?
Over the past six months, we’ve also been keeping track of media reports about individuals issued with SVROs. In contrast to the government’s messaging that SVROs will be used to target violent knife and offensive weapon offenders and ‘those who pose the greatest risk of harm’, almost none of the reported cases we’ve come across so far involve the use of a knife or offensive weapon as part of the original offence. Instead, all but one of the SVROs in these cases have been issued for knife and offensive weapon possession.
It is also worth noting that SVRO legislation sets out extremely wide parameters about who can receive these orders. Someone can be issued with an SVRO because of their perceived association with someone who has used (or been found in possession of) a ‘bladed article or offensive weapon’, operating in a similar way to the controversial legal doctrine of joint enterprise. This means that someone could receive an SVRO without ever having used or carried an offensive weapon themselves, simply because the court decides that they ‘ought to have known’ that someone else might do (PCSC Act 2022, s342A(4)).
Whilst most individuals on the receiving end of SVROs so far do not appear to be ‘high risk’ violent offenders, they do appear to have experienced multiple layers of vulnerability at the time of the related offence – including homelessness, mental health issues, substance and addiction issues, and learning disabilities. We hope to be able to explore this further as more information emerges.
Contradictions
How SVROs are implemented and who they are used to sanction are important tests for these pilot orders. The government rationale for introducing SVROs claimed that these orders were a necessary power to tackle ‘prolific, high-risk offenders’. The evidence available so far suggests that the high bar set for these invasive powers is not being met.
Stay tuned for further updates on the project and, fingers crossed, a response from Sussex Police before the year is out.
StopWatch and Liberty victory against the Home Office
The Home Office has been branded ‘disingenuous’ and forced to release new documents relating to section 60 stop and search, after legal action by StopWatch.
Together with Liberty, we challenged the Home Office’s refusal to release the Equality Impact Assessment relating to the Home Secretary’s decision of July 2021 to remove safeguards on the use of suspicionless stop and search powers to make it easier for police forces to use. We took the case to a tribunal after the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) allowed the Home Office to keep the documents secret.
Last month, the tribunal ruled that the Home Office’s rationale for refusing to release the document was ‘disingenuous’ and branded the ICO ‘naïve’ for accepting it.
Our director, Habib Kadiri, said:
The Home Office went to extraordinary lengths to keep this equality impact assessment hidden, defending its ability to do so all the way to a tribunal. It should not have taken almost two years of litigation for the Home Office to abide by its duties and provide transparency on its decision-making. It is also extremely worrying that the ICO so easily accepted the Home Office’s reasoning for hiding the document, rather than doing its duty to uphold the rights provided by the Freedom of Information Act.
Read the full statement on our website.
Deaths from police contact, cases old and new
Unnamed man in his 20s
A man in his 20s, who has not yet been named, died in hospital after his moped was hit by a police car in Enfield, north London, earlier this month. The IOPC will investigate the incident (BBC News, 13 Oct).
Sebastian Zarnoch, 30
Three police officers and four police staff are being investigated after Sebastian Zarnoch was found dead in his cell in police custody on 6 September. The IOPC has now told the seven police officers and staff they are under criminal investigation for the possible offence of misconduct in public office. The three police officers have also been served with gross misconduct notices for potential breaches of police standards for professional behaviour (The Guardian, 19 Oct).
Other news
Former police watchdog commissioner says Met sabotaged her career over investigations of racism: Exonerated of allegations of evidence suppression in case of firefighter Tasered by police, Jennifer Izekor criticises ‘siege mentality’ in British policing (The Guardian, 28 Sep).
Hampshire police officer sacked for using ‘extreme’ force against detainees: Hampshire Constabulary described the actions of powerlifting champion Sgt Simon Lythgoe as inexcusable and apologised to his victims (The Guardian, 29 Sep).
Most people prosecuted under joint enterprise from minority ethnic background: Data shows Black people are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted under the doctrine, according to CPS figures (The Guardian, 30 Sep).
Police forces subject to record misconduct complaints amid officer abuse scandals: Byline Times analysis also suggests that the amount of time taken by the police watchdog to investigate serious accusations of misconduct has tripled in recent years (Byline Times, 9 Oct).
Keir Starmer pledges 13,000 more police officers and PCSOs ‘to make streets safe again’: The Labour leader announced the ‘Community Policing Guarantee’ at the Labour Party Conference this month, and claimed the policy would deliver ‘more police in your town, fighting anti-social behaviour, taking back our streets’ (Labour Party press release, 10 Oct).
Met Police spend £9m on recruitment ads but still miss new officer target: Scotland Yard’s failure to hit a new officer target despite a 29-fold increase in advertising spend suggests distrust of the capital’s police force remains high among Londoners (iNews, 14 Oct).
Home Office review to look at police use of force and police driving-related incidents: The government this month laid out the terms of reference for a review which will assess the existing legal frameworks and guidance on practice that underpin police use of force and police driving, and the subsequent framework for investigation of any incidents that may occur (Home Office, 24 Oct).
BBC research finds more than 30 police officers and staff convicted of child sexual abuse offences since January 2022: The cases include grooming, blackmail, sexual assault and rape. The National Police Chiefs’ Council says forces are improving staff vetting and are committed to rebuilding trust (BBC News, 25 Oct).
Leeds police officer ‘under investigation’ after pepper spray incident: A video shared on social media shows an officer spraying multiple people during a public disturbance in Leeds. It is believed that the West Yorkshire Police officer is the same person who was accused of overreacting by arresting an autistic teenager earlier this year (The Independent, 25 Oct).
Section 60 watch*
London
Lambeth (12 Oct)
Wandsworth (6-7 Oct)
Thames Valley
Reading (2-4 Oct)
Slough (21, 24-28 Sept)
Birmingham
Blakenall & Bloxwich (19 Oct)
* This is not a comprehensive list
Terrible tech: Police data access plans described as an ‘Orwellian nightmare’ by campaigners
Policing minister Chris Philp told the Tory conference this month that he planned to allow the police to access a wider range of databases, including enabling the police to access passport photos. He told the conference: ‘I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database’. Responding to Philp’s comments, the surveillance camera commissioner, prof Fraser Sampson, said: ‘If the state routinely runs every photograph against every picture of every suspected incident of crime simply because it can there is a significant risk of disproportionality and of damaging public trust’ (BBC News, 4 Oct).
This month, dozens of cross-party MPs and peers joined a campaign for an ‘immediate stop’ to the use of live facial recognition surveillance by police and private companies (The Guardian, 6 Oct). The group’s statement said:
We hold differing views about live facial recognition surveillance, ranging from serious concerns about its incompatibility with human rights, to the potential for discriminatory impact, the lack of safeguards, the lack of an evidence base, an unproven case of necessity or proportionality, the lack of a sufficient legal basis, the lack of parliamentary consideration, and the lack of a democratic mandate. […] We call on UK police and private companies to immediately stop using live facial recognition for public surveillance.
Meanwhile, the Met has been using ‘game-changing’ (in commissioner Mark Rowley’s words) facial recognition tech as part of a pilot scheme in the capital aimed at catching ‘prolific shoplifters’. 12 retailers were asked to provide images of ‘30 of the worst offenders’, which were compared against the force’s custody shots. According to The Independent, the software ‘uses biometric measures of a person’s face and works even if part of their face is covered. It takes around 60 seconds to find a match’ (The Independent, 19 Oct).
Also in Terrible Tech, Andrea Jenkyns MP submitted a written question asking whether the Home Office planned to use artificial intelligence technology to predict and prevent knife crime. In response, Chris Philp said: ‘The Home Office is working across government and with operational partners to develop our understanding of the threats and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence. The Home Office has already convened and will be convening further meetings to identify the best opportunities to use artificial intelligence to prevent and detect crime of various types’. We’ll definitely be keeping an eye on this one…
StopWatch is a volunteer led organisation that relies on the generosity of trusts and grant funders to operate. We DO NOT accept funding from the government or police as we believe this would compromise our ability to critically challenge.
We’d appreciate any one-off or regular donations to help support our work. You can click on our Donate button below to go through to our donation page.
—
Stay safe,
StopWatch.