We’re not allowed to tell you the names of two police officers accused of ‘the most serious misconduct’… that’s just not good enough

Today, BristolLive is reporting on an outrageous decision by a police misconduct tribunal to grant anonymity to two former police officers who allegedly used “unnecessary force” against a vulnerable woman suffering a mental health crisis on the Clifton Suspension Bridge.

The two former Avon and Somerset constables are charged with serious misconduct in connection with the incident, which was featured in the recent Channel 4 documentary series To Catch a Copper, in which a film crew spent four years following the standards department police of the force investigating police officers. Allegations the officers deny.

A misconduct hearing, which opened in public on Monday 17 June, was told one of the ex-police officers used artificial Pava pepper spray which caused severe pain and was supposed to be in self-defence on the woman as she was in the back of a police car after the two arrested her for causing a public nuisance.

In the harrowing scenes aired in January, the victim was handcuffed, forced from the vehicle with what appeared to be a hand around her throat and then a ‘hood’ was placed over her head before being sprayed with Pava by the police officer. female gender. the back of the car.

Subsequent scenes from body-worn camera footage at the police station where the woman was arrested on December 4, 2021, showed the victim crying uncontrollably and screaming, claiming she had been raped during a search.

The then-chairman of the Police Federation of Police, which represents senior officers, was shown putting his hands to his face in disbelief as he watched the video and told the Channel 4 crew: “It’s the worst misconduct that I believe’ ever seen’.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the officers involved first tried to keep the proceedings secret. The misconduct committee rightly rejected this argument. However, lawyers were able to protect the identity of the officers.

Not only are we not allowed to tell you who the two officers are, but we can’t tell you why because the reasons for the decision to grant anonymity are considered “non-public information.”

What we can say is that BristolLive strongly disagrees that police officers of any rank get anonymity when brought before a disciplinary tribunal.

What we can say is that part of the reason they gave was the Home Office guidelines for police misconduct hearings dating back to February 2020.

We say these guidelines are outdated. They refer to an era before the shocking cases of Met Police officers Wayne Couzens, who kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard, and serial rapist and abuser David Carrick, to name but two.

These horrific cases and others have horrified the nation, strengthened public confidence in the police, particularly in situations involving vulnerable women, and led to a major overhaul of the police misconduct system, which could now be overhauled. Let’s wait and see how diluted it is.

Home Office guidelines include clauses giving police tribunals the power to shield officers accused of wrongdoing from public scrutiny.

It is a protection afforded only to police officers in a court system designed for the police and one not available to any member of the public in a criminal trial. If this were a criminal case, each adult defendant is named and the proceedings reported to the public fairly and freely.

The tribunal’s design in this case is in stark contrast to the decisions of the Avon & Somerset force’s senior officer, Chief Constable Sarah Crew.

In November and December 2022, BristolLive called her out when she granted anonymity to officers in misconduct hearings, one of which was held in private to exclude the public and media.

To her great credit, she agreed with our submissions on the principles of open justice and clear public interest and quashed those orders.

Since then, every officer accused of misconduct who faces a hearing before the chief constable has been named and the hearings have been held in public.

In the case of “Ex-PC A and Ex-PC B”, as we must call them, the tribunal decided not to follow the example set by Chief Constable Sarah Crew.

The Chief Constable fully understands that there is a far greater risk of undermining public confidence in the police and the wider police service, along with reputational damage, by closing the court doors and protecting officers accused of breaching professional standards than in letting all the facts to be revealed.

The long-lasting principle is simple. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Imagine if Couzens and Carrick had faced public disciplinary hearings, maybe their monstrous crimes could have been stopped. We don’t know, but we say the current system of providing anonymity to police officers facing disciplinary hearings is not fit for purpose. I argued this point and more with the tribunal before this week’s hearing, but to no avail.

While the court recognizes that this case involves “issues of serious public interest” and rejected the officers’ lawyers’ request for the hearing to be held in camera, holding the hearing in public while barring the identification of the alleged perpetrators simply nullifies the detention hearing in public, primarily because we cannot report identifying details.

We say this is a public hearing in name only. How can proceedings be transparent if we cannot name those facing allegations of serious misconduct? The public interest is not served.

These are two officers who were called to a woman who was trying to jump from the Clifton Suspension Bridge in an act of desperation. He urgently needed help. Help came in the form of “Ex-PC A and Ex-PC B”. The woman was arrested, handcuffed, sprayed with Pava, hooded and treated like a violent criminal.

The (former) officers are contesting these charges and it is right that they have a free and fair trial. But that doesn’t mean they should be anonymous.

Inspector Jon Owen, the police’s mental health officer, told To Catch a Copper as he watched the video: “It looks awful because it’s awful.”

Mr Loker told the filmmakers: “How can anyone in their right mind say that any part of this is acceptable?

“She is clearly in crisis, this young lady.

“She shows a level of meanness, and they dehumanize her.

“That’s the hardest part for me, that they don’t treat her like a human being.”

In November 2022, almost a year after the incident, Chief Constable Sarah Crew told a non-misconduct police hearing: “It is important for an open justice that we bring as much as possible into the field public”.

Madam, we applaud you for that. Unfortunately the police misconduct hearing serving Avon & Somerset doesn’t seem to have got the memo.