During a fracas in a Lancashire police station, a police officer kicked a member of the public.
The victim accepts that the kick was not of any force that would inflict any serious injury, but it was without any doubt, a kick that, if the tables were turned, a police officer would declare it an assault of an officer while in the execution of his duty. A serious offence.
So when the victim warned the officer to stop kicking him, notifying the officer he could uses ‘reasonable force’ (in self defence), the officer arrested the man he had just kicked.
Ironically, the officer didn’t even make a lawful arrest, he just said, “lock him up!” and no rights were read to the victim.
The Police Body Worn Video (BWV) proves 100% the fact that no arrest took place and now a civil claim is being considered for an unlawful ‘arrest’ and unlawful detention and malicious prosecution.
But that is not all…
The victim was wearing his own BWV which the police seized. It would have been known the police that it contained evidence of the police offence.
Later, the victim was charged with multiple offences.
At court, the magistrates determined that one of the charges by Lancashire police had zero merits and they dropped it.
The other charge, they say, had merit and the trial continued.
The victim was found ‘guilty’ by the magistrates for public order.
The officer who kicked the ma (when asked on oath), “did you kick the victim?” responded, “No I did not“.
The solicitor then asked the officer, “did you use your foot at all on the victim“, he replied, “No I did not“.
He was asked, “are you 100% sure“, the officer replied “YES!“.
The officer was also asked if he arrested the victim, “Yes” he replied, even though the police camera that was just played, 100% proved he did not!
Next, a female officer gave evidence, asked the same question, “did the Inspector use his foot“… “YES“, she replied! contradicting her own supervisor.
This female officer and another officer, both said that an arrest did take place, even though the camera 100% proved it did not!
All of the officers had time to review the footage as it was their own cameras, yet at no time in either of the police cameras which clearly caught all the audio, did an arrest take place. So, it is alleged that all officers intentionally lied on oath.
In the police camera footage, you could see the victims camera clearly pointing towards the officer’s foot, but the police camera did not show the alleged kick.
Lancashire police had withheld this evidence and had failed to disclose it, saying it “would not harm the police case or help the defence“, a strange assertion considering the claimed to have never reviewed the evidence.
Later, the camera clearly showed an assault by the police officer.
So, the victim was found guilty.
An appeal was immediately lodged with the Crown Court. The withheld camera was requested but another officer refused to hand it over unless the victim authorised him to take a copy. This was rightfully refused.
The victim sought a Court Order for the return of the camera. A Police officer attended the hearing apparently told the Judge tjat he ‘feared the victim would tamper with the evidence‘…
The Judge ordered that the camera must be viewed by all parties.
To avoid police taking a copy, the victim elected for the footage to be viewed at the Crown Court at the appeal trial.
On the day of the trial, and before anyone had ‘supposedly‘ looked at the camera footage, the CPS decided to offer no defence and the appeal was granted, without a trial and the conviction was ‘quashed!’ there and then.
There is no proof what brought this turn of events, but looking at the facts;
- The conviction was already ‘in the bag’, why give it up?.
- CPS (or police) had nothing to gain by overturning a conviction, especially if they felt it was ‘just’.
- Lancashire police had taken 3 active police officers out of front line duty for TWO days (6 man-days) to give evidence.
- One of the officers, lied on oath.
- All 3 officers said an arrest took place even though police cameras showed this to be false.
- After the withheld evidence was ordered to be viewed pre-trial, the prosecution offered no evidence.
Now the victim has the camera footage, what a coincidence that it shows the officer kicking the victim (or, ‘using his foot’), which the officer categorically denied ON OATH in preston Magistrates court.
This may well have been the straw that broke the camels back to secure the conviction.
So, what was a common assault allegation against a police, charges cannot be brought as the evidence was withheld and the offence is now timed out.
The officers lie on oath now become a matter of perjury and misconduct. A far more serious allegation.
Evidence is now retained in the form of HQ video proving that this Lancashire police officer lied on oath.
The article below is of a PC Myles Hughes jailed for lying under oath… not nearly as bad as lying to get another person convicted!