Hi, on the 8/2/2006 at 7:00am in the morning
Hi, on the 8/2/2006 at 7:00am in the morning I was arrested at my home address.
My ex-partner had reported me to the police and claimed that I had taken £9 from her PayPal Account on 7th December 2005
I was taken to the Local police station to which I was booked in at Custody and put in the Cell’s for 4.5 Hours
At the Interview I was told my Ex-G/f had reported me for detaining money by deception and also sent her text messages to her mobile phone on 7th December 2005
I explained in the interview, I did not do any of this
And the mobile phone number which I had been told I used to sent her the text massages said ( I what I was going to do etc and take the money)
The Police Officer reckons he saw her mobile phone inbox and recorded the dates and times of the messages and the number to which sent them.
I then informed them that this cant be true and that the phone number had been Disconnected backed in July 2005.
I then requested that he contacts Paypal and the Mobile phone company to prove what I am saying is correct and that there was no way on earth I could have done such allegations.
The Police Officer also said, he did try calling the number in the text messages but the number was dead.
I was released on Police Bail pending enquires
1 hour after my release I had a phone call from the Police Officer to say
No further action is being taken as he could not get authorize from his Inspector to contact the companies as I requested.
Wrongful Arrest
Started by
Davi dBenwell
, Feb 12 2006 12:21 AM
16 replies to this topic
#3
Davi dBenwell
- Topic Starter
-
- Members
-
- 10 posts
I'm new!
Posted 12 February 2006 - 12:38 AM
The Police Officer who dealt with this case is also involved in another case with me to which I am a victim of attack to. And I think his is out of order – a Police office is on two cases with the same person – 1 to which I am the victim and the other I am a suspect
I also said to the Officer just before he bailed me, that there was no reason for arrest and if he had contacted me I would of willing come to the station to answer any questions
Do you think i have grounds to Sue them
as the Officer phoned me up 1 hour later after my release and said
From the information he has he believes I had done what I was alleged of, and so the
information will stay on my record but it will say (No further action taken) however he
could not get authorize to contact the mobile phone companies to obtain the information
and so the case against me was dropped.
I also said to the Officer just before he bailed me, that there was no reason for arrest and if he had contacted me I would of willing come to the station to answer any questions
Do you think i have grounds to Sue them
as the Officer phoned me up 1 hour later after my release and said
From the information he has he believes I had done what I was alleged of, and so the
information will stay on my record but it will say (No further action taken) however he
could not get authorize to contact the mobile phone companies to obtain the information
and so the case against me was dropped.
Erm, so what help are you after David?!
#4
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:01 AM
The Police Officer who dealt with this case is also involved in another case with me to which I am a victim of attack to. And I think his is out of order – a Police office is on two cases with the same person – 1 to which I am the victim and the other I am a suspect
I also said to the Officer just before he bailed me, that there was no reason for arrest and if he had contacted me I would of willing come to the station to answer any questions
Do you think i have grounds to Sue them
as the Officer phoned me up 1 hour later after my release and said
From the information he has he believes I had done what I was alleged of, and so the
information will stay on my record but it will say (No further action taken) however he
could not get authorize to contact the mobile phone companies to obtain the information
and so the case against me was dropped.
Lawfull arrest and investigation, any queries try calling your phone provider yourself and sorting out the queries. Also this is not the place to air your "case" as it"s a public forum and i would suggest if you feel aggrieved contact the force complaints department concerned.
#5
Davi dBenwell
- Topic Starter
-
- Members
-
- 10 posts
I'm new!
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:05 AM
I Phoned the Mobile phone company and they confirmed the Phone number in question was disconnect from the network on 5th July 2005 and it is not possable for anyone to use that number on 7th Decemebr 2005
Lawfull arrest and investigation, any queries try calling your phone provider yourself and sorting out the queries. Also this is not the place to air your "case" as it"s a public forum and i would suggest if you feel aggrieved contact the force complaints department concerned.
#6
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:05 AM
Hi, this is not a wrongful arrest. Being arrested for a crime that you are innocent of is not in itself evidence of a wrongful arrest. If the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that you committed an offence (and he did have those grounds it seems) and there was a necessity test as to why you needed to be arrested (not sure if this was done) then the arrest was perfectly lawful whether you committed any actual offence or not.
Of course, we're all (mainly) serving police officers and as such aren't really qualified or in a position to give expert legal advice. I suggest that if you want to progress matters, speak to a solicitor in the first instance.
Hope that helps,
AC
Of course, we're all (mainly) serving police officers and as such aren't really qualified or in a position to give expert legal advice. I suggest that if you want to progress matters, speak to a solicitor in the first instance.
Hope that helps,
AC
#7
Davi dBenwell
- Topic Starter
-
- Members
-
- 10 posts
I'm new!
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:18 AM
But if the Police Officer had done his home work, he would not have arrested me. He know the mobile phone was dead and if he had phoned the provider he would of knoewn the alligaton made against me was false.
What is a necessity test ??
Hi, this is not a wrongful arrest. Being arrested for a crime that you are innocent of is not in itself evidence of a wrongful arrest. If the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that you committed an offence (and he did have those grounds it seems) and there was a necessity test as to why you needed to be arrested (not sure if this was done) then the arrest was perfectly lawful whether you committed any actual offence or not.
Of course, we're all (mainly) serving police officers and as such aren't really qualified or in a position to give expert legal advice. I suggest that if you want to progress matters, speak to a solicitor in the first instance.
Hope that helps,
AC
What is a necessity test ??
#8
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:51 AM
We can't really advise on this, you need to get legal advice really. As Another Constable says, the arrest appears to be perfectly legal and when you were booked in to Custody, the arresting officer would have to had stated to the Custody Sgt. why the arrest had been necessary.
Necessity test = since Jan 2006 a police officer can arrest for any offence if it is deemed necessary. There are certain criteria which must be met before an arrest can be justified. The justification is decided by the arresting officer and is confirmed by the Custody Sgt when a prisoner is booked in to Custody. The justification is recorded on the Custody record. We don't know the details so cant really comment on the justification, but if you were booked in to Custody, the Sgt. must have been satisfied.
Necessity test = since Jan 2006 a police officer can arrest for any offence if it is deemed necessary. There are certain criteria which must be met before an arrest can be justified. The justification is decided by the arresting officer and is confirmed by the Custody Sgt when a prisoner is booked in to Custody. The justification is recorded on the Custody record. We don't know the details so cant really comment on the justification, but if you were booked in to Custody, the Sgt. must have been satisfied.
#9
Davi dBenwell
- Topic Starter
-
- Members
-
- 10 posts
I'm new!
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:58 AM
I just feel, that the arrest was uncalled for, I know the police officer who dealt with me as he is working on another case for me.
But he fauld to let me know the day before when i spoke to him regarding the other case to which i was a victim of.
He knows i am easy to speak to and that if he had any questions i would willing help answe them to the best of my ability.
but in sted he, arranges a Officer to come out and arrest me at 7am in the morning take me back to the station. and then the Officer which i know, Interviews me at 12: noon
The Officer which i am not happy about is currently on Attachement to C.I.T and once passed his exames he will become a D.C.
So he told me in our chit chats a few weeks ago
But he fauld to let me know the day before when i spoke to him regarding the other case to which i was a victim of.
He knows i am easy to speak to and that if he had any questions i would willing help answe them to the best of my ability.
but in sted he, arranges a Officer to come out and arrest me at 7am in the morning take me back to the station. and then the Officer which i know, Interviews me at 12: noon
The Officer which i am not happy about is currently on Attachement to C.I.T and once passed his exames he will become a D.C.
So he told me in our chit chats a few weeks ago
We can't really advise on this, you need to get legal advice really. As Another Constable says, the arrest appears to be perfectly legal and when you were booked in to Custody, the arresting officer would have to had stated to the Custody Sgt. why the arrest had been necessary.
Necessity test = since Jan 2006 a police officer can arrest for any offence if it is deemed necessary. There are certain criteria which must be met before an arrest can be justified. The justification is decided by the arresting officer and is confirmed by the Custody Sgt when a prisoner is booked in to Custody. The justification is recorded on the Custody record. We don't know the details so cant really comment on the justification, but if you were booked in to Custody, the Sgt. must have been satisfied.
#10
Posted 12 February 2006 - 02:03 AM
As has been said, we don't know the details so its hard to comment. As I have also said, the arresting officer would have had to justify the arrest to the Custody Sgt. As you were booked in to Custody, the Sgt was obviously satisfied that the arrest was justified.
Sounds harsh, but a crime was alleged against you and needed to be investigated. You were arrested and later released without further action. Arresting people for interview is often required in an investigation.
Sounds harsh, but a crime was alleged against you and needed to be investigated. You were arrested and later released without further action. Arresting people for interview is often required in an investigation.
#11
Posted 12 February 2006 - 04:37 AM
Both innocent and guilty people are arrested all the time.
This is part of the investigation process. If, having interviewed the individual, and them having checked out what they have to say, it becomes apparent that there is no case to answer, the person will be advised of this and there will be no further action with regard to them.
This is perfectly normal and neccessary...
This is part of the investigation process. If, having interviewed the individual, and them having checked out what they have to say, it becomes apparent that there is no case to answer, the person will be advised of this and there will be no further action with regard to them.
This is perfectly normal and neccessary...
#12
Posted 12 February 2006 - 09:38 AM
Its actually quite interesting, obviously we dont know the full facts behind the case so we can only go on what david provides.
If we take what he is saying at face value how many people here would have been happy to be arrested? I certainly wouldnt..especially when it seems the only evidence at the time of the offence was the witness statement of the Ex-GF.Most officers i know would have made efforts to have gathered evidence before arresting such as having contacted the phone company and paypal before an arrest.
Without that evidence all he could be interviewed on was the statement of the ex gf, unless he admits it straight of the bat he was always going to have to be then police bailed- that seems abit of a waste of time to me- would have made more sense to get the evidence first then arrest if required (which in this case it wouldnt have been) or if he was dying to get the guy into interview why not ask him to attend a voluntary interview?
I agree though its not a wrongful arrest and doubt very much david you can sue anyone.
If we take what he is saying at face value how many people here would have been happy to be arrested? I certainly wouldnt..especially when it seems the only evidence at the time of the offence was the witness statement of the Ex-GF.Most officers i know would have made efforts to have gathered evidence before arresting such as having contacted the phone company and paypal before an arrest.
Without that evidence all he could be interviewed on was the statement of the ex gf, unless he admits it straight of the bat he was always going to have to be then police bailed- that seems abit of a waste of time to me- would have made more sense to get the evidence first then arrest if required (which in this case it wouldnt have been) or if he was dying to get the guy into interview why not ask him to attend a voluntary interview?
I agree though its not a wrongful arrest and doubt very much david you can sue anyone.
#13
Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:06 AM
The best thing you can do is hire a solicitor.
We simply can't offer the help or advice that a solicitor can; whatever help or advice we can offer is purely personal; absolutely nothing more than that.
Though we do warmly welcome you, as we do all new members, at the end of the day we're a resource for and about Special Constables in the UK, not a legal advice site.
We simply can't offer the help or advice that a solicitor can; whatever help or advice we can offer is purely personal; absolutely nothing more than that.
Though we do warmly welcome you, as we do all new members, at the end of the day we're a resource for and about Special Constables in the UK, not a legal advice site.
#14
Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:59 AM
Its all legitimate.
PACE has not been disregarded, No PACE codes of practice have been broken, the arrest is lawful, theres nothing you can do. People make allegations, we arrest, and interview, and bail pending further enquiries. Why arrest you first? Get your side of the story and open more avenues to explore.
Its not a wrongful arrest whatsoever, you get people who think they know the law better and because you didnt do it reckon you have been unlawfully arrested, well thats wrong!
As has been said, this is not a legal advice site, you cant sue, nothing is happening to you legally, as harsh as it sounds, get over it, forget about it.
PACE has not been disregarded, No PACE codes of practice have been broken, the arrest is lawful, theres nothing you can do. People make allegations, we arrest, and interview, and bail pending further enquiries. Why arrest you first? Get your side of the story and open more avenues to explore.
Its not a wrongful arrest whatsoever, you get people who think they know the law better and because you didnt do it reckon you have been unlawfully arrested, well thats wrong!
As has been said, this is not a legal advice site, you cant sue, nothing is happening to you legally, as harsh as it sounds, get over it, forget about it.
#15
Posted 12 February 2006 - 11:58 AM
People get arrested everyday when they haven't committed an offence - that is how the justice system works in this country. The officer cannot simply mention in conversation that he will be arresting you soon, as there are procedures he has to go through etc.... Likewise, certain forces have specific policies in relation to named offenders (in this case, I assume you were a named offender). Forces state that they have to be processed within a specific timescale (eg 10 days). Hence your arrest and why he hasn't spent months and months contacting 02 etc etc....
People make false and malicious allegations everyday to the police, however that is society. If the police were to ignore all allegations, there would be no offenders prosecuted. That is why the police take every allegation as truthful and then they arrest to get the other side of the story.
Having said that, the officer could have possibly warned you in to be arrested at your convenience. Likewise, he should have not possibly been dealing with the incident given that he is already dealing with another case involving you. Mind you, depending where you live, there is sometimes only one officer covering 100 sq miles.
Did you not have a legal representative? You should have voiced these questions to him who would have been able to advise you better.
People make false and malicious allegations everyday to the police, however that is society. If the police were to ignore all allegations, there would be no offenders prosecuted. That is why the police take every allegation as truthful and then they arrest to get the other side of the story.
Having said that, the officer could have possibly warned you in to be arrested at your convenience. Likewise, he should have not possibly been dealing with the incident given that he is already dealing with another case involving you. Mind you, depending where you live, there is sometimes only one officer covering 100 sq miles.
Did you not have a legal representative? You should have voiced these questions to him who would have been able to advise you better.
#16
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:29 PM
As has been stated you need to contact the Police force in question and log a complaint with them.
They will then deal with it, we cannot advise you on what has gone on, as we only have your side of the story.
I'm not happy for this to continue as we leave ourselves open to all sorts of bother, ie "Well a Special on a website said he would not have arrested me" etc etc.
They will then deal with it, we cannot advise you on what has gone on, as we only have your side of the story.
I'm not happy for this to continue as we leave ourselves open to all sorts of bother, ie "Well a Special on a website said he would not have arrested me" etc etc.
#17
Posted 12 February 2006 - 02:18 PM
Indeed. Seek advice from a solicitor. Any advice that has been given in the replies above you use entirely at your own risk and with no guarantee or endorsement from the site (see our disclaimer).
