Award-winning police officer faces sack for grabbing boy, 15, by throat and shouting 'stop screaming like a little b****' during arrest, misconduct panel told
An award winning police officer has been accused of grabbing a teenage suspect by the throat, called him a 'b***h' and threatening to 'smash him up'.
Pc Lorne Castle is facing misconduct proceedings for allegedly making the 15-year-old boy feel 'frightened and intimidated' as he arrested him for an assault.
A hearing was told that the teenager had been wanted for assaulting members of the public and was carrying a knife at the time of his arrest.
The officer ran towards the masked teenager, known as Witness A, and pushed him against a wall before dragging him to the ground and sitting on him.
He then shouted at him to 'show me your f*****g hands' and then put his hands and finger in the hoodie-wearing teen's face.
When Witness A was unable to move his arm Pc Castle told him to 'stop screaming like a little b***h' as he called for back-up on the radio.
He grabbed the boy by the throat and threatened to 'smash up' the boy if he resisted.
When his back-up arrived, he ordered colleagues to put the boy in leg restraints.
Witness A was left 'petrified' by PC Castle's behaviour in Bournemouth, Dorset, at 5.30pm on January 27, 2024.
The officer is accused of committing gross misconduct in regards to authority, respect and courtesy and conduct and use of force and is facing a disciplinary hearing at Dorset Police HQ.
The 46-year-old married father of two has twice won a national award since joining Dorset Police over 10 years ago
Last year he was awarded a National Humane Society gong for saving a person from drowning in the River Avon in Christchurch and had previously been awarded Neighbourhood Police Officer of the Year.
He accepts he committed misconduct but denies his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct as he said the boy had been arrested twice for assaults on unrelated people.
Pc Castle said the boy was wearing a face covering and at risk of escape as he had previously fled a Town Ranger.
Mark Ley-Morgan, representing the Dorset Police, said: 'At about 5.30pm on January 27, 2024 in Bournemouth you arrested a 15 year-old boy, Witness A, on suspicion of assault.
'You approached Witness A at speed and took hold of him before telling him what he was under arrest for.
'You forced him to the ground and he was lying on his back with his face up.
'You repeatedly stated to Witness A 'show me your f*****g hands'. It should be clear to you he was frightened and intimidated by your actions.
'It should have been clear to you when you were on top of him that he could not comply with your instructions.
'When he replied that he couldn't you grabbed hold of his back with your right hand and pointed to his face with your index finger and shouted 'stop screaming like a little b***h, do you understand, shut up'.
'Witness A asked you what he had done and you grabbed him by the throat then called for assistance and said on the radio he was behaving 'like a b***h'.
'You said 'stop resisting or I'm going to smash you up' then you put both hands on Witness A's throat.
'You put Witness A in a head lock and you told other officers to put him in leg restraints.'
In the footage the boy, who can't be identified, can be heard pleading for Pc Castle to stop and repeatedly stating 'I've done nothing wrong, I don't deserve this'.
Mr Ley-Morgan told the hearing that in the days after the incident Pc Castle put in a report that he 'completely stood by his actions and use of language'.
Pc Castle had said in his report that he had used the term 'b***h' and 'smash you up' as this was language he thought the boy would understand and he wanted to assert verbal dominance without having to use more physicality.
But more recently Pc Castle had reflected on the incident and felt he had made 'serious mistakes' during the arrest which were borne out of anxiety at putting himself in danger.
However, Mr Ley-Morgan argued that this change of heart was a 'cynical attempt by Pc Castle to garner sympathy'.
Mr Ley-Morgan told the hearing: 'Looking at the video it is clear that you didn't take Witness A to the ground because he was resisting.
'He was taken completely by surprise when you smashed him up against the wall and took him to the floor.
'It is clear from his reaction that Witness A was petrified of what the officer was doing to him.
'No reasonable officer would have thought Witness A was attempting to escape or doing anything that could be described as aggressive or threatening.
'Witness A was grabbed by the throat, had a finger jabbed in the face and his face slapped.
'Pc Castle breached standards of professional behaviour by failing to act with self control and failing to treat him with courtesy or respect.
'He abused his power and authority and his behaviour undermined confidence in the police.
'It was totally unnecessary and disproportionate, and in our view this is so serious dismissal would be justified.'
Pc Susannah Justice was one of the other officers to attend the arrest and told the hearing the suspect was resisting their attempts to detain him.
But she said she was concerned about Pc Castle's use of the word 'b***h' and 'smash him up'.
The hearing continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
33 minutes ago
- The Sun
Keep your home cobweb and pest-free this summer – a 35p household essential is key & it'll make your windows sparkle too
Abigail Wilson, Senior Digital Writer Published: Invalid Date, WITH summer fast approaching, if you want to ensure your home is cobweb and pest-free, you've come to the right place. Particularly if you plan on having guests over to relax in your garden any time soon and don't fancy being stared at by cobwebs all over your windows, then we've got just the thing. 4 4 4 4 And don't worry if your purse is feeling tighter than ever before, as thanks to this handy hack from experts at Cleanipedia, you may already have the two ingredients in your kitchen cupboard. Posting on social media, the pros at Cleanipedia, which is powered by Unilever, explained how two household essentials can be used to get rid of cobwebs and deter bugs from your home. Alongside a short clip shared on Instagram, the experts wrote: 'Keep spiders and bugs away from your windows with this easy trick!' Thanks to this hack, all you'll need is washing-up liquid and white vinegar. First things first, you'll need to nab a Dismatic and clean surfaces "using dish soap and white vinegar mix.' The experts claimed: 'This mix is also great if you want sparkling windows.' Following this, the pros advised: 'Spray white vinegar (or essential oils) all over to repel the bugs.' According to the experts, white vinegar acts as a natural repellent thanks to its strong scent. They acknowledged that ' pests can't stand it', as they added: 'Use it to keep them out of your home and push them back toward the garden bushes where they belong!' While the experts demonstrated this hack on windows, you can use this trick anywhere in your home where cobwebs and pests prove a nuisance. Nature's Defenses: Organic Solutions to Garden Pest Problems Not only will it make your pad shine, but it's super cost-effective, making it great for those on a budget. If you've run out of washing-up liquid and white vinegar, you'll be pleased to know that you can nab washing-up liquid for as little as 49p from Savers, while white vinegar will cost you just 35p from Sainsbury's. IF you want to ensure that your home is pest free this summer, here's what you need to know. Hornets and wasps - hate the smell of peppermint oil so spraying this liberally around your patio or balcony can help to keep them at bay. Moths - acidic household white vinegar is effective for deterring moths. Soak some kitchen roll in vinegar and leave it in your wardrobe as a deterrent. Flying ants - herbs and spices, such as cinnamon, mint, chilli pepper, black pepper, cayenne pepper, cloves, or garlic act as deterrents. Mosquitoes - plants, herbs and essential oil fragrances can help deter mozzies inside and out. Try eucalyptus, lavender and lemongrass. Cleaning enthusiasts beam The Instagram clip, which was posted under the username @ cleanipedia, has clearly left many open-mouthed, as it has quickly racked up 342,000 views. Not only this, but it's also amassed 1,347 likes and 31 comments. Social media users were impressed with the two-step hack and many eagerly rushed to the comments to express this. One person said: 'I will give this a try!' Another added: 'I need to do this.' At the same time, a third simply commented: 'Amazing.' Meanwhile, someone else asked: 'What essential oils can I use? Peppermint oil ok? To this, the pros at Cleanipedia wrote back and confirmed: 'Yes! You can use peppermint oil because it has a strong smell which insects don't like so they'll steer away from it and go somewhere else.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Why banks may no longer refund fraud victims
Lenders are lobbying for new fraud reimbursement rules to be watered down over fears scam victims are being told to lie to their banks. Since last October, companies which handle payments have been required to give victims of 'Authorised Push Payment' (APP) fraud their money back, up to a limit of £85,000. In the first three months, 86pc of money lost to the scams – approximately £27m – was reimbursed to consumers by 60 firms. The current rules mean that, other than a £100 'excess' which firms can remove from payments, the only reasons that customers can be denied a payout are if they've ignored warnings, failed to quickly notify their bank of the fraud, refused to share information about the scam or do not consent to a police report being made. But in meetings in May, banks demanded that requirements for victims to act reasonably – and not to lie to their bank – were made stronger. This would mean that customers could be denied refunds in more cases. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) will hold an independent review of the mandatory scheme in October, and will then recommend changes. Problems raised include the high reimbursement limit, compliance monitoring by which administers the scheme, and the limited number of exemptions for refusing payouts. Lenders also said they should be able to give clear warnings about lying to them, as victims are often guided to do by fraudsters. One bank told industry magazine The Banker that: 'The [consumer negligence] bar is set so high that in almost all these cases a customer can be incredibly reckless, can lie to their bank, can ignore warnings and still get their money back.' Riccardo Tordera, director of policy and government relations at The Payments Association (TPA), said: 'The PSR says just 2pc of claims are rejected on this basis yet acknowledges no clear shift in consumer behaviour. 'Meanwhile, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the PSR both apply a stricter definition of gross negligence than common law, which could make enforcement of reimbursement policies challenging in a British court.' Under the previous voluntary code – called the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) – customers could be refused for ignoring warnings or failing to verify the payee. Now the test is much stricter. Reimbursement numbers never jumped above 75pc under the old scheme – compared to 86pc for the mandatory payouts. APP scams see victims convinced to move their money themselves, eventually into a 'safe' account controlled by the fraudsters, at which point it is lost. Ticket sale scams, such as those experienced by Oasis and Taylor Swift fans, are also considered APP frauds. At first glance, the implementation has gone well. The amount lost in APP frauds dropped by 2pc between 2023 and 2024, according to UK Finance, and the number of cases fell by a fifth. But £450.7m was still lost to fraudsters last year. But the scheme has not been without its critics. Before the scheme was implemented, some parts of the industry warned of the potential problems of moral hazard – which is when consumers are incentivised to lie – and that fraudsters would pose as victims. This, it was claimed, would drive a significant spike in claims. But these fears have not materialised. Originally, the reimbursement limit was set to £415,000 – with firms expected to pay out just days after claims were made. But lobbying saw the limit dropped to £85,000, the same as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which protects money deposited with banks. Smaller and medium-sized payment companies had said that one large claim could wipe them out. David Geale, managing director of the Payment Services Regulator (PSR), which is responsible for the scheme, said in May that: 'While it is too early to draw firm conclusions based on the period covered by this data, we have not seen evidence of spikes in claim volumes that some had feared would occur under the policy.' Before the scheme was introduced, there was a voluntary code which most of the major banks were signed up to, run by the Lending Standards Board. Sources at the LSB said last year, before reimbursement was mandatory, that they had not seen fraudulent claims. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: 'Based on the available data from the PSR, the new mandatory scheme appears to be performing well, with more fraud victims getting their money back. 'Sections of the industry had tried – without producing any evidence – to claim that mandatory reimbursement would lead to consumers acting irresponsibly or even teaming up with criminals to con banks out of cash. This seemed ludicrous at the time and initial insights have borne that out.' Ms Concha added that while the number of cases were down, there was another worrying trend. She said: 'Latest industry figures suggest more victims are being tricked into sending money to bank accounts overseas controlled by fraudsters. That is concerning as these transfers aren't covered by the new mandatory reimbursement rules.' A spokesman for the PSR said: 'We have always been clear that we would have an independent review following the implementation of the policy. 'If we think there are key learnings or adjustments to make to our policy, we will consider those carefully before making any changes.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
SUV drivers should pay more tax, Sadiq Khan told
Sir Sadiq Khan is under pressure to tackle 'car-spreading' by hitting bigger vehicles in London with even higher taxes and parking fees. In a motion passed by the London Assembly, the Mayor has been urged to write to the Government to demand higher vehicle excise duty for heavier vehicles and tighter restrictions on car sizes. Assembly members, 11 of 25 of whom are the Mayor's Labour allies, also urged him to write to councils across the capital to ask them to adopt higher parking fees for bigger cars – a policy some have embraced already. The motion blamed larger cars for clogging up London's streets, putting pedestrians at greater risk of injury or death and causing road surfaces to wear down more quickly. Elly Baker, the Labour assembly member who proposed it, said the capital's streets 'weren't designed for larger vehicles like SUVs'. She said: 'Their greater size, weight, and higher bonnets put vulnerable road users at greater risk, reduce available parking spaces, and cause more wear and tear on our roads. 'It's time we took sensible steps to manage the impact of oversized cars and ensure our streets remain safe and accessible for everyone.' A spokesman for the Mayor said on Friday: 'The Mayor, Transport for London and borough partners are working to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads, by expanding the cycle network, making road crossings and junctions safer, reducing speed limits on our roads, and making larger vehicles like HGVs and buses safer. 'This year the Mayor will be refreshing his Vision Zero Action Plan, to restate his commitment to reducing road danger and responding to new and emerging risks on our roads'. The assembly's call comes after several English local authorities have proposed higher charges for larger or heavier vehicles, amid complaints they occupy more space, produce higher levels of pollution and take a bigger toll on road surfaces. Such charges have been proposed in Haringey, Bath, Oxford and Bristol, among other places, with many councillors taking a lead from Paris, where Left-wing French politicians have launched their own crackdown on SUVs. Sir Sadiq currently lacks the formal powers to introduce such charges himself but has said he is watching developments in the French capital closely. 'SUVs take up more space and we know there's issues around road safety, we know there's issues around carbon emissions and so forth,' he said in February. 'We know some councils in London are taking bold policies in relation to parking fees, in relation to your tickets and so forth. It's really good to work with those councils.' 'Car-spreading' SUVs have grown in popularity in recent years, with many drivers favouring their higher seating position. They accounted for a third of all new car registrations in the UK last year, compared with just 12pc a decade earlier. SUVs are generally taller, wider and heavier than traditional cars, and less fuel-efficient. The increase in the size of cars has been described as car-spreading. However, Edmund King, the president of the AA, said it should be 'up to Londoners to choose the type of vehicle that best fulfils their needs'. He said: 'It is not really the role of the London Assembly to dictate what cars individuals should drive. 'Some larger families may well need bigger vehicles with more passenger seats, whereas a driver conducting most trips alone may well choose a city car. 'London's streets were developed around the horse and cart, so of course our infrastructure needs modernising to keep up with change.' A recent study found that pedestrians and cyclists are 44pc more likely to die if they are hit by an SUV or similar-sized vehicle rather than a traditional car. The analysis produced by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London stated that the figure rises to 82pc for children. Meanwhile, research by the campaign group Transport & Environment has previously found the average width of cars in the UK was growing by about half a centimetre per year. A typical car was 180.3cm wide in 2023, up from 177.8cm just five years earlier.
