Police officer was wrongly arrested for ‘lightly' smacking misbehaving son

Telegraph

7 days ago

A police officer was wrongly arrested for 'lightly' smacking her misbehaving son, a judge has ruled.
The Metropolitan Police officer, who is not named, and her husband, were arrested by Surrey Police officers after she smacked their teenage son in 2019.
She gave her son what she described as a 'light smack on the left cheek' after he misbehaved, it was said.
The couple, who have three children, sued Surrey Police, claiming their detention was unlawful as it was unnecessary.
They had their claims dismissed following a civil trial last year and appealed against the decision at the High Court earlier this month.
In a ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Bourne overturned the decision. He said: 'In my judgement, on a proper analysis of the evidence at trial, the police did not show that there was an objective basis for the belief that it was necessary to arrest either claimant.'
'An unfortunate history of challenging behaviour'
The judge said in a 30-page ruling that at the time of the incident, the couple's son, referred to as ABD, had 'an unfortunate history of challenging behaviour' and had begun attending a youth centre to access mental health services.
The couple cancelled ABD's birthday party in March 2019 after he misbehaved, causing him to go to his room, where he 'kicked things around'.
This led his mother to smack her son while his father was asleep, which she said 'was not hard and did not cause any injury or leave any mark'.
ABD attended the youth centre the following day and told staff he had been assaulted by his mother and that his father had done nothing to stop it.
Despite offering to be interviewed voluntarily, both parents were arrested and detained for more than seven hours.
ABD returned to the family home the following day, with police deeming that the children were not at risk of harm and telling the couple that they would face no further action three days after their arrest.
Erring judge
Following a five-day trial at Guildford county court, a judge dismissed their legal claims, finding that police 'reasonably believed' that their arrests were necessary 'to protect a child or children from the person in question and to enable a prompt and effective investigation'.
The judge also ordered the couple to pay 70 per cent of the force's legal costs.
At a hearing in London on July 2, barristers for the couple told the High Court that the judge 'erred' by finding that the arrests were 'objectively reasonable' as both parents had offered to give voluntary interviews.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Bourne said he was 'unable to agree' with the trial judge's finding that there was a 'rational basis' for officers to conclude that voluntary interviews were not an option.
He said: 'In the present case, no reason has been identified which actually explains why voluntary interviews were not a viable alternative.
'None of this means that police officers are entitled to special treatment when they find themselves suspected of an offence.
'But the police must assess the circumstances and make rational decisions as to whether coercive measures are needed or not. Merely referring to the need to protect children and to protect the integrity of the investigation was not and is not enough. It follows that the arrests were unlawful and the claims should have succeeded.'