A police department has compensated a woman with £40,000 after two policemen forcibly entered her home and arrested her.
Nottinghamshire Police has admitted that officers summoned by a bailiff used unlawful force against the woman, who was left bruised and scraped as a result.
One of the cops was terminated for gross misconduct, but he was reinstated after filing two appeals.
Sharon, the woman, stated that she initially filed a complaint because she did not trust the two guys to be actual police officers.
A portion of the incident was filmed by the body-worn camera worn by the bailiff.
Sharon, who has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of what occurred, stated, “I’m still terrified when someone knocks on the door.”
“When I see cops approaching me, I become paranoid and wonder, ‘What have I done wrong?'”
Sharon believes she would not have been believed if not for the bailiff’s camera recording.
She is requesting that all police officers turn on their body-worn cameras while entering private residences.
The event occurred on April 24, 2017, yet Sharon has not been compensated for more than five years.
The bailiff visited her residence because of outstanding debt.
He said to the police that two young males on the street, who were Sharon’s relatives, had taken a package from his vehicle.
Sgt. Jonathan Flint, one of the cops, then arrived and stated he would assist the bailiff in seizing items from the residence, which police are not authorized to do.
In the video, the bailiff can be heard saying, “I’ve come to seize [Sharon’s car] and to remove everything from the residence.”
Sgt. Flint responds, “Okay, we’ll do that, will we?”
As he speaks to the bailiff, one of the cops can be heard referring to Sharon as a “fucking nutjob.”
The aunt of Sharon, who is standing outside, then explains that the police should not let bailiffs seize things.
Sgt. Flint responds, “Yes, we are, so there you have it. Well, that’s the situation, that’s the situation.”
Sharon’s aunt then reiterates the law, to which Sgt. Flint responds, “Cool, that’s wonderful, that’s what’s occurring. Okay, let’s go!”
Sgt. Flint then communicates with Sharon and falsely asserts he has the authority to “force entrance” if she does not open her door, claiming he fears there are stolen “packages” inside her residence.
PC Richard Elliott, the second officer, then arrives. Sgt. Flint threatens repeatedly to break down the door.
Sharon is shown allowing in two cops, but closing and locking the door so the bailiff cannot enter the residence.
The footage does not reveal what occurred inside the residence.
However, Sharon can be heard screaming and shouting “help” constantly.
“Shocked and bewildered”
Sharon stated in her witness testimony that Sgt. Flint accused her of “imprisoning” the officers and repeatedly demanded her key, even though she had already unlocked the door.
She stated that the cops’ approach to her was hostile, threatening, and intimidating.
“Based on their facial expressions and body language, I was convinced I would be attacked.”
She claimed that both police grabbed her while attempting to seize her key, and Sergeant Flint threatened to spray her with CS spray.
She claimed, “I was quite afraid, astonished, and perplexed because the police officers did not require the key.”
She said that the cops continued to “wrestle” with her, prompting Sgt. Flint arrests her for disturbing the peace.
She stated that her keys were taken from her by force and that she was tied while lying on her front, half on the floor and half on a sofa.
Sharon stated in her witness statement that because the shackles were so tight, they were cutting into her wrists.
The film then shows Sgt. Flint opens the door and tells the bailiff, “You may have whatever you want. Get your needs in order.”
In background facts presented before a police misconduct commission, his facial expression was described as “smirking.”
Sharon is then constantly heard saying, “My hand is bleeding.”
When he informs the bailiff that Sharon has been arrested, Sgt. Flint describes her as “fucking insane.”
The bailiff enters Sharon’s home and searches it, but he does not seize anything because he finds nothing of worth.
The bailiff and police then departed after removing Sharon’s handcuffs. She was never prosecuted.
The professional standards division of Nottinghamshire Police reviewed Sharon’s complaint and determined that both officers had a case to answer for misconduct.
Sharon was dissatisfied with this result, so she filed an appeal with the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC), which was partially upheld.
It concurred with Nottinghamshire Police that PC Elliott should attend a misconduct meeting, but stated that Sgt Flint had a case to answer for gross misconduct, which is more serious and thus should attend a gross misconduct hearing.
When Sharon testified at this hearing, twelve of the thirteen charges were judged to be true, and Sgt. Flint was fired.
After Sgt. Flint appealed twice to the Police Appeals Tribunal, the punishment was changed to a final written warning.
“Sharon was saddened by the news,” said Iain Gould, Sharon’s attorney who specializes in cases against police.
“It appears that the chief constable was also dissatisfied with the news, as the chief constable subsequently requested a judicial review of that judgment.”
The High Court reversed the tribunal’s decision, remanded it for a new ruling, and the Police Appeals Tribunal ruled that Sgt. Flint should receive a final written warning.
Chief Constable Craig Guildford said, “We will always take these allegations extremely seriously, and I was very disappointed with the conclusion of the appeal.”
Sharon stated that giving testimony at the misconduct proceedings was difficult since it required her to relive the events.
She said that she was treated as a criminal during cross-examination.
Mr. Gould stated that the entire procedure took around four and a half years from start to finish.
“In many ways, it was a merry-go-round, but from Sharon’s point of view, it was an anguish from beginning to end.”
PC Elliott was the subject of an internal misconduct meeting, which resulted in a finding of wrongdoing but no official punishment.
No apology
Sharon has already received £40,000 in compensation after filing a legal claim.
“Unfortunately, the settlement did not include an apology letter, and Sharon volunteered to accept less money in exchange for an apology from Nottinghamshire Police,” stated Mr. Gould.
In a document referred to as a “defense,” Nottinghamshire Police conceded the following:
Sgt. Flint trespassed when he unlawfully entered Sharon’s home without authority.
Sgt. Flint grabbed Sharon and attempted to forcibly remove her keys.
Sharon was wrongfully arrested by PC Elliott for disturbing the peace.
With the assistance of PC Elliott, Sgt. Flint “grappled” with Sharon and handcuffed her. They employed unlawful force and wrongfully detained her for 10 to 15 minutes.
PC Elliott confiscated Sharon’s keys.
Sergeant Flint invited the bailiff to enter the residence.
The department acknowledged that both officers “committed battery” and that Sgt. Flint “acted in an aggressive and repressive manner.”
However, they denied that PC Elliott had committed a crime by entering her residence, where he thought two male relatives to be there. The police are permitted to enter establishments to apprehend individuals suspected of theft.
Mr. Guildford stated, “The ensuing financial settlement was essential, appropriate, and the proper course of action.
“The force truly regrets any misery inflicted upon Sharon”
Mr. Gould feels this case raises broader questions regarding police accountability and the use of body cameras.
“Surprisingly, neither police officer had or activated their body-worn camera, and the scenario was only captured on film because the bailiff had a body-worn camera,” he stated.
Mr. Gould feels that police officer should be required to activate their cameras while engaging with the public.
“Unfortunately, in my experience, officers do not activate these cameras nearly enough,” he said. “Therefore, there is no objective record.”
Even when cameras are activated, I’m involved in situations when officers encourage footage to be destroyed or discarded.
Mr. Guildford stated, “Since this incident occurred five years ago, I have provided body-worn cameras to all of our frontline personnel.”
Continue to live in terror
Sharon reported having swollen wrists, bruising and scratching on her arms, and neck and head stiffness for days after being placed in handcuffs.
However, she stated that most of the harm was psychological, and she continues to suffer after more than five years.
She now feels fear even when she sees a police car because of her PTSD.
“In my mind, the situation is still unresolved because I received compensation but no apology,” she explained.
“He ended up doing what he did, got his job back, and everything gets swept under the rug. I’m still living in terror.”
