Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Crime The Courts

Prosecution of UK News Photographer Collapses After Recording Disproves Police Testimony (wordpress.com) 207

Posted by EditorDavid from the entering-into-evidence dept.
Slashdot reader Andy Smith writes: Slashdot reported last September how I was arrested while standing in a field near a road accident, as I photographed the scene for a newspaper. I was initially given a police warning for "obstruction", but the warning was then cancelled and I was prosecuted for resisting arrest and breach of the peace. These are serious charges and I was facing a prison sentence. Fortunately we had one very strong piece of evidence: A recording of my arrest. Not only did the recording prove that two police officers' testimony was false, but it caught one of them boasting about how he had conspired with a prosecutor to arrest and prosecute me. Yesterday the case was dropped, and now the two police officers and the prosecutor face a criminal investigation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prosecution of UK News Photographer Collapses After Recording Disproves Police Testimony More

Prosecution of UK News Photographer Collapses After Recording Disproves Police Testimony

Comments Filter:

  • Lucky for you... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16, 2018 @05:39PM (#56796182)

    If you were in the US instead of the UK, you may well be dead right now.

    "STOP RESISTING!"

  • Do not talk to the police. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16, 2018 @05:41PM (#56796198)

    That badge does not make them good people, but it does give them significant power over you.

  • Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Saturday June 16, 2018 @05:43PM (#56796206)

    Resisting Arrest should be a fine, and Breaching the Peace is a catch-all law that should be used for e.g. putting a drunk in a cell overnight. Neither should have prison sentences attached.

    • Re:Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16, 2018 @06:02PM (#56796256)

      None of those points address the fundamental issue: the testimony of police is believed without corroborating evidence. If that guy didn't have video evidence to prove his innocence, he would be in prison right now, on nothing but the testimony of two corrupt cops.

      • Re:Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Saturday June 16, 2018 @06:56PM (#56796418)

        Police or those in related positions (working at a PD) are often excluded from juries for various reasons. Some of it is because they may be too intimately knowledgeable about police procedures, but mostly it's because they will be biased. However it's not necessarily because they will be biased to believe police testimony, but because they're often the most dubious of that testimony.

        I was on a jury once, and we had one guy that absolutely assumed the guy was guilty precisely because he was arrested. 11 other jurors kept trying to explain to him that the evidence didn't hold up, but he didn't want to believe it. The next day he went to the judge and somehow got himself excused, so an alternate juror was called. Scary that people of that sort are out there and get onto juries.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mentil ( 1748130 )

          Bad things don't happen to good people, bad thing happened, QED guilty.

        • " we had one guy that absolutely assumed the guy was guilty precisely because he was arrested"

          Last time I was on Jury duty 8 of the jurors were like that and 2 more just wanted to go home.

      • the fundamental issue: the testimony of police is believed without corroborating evidence.

        And yet you apparently have no difficulty believing some random yobbo on the internet when *he* has no corroborating evidence...

        • Re: Excessively Punitive (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You know, besides the apparent video evidence....

        • Re: Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Reverend Green ( 4973045 ) on Sunday June 17, 2018 @12:34AM (#56797530)

          Law enforcers lie all day every day. It's their culture, and the kangaroo courts encourage it.

          OF COURSE I would believe a random Joe before I believe a law enforcer. Who wouldn't?

          • Law enforcers lie all day every day. It's their culture, and the kangaroo courts encourage it.

            Whereas random internet yahoos who pretend to be reporters are bastions of truth and virtue.

            • Re: Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Reverend Green ( 4973045 ) on Sunday June 17, 2018 @01:02AM (#56797596)

              Random internet yahoos are random. One doesn't know what to expect. Whereas with law enforcers, one expects duplicity.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Xest ( 935314 )

                I think you're tarring all police with the same brush, but not all police are like that.

                I was surprised for example that a friend in Canada who is a police officer said she'd have no problem giving a friend or fellow officer a pass on a speeding fine, because that shit doesn't fly in the UK.

                I was at a friends wedding and one of the guests was a police officer, I jokingly said to him my wife had got a ticket in the area he patrols and he immediately said he too had been caught by the same mobile operated cam

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by dcw3 ( 649211 )

            OF COURSE I would believe a random Joe before I believe a law enforcer. Who wouldn't?

            The majority of the public.

      • Re:Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16, 2018 @08:45PM (#56796728)

        8 years ago I fought a B.S. resisting arrest charge from some Long Island NY office who'll never make Sgt. for good reason. After the slightest of a tap of the vehicle in front of me in slow moving traffic, I had an extremely angry driver who called the cops. The 1st young officer was doing everything right getting our information, then a 2nd police car with lights and siren blasting screeches onto the scene like some scene from the Dukes of Hazzard tv show. He gets out, points at me yelling, "Stay in your car!!!"
        "This is different.", I said to myself. 2nd cop talks with the other driver & young-cop, comes to me as I'm leaning on my car and says to me, "You're under arrest for assault!" I tell him, "That's his word against mine, I never touched him!" He grabs my wrist and forces my arm down to the 6 O'clock position. I keep an eye lock on him and, just because I was mad at the obvious wrongness bring my arm back up to the 12 O'clock position. He pulls a practiced maneuver on me by twisting my arm and 'walks me forward' while I instinctively try to keep my knees from buckling. I fall onto my stomach, he comes down with his knee full force onto my lower back while yelling, "STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING!" I yell back, "I'm not resisting and you know it! STOP OVER-ACTING!!!" "But, I can't get the cuffs on!" "JUST DO IT!" I tell him. Got released in the morning on an ROR by the judge. Told my public attorney, "There's no plea deal on this one. Either the D.A. drops all charges or I want my trial." 11 months of going to court every month until the trials, first was the resisting arrest charge. My lawyer had read a synopsis of my account of what happened and after the cop testified that I was holding onto a fence while kicking at him, she got him to admit that he never actually witnessed any assault. Some conferences between lawyers and judge happen, and 2 weeks later charges were dropped. The 2nd trial from the driver happened and I explained my side of the story which included a few disposable camera pics of the scene which showed an unkempt, angry plaintiff, found not guilty, and I'm done with it all. The D.A. originally wanted me to plea out to a deal that included 3 years probation. A cop friend of mine told me how I should have, "Sue that asshole!" cop, I told him, "I don't sue cops." After a year my back stopped aching.

        That cop smoothly lied and committed perjury so easily, fortunately for me the judge was firm but fair. After I did a fist pump when the "Not Guilty" words came from his mouth, we joked a bit about how my Public Defender and I had a running joke between us after she got the resisting arrest charge dealt with. I told the judge, "Ms. N***r here, she's my Matlock!" I'm blond haired/blue eyed, the whitest white looking guy in a white power structer life in NY, and I know that if I was darker skinned I might've had to take the D.A.'s deal. But damn, if the cop lied so easily on the stand he'd done that for a long time with other arrests. I feel so bad for all darker skinned than I people who get railroaded by immoral police. I've worked on 'good cops' homes here on this island, but if this ever happens to me again you can be damned sure I'll sue for all I can get, won't get fooled again. (Rant over now, I'm glad that I got this experience out of me here, thanks all for reading through my story.)

        • You're lucky. In a slightly more serious situation, mr. Good Cop might have well backed up the story of mr. Bad Cop, as they (and those in some other professions in similar situations) often do when faced with serious accusations from an outsider. Then you're facing 2 corroborating testimonies from cops in court, before a judge who has doubtlessly seen the other side of this: someone "obviously screaming in pain" because of "extreme police brutality" while being arrested, when later video and medical evid

        • Re:Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Interesting)

          by twosat ( 1414337 ) on Sunday June 17, 2018 @04:58AM (#56798072)

          There was a case in New Zealand a few years ago where the evidence of two policeman was contradicted by the video recorded by the camera on a taser gun.

          https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-new... [tvnz.co.nz]

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/... [nzherald.co.nz]

          • And here in New Zealand, when Police (or any other agent of the state) are found to have broken the law it is not classified as a crime -- it is reclassified as "an unlawful act" -- which is double-talk for "yes they did it but nobody will be prosecuted or punished for the act". It has happens time and time again, including when cops "unlawfully" raid the homes of people (including Kim Dotcom and leading journalists) at gunpoint.

            Even though the courts have (on a number of occasions) ruled these acts to be

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            At this point all police witness evidence should be discarded unless there is corroborating video evidence too. The police can all wear cameras and be careful not to "lose" the footage.

        • A cop friend of mine told me how I should have, "Sue that asshole!" cop, I told him, "I don't sue cops."

          By not suing, you allowed this to go unchecked, and thus -- by omission -- contributed to the problem. I hope you've learned your lesson. It's ok to not sue because you're too busy or stressed or apathetic, but to not sue rogue cops out of "principle" is just a big "thanks, may I have another" for them.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            It's ok to not sue because you're too busy or stressed or apathetic, but to not sue rogue cops out of "principle"

            UGh... If you are able to sue, then it is wrong not to sue, because these evil villains dressed in Offiers' clothing will have other victims that Don't have the same knowledge or resources to protect themselves.

      • None of those points address the fundamental issue: the testimony of police is believed without corroborating evidence.

        This. The defendant shouldn't need to disprove the police's story.

      • None of those points address the fundamental issue: the testimony of police is believed without corroborating evidence.

        This is Scotland, not America or England. Nobody's evidence is accepted by the court as proof without corroborating evidence. In particular, confessions are not accepted without corroborating evidence.

        Which is one of the reasons that cops go round in pairs. One can corroborate the other's report - or disagree. And you don't keep the same partner for more than a few shifts.

    • Re:Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16, 2018 @06:12PM (#56796290)

      A police officer caught giving false testimony should be put in prison for the remainder of his life.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        How about hanged by the neck until dead?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "We cain't hang these fellers! The scrawny one don't weigh enough, and the fat one's got no neck!"

      • Re:Excessively Punitive (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday June 17, 2018 @04:20AM (#56797992) Homepage Journal

        I read TFA and it's actually bullshit as far as I can see. The guy's prosecution was dropped at the last moment, but he doesn't know why. He speculates that it's because of the recording, but he doesn't know.

        The claim that the police are facing investigation is speculative too. There is no evidence of that. He says he plans to sue them to recover costs.

        Unfortunately the police usually do get away with this kind of thing in the UK. They are pretty much untouchable. Even when there is video of then murdering people they avoid conviction.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jabuzz ( 182671 )

          This is the UK. It is 100% certain that the police will be facing investigation, because there will have been a complaint made previously which is now unblocked by the end of legal proceedings. If they made a sworn affidavit that pre trial that is contradicted by the video evidence they are guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and if the CPE fails to prosecute they will be for the high jump too.

          On the other hand if you have convictions for drug possession, and handling stolen goods, are wit

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            I wish you were right about that. By the way, I was thinking more of the murder of Ian Tomlinson.

            At first the CPS declined to prosecute, then was forced to but he was found not guilty. For whatever reason juries seem unwilling to convict police officers even when there is very clear evidence. Finally the Met was sued and paid an undisclosed sum to the family, and admitted that Tomlinson's violent murder had been "unlawful".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        That's excessive, really unreasonably cruel, But any person that makes a false testimony or knowingly assists in framing someone or prosecuting someone for a crime knowing that the charge is false or overstated SHOULD have at least 2X the penalty applied to themself that would have applied to their attempted victim if the false charge had succeeded, well 2X for major crimes 4 to 5X the penalty for minor crimes.

        Also, we should put Bodycams on all police officers and pass an act that no Police tes

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ecuador ( 740021 )

      Yeah, especially when actual "breaching the Peace", i.e. starting a war not only doesn't get you punished, but even gets you re-elected...

    • Re: Excessively Punitive (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The ongoing Tommy Robinson episode is even more terrifying. There's a gag order which prevents journalists from even discussing his arrest. Crazy.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 )
        Stop spreading FUD. Tommy Robinson talked to journalists outside court about an on-going case. the judge on the case cautioned him to desist, and he did it again anyway, repeatedly. When a judge tells you not to do something relating to a case and you ignore them on multiple instances that's a textbook case of Contempt of Court and you can - and should - expect the judge to respond. Tommy Robinson apparently even admitted he was in the wrong on this during his trial for contempt.

        The use of gag orders

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jeremyp ( 130771 )

        You are behind the curve. The gag order on his arrest and conviction has been lifted. Even the BBC are now reporting it.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-en... [bbc.com]

        And the gag order was there by the way, because of the reporting restrictions on the original trial that Robinson was violating.

    • Resisting Arrest should be a "modifier charge", meaning that it affects the sentencing of other charges but isn't a crime in and of itself. If you are being arrested for robbery and you resist arrest, it might add time to your sentence. However, if the police are arresting you just because they don't like what you are doing, slapping a "resisting arrest" charge on you should do nothing. If there's no reason behind the arrest, why would resisting arrest be a crime?

  • Doing something wrong? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This just shows the lengths that the police will go to intimidate photographers and others to try to make them afraid to photograph or record the police! If the police are doing nothing wrong, why would they care if they are recorded or photographed?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why would they care? Because it is improper for subordinates to hold their superiors accountable.

      And that is exactly how police see themselves, as your superiors. Anything you do that could block their ability to bully you to their heart's content, no matter how legitimate, is seen as a moral offense against them, deserving of punishment no matter what the law says.

      This is not particular to police. ALL people with power over others think this way. It is a natural consequence of how the brain responds, n

    • If they have nothing to hide, they ought have nothing to fear. Right?

  • Past convictions of other suspects arrested by those officers and convictions obtained by the prosecutor should be voided if they depended on testimony by the officers or the accuracy of statements made to the court by the prosecutor.

    Does anyone here know if English law works that way? Do the previous victims of the dishonest officers and prosecutor now have a right to re-trial?

    • Past convictions of other suspects arrested by those officers and convictions obtained by the prosecutor should be voided if they depended on testimony by the officers or the accuracy of statements made to the court by the prosecutor.

      Does anyone here know if English law works that way? Do the previous victims of the dishonest officers and prosecutor now have a right to re-trial?

      For some of those convicted, yes: those with the resources to hire competent legal representation to bring this to light before the court.

      Unfortunately, many/most defendants agree to plead guilty in exchange for a sentencing deal from the prosecutor, and this agreement typically includes forfeiting the right to appeal.

      • Re:1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday June 16, 2018 @06:38PM (#56796368)

        Plea deals are almost unheard of in the UK - there are rare cases where they are handled, but usually it's an odd case to begin with.

        Anyone convicted using witness statements from these officers can apply to have their conviction overturned at a Court of Appeal, and the appeals court will examine their case and either dismiss the appeal, or overturn the conviction - if overturned, it goes back to the Crown Prosecution Service, who can bring another prosecution or not.

        • There's a big scandal going on right now about prosecutors not disclosing evidence. Not quite the same thing, but if there's doubt about a conviction there is an appeal mechanism.

    • Re:1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual. (Score:5, Informative)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Saturday June 16, 2018 @06:18PM (#56796312) Journal

      Does anyone here know if English law works that way?

      This is one of those times it is important to distinguish between Britain, England and, in this case Scotland.

      This happened in Scotland and Scotland has a different legal system. You need to ask if Scottish law works that way.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xolotl ( 675282 )
      They can appeal to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

    • I'm not a Scottish lawyer. On the other hand, US law largely comes from the UK, and I can pretty convincingly play a US lawyer, in court.

      There are a couple of ways this could play out where people get retrials, or if there is no corroborating evidence, get set free.

      One would be for the prosecutor's office to agree to that, perhaps after some media attention. That's not a RIGHT to a retrial, but it could happen.

      If there is new evidence, a defendant can move for a new trial. In order for this to be evidence

      • I'm not a Scottish lawyer. On the other hand, US law largely comes from English law, and I can pretty convincingly play a US lawyer, in court.

        FTFY. Scottish law is not the same as English law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      IANAL but as a Brit myself; I believe you're right, kinda.
      It would first require that those police officers get investigated and also found guilty of fabricating evidence. Only then could anyone previously found guilty at least partially on the testimony of either of those officers apply for a re-trial/hearing, on the grounds of a previous mis-trial. A reversal of judgement would still not just be automatic, it would still depend on the judge's decision, which would be mostly based on the degree that the te

    • Past convictions of other suspects arrested by those officers and convictions obtained by the prosecutor should be voided if they depended on testimony by the officers or the accuracy of statements made to the court by the prosecutor.

      Why? Can you prove that people never change, don't develop, and that present behaviour is representative of all past and future behaviour? I'm sure psychologists around the world will prove otherwise.

      Don't get me wrong, if he was a lying scum as alleged here then he ought to be punished for it, but that doesn't automatically cast doubt on all other convictions, if it did we wouldn't ever have a witness take a stand. Everyone lies.

      • Re:1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Saturday June 16, 2018 @08:02PM (#56796610)

        Not everyone lies under oath.

        It does immediately cast doubt on all other convictions in which these officials were involved, and in those cases the convictions should be re-examined and (if appropriate) further action taken.

        • Not everyone lies under oath.

          All police officers do. They know the elements of the crime they're accusing you of, so to get a conviction they'll tell a standard story that hits each of those elements (whether true or not), embellishing with details from their notes for verisimilitude.

  • HTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Saturday June 16, 2018 @06:16PM (#56796302)

    How does this guy keep getting /. articles based on his uncorroborated, self-published, vaguely overwrought blog posts?

    Dude, can you post the video that saved your hide?

    The charging documents?

    Can you have someone from the union release a statement on what they accomplished?

    It sounds like you pissed off an asshole cop, and the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided to drop the case. It's too bad you had to go through that, but is there a tech angle that I am missing?

    • freedom. Do we still have any? Is it important?

      • If we start hearing that the press is being regularly harassed because of its coverage of minor traffic accidents in Scotland, then I will be more inclined to think that this is a free speech issue, rather than an Andy Smith issue.

  • I thought this only happened in the U.S. (pretty much every day btw). Cops lying out their asses I mean.

  • Whenever you have the opportunity, record! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Saturday June 16, 2018 @09:55PM (#56796976)

    Always record incidents, public or private authority notwithstanding. The Dao dragging incident would have been quietly covered up had it not been for all those nearby passengers snapping away with phonecams.

    If you encounter a ban on recording incidents, record more. Today's tech makes it easier to record surreptitiously than ever before. If there is a threat of officially forced deletion, get your footage onto social media as quickly as possible. Some camera apps have an option to automatically mirror to your Dropbox account.

  • Whilst UK police seem to be better behaved than their US counterparts, they are almost never punished.

  • Body cams won't solve all of these issues, but at least they make it more difficult for cops to just invent things. Video can also exonerate officers unjustly charged with brutality or other violations of rights, so it's not a one-way street. The trick is to implement body cams with policies that are enforced, such as always turning them on during interactions with the public, making it impossible for them to be erased by the officers wearing them, etc.
    • You did indeed hit on the great part about body cams for police officers. They protect both the police and non-police from false accusations. While almost all of the body cam footage has resulted in showing that police were falsely accused, I suspect that the presence of body cams have kept the police from making false accusations in some situations.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close