Background
Mr Matthew McConville, Head of Irvings Law’s specialist Actions Against the Police Department, has successfully represented a client in a claim for compensation against the Metropolitan Police. Mr McConville’s client wishes to remain anonymous for the purposes of this blog however.
The Metropolitan Police attended Mr R’s home to investigate an allegation of slapping his wife. Surprised by the situation, Mr R invited the attending Police Officers inside his house to discuss the matter but he was then immediately handcuffed without any further discussion. Mr R was subsequently then taken to the Police Station where he was told to take all of his clothes off so that he could be searched. It is worth knowing that a strip search can only be authorized if the arrestee is suspected to have a concealed weapon or substance and in Mr R’s case, there was no reason to suspect these things from the allegation made against him. Embarrassedly complying still, Mr R was left completely naked during this process when arrestees should only be required to take and put back on one item of clothing at a time. As you can imagine, this was an entirely humiliating and degrading experience for Mr R. Thankfully after interview where he answered all questions put to him, Mr R was released and no further action was taken against him. However, when Mr R later complaint about his arrest and treatment, Custody Officers failed to record his search but thankfully, Custody CCTV was preserved which showed Mr R’s strip search took place as he said it did. Given this, Mr R’s complaint was upheld and his said strip search was considered to be unlawful.
Representation
During the Professional Standards investigation, Mr R approached specialist Actions Against the Police Solicitors, Irvings Law, for assistance. Mr McConville immediately acknowledged that what happened to Mr R was completely wrong and without hesitation, offered to act for him by way of “no win, no fee”. After dealing with his ongoing complaint and then obtaining all documentation, information and footage from the Metropolitan Police, Mr McConville alleged that Mr R’s human rights had been infringed. Quite bizarrely and probably due to the finding of their own Professional Standards Department, the Metropolitan Police failed to respond to Mr R’s claim which forced Mr R to instruct Mr McConville issue expensive Court proceedings.
Resolution
Before serving his claim and obtaining medical evidence to support the psychological trauma that the Metropolitan Police had put Mr R though, the Metropolitan Police agreed to pay Mr R £5,000.00 plus the payment of his legal costs. Whilst the case should never have taken this long to reach a conclusion, we and Mr R are very pleased that the Metropolitan Police finally saw sense.
