Tuesday, 31 July 2012

It Seems They Don’t Have To Run You Down To Kill You…

What? No, no, not cars. Cyclists:
A man has been bailed after being arrested in connection with the death of a pedestrian after an alleged argument with a cyclist in Norwich.
Not immediately, either. Two days later!
William Phillips, 34, from Derby Street, Norwich, died after he was involved in an incident near to the doctor’s surgery in Oak Street, off St Crispins Road. Mr Phillips, who was wearing a cream top, light coloured jeans and desert boots fell to the floor during the incident, which happened at about 8.50am on Wednesday, July 18.
Mr Phillips received initial treatment at the surgery, and was subsequently taken to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.
He was found dead at his home around 5pm on Friday, July 20 by his mother.
A PM’s been held, but no cause of death released yet. However the police clearly felt they had enough evidence of wrongdoing to arrest a man:
Temporary Detective Superintendent Jes Fry said he was encouraged by the response to media appeals, but was still keen to hear from anyone with information about the incident.
Det Supt Fry said the city would have been busy at the time of the incident and wanted anyone who saw anything – no matter how seemingly insignificant – to contact them as a matter of urgency.
He said: “We’re still waiting to find someone who saw what started this off – that’s the key issue.
“It’s a case of trying to ask anyone who saw what happened to call us...so we can build a clear picture of what’s occurred.”
Don’t you need that before you arrest someone, and not after?

H/T: Dave Ward via email

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unless the law has changed under Devious Dave, Police have a power of arrest if they reasonably suspect an offence has been committed and have reasonable cause to believe that a particular person committed it. From the information available at the time, it would appear that the person arrested was the person involved in an incident which 'may' have subsequently led to a death. He would have been arrested to preserve any forensic evidence (blood on clothing, scratches on skin, etc), to confirm name and address, and possibly to conduct an initial interview regarding that person's view of events. The fact that he has been bailed shows that not all the information/evidence has been obtained to either confirm the story given or otherwise. At the end of the day, a report will be forwarded to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service/Criminal Protection Society/Couldn't Prosecute Satan - take your pick - for a decision regarding prosecution. If this initial action had not been taken and it was discovered that foul play had occurred, all that evidence would have been lost. What would anyone else have done?
Penseivat

Madras Berry said...

Very Temporary Detective Superintendent Jes Fry said: "We 'ave got this t*** banged up but CPS say I need witnesses who will swear he was the b***** who started it. Well, he was a cyclist, innit."

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Julia the cyclist was a nice chap and the person he killed was a criminal so the police turned up and used their discretion? Isn't that what you want? Don't want you to think of me as a box ticking automaton after all.....

PS Penseivat is spot on.An arrest is often made before all the evidence is gathered.
Jaded
Come on MTG,get your thesaurus out,there's tomfoolery afoot.

Westerlyman said...

I asked my brother, who was a policeman for 30 years, about this arresting before all the evidence had been gathered. Your anonymous commenter is correct but in addition suspects are often arrested because there are actually more protections for them too. My brother was twice arrested himself after complaints by members of the public, (later found to be entirely baseless), but apparently it is standard procedure in the UK.

Unfortunately when one applies for a visa (or visa waiver) to visit the USA they ask if you have ever been arrested. If you say yes you will probably be refused entry as the Americans have a different system and do not appear to understand ours.

Anonymouslemming said...

enough evidence of wrongdoing to arrest a man

Oh man, you crack me up!

Doesn't matter whether you're guilty in the end, an arrest in this country can destroy your opportunities for work.

It shows up on an ECRB, and why would I hire someone with an arrest on their record when there are 9 without in the queue ?

MTG said...

Good afternoon, Jaded.

What an excellent day for curing bacon by hanging.

Anonymous said...

Sorry don't get that one,unless it's a childish reference to police being called pigs?
Jaded

Woman on a Raft said...

Let's compare it to how quickly Simon Harwood was arrested.

Anybody got the length of time to the arrest, rather than the charge?

Anonymous said...

Apples and oranges I think.
It's nice though that that case is now being quoted every time the police make a mistake (or appear to).His name is easier to write than Jean Charles de what's his name.
Jaded

Anonymous said...

WoaR,
I did wonder how long it would take before Simon Harwood's name was mentioned. You are to be congratulated as you did it in much less than I imagined. There were those in the Police who wanted Harwood arrested the same day while there were some who wanted no arrest at all. The fact is that the matter was sent to the IPCC for investigation and until their decision was received, no action could be taken against Harwood (an arrest on suspicion of committing an arrestable offence, be it manslaughter, murder, GBH, walking on the cracks of the pavement, etc, may have affected the IPCC outcome). May I say that there are many stories that 'the Police police their own'. To a certain extent that is true but major offences are investigated by either the IPCC or by officers from another Force so there is no claim of hiding the facts due to brotherly love (think Tesco investigating alleged trading offences by Sainsburys or vice versa). Also, each force has an internal disciplinary department which tends to use Napoleonic Law in that a Police officer is guilty unless they can prove their innocence - I know, I've been there, though to their disgust I proved my innocence. In the case of Harwood, once the IPCC gave their decision,he was arrested within 2 hours. Did that timescale meet your approval?
Penseivat

Noggin the Nog said...

Old Bill routinely arrest people without sufficient evidence of wrong doing.

The process has become the punishment in many cases.

Woman on a Raft said...

the matter was sent to the IPCC for investigation and until their decision was received, no action could be taken against Harwood

Fair enough. An investigation was made, necessarily by police unconnected to him. After which an arrest was made.

Here:

it would appear that the person arrested was the person involved in an incident which 'may' have subsequently led to a death. He would have been arrested to preserve any forensic evidence (blood on clothing, scratches on skin, etc), to confirm name and address, and possibly to conduct an initial interview regarding that person's view of events.

And the difference is....

Anonymous said...

Checkmate, WOAR. The loser should be given a sporting return match. Draughts I think, Penseivat.

Anonymous said...

Blair Peach.
Do I win £5?

Jaded

Anonymous said...

WoaR, The difference is..........Certain aspects of evidence gathering can not be made from someone who is not under arrest unless their full agreement is given. In such cases, if evidence links that person to a particular crime or other offence, that agreement can be cancelled and all evidence thus obtained may be classed as irrelevant to the case and may not be used in evidence. That is the main reason why people are arrested 'on suspicion' of an offence where ALL evidence gathered CAN be used (both by the prosecution and the defence). All prosecution evidence has to be given to the defence and vice versa. That is the rule and that is the way that the criminal justice system in this country works. It is not perfect, such as the defence suddenly producing evidence which has not been previously shown to the prosecution, but unless someone (possibly yourself, or even Noggy - Hi, Noggy!) can produce a more efficient and fair system, this is the one that everyone has to work with.
Mistakes are made, on both sides, and where people are arrested without sufficient evidence, then there is an offence of unlawful arrest where not only the arresting officer but the Chief Constable can be sued through the courts. That is why there is a Custody Sgt to whom the details of arrest are given and if he/she considers the arrest to be unlawful, the arrest is refused and the person in custody is offered the presence of a solicitor to discuss whether they wish the matter to be taken further. So, Noggy, I'm afraid you have been misinformed, though no doubt you know someone who knows someone who slept with someone's sister whose ex boyfriend had been arrested unlawfully.
Penseivat

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant to add this but my trigger finger suddenly started shuddering - probably the knowledge that Noggy is still around. In the case of Harwood, once it was discovered that his actions may have caused a death, his uniform would have been seized and bagged for forensic evidence and held pending IPCC decision. No evidence was lost.
Penseivat

dearieme said...

Speaking as a cyclist, I must admit that there is a noticeable cadre of cyclists who are shits who take no notice of anyone else's safety and believe they have a God-given right to do whatever they bloody well choose. Whether that observation is relevant to this case I have no idea.

Able said...

Penseivat

You've written a clear and concise rationale, for which I thank you, but the public perception is somewhat different, isn't it?

To arrest someone on suspicion, to gather evidence, is a spurious rationalle. If I am present at a crime scene and possibly involved I'd rather not be arrested and face the travel and employment (not to mention stigma and difficulties) involved. I would give my permission, as I suspect would almost everyone (not that that is an option according to you). Those who won't would be seen as having some reason for doing so and be judged accordingly, surely. And to withdraw consent after the fact? 'Oh yes your Honor, I gave permission, but changed my mind when they found my blood splattered machete'. To base a practice on that being accepted is showing the law for exactly what it is.

My concern has only arisen reasonably recently after witnessing an argument outside my flat, between neighbours (one a 'jack the lad' the other an alcoholic). the alcoholic (drunk) started it and was the aggressor. Jack-the-lad, was unbelievably restrained and eventually it fizzled out (no physical contact). Coincidentally, two days later Jack was arrested for assault (ABH) and taken to the local station, house searched etc. I found out about it, by happenstance, two weeks later so I attended the local station to tell them, as an independent, impartial witness, what happened. The officer refused to take my statement informing me that I was undermining their case!!! He informed me that my evidence should be presented to the defence solicitor (without, of course informing me who that was).

I was subpoenaed to give a statement to the defence solicitor a further two weeks later, after the police and CPS had finally informed him about me, one day before the court hearing! The case was thrown out and both police and CPS faced significant censure from the judge.

I queried the procedure with the Chief Constable and even the Police Minister. They confirmed that this is normal, accepted, and standard practice for the police. So, gathering ALL the evidence? I think not. Jump to a conclusion on first impressions, then ONLY gather evidence which supports the case they've decided on.

And you wonder why even average, law-abiding citisens like me have doubts about the 'Justice' System?

So here, we have no real idea what happened except a man died two days after arguing with someone. If he assaulted him, why was he not arrested at the time? If he didn't, is he going to face manslaughter charges because someone died a few days later? Justice? It makes you wonder.

Just Sayin'

JuliaM said...

" What would anyone else have done?"

Wait until we find out what he died from, maybe? Unless they've got a nod and a wink from the coroner, of course.

Let's hope it's not the same coroner from the Harwood case, though!

"Perhaps Julia the cyclist was a nice chap..."

Oh, come come, Jaded! Let's not get in the realms of fantasy... ;)

"Unfortunately when one applies for a visa (or visa waiver) to visit the USA they ask if you have ever been arrested. If you say yes you will probably be refused entry ..."

Spot on! This needs to be better known.

"Checkmate, WOAR. The loser should be given a sporting return match. Draughts I think,"

Oh, dwile flonking, at the least!

"Speaking as a cyclist, I must admit that there is a noticeable cadre of cyclists who are shits who take no notice of anyone else's safety and believe they have a God-given right to do whatever they bloody well choose."

Very true. They are mostly in London, I always thought?

"...but the public perception is somewhat different, isn't it?"

The police don't care about public perception. Insp Gadget tells us that often enough that it must be true, hmm?

Anonymous said...

JukiaM,
If you are concerned about the quality of coroners after the Harwood case, perhaps arrangements could be made, in future incidents, to contact the coroners who dealt with the following deaths:

PC Alison Armitage, run over by suspect
PC Sharon Beshenivsky, shot by robber
PC David Rathband, shot
PC Nina MacKay, stabbed
PC Nigel Broadhurst, shot
PC Richard Gray, shot
PC Jonathon Henry, stabbed
PC Bryan Moore, rammed by stolen vehicle
PC Stephen Oake, QGM, stabbed
DC Michael Swindells, QGM, stabbed
PC Gary Toms, run over
PC Gerald Walker, run over
These are just some of the Police officers who have been killed on duty since the beginning of the Millenium.
These figures don't include people like PC Ian Dibell who was shot and killed recently. Despite being off duty he still went towards the scene of the altercation to try and help. As this was the most recent incident, you could always try and have a word with that coroner. On the other hand, perhaps you don't trust any of 'em.
Penseivat

Noggin the Nog said...

Pense,

Itchy trigger finger, eh?

I hear SO19 are recruiting.

It is merely my own observation, over many years, that the amount of people arrested for all crimes has increased enormously, hence the increase in prison population to bursting point, in spite of govt and police assurances that crime is decreasing. It stands to,reason then that arrests have increased proportionally.

To get yourself arrested 30 years ago you needed to be a criminal. Now it seems that you need merely to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and plod can be relied upon to take the path of least resistance and nick the nearest passer-by.

Noggin the Nog said...

Pense,

Don't forget over 300 deaths in police custody during the same period.

Seems being a prisoner is about as dangerous as being a copper.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't resist it, sorry.

Noggin, do you mean "in police custody" as in locked up in a cell, or "spoke to a policeman at some point in the couple of days before they died," since I am led to believe only 26% of those who died were restrained by the plod?

Same report from IPCC says "The most common causes of death were natural causes, overdoses, suicide and injuries received prior to detention. Most of the deceased were pronounced dead in hospital."

Might I suggest any conspiracy theory anyone else might have involving the rozzers killing people on purpose now has to be expanded to include getting coroners to cover it up?

Eddie

Noggin the Nog said...

Eddie,

Figures refer to deaths of persons either in actual police custody i.e. those arrested who later die in a cell or a hospital bed, either from self inflicted injuries or substance overdose, and those who died as a direct result of attempts to arrest i.e. those who died as a result of injuries received from batons, gunshots, tazer and so called restraint tecniques etc, as well as those who died attempting to flee, usually in cars, and then crashed. It also includes those killed by police in said chases who were not the suspect in the chase.

It does not include any prison deaths or suicides.

My point to Pense was not that the police are systematically killing suspects. It is that the death of a police officer occurs on average slightly less than once a year, whereas deaths of civilians in police custody occur around 30 times as frequently. Even if we accept your figure of 75% of these deaths being not the fault of the police, due to the person either dying as a result of drugs or alcohol or suicide, etc, we still see 7.5 more deaths amongst those being held by the police than deaths of officers themselves.

We must also bear in mind that the police should be aware of the fact that not a small number of suspects will be drug takers, drinkers, suicidal or mentally ill and take appropriate measures to ensure they do not die in the cell.

The death of a police officer in the course of carrying out his duty is a terrible crime that must be severely punished.

So is the death of a suspect in custody who died as a result of abuse.

Anonymous said...

Hello Noggy old fruit,
Imagine you are woken up in the middle of the night aqnd discover that someone is about to steal your car. You dash outside to see the car drive off. Just then, old Plod drives along and gives you a cheery, community Bobby style smile. You explain what has happened and give the direction of the vehicle. Knowing that any following (whether it be no lights or siren - or actively trying to catch it up - lights and siren) could result in the car crashing and people dieing, the old Plod simply takes details and says you will have a crime number in the morning. No doubt you would be happy with this? What about if they have taken your loved one and stuffed him/her in the boot? Imagine you see two drugged up yobs kicking your cat (the bastards) and you phone the old Bill to be told that no one will come out to arrest them as they may die from a drugs overdoes in the cells. No doubt you would be happy with this? Two scenarios out of many, all of which you would be happy with. Unless you can come up with a workable solution which, no doubt, every Police officer in the land would love to hear, Police act on the situation before them at the time (please, please, don't mention Harwood) and have to make a decision what to do. Follow or not follow a stolen car? What if their may be someone who has been kidnapped for gang rape, slave trade or ransom? Follow or not follow? Extremely drunk and incapable woman - take into custody or not (quite often ambulance will not turn out for such cases). She may throw up in the Police car or in the cell and choke on her own vomit (have you tried mouth to mouth on such a person? I have and it's not pleasant - she lived but it took days before everything I ate and drank stopped tasting of spew). Take into custody or not? If left, she could be sexually assaulted by that nice old gentleman who lives down your road.
The main role of a Police officer is "The protection of life and property. That is why people like Ian Dibell ran towards, not away from, the sound of trouble. That's why Sharon Beshenivsky tried to stop armed robbers despite having only a small wooden stick to protect herself. Their first thoughts were not for themselves. They were for others. Unlike criminals, drug addicts and general scrotes who think only of themselves and their gratification.
We have had these chats before and I thoroughly enjoy them, but feel we are going round and round over old territory. Nothing I can say will make you change your mind so let's just agree to differ and I sincerely hope you never have to call on assistance from the Old Bill. Mind you, in 4 years time or so, you won't have to. It'll be G4S and you will no doubt see a vast improvement!
Penseivat

Anonymous said...

@ Noggin

Please be aware that since his evidence at the Coroner's Court "Tomlinson took a dive guv 'onest on my kid's lives he did" Penseivat is obliged to occupy his suspension with minor distractions.

Anonymous said...

@Anon
What?
Penseivat

Noggin the Nog said...

Pense,

The reason you think we are going in circles is because you continue to assume things that are not true, and misrepresent my position.

You use examples of cases that I have not criticized the police for, and also suggest that the police are there to protect me. They are not. They are their to enforce the will of HM as expressed in the laws handed down by her parliament. I have actually experienced having my car broken into whilst being present in my house, on two separate occasions. The police did not protect me on either occasion, even though they enforce the law that says I am not allowed to protect myself, were rude, unhelpful, arrogant and displayed the typical 'us and them' mentality that has cost them so much public goodwill over the years. In short, they were totally useless.

I do not hate the police, and I agree that, unfortunately, during the course of their everyday duties they may be forced to make choices that cost lives.

My point is that when lives are lost a very thorough, INDEPENDENT investigation should be carried out. I recognize that the outcome of the investigation will sometimes, perhaps more often than not, acquit the officer under investigation. What cannot be correct is that not one single officer has been held responsible for a single death in custody from an assortment of over 1000 cases in the last 40 years.

It is only recently, with the advent of camera phones, that the general public no longer has to rely on evidence from police officers alone at inquests; we can see what happened with our own eyes. We no longer need to be brow-beaten by police and their cheerleaders into accepting as true an account, simply because it is uttered by a policeman.

We are o/t now, so I'll leave you with my original thought which you have carefully ignored.

Police routinely use the threat of arrest, and arrest itself, as a punishment or as a way of forcing the public to comply with its will, which is quite often illegal in itself. Take for example their apparent dislike of being filmed, and their subsequent attempts to illegally confiscate camera equipment, using such rubbish as prevention of terrorism as an excuse, illegally threatening arrest and illegally seizing equipment to boot. I'm sure you'll be able to find numerous examples on YouTube, etc.

Anonymous said...

We're all murdering bastards so call a blogger next time.

PS Anon at 18;03 is clearly Melvin being hilarious,adding nothing to the debate and being a pompous arse.Quick Melv the Daily Mail have several stories today that you can comment on.Chop chop.
Jaded

MTG said...

Good evening, Pensieve.

I was just passing and.....oh, look - police used an unsuitable level of force before the death of Sean Rigg, an inquest jury has just found.

Here you are, squandering your time to deny an ignorant jury the benefit of your many hypotheses - and it concludes wrongly. Damn.

Anonymous said...

Hi Melv,
Hope the sores are healing. You know, they used to use mercury for that but things have moved on a bit. Don't make Julia aware of this - you know how she hates coroner's conclusions. If anyone is to blame, let's hope the full force of the law falls upon them. I hope that's what you wanted to read, so you cango back under your bridge now and wait for Billy Goat Gruff.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the armchair generals will be out in force tomorrow about Sean Rigg.Mentally ill,massively strong,karate expert,off his medication.What could possibly go wrong? Oh yes it was the polices fault.
What would would you have done Melvin if he was outside your house? Closed your curtains and turned the tele up?
Jaded.

Anonymous said...

Jaded,
For goodness sake, don't ask Melv questions! He'll only respond. Don't feed the trolls.
Penseivat

Noggin the Nog said...

Jaded,

I see you are as prone to exaggeration and misrepresentation as Pense.

I have not said all police are murderers, I have not said that some of the deaths in custody, perhaps even most, are not a result of events that could not be avoided as an officer carries out difficult duties with difficult people.

What I am saying is that it cannot be possible that over 1000 deaths in custody have occurred since 1969 and not one single copper has served one single day for one single body.

You do yourselves no favours in pretending that they all fell down the stairs.

BTW The next time I find someone breaking into my car I most certainly will not call your lot as they have proved themselves totally useless on two previous occasions.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Mr Phillips, who was wearing a cream top, light coloured jeans and desert boots XX

I see the shite media are feeding us all the IMPORTANT information relating to their news items again.

Furor Teutonicus said...

What make were the desert boots? They don't tell us! We NEED to know this!!

JuliaM said...

"If you are concerned about the quality of coroners after the Harwood case..."

Not in general, no. I am, however, disturbed by how that one in particular was allowed to carry on for so long unchecked.

"To get yourself arrested 30 years ago you needed to be a criminal. Now it seems that you need merely to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and plod can be relied upon to take the path of least resistance and nick the nearest passer-by."

Quite! And the consequences for the arrestee are far more serious than they used to be, even if they are later 'released without charge'.

It's a shame the police commenting here don't seem to realise that. Or, it seems, much care...

"..and take appropriate measures to ensure they do not die in the cell."

Difficult one to achieve, if numbers are to be cut?

"I was just passing and.....oh, look - police used an unsuitable level of force before the death of Sean Rigg, an inquest jury has just found. "

Perhaps the jury would care to attend the next time a fit, well-built, violent schizophrenic is kicking off, so they can apply the right level of force this time?

Madras Berry said...

"Perhaps the jury would care to attend the next time a fit, well-built, violent schizophrenic is kicking off, so they can apply the right level of force this time?"

Set your popcorn aside in preparation, JuliaM. As you doubtless know, the odds favour a victim of a certain hue.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday, the funeral of PC Ian Dibell took place. You may recall that he was the off duty Police officer who ran TOWARDS the scene of a man with a gun threatening to kill others. His funeral had over 150 mourners as well as a Police honour guard. The reason I'm posting it here is that apart from a small article in his local paper, no mention of it was made in any other newspaper, which really shows the contempt the media, and some bloggers, have for the Police (lots of articles of Harwood and prisoners dying in custody but almost no mention of Police dying trying to save other members of the public). If you want a Police force worthy of your views, all you have to do is wait 4 or 5 years and you'll have one. It'll be called G4s, or something similar and then you'll have the Police force you deserve. RIP Ian Dibell.
Penseivat

Anonymous said...

Far more people are killed on the roads than from police custody. All motorists are therefore murdering scum.
To those who bemoan the police not turning up, i arranged for people to make statements this week, people who had been moaning about an issue and saying something should be done. They did not turn up as arranged and did not have the courtesy to let me know or contact me after.
Yeah...the police are crap...but the public....gotta love them.

I've nearly done my 30 years...met some great people but won't miss the job. If it was staffed by 140,000....sorry that's down to 135,000 Mother Theresa's you would still have deaths in custody and you would have a vociferous section decrying her as a violent fascist. It's easy to generalise...i can do it so it must be easy.
There are babies being born this month who one day might become police officers. I wonder at what time and date in their lives they officially become useless, murdering thugs. Or do they actually remain human beings, just that their occupation means someone wants to label them as useless, murdering thugs?
Not long now til i become a member of the great british public. I am starting to feel judgemental....looks like i am going to slot in just fine. Love to you all !!!!

Je ne pense pas. said...

Forsooth......best to end on a high note. Bring forth my micro violin and my gossamer bow, page.

Furor Teutonicus said...

Every day, MORE times per day, when I check my E-Mails, I get this mad urge to burn out drug sellers, and peole who "just love this blogg!" eyballs with an oxycetelyne torch.

Wonder why?

And good on you Julia for "keeping them away".

Not an easy job, I know.

Furor Teutonicus said...

Because this post seems to be an atraction.

With Julias permission, I would ask all to REGISTER. It does not have to be your own name.

I have so many "Ann-on-a-mouse" that I just throw away. But sometimes they are not "spam" and that annoys me immenesly, because it ruins the conversation.

As I said, Julia, WITH your permission.

Ragnar.