Thursday, November 18, 2010 

Mark Andrews, Pamela Somerville and successful appeals against convictions for assault.

What then does the case of Sergeant Mark Andrews and Pamela Somerville tell us about the ingredients needed for a successful appeal against a conviction for assault? Firstly, it seems, you need to find a judge with a similar field of vision to Mr. Magoo. This requires a huge amount of luck. Second, the judge also has to be prepared to give the police officer more than the usual amount of the benefit of the doubt. Third, err, that's it.

Here's the curious thing. When Andrews was first convicted it seems that most if not all of the news reports and videos posted of the incident were edited to show only Somerville being thrown into the cell the once. In fact, as the video on the BBC's report shows, Andrews threw her into the cell on two separate occasions, nearly an hour apart from one another. On the first occasion she was pushed all the way to the back of the cell without sustaining any injuries, after trying to get out of the cell; it was on the second, having apparently left the cell again when Andrews effectively threw her face down onto the floor and then shut the door.

Curiouser still is that Mr Justice Bean apparently believed the claims made by Andrews' defence that the whole incident was an accident, with Somerville only being injured after she "suddenly let go" of the cell door frame. Anyone with a pair of eyes can quite plainly see from the video that the two of them were well within the cell when Andrews, who also clearly has a full hold on her, throws her dangerously onto the floor. It almost makes you wonder whether the case has been accurately reported, although both the BBC and the Guardian have much the same account in their separate stories, both of which seem to have been based on the Press Association original. The Daily Mail could be expected to be sympathetic having bought Somerville's story and also likely to have a reporter in the court, yet their account doesn't have the judge accepting Andrews' argument. Surely the judge must have seen the full video, and didn't confuse the first time she was thrown into the cell with the second?

Whatever the case, his other comment which all agree on is that he told Andrews he "could have handled it better", which is more than something of an understatement. If Somerville was drunk as Mr Justice Bean apparently accepted, it was even more important that Andrews didn't throw her about like a rag doll. You do have to sympathise with Andrews in that she was being uncooperative and more than a little trying in leaving the cell repeatedly (arguably something she was fully entitled to be considering she claims she didn't know what she had been arrested for and also taking into account that being asleep in your car, even if you are drunk, is hardly the most heinous offence), yet the way in he dragged her across to the cell alone showed that he was hardly being as careful as he could have been; she could have sprained her wrist or worse simply through the way in which he held her arm. He doubtless didn't intend to hurt her when he threw to the floor that second time, yet his exasperation could have resulted in worse injuries if she had fully hit her head against the concrete floor, as so easily could have happened.

I wrote at the time that I thought a six-month sentence was harsh, and stand by that. A community sentence, fine, or even a conditional discharge would have been more than punishment enough alongside potentially losing his job. Considering his acquittal, the assumption now has to be that he won't even lose that as he was suspended on full pay the entire time, perhaps getting a formal warning about his future conduct. Some might think that was all that ever should have happened, and that the CPS were overzealous in seeking a prosecution. By any objective measure, what happened, especially if we were to turn the tables and it was a police officer being thrown to the ground, was a possible assault where a jury or judge should have decided whether there was a case to answer. Andrews was a in a position of authority over a drunk woman who was in his care, and at best he allowed his temper to get the better of him and dangerously threw her against the floor. In that sense, his successful appeal looks like a travesty of justice.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, September 07, 2010 

Mark Andrews, Pamela Somerville and successful prosecutions of police officers.

What then, does the case of Sergeant Mark Andrews and Pamela Somerville tell us about the ingredients needed for successful prosecutions against police officers? Firstly, it seems, that the officer has do to something seemingly so out of proportion to the situation he faces, such as dragging along and then hurling a completely defenceless woman to a concrete floor, that it forces a less senior colleague, in this case PC Rachel Webb, to make clear her concerns. Second, that for the best possible chance of a conviction, it needs to be the police's own cameras which record what happened, rather than a member of the public's, or outside CCTV. Third, that instead of the video merely showing either the blows or push and impact, there needs to be more still: in this instance, the blood which dots the cell floor. Fourth, that it helps greatly for the victim to be middle class, female and middle-aged.

We don't, it should be clear, know for sure how Ms Somerville was behaving both during and after her arrest prior to her being dragged and flung across the station. She maintains that she didn't even know what she was being arrested for, something which generally the police, even when behaving in a manner as it seems Andrews might well have been, do tend to put across. Nonetheless, being asleep in a car is hardly the most heinous of offences, and it seems to be beyond dispute that was what caused the initial interest in her, with her refusal to give a breath test resulting in the fateful arrest. It should also be noted that the judge has criticised the evidence given by two other officers, who claimed that she was "violent and aggressive", suggesting that their version of events was unreliable, and that presumably the full footage was seen in court, leaving aside possible concerns about context or misleading editing.

Clearly, this is a completely different case to the assault on Ian Tomlinson or the dismissed claims of assault against Delroy Smellie, regardless of the possible insight it gives us into how the potential prosecution of police officers for the same or similar overall offences. It does however all lead into the same debate on how much force it's appropriate for the police to use, both against those who are complying and those who they deem not to be complying. Few would probably have many qualms about a clearly disruptive and violent young man say being treated in the same manner as Somerville was; the same people so aggravated on the Mail's website could well now be complaining vigorously if such was the case and the police officer had been jailed, or even congratulating the police on how they dealt with the situation.

All this said, and even taking into consideration that the injury could quite easily have been even worse had slightly more force been applied or if Somerville had landed differently, as well as how, as the judge said, this was a gross breach of trust and a breach of the standards the public expects from the police, it's still possible to regard the six month sentence as harsh. There's been nothing to suggest that this was anything other than Andrews simply losing his rag in this instance or not knowing his own strength; certainly, he should have attended to her much sooner, as he must have seen how she connected with the floor. That he didn't counts against him, yet if this was the first example of such force being used improperly, then either a suspended sentence, a fine or a community order would have been more appropriate. He looks certain to lose his job, which is punishment enough, and which also sets an example to other police officers that going over-the-top in such circumstances is completely unacceptable. True, it could be that this is the tip of the iceberg, and that other such similar examples of potential police brutality stay within internal disciplinary hearings and are regarded as little more than a formality. As much as the police are trained to use force effectively and must know better as a result, would a member of the public doing something similar get a six-month sentence if it was their first offence? Maybe in some cases, but in plenty of others probably not. Consistency is crucial, and that's something which we continue to aspire towards but is still not close to being achieved.

Labels: , , , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates