An independent misconduct panel has determined that two police officers gave false evidence in order to secure the conviction of a man they apparently took a dislike to.
PC 17273 Kenneth Anscombe and PC 11380 Daniel Care, formerly of Devon and Cornwall Police, responded to an incident in Penzance on 18th October 2019, where they arrested a man for being drunk and disorderly in a public place.
The man was subsequently convicted at the Magistrates' Court, but successfully appealed the conviction when he was able to produce video footage directly contradicting the evidence provided by both officers in their written statements.
Alarmingly, PC Anscombe had attended the Magistrates' Court and reiterated, on oath, the false account provided in his written statement.
A misconduct panel, chaired by barrister David Sapiecha, took place at Devon and Cornwall Police HQ in Exeter between 7th and 11th December 2020. The panel found the pair guilty of gross misconduct and ordered their immediate dismissal.
The outcome of that five-day hearing, as summarised in a recent IOPC statement, was as follows: "At the end of the five-day hearing the panel concluded that both officers' evidential statements contained false information and were in order to secure a conviction.
"The statements alleged the man had been aggressive straight away and uttered specific swear words at the officers when later evidence did not show that.
"PC Anscombe then gave evidence on oath at a Magistrates’ Court hearing, at which the man was convicted, which was consistent with the false information in his statement."
It will come as little surprise, given some earlier articles on the Magistrates' Blog, that I take a particularly dim view of police officers who are proven to act dishonestly or unlawfully.
When they assume their appointment they swear an oath to act with "fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality" and to "uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law".
Framing an innocent man for an offence he did not commit is about as far detached from the principles of that oath as it is possible to stray. The public quite rightly expects police officers to approach their duties with the highest degree of honesty and integrity. These two officers have reneged on that fundamental obligation; they have broken their contract with the public; they are the absolute pits - an utter disgrace, the pair of them.
It therefore comes as a disappointment to learn that the CPS, having considered a file of evidence in relation to this whole sorry incident, has decided not to pursue criminal charges against the pair.
What sort of a message does it send to the public, that police officers can tell fairy tales to the court and escape criminal consequence?
It doesn't do anything to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system or rule of law, that's for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment