1 POLICE OFFICER JAILED AND 3 OTHERS TO FACE DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY IPCC
0
Likes
Comments
BY GABRIEL PRINCEWILL
It always serves as a reminder that there is at least some justice in the world, whenever police officers are held to account for their misconduct by the Independent Police Complaints Commission-(IPCC) the independent policy body that handle complaints about police conduct the police.
In this respect, the 8 months jail sentence served on PC Andrew Ott yesterday for assaulting a protester by knocking off his tooth was a welcome one. Mr Horner- a student at the time- was 20, and was trying to break free from a kettled area when he was struck by the jailed police officer. Ott, from Rochester, was heard talking about “getting” the protesters and threatening violence after being taped on his personal recording device, the court heard.
Far too often, police officers transgress the law in the process of ostensibly enforcing the law.
They often then cover each other up in an illegal attempt to circumvent the same justice system they have been appointed to implement through the courts. It often works because the legal system is based on evidence, and to a high degree , the testimony of a police officer will carry more weight than that of a lay person, especially a defendant claiming to be a victim of police brutality.
SERVICE
There is no disputing the fact that police officers provide a much needed service of enforcing the law and delivering protection to all citizens where individual rights are violated. Their job is by no means an easy one. Notwithstanding, those gangsters among them who bring the reputation of their noble colleagues to disrepute must not be allowed to evade rule of law whilst while ostensibly acting as custodians of the same law they are prepared to flagrantly flout. It is called hypocrisy, it is not acceptable! Neither is it acceptable for an officer to cover up for a colleague who has overstepped the remit of his duties by infringing the law he is hired to enforce.
REASONABLE FORCE
Understandably, there will sometimes be circumstances where police might need to use ‘reasonable force’ to restrain an offender. In fact, the terminology underlying this interesting concept of ”reasonable” force is ambiguous since the determinant of reasonable behaviour will always depend on the circumstances in question and the opposition with which an individual is faced with. Notwithstanding, police officers always operate in groups, even to catch one man. So one can intuitively conclude that when PC Andrews was not short of assistance when he was came out to attend to protesters. He and his cop pals could have handled the protesters without resorting to physically attacking anyone.Incidentally, PC Lindsay and PC Thomas were cleared of perverting the course of justice, especially of providing a cover story for the incident. However, the IPCC has said that the officers have a case to answer and will face disciplinary actions . The implication of this seems to be that whilst the IIPC may believe that the pair escaped punishment by the courts because of lack of sufficient evidence, but they will probably face an internal discipline for their undefined roles in the assault.
SUSPENSION
The Met confirmed Ott was suspended and would remain so until the outcome of an internal “misconduct process”.
Mr Horner, then aged 20, had been trying to break free from a kettled area when he was struck.
Ott, from Rochester, had been heard talking about “getting” the protesters and threatening violence after being taped on his personal recording device, jurors were told.
He was heard swearing about the attack and saying “I’ve had enough”.
Ott, and two other officers PC Calvin Lindsay, 31, from east London, and PC Thomas Barnes, 31, from Kent, were cleared of perverting the course of justice.
They are both on restricted duty pending the internal inquiry into misconduct.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said the conviction had been achieved following its investigation, adding “The IPCC investigation found that all three officers have a case to answer for gross misconduct and they will now face disciplinary hearings, which will be carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service.” We applaud the IIPC for their their decision to conduct a further internal inquiry.
