Assault copper keeps job
Tuesday 28th July 2009, 2:30PM BST.
A GRANDMOTHER has spoken of her upset after a policeman convicted of assaulting her was officially reinstated.
After having previously admitted the appeal hearing that reinstated PC Stuart Allan (pictured) in May was not lawful, the Home Department has now performed another U-turn and confirmed the panel set-up was legal – meaning the police officer is free to return to work.
His victim, Rosemary Holt, says she has been left emotionally scarred after PC Allan aggressively handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police van.
He thought she had been drink-driving, a suspicion which proved unfounded. She said she could not understand the latest U-turn.
‘All I want to know is why. Why has he been reinstated? Nobody has ever answered that question,’ the 65-year-old said.
‘He has been found guilty through a police tribunal, the Magistrate’s Court, which I had to attend, and then the Royal Court. Each time he was found guilty and then they brought in the Devon and Cornwall police, who also found him guilty.
‘Does this decision mean that no member of the public will ever be able to complain and get justice? I’m so upset by the decision.’
Mrs Holt said reinstating an employee convicted of assault would not be acceptable in any other profession.
‘I have changed because of this,’ she said. ‘I used to be a lot more outgoing. I don’t like going out at night now and I don’t like driving the car – I have lost a lot of confidence.’
PC Allan was required to resign from the force after his conviction but appealed and was reinstated by a panel made up of deputy Home Department minister Francis Quin, Deputy Jenny Tasker and non-States member Andrew Ozanne.
HM Comptroller told Home minister Geoff Mahy in June that the appeals panel was not valid because of Mr Ozanne’s involvement and should sit again.
But following further legal consideration and information from the Law Officers, Home announced this morning that the original panel was acceptable.
‘This means that the unanimous decision taken by the panel to uphold the appeal by PC Allan stands,’ the department said in a statement.
‘The board does not consider it appropriate to make any further comment on individual Home Department staff members apart from stating that this unfortunate confusion should not arise in the future and we shall shortly have an official Police Complaints Commission in place.’
Responsibility for deciding what duties PC Allan will now carry out rests with Chief of Police George Le Page, who was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Well thank god for that. At long last that poor officer can continue with his life and get back to work. If any of you are wondering why I say that, take time to look at the ACTUAL TRIAL (not what the Guernsey Press chose to report) and I’m sure you will see that this is not an evil man. He could have arrested that woman, but chose to give her the benefit of the doubt and let her go. If he had arrested her he could not have been found guilty of assault. That poor officer, who gave the offending woman a second chance now has a criminal record because of a technicality. And to think the woman complained about the officer after he let her off an offence. She is the one who deserves berating in the press, not him.
I also say this: Whilst the woman can moan all day about how hard done by she is, and exaggerate the effect this case has had on her, the officer is not even allowed to speak with the press and tell his tale. Hardly fair is it?
Will you side with the woman without being in possession of the full facts? I personally hope Guernsey is more intelligent than that.
Report abuse
At last this saga can be put to bed now and the 2 parties can get on with their lives and as for the press maybe now they can put it to bed instead of reporting it in a very one side affair, good luck pc allan, you must have very thick skin
Report abuse
At last the right decision. All the best to one of Guernseys better Police Officers.
Report abuse
‘…..gave the offending women a second chance’, ‘….after he let her off an offence’
Truth man, I think you have misunderstood the facts of the case. No offence was committed by Mrs Holt, so she was absolutely not ‘let off’ as you put it. The facts, per the ACTUAL TRIAL are that PC Allen assaulted an innocent women in the course of duty. Is this really acceptable conduct – not according to Guernsey Courts or an indepentant enquiry, although apparently it is according to the Home Department….???
Why do you assume Mrs Holt is exaggerating – you yourself are jumping to conclusions ‘without being in posession of the full facts’
Report abuse
Truth Man
Well said.
Concerned Guern
The female in question did not commit any offence?
She failed to stop for a police officer. She failed to give breath? Her car went over a centre white line?
Problem is the lack of respect for police by her gives little guidence to the youth of today.
Is this Grandmother really as white as she is being painted?
If you get stopped by police then you do as you are asked, (within reason). Anyone her age should have known better and done what ever the officer asked. Simple really. He would have discovered she had not had a drink and she would have been on her way no doubt.
Problem with the media now is they want a story and the don’t care if it is balanced or not.
Good lock PC Allen
Report abuse
Well said Concerned Guern the man was convicted of a criminal offence by the courts therefore he should not be allowed back in the force.
Report abuse
John
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Report abuse
So, who are we supposed to believe? The Chief of Police, the independant Chief from England or those on this post who would have us believe that this is a fine police officer? If the latter is true then where does that leave us with trusting our Police force and its leaders. If this man’s criminal record remains and he is infact guilty then he has NO place in Guernsey’s Police Force and the woman he assaulted should now take a civil case against him for the mental harm she has endured.
Report abuse
To Concerned Guern:
No, I am not jumping to conclusions, not at all in fact. I am in possession of the full facts. What is wholly evident is that you are not.
The woman committed and offence of failing to stop, of driving without due care and attention and then, when eventually she was stopped she caused a breach of the peace, and whilst doing so she failed to provide a breath test. Two of those offences carry a power of arrest and the other two would find her in front of a court with a driving ban as a minimum… Except that, the officer on the day decided to exercise discretion and offer words of advice on the driving issues and the breach of the peace. He decided not to arrest her for failing to provide, instead he gave her time to calm down and gave her a second chance to give him a breath test, which she eventually did.
So, Concerned Guern, be concerned indeed – about the conduct of the woman in question, and about the fact that we live in a country where an officers compassion is rewarded by a conviction for a technical assault.
Oh, and by the way (for GP too) – she was never put in the back of a police van.
All of this information is in the public domain and came out in the trial. Take time to read it before passing judgement. Until you have done so, concerned Guern, do us all a favour and keep your unintelligent, ill-informed opinion to yourself.
Report abuse
Truth Man – well said.
On a barely related topic, the reporting and staggering bias of the Press beggars belief. This same story is on the Sure website and despite being less than 100 words is nicely written and evenly balanced. Frankly, this is gutter journalism. We deserve more from the dominant media source in the island.
Report abuse
What do you picture in your mind when someone tells you they have been assaulted ?
A punch on the nose ? A kick in the groin?
From what I have read this was a purely technical assault in that the PC handcuffed the woman without first advising her that she was under arrest.
She says she hasn’t got justice.Seems to me the PC has paid a big price already for his mistake.I doubt that any other such minor incident would produce so many yards of Press coverage
Methinks this woman is quite happy to milk the publicity.She needs to get on with her life and stop being such a pathetic wuss,unless this is all leading up to a claim for compensayshun
Report abuse
“I have changed because of this,’ she said. ‘I used to be a lot more outgoing. I don’t like going out at night now and I don’t like driving the car – I have lost a lot of confidence.”
Seems a bit of an over reaction to me. What’s the rationale behind that then – that the reinstated PC is a ‘Dirty Harry’ vigilante type who is hell-bent on hunting her down and reapplying the handcuffs? Or worse? The sanctuary of Moss Side must seem like potential paradise. Move there.
If this is the reaction to a previously made and widely reported decision then one can only wonder how calmly she responded on Fort Road in the heat of the moment (albeit heat which need never have arisen if she’d pulled over at the bottom of the hill). Maybe some form of restraint was deemed necessary?
The Officer involved was convicted on a technicality. He (wrongly) failed to stick to procedures (or red tape). He didn’t smash her face into the side of the van and give her a Rodney King style kicking.
And as for the slanted presentation by the GP, well no surprise there is there……….use of the words “copper” and “pensioner” abound. Is Digard some “old lag” with “diamond geezer” connections?
Report abuse
Hardly convinced it’s the right decision. Even the chief wants him out!
Unfortunately the Police have very little respect which is a shame however in most cases fully bought on by themselves with their ignorance/ arrogance. Too many non-locals being employed to Police a small community with little understanding of our easy way of life! They should try putting more of their efforts into dealing with the more serious offences as opposed to concentrating on the easy targets.
The objective of the Police is to penalise the motorist to generate revenue for the states.
Report abuse
If the policeman was convicted of possession of cannabis he would not be considered for reinstatement but pushing and abusing old grannies is OK is it?
Report abuse
It is not normal for people with criminal records to be serving policemen – the whole reinstatement stinks of misguided priorities. Something funny going on but presumably the authorities will use the passage of time to deal with this one rather than just fire the guy, along with those that made the decision.
Report abuse
If only employees in the private sector could call on a panel of politicians to reinstate them after being convicted of a criminal offence. I wonder how many dismissals would be overturned?
Silly me though, private sector employees have to go to court to take action for wrongful dismissal, the same court that upheld the assault conviction for this man. One rule for one, as the saying goes………..
Report abuse
Lou, Mrs Holt apparently did stop otherwise this incident would not have taken place. She also gave a breath sample as she was cleared of any drink driving allegations. As for going over a white line – I hold my hands up now!!! It’s completely inappropriate to villify the victim.
IF she had committed an offence the appropriate procedures should have been followed. They are there to protect the public and the police and failing to follow them shows complete imcompetence on behalf of the officer.
Assault is assault.
Report abuse
Geoff, hold your horses! “more serious offences” As i can tell the Police Officer stopped this lady as he suspected drink driving. Drink driving that kills thousands of innocent people every year. That isnt serious? That is a very poor comment.
Report abuse
As Lou said “Good lock”, PC Allen….but was that not the problem in the first place!
Report abuse
As many people have said in the past we ARE living in a police state,as this thread shows. Nice to see the THEM & US situation and the OLD SCHOOL TIE network is still in force to protect certain wrongdoers, shame on you.
Report abuse
I find it very difficult to respect this grandmother who is trying to portray herself as totally innocent in this matter.
Although PC Allen was convicted of assault under the terms of the law I wish to give him credit for being honest and admitting he hadnt told the woman she had been arrested.
I am sure many others where it was one word against the other would not have admitted he had made a mistake, especially where his job was on the line..
I only wish he had taken her to the police station and gone through the correct procedure, and who knows what the outcome would have been.
He may have made a mistake, so have we all, but surely not Mrs Holt ?…..
Report abuse
Truth Man
Thanks for reminding me of the facts in this case. They certainly match my recall.
It’s amazing that so many posters are against this officer even when the facts are restated.
One outcome will be that police officers will err on the side of caution, and arrest those suspected of offences rather than exercise discretion, and let them off. Looks like the wishes of Concerted Guern will be met.
Report abuse
Geoff
who said the ”chief wants him out” I dont recall the chief saying a great deal, more like the GP is saying the ”chief wants him out” as I’ve said before the GP reporting of this case has been totally one sided
Report abuse
Nobody really knows the full facts, but this man has a criminal record, meaning he should not be on the police force!
There are plenty of others, in this current time that would love to be in the police force, I have no clue why his position was reinstated.
Report abuse
Truth Man
you say
The woman committed and offence of failing to stop, of driving without due care and attention and then, when eventually she was stopped she caused a breach of the peace.
Did she go to court and get found guilty of the offences you describe? no. So in fact it has not been proven she was guilty of anything. If she had commited all these offences i feel the officer has no right or is not doing his job in letting her off. At the very least a warning should have been issued. I do however feel she is going over the top with some of her statements.
Report abuse
I do think that the Guernsey Press is really stirring this PC Allen business up unnecessarily,and calling him a `copper` doesn`t help.
Leave it alone.As far as I can see ,all he didn`t do was say`your under arrest`.
Put this `story ` to rest & let P C Allen get on with his job and good luck to him in the future.
Report abuse
Hard cases make bad law as the saying goes and here we have a case that can be honourably be argued either way.
What cannot be argued is that the policeman was convicted of assault and that must surely disqualify a guardian of the law from continuing in that role. This is obviously a personal disaster for the policeman and may well be a loss to the community. Sadly, he has to go.
Report abuse
Truth Man,
You seem to be a loyal supporter of PC Allen and have apparently ignored the version of events presented by Mrs Holt relying only on the one presented by PC Allen – could it be that you are a colleague/ friend of said officer? I suspect so!
Report abuse
Con Gurn
She was suspected of drink driving due to her poor statndard of driving. Fact is she was followed for around a mile by an emergency vehicle with blue lights and for some of the distance a siren. Does she not look in her RV mirror. Would you not pull over and let and emergency vehicle past? Everyone I know would.
The court decided the officer was guilty of assault because, and only because he failed to tell the woman she under arrest. If he had done so there would have been an assault.
He did not hit her or assault her in the true meaning of an assault, he just failed to tell her of the arrest. He did then what any police officer would do, handcuff her and place her in the van.
Two other things………….. Glad my grenny did not behave like Mrs Holt, I would be ashamed.
And Con Gurn, next time you make a minor mistake at work. YOUR FIRED.
Report abuse
Some comments from the original Press report might temper the criticism of the Police Officer
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/09/08/pc-handcuffs-woman-he-has-not-arrested-%e2%80%93-thats-assault/
Note the last words of the magistrate “Allan had not acted out of malice, he said, but had made the wrong decision”
Report abuse
Concerned G, yep, I’d agree that Truth Man probably knows PC Allan. I don’t though, but, having read the reports and the original report by the Press (from back in the day when it was impartial), I’d agree with everything Truth Man says.
PC Allan exercised his judgement in favour of a hysterical granny and now he’s paying the price over a technicality. The lesson learnt here is evidently that the police should NOT give us the benefit of the doubt. Nice one.
Given your staunch support for the rantings of Mrs Holt and as you have apparently ignored the version of events presented by three members of the Guernsey Police relying only on the one presented by this woman – could it be that you are a colleague/ friend of said lady? I suspect so!
Report abuse
Student Bob, sorry to disappoint, but for the record I have never met either party involved.
Report abuse
Stephen John & Truth Man
I applaud your commitment at trying to get people to understand the actual facts of the case, however truthbeknown, if the truth does not support somebodies point of view, then they will conveniently ignore it. As has been the case with subsequent comments.
As far as I’m concerned this man did nothing wrong aside from letting her go!!
This gave her the oppurtunity to pull this sucession of stunts. The lady in question should actually have been arrested on the spot for failing to provide a sample.
I know cases where people have been given less chances than she had before being taken to the station, also people that were innocent when breathalysed at the station. When questioned about this, the police would usually reply “were just following procedure”. not following procedure is the only thing PC Allan was guilty of.
He would never have got in trouble, and when she finally gives a sample at the police station, she leaves with her tail between her legs having realised that reacting hysterically to a situation is not necessarily the best way to react.
Clearly this lady took a dislike to this police officers attitude (as many of us, including myself have done in the past) and she has used this technicality to take what to me is increasingly looking like a personal grudge to staggering levels.
Report abuse
He was convicted of assault and that should mean losing his job.
Report abuse
The Man
I wanted to highlight from the Press report of the case
“CONFRONTED by a drink-drive suspect who would not do as she was told, PC Stuart Allan handcuffed the 61-year-old woman.
Not to have done so, the Magistrate’s Court heard, would have been a dereliction of his duty. But he had not arrested Rosemarie Holt, or even asked for a sample before the cuffs went on and that, said assistant-Magistrate Philip Robey, made it assault.
Finding Allan guilty and imposing a £250 fine, Mr Robey said that the difficult situation had not been entirely of the officer’s making.
The court heard that at about 7.25pm on 1 March, Allan saw Mrs Holt cross a central white line at North Esplanade. He followed her south, illuminating his blue lights when he reached the slaughterhouse.
Mrs Holt said that she did not see the lights until she was at the bottom of Le Val des Terres and did not stop because she did not think they were for her. The officer finally forced her to stop in Fort Road”
Posters should read the rest of the report and comments from other officers who attended the scene as back up.
Report abuse
BCB:
Your point is misleading. The fact that she has not been to court does not mean she didn’t commit the offences that were alleged! It merely means she has not been convicted. It is also not correct that PC Allen was not entitled to exercise discretion. It is well within his remit to do so. And, a warning was issued (all these are facts that were contained in the original case).
CG:
I can see why my representations in support of the officer may have been interpreted that way. Let me reassure you however that all of my statements have been based on the facts of the case that were disclosed in the trial. I urge you to do some research (as I have done)! My allegiance is with the truth, and that is all. Sadly Guernsey Press have not been so factual, hence my strong feeling that the truth needs to be ‘put out there’.
On the other hand, has it occurred to you that in fact, I might know of Mrs Holt?!!
Report abuse
It is my opinion that the main motivator for Mrs Holt is now one of financial reward. Reading her comments it is looking very much the case that her advocate will be making a claim for PTSD.
I hope the island authorities simply brush the claim aside because to enter into any debate will be wasting taxpayers with the legal aid system.
I was lead to believe that legal aid is not awarded to individuals for civil cases?
She has had an apology and a bunch of flowers. It has already been pointed out above that it is strange why she is not suing the officer in question. He has no money and is not an attractive prospect is the reason why.
If this caring grandmother had any self respect at all then she would be grateful that people are stopped and checked for DUI offences. After all she has the well being of her grandchildren to consider.
She needs to get on with her life and stop looking to make something from nothing other than a procedural error.
However if she feels as strongly as her advocate is making out then let it be her own finances pave the way.
Report abuse
Concerned Guern
read this
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/09/08/pc-handcuffs-woman-he-has-not-arrested-%e2%80%93-thats-assault/
enought said
Report abuse
Stephen John and Truth Man,
I wonder if you could just clarrify the facts for me?
You are suggesting that PC Allen could have arrested the grandmother for failing to provide a breath sample but ‘let her off’ (re-itterated in many of the above posts) but I believe PC Allen admitted that when he put the handcuffs on he had not even asked for a breath sample yet so he could not have arrested her for the offence??!
Report abuse
Hark at all the armchair experts on here as usual.
Have any of you been handcuffed? I doubt it.
It hurts, it is demeaning and it can cause a number of people, particularly those who are sober and scared to have anxiety attacks at the time and afterwards.
Police Officers are trained to use proportionate force. A 61 year old female versus a 41 year old male?
She would have had to be a danger to herself and others in the immediate vicinity to warrant be placed in handcuffs. The Police Officer clearly was not in danger or scared, so why did he cuff her?
He assaulted her, abused his Police Powers, disregarded his training, exposed the Police to negative publicity, scared this woman (it doesn’t matter what you lot think – she is saying she is scared; take it on face value).
This Officer is a disgrace to a Police uniform if you ask me.
I suspect he is being given his job back because internal affairs, or whoever conducted the initial investigation into this did not follow the correct procedure in respect of employment law, as opposed to criminal law.
Irrespective of this fact, people have mentioned on here that as he has been convicted in court of an offence of assault how can he be re-instated?
A good question, however there are a number of police officers with drink drive offences, and they stay in the job (god knows why?).
At the end of the day there are two seperate issues, the employment law and employee / employer issue, and the criminal law.
He was convicted of a criminal offence and this is recorded.
He was abstained of any employment law infringement, either because the internal investigation was flawed and would not stand up to appeal, or because he could cite other examples worse than, or equivalent to his case that are still in the employmenet of the Police.
Finally – Police officers assault people all the time, it has to be within the scope of common law and proportionate.
I believe to re-employ this man is to make a face of Guernsey Police and the Officers who serve there.
Report abuse
Darren
welcome to the ”armchair experts”
Report abuse
Nah, Darren’s still at ‘footstool expert’ level.
Daz, read the original article and Truth Man’s subsequent comments to fully understand why Mrs Holt was ‘cuffed and PC Allan’s powers in this respect…. then you may be able to comment at ‘armchair expert’ level….
Report abuse
Truth Man
Your the one who is trying to mislead.
Read my post again as i said it has not been proven she is guilty of anything, that is not the same as saying she didn`t do anything wrong or if she had gone to court she would have been found not guilty, unlike your comment where you suggest she did brake the law and is guilty without it being proved. I accept the other part of your comment re the warning.
Report abuse
BCB:
I really don’t want to get into a tennis match, but you’re point is not accurate, and as such is misleading.
The facts as I stated them came out in the trial and were accepted by the court (quote the Magistrate in the case: “The difficult situation was not been entirely of the officer’s making.”) Therefore whilst the woman was not convicted (as I said because she was offered a warning by PC Allen) the facts have been accepted by a court of law. For that reason, it would not be accurate to use the word ‘guilt’ in the context of a post hearing finding. For that reason I do not believe I have been misleading. Actually far from it – all I have ever done is quote from the trial and urge people to actually do some research so they can come to a proper, informed opinion.
I close with the following quotes from the original press report which were formulated from the case:
“PCs Thomas Lee and Carl Addis, who responded to Allan’s call for back-up, found their colleague calm and in control when they arrived. They described Mrs Holt as ‘shouting and screaming’ and ‘distressed’.”
In relation to handcuffing her: “‘It was the only way I could see to control her,’ said Allan. ‘I didn’t want her to walk out into the road.’”
And finally, the following from the Magistrate in the case:
“Mr Robey said that had Allan already asked for a breath test before cuffing her, it would have been the woman’s own fault. But he had not.” And
“Allan had not acted out of malice, he said, but had made the wrong decision.”
Report abuse
Student Bob
You psychic then are you??
I tend to read all documents before making comment and don’t make assumptions, unlike you it would seem.
Go back to sleep.
Report abuse
Truth Man
Interesting you have missed out the quote from the Magistrate ‘the incident was distressing, humiliating and painful for Mrs Holt’
The original report stated Mrs Holt stopped as soon as she realised the police car was for her, and she only failed to provide a sample AFTER she had been assaulted. Suggesting she committed these offences IS misleading. I doubt a court would agree with you!
Your previous posts clearly show you have a hidden agenda against Mrs Holt.
Report abuse
Darren:
I have to reply to your last post. You do make assumptions. Very big, and inaccurate assumptions actually. In your first post you make the following assumptions that are clearly based on a lack of knowledge:
1. You assume we are all armchair experts. I am most certainly not an ‘armchair expert’.
2. You say: “Have any of you been handcuffed? I doubt it.” – How would you possibly know? I have been handcuffed actually. A few times and it does hurt – only if you fight against them. If you’re passive there is no pain or injury at all.
3. You state: “Police Officers are trained to use proportionate force. A 61 year old female versus a 41 year old male?”. Therefore you have assumed that due to the age and sex differences the use of force was not proportionate. You clearly are not well versed in the use of force and what experts call ‘impact factors’ and ‘officer response options’. Perhaps it is you who is the armchair expert then? Although I agree with Student Bob – I’m not sure you have reached the dizzy heights of the armchair yet.
4. You state: “She would have had to be a danger to herself and others in the immediate vicinity to warrant be placed in handcuffs. The Police Officer clearly was not in danger or scared.” This is an absolute assumption. Were you there? have you spoken with PC Allen? Was he in danger – was he scared? Let’s be honest, you don’t know do you?
5. You state: “He assaulted her, abused his Police Powers, disregarded his training,” This is inaccurate. At the time PC Allen was trained as an officer, they were being sent to the UK for training, and what he did would have been acceptable in the UK. Therefore he did not disregard his training at all.
6. You state: “I suspect he is being given his job back because internal affairs, or whoever conducted the initial investigation into this did not follow the correct procedure in respect of employment law, as opposed to criminal law.” – You know this do you? No, you don’t it is an assumption.
7. You state: “He was abstained of any employment law infringement, either because the internal investigation was flawed and would not stand up to appeal, or because he could cite other examples worse than, or equivalent to his case that are still in the employment of the Police.” You know this do you? No, you have assumed again.
8. You state: “Finally – Police officers assault people all the time, it has to be within the scope of common law and proportionate.” This is not accurate. Do me a favour: Quote the powers police have available them allowing them to use force legally – I don’t believe you will be able to.
So, I rest my case your honours. Darren does assume. A lot. And nearly all of his assumptions are incorrect and display a lack of understanding, research and intelligence. Sorry Darren, but your childish waffle bears no credibility with me.
Report abuse
CG:
I can assure you, there is no hidden agenda against Mrs Holt whatsoever. If in my posts it comes across that I have weighted my comments towards the ‘side’ of PC Allen, that is because I feel he has not received a fair press at all and much of the unfairness has been due to inaccurate facts and phrases being thrown around.
The press and some commentators have written a very biased version of events against PC Allen and I feel quite entitled to re-balance the scales by introducing some facts that have been ‘forgotten’.
And in reference to your comment “Suggesting she committed these offences IS misleading. I doubt a court would agree with you!”, I suggest you have clearly based that assumption on the original press report alone. As I keep saying, the details of the actual trial are in the public domain – take a look and then make a judgement. Until have done so I am sure you would agree that your opinion is hardly going to be accurate or valid.
And, just to clarify, the full line you quoted from said:
“Mr Robey said that while the incident was distressing, humiliating and painful for Mrs Holt, the cuffs were on for only two minutes before back-up arrived and they were taken off.”
Therefore, whilst your paraphrasing would suggest that Mr Robey was saying ‘poor Mrs Holt’ what he was actually saying was ‘poor Mrs Holt, but it wasn’t that bad really’.
Perhaps it is you who has an agenda against PC Allen?
Report abuse
Darren, he certainly got you there. I wouldnt even bother replying. Just slip away quietly so nobody notices…
Report abuse
Truth Man
You talk out of your behind. Ok, if you must know, this is how it is:
The law on police use of force is set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the UK; Guernsey Police Officers and local laws follow this, Common Law is the preciding consideration.
Officers are subject to the same rules as the rest of society, i.e. the public, but must meet higher standards than the public for two main reasons:-
1 As officers are trained to use force they must use approved methods of restraint.
2 – Police forces are public bodies and Police Officers have a duty under the Human Rights Act not to use dispraportionate force that might constitute inhuman or degrading treatment.
Lets look at your waffle, point by point shall we? :
1. You assume we are all armchair experts. I am most certainly not an ‘armchair expert’ – Really, why is that? You a serving officer then?
2. You say: “Have any of you been handcuffed? I doubt it.” – How would you possibly know? You say “I have been handcuffed actually” – really, in training, when being arrested, in what context?. A few times (is that once, twice, dozens? ) and it does hurt. Actually Truth man, having handcuffs placed does not hurt at all, if done correctly and you can fight against the cuffs all you like, however if they are locked in place they will not incure greater harm (unles you are a self harmer of course). Injury occurs when cuffs are poorly applied, or people fight back and the Officer (s) fight back – so your statement is a nonsense.
3. I stated: “Police Officers are trained to use proportionate force. A 61 year old female versus a 41 year old male?”. Therefore I have have explained, through experience, not assumptions, that due to the age and sex differences the use of force was not proportionate; too bloody right it wasn’t pal. Truth Man you suggest I am not well versed in the use of force and what experts call ‘impact factors’ and ‘officer response options’. Where did you read that?? Found a training manual have you? You would know Truth Man, had you bothered to read the material that a 41yr male police officer, cuffing and unarmed, sober 61yr female would not be an approved action unless she was putting herself in immediate danger, or others. As it was she wasn’t even under arrest and to lay your hands on someone without arresting them, is assault (see Common Law).
TM you state ‘Perhaps it is you who is the armchair expert then?’ No, an expert, and not from an armchair.
4. I said “She would have had to be a danger to herself and others in the immediate vicinity to warrant be placed in handcuffs. The Police Officer clearly was not in danger or scared.” TM – you state that I made ‘an absolute assumption’. I think you will find it is called considering the evidence at hand – as you know, PC Allen was charged and convicted of Assault – the Magistrate obviously made assumptions too, despite him not being there.
PC Allen should be trained in unarmed combat, restraint, CS Gas, Baton, Handuffs, radio procedure, be wearing a stab jacket, and it is known in Police training that Officers are required to have a considerably higher level of objectivity in their decision making process, and as such, respond objectively.
Either he was scared, in which case he should work at McDonalds, or he abused his powers, in which case he should be in Prison.
5. I stated: “He assaulted her, abused his Police Powers, disregarded his training,” TM – you state ‘This is inaccurate. At the time PC Allen was trained as an officer, they were being sent to the UK for training, and what he did would have been acceptable in the UK. Therefore he did not disregard his training at all’
My response – what a load of rubbish. Guernsey Police Officers are trained in aspects of UK PACE, however they are taught, in the UK and in Guernsey to learn Guernsey Law, which is in some areas different to the UK, e.g. various levels of warnings for public order offences exist in the UK, but not in Guernsey.
You are demented if you don’t think he assaulted her – it was proven in a court of law? What more do you need?
6. I stated: “I suspect he is being given his job back because internal affairs, or whoever conducted the initial investigation into this did not follow the correct procedure in respect of employment law, as opposed to criminal law.” TM – you stated ‘you know this do you? No, you don’t it is an assumption’. You can call it an assumption if you like, however I call it balance of probablities.
7. I stated: “He was abstained of any employment law infringement, either because the internal investigation was flawed and would not stand up to appeal, or because he could cite other examples worse than, or equivalent to his case that are still in the employment of the Police.” TM – you said ‘You know this do you? No, you have assumed again’ See item 6 is my response, and if you know any different, please do enlighten me with your infinite wisdom….
8. I stated: “Finally – Police officers assault people all the time, it has to be within the scope of common law and proportionate.” TM – you said ‘This is not accurate. Do me a favour: Quote the powers police have available them allowing them to use force legally – I don’t believe you will be able to’ TM, this shows how inept you are with your knowledge, Common Law IS one of the powers. As is, in the UK, PACE et al.
So, do me a favour, and accept the following:
1 – The Police Officer placed handcuffs on a woman, 20 years his senior, and almost at pensionable age, without arresting her
2 – the woman was unarmed
3 – the woman was physically weaker
4 – the woman did not harm the Police Officer
Yes, she may have been verbally objectionable, however she is entitled to be if the Officer presents himself as an idiot and upsets her.
Had he tried to put my wife in cuffs for the same thing he would have been wearing them himself.
Report abuse
Wow…. good work Truth Man!!
Personally Daz, I was simply going to point out that in your statement “I … don’t make assumptions, unlike you it would seem.” You ARE actually making an assumption. Oops!!
Just for the record, on Dazza’s assumptions regarding why PC Allan handcuffed Mrs Holt, PC Allan himself (in the original case report) states that he did so as she was wandering back into the road and was endangering herself, so he chose to restrain her until she calmed down for her own safety.
Report abuse
I personally feel sorry for the PC at the centre of what I see as a media frenzy. From what I can see, he didn’t attack or abuse the lady in question. He handcuffed her. It may appear that this was excessive. However, as none of us was present at the time, we don’t know exactly what happened in the lead up to this event. As a Policeman, he will be trained to react within guidelines set out within Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which provides that:
“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”
This basically means that he was entitled to restrain the lady if he thought that she was a danger to herself or him. Judging by some of the comments I have heard and/or read that the lady in question may be prone to hysterics, I would imagine that he would have probably seen due cause to restrain her for her own safety. This, however, is all conjecture.
It is unfair, though, that the Press has been very one-sided and sensationalist, and very safe in the knowledge that the officer is, I believe, prohibited from making a statement to the press, thus tying his hands and making him appear guilty.
I would like to point out that I know neither the Officer nor the lady in question, merely expressing my opinion.
Report abuse
Well said Darren.
Student Bob, for the record the report stated PC Allan THOUGHT Mrs Holt would walk out into the road. It is illegal to apply handcuffs even if someone is endangerng themselves unless they are a danger to others or to the police officer (as Darren previously stated), hence the charge of assault. Even if it was legal, thinking someone might walk into the road is hardly a strong arguement!!!!
I think you are forgetting, he was found guilty!
Report abuse
Darren.
Yawn. Lots of inaccuracies.
Guernsey Police do not follow the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Common Law is not the “preciding consideration”. You need to broaden your Wikepedia searches in future!
1. Your first numbered point “1 As officers are trained to use force they must use approved methods of restraint.” has no reference in law.
2. In your point 2 you basically agree with me! Handcuffs do not hurt, and would not have injured Mrs Holt were it not for her own actions!
3. Your point under 3 is tripe. Any uninformed person might make the same assumption you have (although many people are much more intelligent than to make such a mistake). Impact factors involve many many more variables than you have taken into account.
4. Again, absolute tripe. My question to you ‘was he scared’ was asked to make the point that you don’t know – and that you had assumed. I think I made that point rather well!
5. You totally miss the point in your part 5 and I suspect you don’t read the whole of a post before you get all excited and drop your PS3 controller so you can frantically type your next response. I said “Therefore he did not disregard his training at all.”. I made no reference to the conviction for assault. Of course he assaulted her in law – he’s been convicted. But his training was not ignored. He was trained in the UK and in the UK what he did would have been permitted. I bet you have no idea why though do you?
6. Eh? Whether you call it balance of probabilities or not, what you did was assume. The fact that you think your assumption is accurate is irrelevant!
7. Ok – here we go. It’s simple. He appealed to a higher authority than the original disciplinary panel and they agreed with him. The reasoning is for them, and it could be for any number of reasons. I would not be so careless as to try to ASSSUME what those reasons are.
8. Again, you fail to read my post accurately. Common Law (as you said subsequently) is ONE of the powers. Your first post stated “it has to be within the scope of common law” and failed to mention a number of other laws/sections that provide a use of force. Therefore I was quite right in saying that you were not being accurate.
And finally, you asked me to accept the following:
1 – The Police Officer placed handcuffs on a woman, 20 years his senior, and almost at pensionable age, without arresting her
2 – the woman was unarmed
3 – the woman was physically weaker
4 – the woman did not harm the Police Officer
Of course these points are not in dispute, but they are just a small part of the facts!!! I refer back to what I’ve been saying in nearly all of my posts: LOOK AT THE TRIAL!!!!!
Unless you raise a new point of interest I will not waste my time in going over old ground and replying to you futher.
Report abuse
Student Bob
‘She wandered into the road and was endagering herself?’
Really – what was the road (single track, cul-de-sac, tarmacadam, gravel etc), what was the speed limit, what time of day was it, was it wet, how good was visibility (distance, objects in road et al), what was the Police Officer wearing, what was Mrs Holt wearing, how heavy was the traffic, how many vehicles had to take evasive action to avoid Mrs Holt, and if they did then where are their witness statements?
Basically, PC Allen chose to cuff her, and then thought up what he considered to be a reasonable excuse afterwards (this is an assumption – based on the facts).
How was she endangering herself Bob – please explain? If you can explain with some supporting rationale, and it is plausible, I will gladly change my (for what it is worth) view of what I considered to be aassault and beg you humble forgiveness…..
Report abuse
Darren: I WANT TO SAY WELL DONE! finally someone talks some sense!!!!! are you all mad, this copper hurt an old lady (sorry Mrs Holt, i’m sure ur young at heart) he was found GUILTY!!!!!!! HELLO are you lot thick, i mean seriously!
If i got done for hitting someone and got found guilty id lose my job and really struggle to find work again, but a COPPER does it, gets found guilty and then is allowed to go back to work, congrats PC Heavy Handed! arent you the lucky duck!
i’m not interested in having petty arguments with people on this forum and cant be bothered to reply to others that want to rant about me for my PERSONAL view.
All i can say is this bloke must have thick skin as your gonna need it round town mate on weekends as everyone knows your face and regardless if you lot who are clearly on his side like it or not he’s gonna get some trouble in town!
Report abuse
Truth Man
why are you getting so worked up about the p.c.allen case? Guernsey courts have always operated under the “balance of probabilities” and not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” methods used elswhere. the burden of proof for prosecuters in guernsey has always been on the low side. Why should it be different in the p.c. Allen case?
Report abuse
Kevin
I dont think Truth Man (no relation to me even though we share the same surname ;) ) is getting worked up, he is merely trying to get people who would gladly have this PC hung drawn and quartered on the presses version of events and a “balance of probabilities” conviction, to see the true facts of the case.
Report abuse
Vee
Do you not think its good that he’d got his job back then??
After all, it might mean that the other PC’s might not have to work overtime to cover shifts, so there is less chance of them going on strike because of that.
Thats the best outcome
;)
Report abuse
These are the facts over which I believe there is no dispute:
1. Mrs Holt was not convicted or charged with any offence. If there is sufficient evidence she committed an offence, she could (and should)be charged. One can only assume there is not;
2. she was not asked for a breath sample or arrested before being handcuffed. When she subsequently provided a sample, it was fine;
3. she was stopped and asked to get in a police van – without being told she was arrested;
4. the policeman concerned has been convicted of assault; and
5. by his own admission, this officer was not particularly polite.
Quite apart from assulting the lady concerned, this officer took a number of questionable steps before handcuffing her:
A. he was impolite;
B. if he suspected she had been drinking (as was claimed), he should have asked her for a breath sample immediately. Drink-driving is a serious offence. He did not do so; and
C. unless she failed to provide (upon request)a breath sample or one indicating she had exceeded the drink-drive limit, she should not have been asked to get in a police van. She did not. It is not standard practice to place a suspect in a police van (effectively in custody) on suspicion they have committed a minor road traffic offence, such as crossing a white line (or driving without due care). For anyone, and particularly someone who believes they have done nothing, that would be disturbing. For an elderly lady, particularly so. Such a request was wholly inappropriate. PC Allen either did know or should have known that.
The lady may or may not have been somewhat agitated, that is not grounds for hancuffing her; merely a reason to diffuse the situation. He does not appear to have made a reasonable attempt to have done so – rather he inflamed it.
Apart from committing an offence and failing to comply with appropriate procedures, PC Allen’s actions call into question whether he has sufficient judgement to be a police officer.
Whatever the lady’s motives are now are irrelevant, the decision to reinstate this officer should be re-examined. From the volume of comment on this site, it is clear that his reinstatement has undermined a significant proportion of the the public’s confidence in police disciplinary procedures.
Report abuse
Vee
You are entitled to your personal view.
But not enough to put your real name to your personal comment !!!
Report abuse
After reading some of these rantings, I believe that some people here really do need to get out more
Report abuse
Stephen John:
why do i have to write my full name? whats that got to do with this artical?
The Man:
no i dont think its right he’s got his job back, i strongly believe that its one rule for all!
Report abuse
PC Allen should have been found guilty. He assaulted the woman BUT he was trained in the UK where police officers can use hand cuffs before arrest. So whose fault is it? PC Allens for following his training?? The conviction was 100% correct but it would be 1000% to sack him from his job for doing what he was told to do.
Report abuse
Kevin:
That’s a really odd comment to make! I don’t know where it comes from either, as I make no reference to the validity of PC Allen’s conviction. He was convicted on the burden of proof known as BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT and most certainly not ‘balance of probabilities’. This is not in dispute at all. The only thing I have any issue with is inaccurate facts.
Bogart:
Too true, and I am one of those people! Unfortunately this issue is important to some people. What’s the sunshine like this summer by the way?!
Report abuse
I had suggested that firstly, no-one is disputing the assault charge. PC Allan did technically assault Mrs Holt by not adhering strictly to procedure. He “did not give her a Rodney King style kicking”. Mrs Holt took exception to being handcuffed and her personal vendetta has created this situation. My interest in this thread is simply to address the balance and offer the other side of the story.
But back to your comment. Had you read the original article (repeatedly referred to and quoted by previous posters) you would have known that the incident took place at 7.25pm on 1 March. Mrs Holt was stopped on Fort Road, a busy main road leading out of town with a 35mph speed limit.
At 7.25pm on 1 March, it would have been dark. PC Allan would have been wearing a high viz jacket and the balance of probabilities suggests that Mrs Holt wasn’t. If PC Allan had fear of Mrs Holt stepping into The road, we might assume that she eventually pulled over onto the side of the road, rather than a car park. Immediately before applying the handcuffs, Mrs Holt had stepped back to the drivers side door of her car, which would have placed her nearest the flow of traffic. That’s when PC Allan elected to restrain Mrs Holt for her own safety.
I’m not a policeman, but as a healthcare student, I am taught that the first rule in such a situation is to make sure that I’m safe, then make sure the other party is safe before proceeding.
Can I ask how you would have handled this hysterical woman, described as shouting and screaming, any differently?!
Finally, I’m getting tired of repeating facts from the original case that you clearly haven’t bothered to read. If you’re not willing to read all the evidence before casting judgment, I’m wasting my time debating this.
Report abuse