Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Thames Valley Police sack officer who attacked cyclist with baton

PC Adam Scarratt held to have used excessive force and to have lied about incident afterwards

Thames Valley Police has sacked a police constable without notice following an incident in which he hit a cyclist three times with a baton.

A hearing, held at the force’s headquarters in Kidlington, Oxfordshire last week, examined misconduct charges against PC Adam Scarratt, who was based at the Cowley police station in Oxford.

It concluded that he breached standards of professional behaviour relating to use of force and with regard to honesty and integrity.

The hearing was held following an incident on 4 October 2017 during which the officer tried to stop a man who was riding a bicycle on Van Diemen’s Lane in Oxford.

Thames Valley Police said that instead of asking the man to stop, PC Scarratt used foul language.

When the cyclist did not stop, the officer hit him twice with his baton. The cyclist got off his bike, whereupon Scarratt hit him a third time, causing the man to fall to the ground.

After the incident, PC Scarratt gave a statement that Thames Valley Police said “was materially inaccurate and untrue.”

The force’s deputy chief constable, John Campbell, commented: “PC Scarratt’s actions fell well below the standard expected of our officers in that he used force completely inappropriately, he then acted dishonestly as he gave an account of the incident that was not true.

“As such he has been dismissed from the Force without notice,” he added.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
ridein | 5 years ago
1 like

I blame it all on the royals or at least the royal wedding traffic.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
7 likes

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me".

Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
0 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to Legs_Eleven_Worcester | 5 years ago
1 like

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

It may have been in relation to your quote

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.

[emphasis mine]
 

..and why are you quoting words that didn't appear in that post ?

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to fukawitribe | 5 years ago
0 likes

fukawitribe wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

It may have been in relation to your quote

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.

[emphasis mine]
 

..and why are you quoting words that didn't appear in that post ?

Is English your first language?

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to Legs_Eleven_Worcester | 5 years ago
1 like

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

It may have been in relation to your quote

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.

[emphasis mine]
 

..and why are you quoting words that didn't appear in that post ?

Is English your first language?

Yes, you ? In relation to which part of my reply ? If it's the former, then IMO the inference was that you wouldn't get the chance to do what you think. It it's the latter then it looks like quotes rather than concepts, which is possible ("I'll hit him and i'm not thinking about getting away") but not very clearly put forth - again IMO. I'm guessing from your reply that you saying along those lines, yes ?

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... | 5 years ago
4 likes

It always amuses me that so many of us are 'programmed' to obey the state, to such an extent that we just stand and let the police kick the shit out of us.  I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.  If in doubt, apply the Waterfield Test.  If the officer's actions fail that test, then you are entitled to resist.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Legs_Eleven_Worcester | 5 years ago
0 likes

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It always amuses me that so many of us are 'programmed' to obey the state, to such an extent that we just stand and let the police kick the shit out of us.  I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.  If in doubt, apply the Waterfield Test.  If the officer's actions fail that test, then you are entitled to resist.

Many thanks for that, I'd never heard of the Waterfield test before, highly illuminating.  Basically, a policeman's powers are limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Waterfield

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It always amuses me that so many of us are 'programmed' to obey the state, to such an extent that we just stand and let the police kick the shit out of us.  I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.  If in doubt, apply the Waterfield Test.  If the officer's actions fail that test, then you are entitled to resist.

Many thanks for that, I'd never heard of the Waterfield test before, highly illuminating.  Basically, a policeman's powers are limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Waterfield

 

Indeed they are - although you wouldn't know it from the response to my post on this and another thread. We are so indoctrinated into obeying the state and its representatives, that the mere idea of resisting is heresy.   Take one good example: you're protesting an unpopular government policy, and the police don't want you there.  So they arrest you.  'Don't resist!' cry the apologists!  'You'll have your day in court!'

Well, you might.  But any damages you receive won't come from the people who decided to nick you to stop you doing something awkward but not illegal.  They'll come from the public purse, and public policy is currently to limit that expenditure.  There have been several cases where juries have awarded 'exemplary damages' in cases involving wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault as well as malicious prosecution with more than a whiff of racism about the state's case.  The issue really got its day in court (ho, ho..) in Thompson and Another v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Hsu v Same - (1997) Times, 20 February).  Two defendants - one had been assaulted in custody, and false evidence was used against her in court.  She was awarded £51,500 in damages, of which £51,000 were 'exemplary'.  The second defendant was racially and physically abused by police when they effected entry to his house to arrest him.  He was awarded £220,000 in damages, with £200,000 of that being 'exemplary'.  The Court of Appeal held that the judge should direct the jury that '... damages, save in exceptional circumstances, should be awarded only as compensation and in line with a scale which keeps the damages proportionate with those payable in personal injury cases'.   Then came Hill v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1998] Lexis Citation 1463, where damages of £45,600 were awarded for wrongful arrest, falsqe imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault.   

Make no mistake: the English judicial system is completely riven with corruption, just as is the political establishment (anyone who watched the Alliston case and who still doubts this, sod off to New York and buy a bridge...).  Alas, getting rich after you've been wrongfully nicked and roughed up in a cell, is a US phenomenon.  It doesn't happen here.  

But anyway ... in the meantime, the police's aims have been satisfied: you've been taken out of circulation. 

I'm not anti-police.  I am anti abuse of power, and such abuse is endemic in the English police (I'm sure Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have similar problems, but I know little of what goes on there).

Avatar
zero_trooper | 5 years ago
2 likes

A strange tale. I can only think that there was an independent witness, who wasn't willing to give evidence in court, but would to a misconduct hearing. If that was the case then the 'police' did well.

Alternatively, the victim refused to make a complaint of assault.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to zero_trooper | 5 years ago
2 likes

zero_trooper wrote:

A strange tale. I can only think that there was an independent witness, who wasn't willing to give evidence in court, but would to a misconduct hearing. If that was the case then the 'police' did well.

Alternatively, the victim refused to make a complaint of assault.

I find it a little hard to believe that the cyclist was being asked to stop just for the hell of it.

I was thinking that it was most likely that the cyclist was carrying out a maneuver or activity that was not legal so could not make a full complaint without risking a record themselves. As a result the police officer was dealt with via a tribunal instead.

Obviously the police officer used excessive force and desserved to be dealt with

Avatar
TedBarnes replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
2 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

A strange tale. I can only think that there was an independent witness, who wasn't willing to give evidence in court, but would to a misconduct hearing. If that was the case then the 'police' did well.

Alternatively, the victim refused to make a complaint of assault.

I find it a little hard to believe that the cyclist was being asked to stop just for the hell of it.

I was thinking that it was most likely that the cyclist was carrying out a maneuver or activity that was not legal so could not make a full complaint without risking a record themselves. As a result the police officer was dealt with via a tribunal instead.

Obviously the police officer used excessive force and desserved to be dealt with

If the only evidence against the cyclist was from the assaulting police officer, I doubt the CPS would consider it in the public interest to pursue the cyclist. 

Also, whether a victim pursues or makes a complaint is a purely evidential issue. It is not legally required in order to prosecute, but reality dictates that if the victim doesn't give supportive evidence then the chance of a conviction obviously drops massively. 

There are different standards of proof in terms of criminal liability vs an internal disciplinary hearing (beyond reasonable doubt vs, I assume, balance of probabilities), so that may be one explanation for a lack of arrest and prosecution. 

Personally though, I'm amazed the disciplinary hearing would be so categoric about the misleading statement he gave unless they had very clear evidence, so I wonder whether there was CCTV footage. If so, a lack of prosecution becomes even more questionable.  

Avatar
zero_trooper replied to TedBarnes | 5 years ago
0 likes

gw42 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

A strange tale. I can only think that there was an independent witness, who wasn't willing to give evidence in court, but would to a misconduct hearing. If that was the case then the 'police' did well.

Alternatively, the victim refused to make a complaint of assault.

I find it a little hard to believe that the cyclist was being asked to stop just for the hell of it.

I was thinking that it was most likely that the cyclist was carrying out a maneuver or activity that was not legal so could not make a full complaint without risking a record themselves. As a result the police officer was dealt with via a tribunal instead.

Obviously the police officer used excessive force and desserved to be dealt with

If the only evidence against the cyclist was from the assaulting police officer, I doubt the CPS would consider it in the public interest to pursue the cyclist. 

Also, whether a victim pursues or makes a complaint is a purely evidential issue. It is not legally required in order to prosecute, but reality dictates that if the victim doesn't give supportive evidence then the chance of a conviction obviously drops massively. 

There are different standards of proof in terms of criminal liability vs an internal disciplinary hearing (beyond reasonable doubt vs, I assume, balance of probabilities), so that may be one explanation for a lack of arrest and prosecution. 

Personally though, I'm amazed the disciplinary hearing would be so categoric about the misleading statement he gave unless they had very clear evidence, so I wonder whether there was CCTV footage. If so, a lack of prosecution becomes even more questionable.  

If the only evidence against the cyclist was from the assaulting police officer, I doubt the CPS would consider it in the public interest to pursue the cyclist. - IIRC complaints against the police are normally dealt with after any court case involving the complainant. In this case the police case/evidence appears to be so undermined that it never went to court.

Also, whether a victim pursues or makes a complaint is a purely evidential issue. It is not legally required in order to prosecute, but reality dictates that if the victim doesn't give supportive evidence then the chance of a conviction obviously drops massively. - agree

There are different standards of proof in terms of criminal liability vs an internal disciplinary hearing (beyond reasonable doubt vs, I assume, balance of probabilities), so that may be one explanation for a lack of arrest and prosecution. - agree, an internal disciplinary may have been the easiest option for a positive result e.g. dismissal.

Personally though, I'm amazed the disciplinary hearing would be so categoric about the misleading statement he gave unless they had very clear evidence, so I wonder whether there was CCTV footage. If so, a lack of prosecution becomes even more questionable. - not so sure. If you 'Streetview' the location, it looks pretty well to do (IMO) Maybe a credible witness out in their garden saw and heard what happened, was bothered enough to tell the police, but was unwilling to attend court.

Avatar
balmybaldwin | 5 years ago
1 like

Yes. For a start he isn't in Jail

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
6 likes

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Avatar
Jitensha Oni replied to Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
9 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Avatar
HalfWheeler replied to Jitensha Oni | 5 years ago
2 likes

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious...

Avatar
seven replied to HalfWheeler | 5 years ago
1 like
HalfWheeler wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious...

Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape, and neither did the posts you're being sarcastic about but, y'know, apart from that... spot on!

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to seven | 5 years ago
1 like

seven wrote:
HalfWheeler wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious...

Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape

It does since 2003.

Avatar
seven replied to Legs_Eleven_Worcester | 5 years ago
2 likes
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

seven wrote:

Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape

It does since 2003.

If you're talking about the Sexual Offences Act, no, it doesn't. Rape is only implied where the act is non-consensual which is, if you stop for a second to think about it, blindingly f***ing obvious.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
10 likes

public order offence (swearing), ABH, perverting the course of justice, breaking oath/attestation, anything else, pile of excrement should be inside so he can have a nice long think about what a cnut he's been.

Police did the bare minimum, basically pretending to mete out justice but actually not, they had no choice but to sack him.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
1 like

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

public order offence (swearing), ABH, perverting the course of justice, breaking oath/attestation, anything else, pile of excrement should be inside so he can have a nice long think about what a cnut he's been.

Police did the bare minimum, basically pretending to mete out justice but actually not, they had no choice but to sack him.

And a private prosecution would 'not be in the public interest' no doubt.

Avatar
caw35ride replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
3 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Police did the bare minimum ... they had no choice but to sack him.

I thought that sick leave plus full pension was the MO.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
13 likes

Only dismissed?  Surely he's committed several crimes, not least of which is assault so has he been arrested?

Latest Comments