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.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
24 thoughts on “Thames Valley Police sack officer who attacked cyclist with baton”
Only dismissed? Surely he’s
Only dismissed? Surely he’s committed several crimes, not least of which is assault so has he been arrested?
public order offence
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.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
And a private prosecution would ‘not be in the public interest’ no doubt.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I thought that sick leave plus full pension was the MO.
Is it too soon for a jail
Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Bugger that!
Jitensha Oni wrote:
Bugger that!— Yorkshire wallet
Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious…
HalfWheeler wrote:
Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape, and neither did the posts you’re being sarcastic about but, y’know, apart from that… spot on!
seven wrote:
Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious…
— Jitensha Oni Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape— Yorkshire wallet
It does since 2003.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
It does since 2003.— seven
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.
Yes. For a start he isn’t in
Yes. For a start he isn’t in Jail
A strange tale. I can only
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.
zero_trooper wrote:
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
ClubSmed wrote:
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.
gw42 wrote:
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.
It always amuses me that so
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.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
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
burtthebike wrote:
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).
Reality is copper is probably
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.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?— Yorkshire wallet
It may have been in relation to your quote
[emphasis mine]
..and why are you quoting words that didn’t appear in that post ?
fukawitribe wrote:
Is English your first language?
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
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 ?
I blame it all on the royals
I blame it all on the royals or at least the royal wedding traffic.