Guilty - not us m'Lud

A driver, scared by the antics of a car which chased him for 7 miles on a motorway, dialled 999 and reported the incident to the police.

The advice he received was to stop because he was being pursued by police officers.

Now Strathclyde Police have been heavily criticised  by the Police Complaints Commissioner who has  declared that the stop was not legal.

The police vehicle concerned was unmarked, did not have any visual or audible warning systems and the officers within were not in uniform.

After stopping the car the plain clothed officers went on to question the driver while their cars sat on the hard shoulder of the motorway.

The Commissioner reminded the force that under the Road Traffic Act, only uniformed officers can require a vehicle to stop

He also cited guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)  which prohibits the use of unmarked vehicles that do not have audible or visual warning equipment.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We cannot and will not accept that the officers acted illegally or without any legal basis”

Dep Chief Constable Campbell CorriganStrathclyde Police

Further, Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, Professor John McNeill, described the way Strathclyde Police handled three out of four complaints from the man as "poor". He went on to say "I am happy to say that this man's experience is not typical of what I have seen elsewhere in Scotland".

However, a senior officer from Strathclyde Police has stated that the force "cannot and will not accept that the officers acted illegally or without any legal basis", that they believed "this assertion to be wrong", although they did admit that "The officers did act outwith ACPO guidelines"

Apparently the Strathclyde officers considered the manner of the man's driving of greater risk to the public than their chasing him on the motorway.

Links to this story

• BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17770342
• Manchester Wired  http://www.manchesterwired.co.uk/news.php/1423303-Strathclyde-Police-car-pursuit-on-motorway-was-illegal
• Scottish Law Reporter  http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/strathclyde-police-vehicle-stop-had-no.html
• Daily Record  http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/04/19/strathclyde-police-blasted-over-high-speed-chase-where-unmarked-car-pursued-scared-driver-for-seven-miles-86908-23830114/
• STV  http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/304031-help-999-im-being-followed-by-a-speeding-car-yes-we-know-its-us/
• Evening Times  http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/news/drivers-terror-as-cops-follow-him-for-7-miles.17356993

Comment

The attitude of Strathclyde Police to the Police Commissioner and his report displays the same arrogance they show in the case of applicants to the force who have colour vision which differs from the "norm".   Colour vision in recruitment is a matter set in law by the Police Regulations and a determination of the Scottish Ministers.   Yet Strathclyde Police continue to claim that they can ignore the law and make make up their own discriminatory standards. 

Webster v. Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary [2000] ET/200687/99

Webster v. Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary is a case taken to the Employment Tribunal in London in 2000 on the ground of Sex Discrimination. In this case it was found that a male officer had been discriminated against because of colour blindness.

The police officer in question had been removed from operational police duties after, 10 years of service with Hertfordshire Constabularly, because he suffered from a particular type of colour blindness (a moderate deuteranomalous loss of colour vision), which meant that he could not distinguish between different shades of green.

He had declared the dficiency when he applied to the Force. 7% of men and 0.5% of women have hereditary defective colour vision. He alleged the need to have perfect colour vision was not justifiable.

The Employment Tribunal balanced the needs of the Force against the effects on Mr Webster and concluded that he had been indirectly dicriminated against on the grounds of his sex.

The Employment Tribunal questioned whether a person accused of murder would be acquitted because a witness could not distinguish a particular shade of green.

==========================================



Links

• XpertHR
• Learning the Lessons from Employment Tribunals (some Police Myths)
• Police Employment Discrimination

Police accused of discrimination

from BBC News Website - Monday 3 September 2007

Rejected police recruits have taken Scotland's largest force to an employment tribunal over claims they were the victims of sex discrimination.

The two candidates were turned down by the Strathclyde force because they have a form of colour-blindness usually only found in men.

Robin Dixon and Graeme McCullie claim the decision was discriminatory.

A preliminary meeting of the tribunal has been listening to debates over whether the case should be time-barred.

Strathclyde Police believes that employing officers with the colour-blindness condition would raise safety issues.

Mr Dixon had previously lost a similar claim under disability discrimination legislation.

The case continues.

===========================================
the above article is also carried on the Critical Estoppel website and on Journalisted