Skip to content or view screen version

film of last sunday's socpa arrest (yet another violent arrest!)

rikki | 12.07.2006 23:47 | Indymedia | Repression | London

this is the film of the episode reported at

after assaulting steve for holding a single banner with two quotes written on it - one from the magna carta, and another by aristotle - police held him in a van for more than an hour with tight handcuffs behind his back. they then merely 'reported' him for unauthorised protest. was their violence really necessary?

jenny jones - green party mep, and member of the met police authority has promised to raise questions about this incident.

steve had been arrested and assaulted previously while holding a similar banner just two weeks before. his plight reached the front and first four pages of 'the independent' newspaper when it emerged that police used a copy of a 'vanity fair' article that steve had in his pocket as evidence of his guilt, claiming that he was carrying 'politically motivated material'. the author of the article, henry porter, wrote to sir ian blair asking him for assurances that carrying a copy of 'the independent' around in the designated zone was not an arrestable offence.

- e-mail:


Hide the following 3 comments

Quiz: How many officers does it take to detain someone standing on the pavement

13.07.2006 01:19

Watch closely and count how many are needed to manhandle someone not resisting!


Barbara and Steve need to take legal action the handcuffing is illegal

13.07.2006 10:42

Individual Officer’s Responsililities

3.1 The primary responsibility for using force rests with the individual officer, who is answerable ultimately to the law. Individual officers are accountable and responsible for whatever force they use and must be in a position to justify their actions in the light of their legal responsibilities and powers. Any use of force, other than in training, whether intentional or otherwise, must be reported by the officer concerned and recorded in the officer's official notebook.

3.2 Obedience to the orders of a supervisor shall be no defence if a police officer knew that the order to use force was unlawful and had a reasonable opportunity to refuse to obey it. Responsibility will also rest with the supervisor who gave the unlawful order.

3.3 Any police officer, who has reason to believe that improper force has been used or is about to be used by another police officer, shall, to the best of their capability, prevent and rigorously oppose any such use of force. This officer shall, at the earliest opportunity, report the matter to their supervisor and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities vested with responsibility for investigating such matters.

3.4 Supervisory officers will be held responsible if they know, or should have known, through the proper discharge of their duties, that officers under their command are resorting, or have resorted, to the unlawful use of force, and they did not take all measures in their power to prevent, suppress or report such use.

6.2 Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states:

"So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."

In other words, when considering their powers under Common Law, Section 3 Criminal Law Act and Article 88 PACE, police officers must bear in mind the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Human Rights Act principles.

6.3 It is possible that police officers who use force will, intentionally or not, restrict or infringe a number of articles in the ECHR. For example:

(a) Art. 2 - Right to life;

(b) Art. 3 - Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment;

(c) Art. 5 - Right to liberty and security of person;

(d) Art. 8 - Right to respect for privacy, family life, home and correspondence;

(e) Art. 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

(f) Art. 10 - Freedom of expression;

(g) Art. 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;

(h) Article 1 of Protocol 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions/property.

mike d
mail e-mail:
- Homepage:

re: Barbara and Steve need to take legal action the handcuffing is illegal

13.07.2006 13:15

mike d

your right that barbara and steve should take legal action, but this should be after any attempted prosecution by the cps. otherwise it could result a full prosecution, instead of getting any charges dropped.