Leaving one's beat

[John G]

In which case, Jon, if you want to take that approach, you are still wrong because the only incident which had occurred was two men coming up to speak to him. It was, at that time, neither a criminal case nor a case of accident so on a literal interpretation of the rules there was nothing for him to record.



There is no record of him being punished in Police Orders so the answer must be: yes.

But at which point does it become a "criminal case." After the inquest verdict? After the police open an official investigation?

No sensible construction of the Code could lead to either conclusion, otherwise it might lead to absurd results. For instance, let us say Cross informed PC Mizen that there was a woman lying down, probably dead, with deep gashes to her throat and abdomen. Moreover, he saw a man looming over the body with what appeared to be a bloody knife, but he ran off as he approached.

PC Mizen could simply say that he didn't take particulars on the ground that, officially, it wasn't yet a "criminal case!"

There's no record of PC Mizen being investigated, or punished, on the basis that his testimony was contradicted at the inquest. However, I would expect that by then his superiors were happy to simply draw a line under the whole affair.

[Elamarna]

In which case, Jon, if you want to take that approach, you are still wrong because the only incident which had occurred was two men coming up to speak to him. It was, at that time, neither a criminal case nor a case of accident so on a literal interpretation of the rules there was nothing for him to record. .

Agree David, its not that he did anything wrong from a procedural point of w, he almost certainly did not!
It's how it could have been portrayed by the press and perceived by the public if other questions had been of Mizen at the inquest.

Steve

[David Orsam]

But does the Code actually say he needs to be informed that a crime or accident had taken place? And if it doesn't then you would have to read those words into the Code, which wouldn't result in a literal interpretation. Therefore my reading of the Code, based upon a literal interpretation, is that he would technically be guilty of misconduct if it's subsequently determined that a crime or accident had taken place.

In which case, Jon, if you want to take that approach, you are still wrong because the only incident which had occurred was two men coming up to speak to him. It was, at that time, neither a criminal case nor a case of accident so on a literal interpretation of the rules there was nothing for him to record.

Of course, it could be argued that on any sensible construction he would have been allowed a certain degree of discretion. However, the question that then arises is: did he correctly exercise his discretion in this case?

There is no record of him being punished in Police Orders so the answer must be: yes.

[Elamarna]

Thanks Steve. I should have noticed that. I feel a bit silly now!

Of course, on the basis of the Lloyds article he should have taken particulars on the basis he'd been told someone had possibly been murdered.

It also explains why he would feel the need to refute claims he failed to respond promptly. However, the issue is why not say he responded on the basis of being informed about an extremely serious incident, which would be close to the truth, rather than on the basis of being wanted by another officer, which probably wasn't and was virtually certain to be challenged at the inquest?

By saying hewas requested by another officer, particularily after the lloyds statement he directs the question to:

"Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?"

Which can be put down to a misunderstanding., rather that than have other questions asked which could be potentially very damaging from a public perspective.

And it appears it was put down to a misunderstanding, as Paul appears not to have been questioned on the issue on 17th September.


Steve

[John G]

As Steve has mentioned, based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was perfectly correct not to take details as he had not been informed that either a crime or an accident had occurred.

I don't know how else you read rules and regulations other than literally.

But does the Code actually say he needs to be informed that a crime or accident had taken place? And if it doesn't then you would have to read those words into the Code, which wouldn't result in a literal interpretation. Therefore my reading of the Code, based upon a literal interpretation, is that he would technically be guilty of misconduct if it's subsequently determined that a crime or accident had taken place.

Of course, it could be argued that on any sensible construction he would have been allowed a certain degree of discretion. However, the question that then arises is: did he correctly exercise his discretion in this case?

[David Orsam]

And, of course, I was wrong in my earlier post: based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was negligent in failing to take particulars as a crime had, indeed, taken place.

As Steve has mentioned, based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was perfectly correct not to take details as he had not been informed that either a crime or an accident had occurred.

I don't know how else you read rules and regulations other than literally.

[John G]

Project part 2, my post 3, but actual thread post #8

reports 1 & 2

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=424834&postcount=8

Steve

Thanks Steve. I should have noticed that. I feel a bit silly now!

Of course, on the basis of the Lloyds article he should have taken particulars on the basis he'd been told someone had possibly been murdered.

It also explains why he would feel the need to refute claims he failed to respond promptly. However, the issue is why not say he responded on the basis of being informed about an extremely serious incident, which would be close to the truth, rather than on the basis of being wanted by another officer, which probably wasn't and was virtually certain to be challenged at the inquest?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Sorry for being a bit lazy, but could I trouble you for the Lloyds article reference?

Project part 2, my post 3, but actual thread post #8

reports 1 & 2

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=424834&postcount=8

Steve

[John G]

Hi Joshua,

fair question.
I think that is down to how we view the two incidents, its interpretation is it not?
I do not consider Long did that much wrong, however my take on Mizen is that he did far more which could be portrayed as being wrong.
The Lloyds article sets the tone, be it right or wrong, for this purpose it reliability is not important, it was highly critical of the police, particularly Mizen, suggesting incompetence and more.
If this was then viewed as being supported by Mizen's actions, following the meeting with the Carmen, we have an increasingly hostile climate, specifically relating to one police officer.

And just let me add, I think Mizen was not a bad man, just think he made an error of judgement.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Sorry for being a bit lazy, but could I trouble you for the Lloyds article reference?

[John G]

It makes you wonder what would have happened if Cross or Paul had failed to turn up at the inquest, and it was subsequently revealed that PC Mizen had exercised his discretion in favour of not taking particulars. Oh dear...

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
What makes you think the press would have attacked Mizen? PC Long's failure to follow up properly on the apron piece was arguably far more serious, yet aside from the direct inquest coverage he doesn't seem to have attracted the ire of the press or public, nor was he reprimanded, as far as we know.

Hi Joshua,

fair question.
I think that is down to how we view the two incidents, its interpretation is it not?
I do not consider Long did that much wrong, however my take on Mizen is that he did far more which could be portrayed as being wrong.
The Lloyds article sets the tone, be it right or wrong, for this purpose it reliability is not important, it was highly critical of the police, particularly Mizen, suggesting incompetence and more.
If this was then viewed as being supported by Mizen's actions, following the meeting with the Carmen, we have an increasingly hostile climate, specifically relating to one police officer.

And just let me add, I think Mizen was not a bad man, just think he made an error of judgement.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.

Hi Steve,
What makes you think the press would have attacked Mizen? PC Long's failure to follow up properly on the apron piece was arguably far more serious, yet aside from the direct inquest coverage he doesn't seem to have attracted the ire of the press or public, nor was he reprimanded, as far as we know.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yes, I'm sure you're right. And, of course, I was wrong in my earlier post: based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was negligent in failing to take particulars as a crime had taken place.

Yes Hindsight was the cause of much of the issue with Mizen, when the Carmen approached he could not know a crime had been committed, but it would have been useful to take details just in case.


Steve

[John G]

John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, I'm sure you're right. And, of course, I was wrong in my earlier post: based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was negligent in failing to take particulars as a crime had, indeed, taken place.

[Elamarna]

Yes, and on further reflection I think David's interpretation of The Code may be too literal, with all due respect to him.

Thus, The Police Code stated that an officer would face misconduct charges for "neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident."

Now, of course, PC Mizen didn't know that the incident constituted a criminal case or an accident, but surely a purposive interpretation of the Code is required. Otherwise, it would be rendered almost meaningless, as an officer could always say they couldn't know if this was an incident that required them to take particulars. In other words, they must have been expected to exercise a certain amount of discretion in these circumstances.

John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.


Steve