Leaving one's beat

[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?

[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]

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?

[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]

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?

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[David Orsam]

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.

Come on John, give this up. If you are speaking now of a "sensible construction" of the Police Code then the officer MUST know that there has been a crime or an accident right?

I mean, it's not the Police Code for Psychic Police Officers is it?

It's obviously a criminal case or a case of accident when the officer knows, or is informed, that a crime or accident has occurred.

[David Orsam]

There's no record of PC Mizen being investigated, or punished, on the basis that his testimony was contradicted at the inquest.

It's got nothing to do with his testimony at the inquest. His superiors would, obviously, have known that he hadn't taken the names or addresses of the two men.

If they had thought that he hadn't used his discretion properly (which was the point you were making) they would no doubt have disciplined him for neglect of duty. But they didn't, which allows us to confirm that, if it was an issue of discretion (which, of course, I don't agree that it was), he used it correctly.

[John G]

Come on John, give this up. If you are speaking now of a "sensible construction" of the Police Code then the officer MUST know that there has been a crime or an accident right?

I mean, it's not the Police Code for Psychic Police Officers is it?

It's obviously a criminal case or a case of accident when the officer knows, or is informed, that a crime or accident has occurred.

Hello David,

How is it obviously a "criminal case" simply because an officer has been informed by a total stranger/ member of the public that a crime has been committed?

[John G]

It's got nothing to do with his testimony at the inquest. His superiors would, obviously, have known that he hadn't taken the names or addresses of the two men.

If they had thought that he hadn't used his discretion properly (which was the point you were making) they would no doubt have disciplined him for neglect of duty. But they didn't, which allows us to confirm that, if it was an issue of discretion (which, of course, I don't agree that it was), he used it correctly.

But PC Mizen disputed that he was told a woman was lying down, possibly dead, which could conceivably suggest a crime had taken place. Instead, he claimed that he was told he was wanted by another officer.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

How is it obviously a "criminal case" simply because an officer has been informed by a total stranger/ member of the public that a crime has been committed?

Do I really need to answer that?

[David Orsam]

But PC Mizen disputed that he was told a woman was lying down, possibly dead, which could conceivably suggest a crime had taken place. Instead, he claimed that he was told he was wanted by another officer.

He didn't dispute anything.

Anyway this argument is quite mad. If he has discretion then he has discretion. You can't get in trouble for using discretion if you have it!