The news has been released that Mark Andrews was not guilty of assult against Pamela Somerville. He was initially jailed for 6 months but released after 6 days and placed on bail as he lodged an appeal.

Everywhere but Inspecter Gadget are stating that the police have become a law unto themselves, that justice has failed, that the police only look after themselves, that they don’t serve the public anymore, etc.

First some facts (as I understand them). Pamela Somerville was arrested for failing to give a breath test after having been found sleeping in her car early one morning. She was taken to the police cells but proved to be a very hard to handle case. She tried getting out of her cell and was placed back in the cell by Mark Andrews. A fellow officer, Rachel Webb, reported him for the way he handled Pamela whilst she was in the police cells. Sgt Mark Andrews was then arrested and the news broke when Pamela Somerville’s injuries were shown. He went before Peter Greenfield in a magistrates court, so no jury. Greenfield was not convinced by the story from two police witnesses and jailed Mark Andrews for 6 months. An appeal was lodged immediately and he was let out after 6 days. Ever since he was arrested he has been suspended from duty on full pay.

Now for one controversial viewpoint about the case.

I believe the courts. I accept that Mark Andrews has been found not guilty – so he is not guilty.

But I also believe that Mark Andrews did cause Pamela Somerville’s injuries. But how can he be the cause of the injuries but not guilty of the crime of assult. Simply because the crime requires intent, but in fact he was put into an awkward situation due to failings in the police station itself.

Normally when there is an awkward prisoner who is not being cooperative there are a lot of police to subdue the prisoner. They also follow procedures to minimise injuring the prisoner. Mark Andrews was basically on his own so he was forced to use excessive force to subdue Pamela Somerville who was being abusive and non-cooperative. He shouldn’t have thrown Pamela into the cell, he shouldn’t have dragged her along the floor to the cell. But he pretty much had no choice. The fact that other police officers were in the custody suite when Mark Andrew dragged Pamela to the cells and didn’t help is something that the police should be looking into.

But should he be punished by being thrown in jail for trying to cope in an impossible situation? Should he be punished by the police and lose his job due to failings in the police force itself?

I think Mark should be punished because he did cause serious injuries to Pamela. But I don’t think he should lose his job just for this case. There have been allegations of a previous occasion where Mark Andrews has had complaints against him, but that wasn’t proved.

Donald Saunders
December 3, 2010 at 18:05

I think that the police and 2nd judge are closing rank. Did the 2nd judge
know that spec-saver are doing two for the price of one. I would like to know
when his hearing is coming up. I believe that he should be kick out of the
force, pension remove and all other benefits as well. As a tax and rate payer
for Wiltshire I believe that I employ him like the rest of Wiltshire resident.
As Sir Alan Sugar say your fire. (Dismiss him )

Donald Saunders
December 3, 2010 at 17:49

Sgt Mark Andrews shouldn’t be allow to wear the unifrom. When I think that
the 1st judge got it right. He should be doing his time in a cell. If I did
that in my job, I would of lost my job and throw in jail.
As a Tax payer
and rate payer in Wiltshire this is not the behaviour I expect from my local
police force, God help me if I had a hard day night with my grandchildren that
I choose to pull over in a layby to take a cap-nap.

Brian November 20, 2010 at 17:01

This is the CPS Guidance on offences against the person.
I have
one question. Did Sergeant Andrews request the assistance of his several
colleagues, some in hi-vis, some in shirtsleeves, that are clearly seen on the
cctv? If an appeal to reason proves unsuccessful then the argument of
irresistable force will prevail. Superiority of numbers is safer for all
concerned. The officer in charge’s job is to get the job done, which is not
the same as doing it himself, whatever the perceived inadequacies of staff
.
From my limited experience as a junior civil service manager, failure to
make efficient use of the resources available and protocols when working
leaves one out on a very narrow limb should anything go awry. “I thought I
could handle it myself” is just what buck-passing senior managers want to hear
when “lessons are learnt” aka the scapegoat hunt.

zaphod November 20, 2010 at 09:58

We don’t know all the facts, I admit.

But whether or not he was guilty as charged, the man is clearly not of
sufficient character to be given the power of a police officer.

Don’t you think my restraint is admirable? I find it extremely hard to
imagine any way that what we have seen could be justified.

Are any other police officers ashamed of what he’s done? I hope so.

JuliaM November
20, 2010 at 07:39

I wouldn’t pay much attention to 1970scomic, folks. He’s been drunkenly
trolling all the blogs who are posting on this topic.

If he’s trying to salvage the reputation of the police, he’s going about it
in quite the wrong way.

“The hysterical tarts who inhabit blogland wouldn’t know police
brutality if it smacked them in the gob.”

I haven’t seen a great deal of hysteria in ‘blogland’. I’ve seen a lot more
reasoned analysis and impassioned but factually-correct discussion than you’d
get in, say, the comments section of the ‘Daily Wail’ or the ‘Guardian’.

We – most of us anyway – probably watch all the ‘Police! Camera! Action!’
type fly-on-the-wall documentaries, we KNOW what a pain in the proverbial
drunk and abusive youths can be. We all think ‘God, I’d smack the little s**t
in the mouth if he said that to me’. Or maybe that’s just me.

But that why we aren’t policemen or policewomen. Because they are
supposed to be trained not to let that affect their capacity to do the
job.

Yes, they are only human, and yes, everyone has a breaking point. That’s
why they should work as a TEAM. Gilda is right. What did the others do to
prevent this?

Nothing.

electro-kevin
November 20, 2010 at 09:42

Have you been over to Old Holborn ?

They’ve even given John Hurst a warm welcome – siding with him against
the police. (John Hurst won over the ECHR on prisoner’s voting rights. He
spent 15 years in prison for bludgeoning an old lady to death – extended to
25, a rare thing indeed nowadays.)

I hope I’ve offered some cogent reasoning on the matter – from a rather
different perspective to the mainstream, it would seem.

Disenfranchised of Buckingham November 20, 2010 at 12:36

I reckon cosmic idiot is the nom de plume of Mark Andrews.

It shows all the subtlety I would expect from him.

JuliaM November 21, 2010 at 07:16

“Have you been over to Old Holborn ?”

Yes, but I tend to steer well away from the comments, and mostly now
read the posts only…

Tom November 20, 2010 at 01:35

Let’s be clear about this, the case took *two years* to make it to a
magistrate’s court 60 miles and effectively two counties away from the
incident – that, on its own is let’s say – unusual. It wasn’t a lay bench – it
was presided over by a District Judge. They saw /all/ the video, sound and
all. They didn’t believe the evidence offered by two officers in Mark Steven’s
defence.

After conviction, we locals were then informed that the case had a
technical hitch and that there would be a RETRIAL at Crown Court (associated
with a jury in most folks minds) Then, we are informed when the conviction is
quashed that it was an APPEAL hearing and NO JURY AS REQUIRED……

The pong from the way this matter has been handled is going to stick in
peoples nostrils down here for some considerable time.

The questions about why the other officers didn’t assist and why he didn’t
use the approved techniques for manhandling awkward sods are there…

Drunken women can be obnoxious and violent – although down here they are
mostly in their late teens and early twenties – fitter than grandma in this
case – the local plods have plenty of experience in dealing with them.

There’s more to this for sure – the WPC is likely to be on the receiving
end of some real crap and I’d watch her closely, she’s the pivot in all this.
She could’ve kept it all internal / plod confidential, but chose not to –
why?

There is some information here (until they wipe the comments – not unknown
in this miserable rag):
http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/inyourtown/melkshamnews/8675062.Wiltshire_police_sergeant_wins_appeal_against_assault_conviction/

electro-kevin
November 20, 2010 at 01:21

Actually the legal definition for ABH/GBH is clear in that it is not
necessary to prove intent in order to secure a conviction. The law states that
the prosecution need only prove recklessness to win the case.

The appeal was won on the defence that the lady had gripped the door frame
and ‘popped like a cork’ into the cell – this removed culpability from the
sergeant and placed much of the onus on her for resisting him in the lawful
execution of his duties.

As it happens I the cop was wrong but I don’t think he deserved to lose his
job over a momentary lapse. It was not a gratuitous beating by any
means.
And the hysteria from many about us being an East German type state.
My goodness:

– there were cameras fitted to keep check on the police
– a doctor was
called at the first sign of blood
– a police officer at the scene reported
the sergeant
– the first court hearing convicted him
– a Chief Constable
denounced him publicly
– the sergeant still faces internal
disciplinary/demotion

Does this resemble anything like the Stasi state as has been described on
other sites ? Does it ?

I wish people would moderate their imaginations a bit. The hysterical tarts
who inhabit blogland wouldn’t know police brutality if it smacked them in the
gob.

Tom November 20, 2010 at 01:56

A Chief Constable denounced him? weren’t Wiltshire mate, they only
fielded an ACC to speak on the matter…

The cameras, real reality TV eh?, why have they only chosen to make
available an edited version?

Down here we had another miserable lapse from our plods when they
released a man who’d threatened to kill and thrown his 6 month pregnant
girlfriend down a flight of stairs (to hospital) was wrongly released from
custody because they “didn’t have a Portuguese interpreter” (he spoke
serviceable idiomatic Ingrish), missed re-arresting him in a Keystone Kops
episode and he found the girl and cut her throat – the case exposed much
epic systematic incompetence.

However, “lessons were learnt” and an incredibly drawn out enquiry found
no blame – the force’s wriggling and transparent conniving to drag out the
investigation left many angry locals. A grudging apology was eventually
proffered.

electro-kevin
November 20, 2010 at 09:33

I suspect that the edited version was issued at the behest of the
lady’s solicitors and not the police.

The systematic incompetence you explain here is of concern to all of us
– but again, it is the very opposite of East German style policing.

Tom November 20, 2010 at 21:16

Aye, fair comment.
I wouldn’t personally use the Stasi tag anyway
in this case.

I think what is concerning about this are:

The institutional obstructiveness (delay=2 years).

Concerted cynical information management. Have a look at the
Wiltshire Times – prior to the appearance before Mr Bean, they clearly
state retrial, not appeal – these are two different beasts are they
not?

Stretching of a point of law beyond what I imagine a Joe Public could
expect. Not having access to case databases doesn’t help but I wonder
how many times this “defence” has freed a defendant recently?

Ineptness and chaos in the custody suite. Why no blood test?

I do wonder why the WPC insisted on the formal charge route – as I’ve
said before, it’s almost as dangerous a decision career wise as lamping
a pissed and gobby harridan.

German police, hmmm – you don’t meddle with those chaps – not at all-
you’ll get your ass kicked.
http://www.bundespolizei.de/

Smoking
Hot November 20, 2010 at 01:19

Maybe Andrews will walk into a door frame or something akin in the near
future

allcoppedout
November 20, 2010 at 01:15

Our police are clearly not accountable as they should be Anna – yet I
wonder who is. In the Nico Bento case, our system convicted Nico of murder
when there was no evidence of murder, using bent forensics. None of the system
people seem to have been made accountable, other than the mad forensic guy
from the States, who committed suicide. Our system is deeply flawed and very
expensive.
This cop was convicted on police evidence, then ‘unconvicted’
higher up the system, as many people probably would be if they could get the
legal help needed. I’d guess most people going through our system as
defendants are guilty and more of them would get off if they got real legal
help.

1990sscomicwithamortgage November 20, 2010 at 01:02

for the love of odin, quite clealry the shelves have been empitied of
mateus rose’ tonight.

Have another go , write summat interesting.

The problem of trying to sound erudite and *fresh* on a side stream blog is
that ..you don’t.

Disenfranchised of
Buckingham November 19, 2010 at 23:56

The comic twins have obviously had a bad day. Clearly not found anyone to
do over.

But he/they, like most cops, are talking crap. Many years ago the power to
charge was removed from the filth because they were, and still are,
incompetent and don’t have an f’ing clue about the law. A current example if
this is the way the rossers persecute photographers despite it being entirely
legal to photograph a pig doing over a member of the public.

Get the bastards out of their cars and out on the streets without their
armour and they are just a bunch of cowardly cretins.

ACAB

1980sscomic November 19, 2010 at 23:25

Will , do you have a second class degree ?

will November 20, 2010 at 01:25

Do you have any reasoned arguments to support your position or challenge
anything I’ve said?

1990sscomicwithamortgage November 21, 2010 at 10:10

no , because you ain’t got one

1970scomic November 19, 2010 at 22:42

with humos like that you could work nights , can’t stand freekin borin
numpties, new graduate proby anyone ?

will November 19, 2010 at 22:58

a bully defending a bully. well done big man. drunk in charge of a
keyboard? back to the 70′s please.

Gildas the Monk
November 19, 2010 at 22:10

Thank you for your kind words, my son. I too, wish you many blessings.
Sadly, I am not sure what “hacknyed” means. Perhaps because of my poor English
(and my poor spelling is notorious). Perhaps because here in my car, wearing
my dress and sipping Jack Daniels, I am indeed a little sleepy.
Or perhaps
not.
Your humble scribe
G
PS “no” should be “know”.

1970scomic November 19, 2010 at 22:02

Gildas , yes , probably , you write like a pissed up girl sleeping in a
car

Do you realise how hackyned you write?

Go on, entertain us with another one.

1970scomic November 19, 2010 at 21:59

lneko , speeding is an absolute offence and requires no mens rea, read all
the f***c*ing book will you ,otherwise go and bore the other end of the bar,
oh you already have , which why you are down this end.

You’ll be logging on to the Truth seeker site next and watching those
towers get exploded by Bush

Shit , now we no who fills up the Dail Mail commnents with brain dead
commintariat.

Eleanor November 20, 2010 at 06:15

Are you a Policeman? I hope not. But I’ve got an horrible suspicion that
you might be.

lenko November 19, 2010 at 21:53

… “the crime requires intent”… otherwise known as the mens rea, the guilty
mind.

What does this mean? That you can get off by pleading “Please sir, I didn’t
mean to do it.”? I didn’t mean to speed at over 100 mph… I didn’t mean to
cause bodily harm…

It’s not very often this legal exit is available to us poor sods who don’t
happen to be policemen.

1970scomic November 19, 2010 at 21:42

er, sleeping in a car isn’t an offence, but being in CHARGE (had the keys)
whilst unfit through drink or drugs IS ! which this lush was.

The law is framed to prevent pissed up patrons sleeping a bit in their cars
then driving whilst unfit, which she was.

She refused a roadside breath test, when clearly reeking of alcohol, then
refused a police station breath test , she behaved and acted pissed up at the
station.

There are NO new facts ,a gizzilion cats or not, the facts were aired at
court ,not chaneled through a come day go day busyblog.

Grow up and accept that pissed up people need to be responsible for
themselves, andbe ashamed of their actions.

PS Andrews did not , repeat not assualt her, end of.

Gildas the Monk
November 19, 2010 at 21:55

This is an interesting post. The view that he did not, repeat did not.
assault her is based on – what? Mr Justice Bean held that he did not, as a
matter of fact and law, assault her with in the meaning of the appropriate
offence.
A bench of lay magistrates had decided that he did, as a matter
of fact and law, do so.
So one may imagine that there is at least room
for argument.
I prefer the view of the magistrates.
I happen to know
this particular Judge.
I would not place my trust in his judgment.
It
is not end of, at all. I can look, think, and form my own view. Which is,
that although being a policeman can be a rough tough job, that is just a
jumped up bully high on caffeine and boredom, who wouldn’t do the same to me
out of uniform, I think
End of?
Gildas the Monk

will November 19, 2010 at 22:48

was she convicted of ANY offence? no it didnt even get that far because
the police dropped their charges – what does that suggest about the strength
of those charges? no court heard evidence that she was “a lush,” “pissed up”
or unfit to drive because Pamela Somerville never stood trial. she was not
tried or convicted of anything. even if she had been Mark Andrews was still
unjustified in his violence if you see that as just punishment because he
meted it out before any legal process and our legal process does not include
corporal punishment.
any “facts,” “aired at court” were regarding the
assault charges against Mark Andrews. you seem to be implying that the
(dropped) charges against Pamela Somerville are in some way a justification
for the actions of Mark Andrews. your whole comment focuses on unproven
accusations against the victim whilst conveniently ignoring the video
evidence the whole country has seen that got Mark Andrews convicted of
assault the first time.
so just to repeat again – Pamela Somerville was
not tried or convicted of any wrong doing and there never was any legal
evidence of such no matter what prejudices you want to project onto the
case. whereas Mark Andrews was tried and convicted of assault with
eyewitness and video evidence.
im no fan of drunk drivers but im not such
a raging zealot that im willing to sidestep the whole legal process and dish
out summary ‘justice’ based on my prejudices.
Andrews’ actions are
unjustifiable whether Somerville was guilty or not.
this idea that some
people are undeserving of civil liberties is dangerous – it starts with
criminals, minorities, then spreads to smokers, drinkers, the obese. now
some of us accept the idea that an individual merely suspected of wrong
doing loses their rights. opens the door to suspect anyone of anything you
like and then take em back down the nick for a kicking. who’s next? i hope
youre never suspected of any wrong doing matey.

Delphius1 November
19, 2010 at 21:36

Remove Mark Andrews uniform and place him in another building. If, for
instance he was (say) a security guard at a shopping centre (not that far a
step away from a Policeman). Would he be let off such a vicious assault? I
doubt it. Take away the uniform completely and say he was a publican ejecting
a drunk woman from a pub. Would he be on the right side of the law if he used
such force? I would hope not.
The fact is, Mark Andrews is seen to use
force against the woman which in all other scenarios would be classed as
assault.
Are we really saying there are a set of standards that we the
public have to live by and a set of lower standards especially reserved for
the Police?
I hope not.

will November 19, 2010 at 20:23

the following may seem pedantic but i would argue this distinction is of
the utmost importance.
this article refers to “prisoners.” Pamela
Somerville was not a “prisoner.” she was not in prison. she had not been
convicted of anything. at the moment that she was thrown into a concrete box
she supposedly had exactly the same legally protected rights as anyone outside
of that police station. a “prisoner” is a proven criminal who is subject to
punitive action. by thinking of an individual as a “prisoner” the whole legal
process is mentally bypassed. in one tiny linguistic step an individual goes
from a member of the public, innocent until proven guilty to a “prisoner” to
be punished.
i would argue that this man illustrates how systems based on
violence attract violent individuals. Mark Andrews chose to join the army and
then he chose to join the police. he didnt become a nurse, a firefighter, or
join a lifeboat crew.
the statist monopoly legal system and police force
are maintained by threat of violence. until we realise the infinite
preferability of a polycentric legal system and competing private security
providers we will continue to see symptoms of the violence at the heart of the
system.
the most worrying thing is that he consciously chose to behave like
this in the full knowledge that there were cameras recording his actions. im
sure he was surprised when ‘one of his own’ shopped him.

Disenfranchised of
Buckingham November 19, 2010 at 18:57

But why was she arrested in the first place? Since when has it been a crime
to sleep in a car?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7983665/Since-when-was-it-a-crime-to-sleep-in-a-car.html

Next time I’m falling asleep on the M25 with the nearest services over 10
miles away, am I committing an offence by pulling off the M25 and kipping for
half an hour?

As far as I can see the poor lady shouldn’t have been in the police station
in the first place.

One wonders if the man she had a row with was a copper and had a word.

SadButMadLad November 19, 2010 at 21:56

It’s not a crime, but she was arrested because she refused to give a
breath test. The police had reasonable suspicion that she might have been
drinking and driving. The refusal in giving a breath test forced them to
arrest her. If there had been no violence she would have been released after
a few hours.

You’re right about the row as a possible reason for being spotted in the
first place. I suspect they would have had to have some reason to check her
out other than being a lone woman parked on the side of the road. The
circumstances of the arrest are also a bit hazy.

Their attitude over how they handled her is just not right. As in the
case of the four police officers with James Gresty in the article you linked
to.

As someone mentioned on the IG blog. The police force are recruiting the
wrong type of people. They are recruiting bullies. A bullies only do
violence when they have the upper hand. So violence and force against 84
year old men or 59 year old women is ok. But with yobs who can fight back
they will hide round the corner.

Disenfranchised of
Buckingham November 20, 2010 at
00:10

I don’t know the details of the case. But given the lady was asleep how
can there have been reasonable suspicion that she was drunk? And if there
was reasonable evidence why wasn’t she charged for refusing breath/blood
tests? Random breath testing is not allowed, due reason is required.

More to the point her injuries occurred while in the care of the
police. If Andrews was not responsible for the injuries as a bully, then
either he, or another copper, as the responsible officer is guilty,
morally if not in law, of failing to ensure her safety.

I am sure I would end up in court if a member of staff or public
incurred such injuries in my business premises due to neglect on my
part.

Andrew P Withers
November 19, 2010 at 17:36

Sorry a 6ft plus policeman, ex forces is unable to subdue a ‘drunk’ woman
without pounding her face onto the floor should not be on the ‘force’.

Think about the WPC who reported him quite properly, her chances of staying
in the police now tenuous. Two victims of Andrews.

I concur with Gildas

SadButMadLad November 19, 2010 at 21:39

Totally agree that he shouldn’t be a policeman. Sounds like he has the
wrong attitude. But I think his situation is only the tip of the iceberg.
Why did no one help him. Why did no one stop him. Why was it left to Rachel
Webb to report her concerns.

As to Rachel Webb staying in the force. Yes, probably unemployable now
because no other police officer will work with her. But that just shows that
the attitude of the police not about serving the public but looking after
themselves.

There is always more than meets the eye.

JuliaM November
19, 2010 at 17:01

Lynne at ‘Counting Cats’ notices some interesting things about the
video. Questions unlikely to be answered until we see the full video that the
police blogs insist the judges saw…

Smoking
Hot November 19, 2010 at 16:36

Damn … put Anna instead of SadButMadLad … rats!

Smoking
Hot November 19, 2010 at 16:35

Sorry Anna, but l worked the doors for quite a few years and never had
cause to do that to a 59yr old female. lf l had l would have been arrested and
charged with ABH at least by these very same police officers that you are
‘defending’. He’s also supposed to be trained but what he did had nothing to
do with any training l know of.

l had little respect for the police in my area due to them never turning up
if there was trouble in the club. I know of 3 occassions were they were called
and each time they held back until it was over. One time they were hiding
round the corner.

l think Katabasis has had similar experiences.

Gildas the Monk
November 19, 2010 at 16:22

It’s a troubling case. I learned long ago that the reports of a case in the
press often bear no relationship to the facts of a case when you sit and
listen to the actual case. But it looks to me like he is a bully and a
thug.

Anna
Raccoon November 19, 2010 at
16:29

If anybody can come up with a link to the full case report I would be
grateful.

Like gildas has said, I am unwilling to comment until I see what the
judge actually said, rather than the knee jerk reaction of the press.

Bailli reference anyone??????

Gildas the
Monk November 19, 2010 at 17:52

I doubt you’ll get a proper report. If it was Crown Court then I am not
sure that they are published in that way. I shall dig, but not
optimistic