Recently I’ve heard two stories of unexpected and dramatic visits from police,  entirely separate from the admirably rapid follow-ups to alleged offences based during the recent mayhem on our streets.

A Welfare Check is when the police act on a report of someone being unwell or unsafe in any way. And the attitude adopted on arrival can vary widely.

I picked up the term from a Landlord Forum where police have been known to knock down doors to check on problems, and sometimes make mistakes.

The Bad Welfare Check

The first is this, picked up via a Guest Post by Solicitor  Iain Gould at the blog (OK – blawg in law blogger private argot) of CharonQC. Iain Gould is a solicitor who specialises in actions for complainants against the police.

‘Mrs M’ had made a comment in passing on the phone to Trading Standards that they had interpreted as a threat of suicide. Trading Standards felt obliged to call the police, who turned up at Mrs M’s house and eventually arrested her for Breach of the Peace. The police have admitted liability for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. This extract is Iain Gould’s account of what happened after Ms M came off the phone.

Ms M got herself ready to go shopping and, as she was about to leave home, heard a female voice call out her name from the hall. Surprised, Ms M went to the hallway to find 3 police officers standing on her new beige carpets with their boots on. When she asked what the police were doing in her home, they told her that Trading Standards had called them saying that Ms M had threatened to kill herself.

Ms M was shocked that her off- the- cuff remark had been taken so seriously and told the police that she had no such intention, that it was said at an unguarded moment, and at a time of great stress. She politely asked the officers to leave.

Ignoring her, the police officers started asking questions, rifling through her personal possessions and searching her home generally without explanation or cause.

Ms M refused to assist them with this unwarranted invasion of her privacy and was told, “we can do this the easy way or the hard way. You either comply with us and answer questions or we’re taking you in”.

Ms M refused to be intimidated by such threats and was then told that she was under arrest for breach of the peace.

Ms M, a slight figured, middle-aged, disabled woman, was forcibly handcuffed and escorted from her home by the officers in full view of her neighbours, at least 10 of whom had come outside to see what was happening.

She was taken to the local police station and detained for 9 hours during which time the police arranged for her to be examined by a nurse and then a doctor before releasing Ms M without charge in the early hours of the morning.

Charon QC has the full account, which I recommend.

The Good Welfare Check

My second account is an acquaintance who lives in a village in the Midlands.

After an early night and several hours sleep, the acquaintance was awoken by “a loud knocking and banging on my front door.” He made his way downstairs and saw a face looking through the glass panel in my inner porch door. On opening the door, he was faced by two policemen complete with protective shield and firearm.

The explanation “We have had a report of someone shooting themself here”.

The police checked the house – finding nothing. And apologised, realising that there was no problem beyond armed police in the house. And off they went to try to find where they were supposed to be.

Reflections

So what are the questions here?

I don’t mind “Welfare Checks”, occasionally nosy neighbours, curtain-twitchers and dog-walkers looking over the fence. That is part of living in a community.

It has an upside as well as a downside, and as someone with a chronic illness (Diabetes Type I) that can put me in a coma if I manage it wrongly one day my life might be saved by one of them one day.

I’d identify a problem with over-zealousness by police – whether it is the Case of the Too Tall Terrorist, the Comedian Loitering without Intent, or overreaction in ‘child in danger’ cases.

These are my first reflections.

a) Police seem to be a bit keen and quick in breaking down doors, rather than giving people a real chance to answer.

b) The range of discretion available has perhaps been reduced because there is now a greater (perceived to be greater?) risk of legal action when somebody when the police could have intervened but chose not to do so.

c) Intermediaries – such as Trading Standards in the case above, also don’t like taking responsibility for inaction.

d) How far should police intervention be pushed, and what notice should be paid to the person on the receiving end of the Welfare Check?

Your thoughts?

SadButMadLad
September 8, 2011 at 15:04

IMV, there are many factors that have led to this state of affairs. One is
the centralisation of police call centers means that there is no local
knowledge in the police force anymore. A local bobby who knows the locality
might possibly know something about the situation, enough to know whether
breaking the door or knocking is the action to take.

Psychonaut99
September 6, 2011 at 10:47

Over the years, I’ve met lots of police officers, from many different
forces, and one thing about them is there’s no such thing as “the police,” in
the same way as there’s no such thing as “the Left” or “the Right” or “the
Muslim community” or whatever. There are police officers. Some are clever,
some are not. Some are honest, some are not. Some have an unhealthy fondness
for physical violence, some do not. In essence, they are much like people, on
account them, well, being people. Example (1) strikes me as being a case of a
person encountering Police Officers Who Are Dicks and example (2) involved
Police Officers Who Are Nice.

I agree that Welfare Checks are a minefield for the cops, but in terms of
the Damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don’t thing, my bet would be that Police
Officers Who Are Dicks get damned rather more than Police Officers Who Are
Nice.

Tattyfalarr
September 6, 2011 at 15:38

“my bet would be that Police Officers Who Are Dicks get damned rather
more than Police Officers Who Are Nice.”

As Fun Boy 3 & Bananarama once said/sang “It ain’t what you do it’s
the way that you do it.”

John B September 6, 2011 at 10:33

A friend who ought to know said the police have to pay for all the doors
they render obsolete. Is that correct?
Before returning to common sense may
I suggest that CCTV be installed in every home in the UK (I’m sure iDave would
like that) then the police wouldn’t have to bash anything
down.
However.
Sanity would suggest this is all dealing with a situation
that has been manufactured, and the real solution is to return responsibility
for a person’s own life, to the individual.
Until the state, whatever,
authorities, can get away from telling people how they must run their lives
(which they do as a control mechanism) and rather allow small government, non
interventionist, individual freedom and responsibility to take hold again,
such problems will only get worse.
Yesterday the riots.
Tomorrow ?

Matt
Wardman September 6, 2011 at
17:29

That can be complicated
, John, depending on circumstances and I’ll need to comment more widely.

In the case of a straightforward Check, I’ll leave that for someone with
direct experience as I’m not sure.

If it is the wrong door (eg next door), then they should pay.

If it is in pursuit of a crime, then it depends on whether a crime was
found.

But there is also space for local policy.

If you follow my link to the Landlord Zone thread, there’s a range of
experience there – but not just Welfare Checks – including where doors were
paid for, and where not.

Matt
Wardman September 6, 2011 at 10:27

Thanks for all the comments. I’ll be along to reply to detailed points a
bit later, as I’m not around this morning.

JuliaM September
6, 2011 at 08:34

Gail Porter’s experiences with the mental health system – as detailed in
the Metro today – show just the same sort of overreaction as that of the
police in the first story.

I really don’t know what the answer is. I do know – as per Ancient and
Tattered Airman’s comment – what the likely ‘answer’ from our political
servants will be.

john malpas September 6, 2011 at 02:00

Do the police do this door breaking fo all the many , many people who just
die in their sleep ( yes it happens) ?

P T Barnum September 6, 2011 at 01:34

About eight years ago I called the police because I was part concerned,
part annoyed that my upstairs neighbour, a none too stable chap, had been
playing loudish music day and night for 4 days and wouldn’t come to the door.
The police came, considered the situation, shouted through the letter box and
broke the door down (with difficulty, since there were 8 separate locks on the
door). No one was home. The neighbour came home, having been away for the
whole 4 days, later that day to find his door secured by boards and a note
from the police. He never said a word to anyone about it and I was too
embarrassed to say I’d called them. But the more I’d thought about it, the
more easily I could see him lying dead or dying. But I was impressed by the
sang froid of the police, given what they might be walking into, and they did
seem to enjoy using the battering ram thingy.

Tattyfalarr September 5, 2011 at 23:24

I was subject to a Welfare Check and fairly happy to be so after my then
four year old dialled 999 messing about with the house phone at 6am. When
asked to go and get mummy she told the operator “She’s asleep and I can’t wake
her up.”

Cue me waking up in bleary-eyed confusion to very loud hammering on my
flimsy front door, staggering downstairs and opening it to two very tall and
very handsome policemen with me looking like Freddie Boswell. If there’s a bit
I’m not happy about it’s that.

(Rather like the time I opened the door to two very tall and very handsome
firemen…who had come to fit smoke alarms…with a 3 month old baby at my
shoulder being burped who promptly threw up in my hair. hair.)

Tattyfalarr
September 5, 2011 at 23:26

– 1 hair. Oooops.

Steve Brown September 5, 2011 at 20:56

I’m a retired (after 30 years of service) police officer and I can assure
you that the last job a police officer wants to get is a “Concern for Welfare”
call because whatever the outcome, it usually means trouble for the officers
actioning the job. I know, I’ve done quite a few myself and taken command on
the ground in even more cases.
I agree entirely with your point (a) above.
Time should be given for the one for whom there is Concern for Welfare to
answer a knock on the door. But then you get into trouble for knocking for
thirty seconds or more, thus precipitating a rather bloody suicide attempt.
She survived but I was reprimanded for not kicking in the door immediately.
Nothing in the information given to me indicated that a suicide attempt was
imminent, only that the lady concerned was ‘very upset’ and that there was a
‘worry’ that she might attempt to self-harm.
Regarding your point (b), no
police officer is going to end a “Concern for Welfare” case without ensuring
that the subject of the call is safe and well.; there is no “choosing not to
intervene”, ever. The potential for the case going distinctly pear-shaped is
far too high.
Insofar as your point (c) is concerned, if only those who
make the initial “Concern for Welfare” call would satisfy themselves that
there is a genuine concern, by calling back or otherwise getting in touch with
the subject, then the number of Welfare cases actually passed to the police on
the ground would be reduced by much more than 50%. We, the police, have tried
intervening at this stage by making this second call or contact to ascertain
the state of the subject and have been pilloried for it. Idle and uncaring are
just two of the charges made against us for adopting this tactic in cases we
thought were appropriate.
Point (d), how far to go and what do do in
Concern for Welfare cases? The ultimate aim is to ensure that the subject of
the call is safe or is going to receive the attention they need. It is down to
the police to find out what is needed. Remember, when you get to the premises
you have only the information passed to you by the Control Room, who’ve got no
more than the original caller gave them.
Knock. No answer. Lights on, TV
on. Knock again. No answer. Door goes in, no hesitation. Previously arguing
couple, where alleged death threats were heard, by the concerned neighbour,
being made, are busy making restorative love on the living room floor. Feel
foolish and exit to vituperation from man and wife.
Two weeks later, call
comes in. Attend the scene; knock, no answer. Lights on, TV on. Knock again.
No answer. Door goes in, no hesitation. A distinctly coppery smell assails
your nostrils. Call for medical back-up immediately, before even stepping over
the threshold. It’s blood you can smell, you’ve smelled it before. Only one
person enters, it’s a possible crime scene. He finds male in the living room
with cut throat. Tentative cut wounds indicate suicide, but you can’t be sure.
Major incident call made to control. Senior officer present (me) takes over
further searching. In an upstairs bedroom I find the wife, aged 39, dead on a
blood-soaked bed. The post mortem shows that she has over twenty stab
wounds.
It’s a case of murder/suicide. Very easy to report in the press but
not so much when you are the one deciding whether or not the simple failure to
answer repeated phone calls is sufficient cause to break down a door.
As
I’ve tried to indicate, there’s no right or wrong way to deal with this most
difficult of calls to which the police respond. The first case which was
mentioned in the article was obviously very badly handled. The officers
concerned just wanted to hand responsibility to someone else (the
long-suffering Custody Sergeant!) If the officers had been under my command a
carpeting would have been the least of their worries, but I would have hoped
that the sort of training and advice I’d have given them would have changed
their reactions.
Concern for Welfare? The very worst call for a policeman.
It’s trouble for him or her, no matter what.

Joe Public
September 5, 2011 at 21:13

Thanks Steve, for the explanations. As I stated above, the Police can
never win.

Joe Public September 5, 2011 at 19:58

It seems ironic (or should that be, deliberate?) that of the two examples
described, both appear (in logic) to have been given the ‘wrong’ initial
response.

At the potential suicidee’s, little harm would result from a loud pounding
on the door. If there’s a response, well at least the suicidee hadn’t acted
yet.

At the house of the reported ‘gunman’; it was brave of the officers to
politely knock!

Ancient & Tattered
Airman September 5, 2011 at 19:39

I have a spiffing wheeze! Let’s ask parliament to pass new laws on the
subject! The more the merrier.

Joe Public September 5, 2011 at 18:53

Matt, whatever the police do, they’ll be blamed by some conflicting
segments of society, particularly those with a hidden agenda.

They can never win.

They’re either ‘too zealous’ or ‘too tardy’.

Matt
Wardman September 5, 2011 at
19:37

Indeed – but how to find a balance?

I’d suggest that the “breach of the peace” is a justified complaint, and
a serious error, for example.