I’m currently helping a Crimebodge reader bring an appeal against a conviction of common assault he received in Southampton Magistrates’ Court last week for allegedly ‘pushing past a police officer’ who was shopping in Sainsbury’s while on duty.
After hearing all the facts and looking at the CPS evidence file, it was clear that the prosecution was malicious. What it did show however, was just how easy it is for the police to make such malicious arrests and a further a petty prosecution that would have been refused if the victim had been a member of the public.
When Stefan Trivino spotted two Hampshire police officers stopping off at Sainsbury’s in full uniform to do their shopping, he decided to film them on his mobile phone. The two officers: P.C 25156 Robert Hooks and P.C. 24163 Chris Lewis clearly didn’t want to be captured in such a compromising way and insisted he stop filming. Trivino refused. The two officers then threatened to arrest him for obstruction. Trivino eventually put his camera away, but it subsequently became clear that the officers were concerned he had captured their ‘shopping trip’ on his device and could possibly use it to get them in trouble.
Minutes later, when Mr.Trivino entered the same Supermarket the police were using, PC Hooks and PC Lewis decided to set a trap for him. Lewis followed Mr. Trivino around the store while Hooks ensured that Mr. Trivino would not be able to get to the tills without having to pass himself first. When Trivino approached to pay for his goods, Hooks deliberately turned around and watched him. As soon as Trivino passed Hooks, the officer lurched forward and simultaneously accused Trivino of deliberately barging into him, which Trivino denied. The officer then took out his handcuffs and arrested Trivino for ‘assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duties’. Trivino was then led out the store by both officers and placed inside their vehicle. They then insisted he hand over his mobile phone. When Trivino asked why, they said it was so he couldn’t make phone calls while he was being taken into custody. Trivino could not refuse, as the officers threatened to seize the phone by force if they had to.
Back at the station he was placed into a police cell so he could be later interviewed about the fabricated incident. He was held at the station for eight hours in total. He was also further detained so that another officer could interrogate him under anti- terrorist legislation, for having filmed the two officers in the first place.
Mr. Trivino was subsequently charged with ‘common assault’ and bailed to attend Southampton Magistrates’ Court at a later date.
Unsurprisingly, when his mobile phone was returned, the recording he had captured of the two officers outside Sainsbury’s had been deleted.
Mr. Trivino was denied legal aid by the Legal Services Commission to employ a defence solicitor, on the grounds that the offence was too trivial to qualify. Too trivial to qualify for help with his defence, but not so trivial that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service wouldn’t waste tax payers money to pursue it through the courts.
The prosecution’s case hinged upon nothing more than P.C Hooks’ statement that the offence took place. Lewis claimed not to have witnessed the event. Also, despite it occurring in a busy supermarket, the police gathered no other witnesses. They did however acquire a copy of the CCTV footage. Not from any of the cameras that showed the officers following Trivino around the store of course, but solely from the camera pointing at the exit door. The police seized the CCTV evidence knowing full well that it hadn’t captured the ‘common assault’ because the incident had never occurred. They knew however that they were obliged to obtain the only piece of physical evidence that existed, as to refuse to do so would make it obvious they had something to hide. Besides which they knew that Mr. Trivino could obtain a copy of the footage if they didn’t. So the first thing they did upon seizing it was to refuse to even show it to Mr. Trivino upon interviewing him, let alone give him a copy of it. It also gave Hooks an opportunity to watch the footage, so he could rearrange the facts on his statement as to why he had been stood in such a conspicuous spot of the supermarket, for quite some time.
Lewis had ensured his own body worn video camera had been switched off when the incident occurred, despite the fact that it had recorded him talking to Trivino before entering the store and upon leaving it when he was escorted out under arrest.
On the day of the trial, Mr. Trivino was denied access to the court duty solicitor. He was told that if he wanted to speak to the duty solicitor then he should have come in the day before the trial; despite the fact it had been court staff who had told him not to bother coming in prior to the trial. The duty solicitor even refused to tell Mr. Trivino how he could request an adjournment or an order, to get a copy of evidence he had requested from the police which they had ignored.
The rest of the hearing was the same flavour of injustice he had experienced at the police station, especially as the Justices clerk had routinely denied every request Mr. Trivino made to them and endeavoured to expedite the proceedings as swiftly as possible because they had “three more trials to get through. It was also clear that nobody at the CPS had ever bothered to so much as glance at the prosecution that Lewis and Hooks had engineered. This is because the CPS only review cases that they themselves bring. Which means the police are wholly unaccountable, and can bring whatever prosecutions they want, then they feel like it, without even so much a glance at the statutory provisions they must abide by before doing so.
Despite Trivino getting the opportunity to show the magistrates the same piece of CCTV footage six times in a row, proving that he had not assaulted Lewis, the magistrates believed that a police officer deserved special treatment as victim/arresting officer/prosecutor). They therefore decided that his witness account was infallible and the key parts of it, that proved him to be the lying bastard he actually is, could not be doubted. Hence why, when Trivino attempted to cross examine Lewis in the witness box about what he was really doing there that day, and why he claimed to have been waiting at the tills, despite the fact that neither he nor Lewis had any purchases (as evidenced on the CCTV) and nor did Sainsburys have a receipt of any items both Hooks and Lewis had lied about purchasing in their statements.
At the end of the hearing the magistrate declared Mr. Trivino guilty on the grounds that “his filming of the police on his mobile phone (prior to the alleged incident of common assault) had been provocative.”
Not being able to bring themselves to go all the way in helping Lewis abuse the powers of his office, and convict for what was clearly a trivial (and obviously malicious) offence that should never have seen the light of day in court, the magistrates declined to sentence Mr. Trivino and gave him a conditional discharge.
I have advised Mr. Trivino to appeal against this conviction to the Crown Court, on the grounds that not only was the offence never proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the magistrates and the clerks constant obstructions had denied him the right to a fair trial.
I have also advised him to sue Hampshire Police for the malicious prosecution. Normally I would suggest that it is the police force itself that be held liable for the officers’ unlawful action. In this instance though, I think that both Lewis and Hooks behaved so criminally and outrageously, that they themselves should suffer a significant penalty for abusing their powers of office. I have suggested that the officers are personally sued for their actions, so that they are forced to carry the full burden of the costs and trial, as well as give a very clear message to other corrupt police officers that they are not immune from liability and will pay a heavy price for abusing their authority in this way.