KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)

Following the outcome of the VRR, the Claimant complained about the police conduct to the PSU and his complaint was dismissed. His complaint was reproduced at page 63 of the hearing bundle and asserts:

For allegation one, the PSU investigating officer reviewed 50 minutes of body worn video recording by the officers attending the scene and the actions undertaken plus the evidence collected. They decided they could not identify any other investigations that the police could have taken; the police officers who attended the incident photographed the Claimant and the front door of the house where the half-brother lived, which was smeared with blood, and checked for and interviewed possible witnesses. There were no independent witnesses but the PSU noted that the two family members who heard the assault took the suspect’s side; the PSU discounted that latter evidence. The PSU observed that the Claimant’s mobile phone record of the incident was also uploaded onto PC Roger’s body worn camera as it was too large to send by email and that due consideration was given to the footage received.

Regarding the allegation of lack of empathy, the PSU disagreed with the Claimant and considered that priority had been given to the Claimant’s safety and well-being by the police officers attending the incident.

Similarly, allegation 2 also failed before the PSU because there was no documentary evidence of conflicting statements by officers about prospects of success which could have given “a kind of false hope that your brother would be charged”. The PSU investigating officer sought to reassure the Claimant there was no requirement on the police to disclose what the suspect had said in interview, therefore they had not failed in their responsibilities. The investigating officer agreed with the rationale to close the case, given the evidence to hand. The investigating officer explained that he had independently reviewed the video footage objectively but could not make out what was happening. He said the evidence would not prove or disprove how the injury which the Claimant had sustained had been caused. He also cited the original investigating officer’s reporting (at pages 67/68 in the bundle) that the decision not to refer the file to the CPS was not a finding that they did not believe the Claimant’s account, but simply the objective facts showed two conflicting accounts as to what had happened, whereas the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case. Therefore the evidence did not meet their threshold criteria on prospects of success to mount a public prosecution. The investigating PSU officer also did not disagree with the view of the original investigating officer, when addressing the Claimant’s concern that important evidence had been overlooked from the stills of the mobile phone footage, which the Claimant asserted showed him being punched. The officer had stated “Stills cannot postulate the full extent of a video and can take away its objectivity when not weighed against the full footage".

As to allegation 3, investigations revealed that a prior complaint had indeed been mislaid and an apology was provided.

The PSU dismissed allegation 4 as they could not find a lack of care in the preparation of the VRR report. A lengthy reply was produced, following a review of what had taken place at the VRR stage. The outcome recites the decision making process of the VRR officer who had noticed from the mobile phone record that there was “ample” opportunity between Mr Balmain requesting the Claimant to leave the premises, and the scuffle breaking out, for the Claimant to leave, but he had chosen not to do so. Furthermore, the earlier part of the video shows Mr Balmain’s face with no visible injury whereas the arresting officer’s body worn video recording later on showed by that stage his face had a bloodied scratch to the right forehead and scratches to his hand. The PSU investigating officer determined that it was not possible to state who was the aggressor and who was the victim given this evidence. In conclusion the report stated, “DI Dawson has carried out a fair and balanced review of the allegation from you and has reviewed all the relevant material and justified why he feels that this matter will not be taken further”.