On a quiet Sunday evening in Burngreave recently, ten police officers smashed in the glass and wood of the unlocked front door of a terraced house. Inside was 65-year-old Mrs A., her husband, his brother, and her son, who has mental health problems. She was recovering from a recent serious operation. She was just back from church, which she attended regularly.
The police ordered the family not to move. Asked ‘Have you got a warrant?’, they replied: ‘We don’t need one.’ They were looking for cocaine and heroine. They were told there were no drugs in the house. The family had nothing to do with drugs.
The police spent three hours ransacking the house. A woman officer ordered Mrs A. to strip off and searched her. She told us she felt humiliated and very frightened.
Other officers ordered the husband to sit still so he could not watch them search. In the son’s bedroom, they claimed to have found a small object wrapped in foil. All the family said no such object was in the room before the police arrived. Nevertheless the police arrested the son and tried (unsuccessfully) to take him away on his own. After questioning they released him without charge.
Another day, another part of Burngreave, another family at home, this time two parents and their children were getting ready in the morning to leave for work and school when the police came. They told us the police did not search their house thoroughly, but instead strip searched both adults, making each bend over so that they could inspect genitals and anus. The woman, who was pregnant, felt especially frightened and degraded. The police found nothing and no one was arrested.
In a third case, women were strip searched in their own home and one was later cautioned for possession of cannabis – street value £1.
These and other people in the community have told us of numerous similar raids. All informants are unanimous in saying all the targets of raids and searches are people of African Caribbean origin. They were certain they were being targeted because of their race.
We asked South Yorkshire Police spokesman Jim Greensmith to comment. He said: “We target people on the basis of information we have, not on the basis of race or creed.”
So what kind of information led to these raids? The search warrants referred only to ‘informants’. Asked by the people who were searched, police suggested they should think who their enemies were. But those who were searched didn’t have any enemies, as far as they knew. Or, officers admitted, the police could make mistakes sometimes.
The Code of Practice which governs searches says: “Where information is received which appears to justify [a warrant], the officer concerned must take reasonable steps to check that the information is accurate, recent and has not been provided maliciously or irresponsibly… The officer shall also make reasonable enquiries to establish what, if anything, is known about the likely occupier of the premises.”
The raids are part of the biggest police operation ever mounted in Burngreave “aimed at crippling the supply and use of drugs” in the area, Mr Greensmith told the Messenger. It started at the beginning of February and is still continuing. The operation, “very carefully planned”, involves raids with warrants (Mrs A. was given a warrant by the police as they left) and high profile street policing with frequent stops and searches. 90 people have been arrested. A “significant amount” of what is thought to be crack cocaine and other drugs been seized, plus alleged stolen property and counterfeit money.
Mr Greensmith said: “We have received very, very supportive comments from a significant number of people in the Burngreave area about Operation Kinship. In the early stages of this operation, we even canvassed people for their views. The reaction to what we were doing was very positive.” Community leaders have been regularly informed about the operation’s progress.
You may conclude that the police didn’t follow their own rules when it came to checking whether they had adequate justification for searching Mrs A.’s house. But that wasn’t the only rule they broke.
For instance, they should let people witness every part of the search of their homes, and call on friends or legal representatives to support them.
They can only use force to enter a building without first asking the occupiers if they suspect that if they did alert the occupiers, this would “frustrate the object of the search” – if you did have illegal substances, you might flush them down the toilet before answering the doorbell. But this must be “reasonable force”. At Mrs A.’s house, they only needed to turn the door handle.
We’ve tried to summarise some of the rules in our guide to what to do if they smash your door in… These are serious breaches of the Codes of Practice issued under PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984), and they can have serious consequences, both for community relations and for the individuals who are subject to searches. Everyone we spoke to feared that, perhaps in order to justify insensitive and badly prepared police actions, evidence might be planted on them.
Operation Kinship has swamped areas of Burngreave with an obvious police presence. The people we spoke to felt their streets were under occupation. When the doors were smashed in, their rooms filled with officers who ordered them about, their bodies searched and their children terrified, they felt their private lives had been violated by police running out of control.
They said they’d like to forget the whole experience, but they can’t. They spoke to us because they want our community to be free of the threat of oppressive policing.
There’s talk of legal actions protest meetings. The Messenger will try to keep you informed of developments.
For precise legal information, you should consult a solicitor. The Police Codes of Practice “must be readily available at all police stations for consultation by … members of the public.”
If you wish to ask anyone to witness the search then you must be allowed to do so (Code B 5.11), so ensure it’s witnessed by you or by someone you can rely on. Phone a solicitor and ask for advice. Make your own notes recording what the police say and do.
The police should give you a copy of the warrant and Notice of Powers and Rights, explaining your rights (Code B. 5.7-8). (This was apparently not provided in the cases we investigated, so ask for it.)
Section 5.10 of Code B says: “Searches must be conducted with due consideration for the property and privacy of the occupier of the premises searched, and with no more disturbance than necessary.” Breach of this section is now a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention, article 8: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life [and] his home…”.
A full record of the search must be kept at the police station. You should be able to obtain a copy,
It is not normal practice for police to strip search people in their own homes, South Yorkshire Police have assured us. You should refuse to let the police strip search you unless they first arrest you and take you to a police station, where you can insist that your solicitor be present.
Code A (s. 1.7) applies to personal searches before arrest. It says “a person's colour, age, hairstyle or manner of dress, or the fact that he is known to have a previous conviction for possession of an unlawful article, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other as the sole basis on which to search that person. Nor may [suspicion] be founded on the basis of stereotyped images of certain persons or groups as more likely to be committing offences.”
A guidance note (1AA) adds: “An officer should bear in mind that … the misuse of the powers is likely to be harmful to the police effort in the long term and can lead to mistrust of the police in the community. Regardless of the power exercised, all police officers should be careful to ensure that the selection and treatment of those questioned or searched is based upon objective factors and not upon personal prejudice. It is also particularly important to ensure that any person searched is treated courteously and considerately.”
Well, they wrote that, not us.
Was the law broken in your case?
Your name might have been provided by someone who wanted to get the police of his or her own back by directing their attention elsewhere. If the police haven’t further checked their information by watching your house or enquiring whether you’re likely to be a drug dealer, then they are guilty of serious breaches of their own rules (Code B 2.1-3).
If your door was unlocked but the police smashed it in anyway (like Mrs A.’s), then they plainly used unreasonable rather than reasonable force, which is a breach of Code B 5.6. You may feel such tactics are designed to intimidate and provoke you into flight or hostility towards the police, which could then be used as evidence against you. Don’t give them the satisfaction of winding you up: stay calm.
These and other possible breaches of rules are also breaches of the European Convention, articles 3 (“No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment...”) and 8 (quoted above), incorporated in the Human Rights Act.
If you have been targeted because of your race or religion, then article 14 of the European Convention has been broken: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion…”
If the police appear to have broken any rules, and don’t apologise and offer to help you get compensation for damage and distress they’ve caused, then make a complaint and consider suing them for damages. You should get free legal advice and assistance for this. By doing this, you might prevent what has happened to you, from happening to others.
Local solicitors Howells are experienced in dealing with these matters. 40/60 Spital Hill, 249 6666
Please let the Messenger know of your experiences – good or bad – of Operation Kinship or any other police activity in our area.
return to Fitting-up home page