To expect the police to record information accurately?

[MsSalteena]

I have recently had to deal with the police in relation to 2 separate matters. In one I reported an incident to the police, in another I am supporting a friend who has been charged with an offence. The two are completely unconnected and involve different stations and officers.

In the first incident, I spoke to a police officer and gave details of what had happened. I was not required to make a statement nor was the officers note of what I'd said read back to me.

I have since had another officer read that note aloud to me, and had to correct several basic points. They hadn't noted where it took place nor who was involved, my address was wrong, also my marital status (important because the note referred to me being with my husband - I'm not and never have been married. I was with my teenage son. I am quite clear at no point did I tell the original officer otherwise!). They also paraphrased things I said - saying that I thought XYZ. Which is definitely not something I would have said. Ditto that I wasn't sure or couldn't remember, which again definitely wasn't the case. So a lot of it was made up, and what wasn't was inaccurate.

Ditto my friends case. I was present when my friend had to go to the police station. I was present when they spoke to an officer so saw what was said. The officer has produced a statement as the matter is going to court stating a whole manner of things my friend said that didn't happen, that alarm was caused to the public in the station (this is not what they are charged with, the only other person there was me and I wasn't alarmed) and offered opinion as to my friends demeanour and speculated as to where they had been and over documents that were produced (offering an opinion that they seemed to have been tampered with. Despite having no evidence for this!)

I understand errors occur but surely getting basic details right is pretty fundamental? Isn't it also the case that statements and the such are fact not opinion? So why would an officer waste time in writing a statement including things that were neither? It seems madness to me. I now have to provide a statement to support friend and verify what actually happened. AIBU to expect a little better from the police?

You are providing a statement for the defence? In which case I doubt it will match the police version.
And if the police statement was neither fact not opinion then what was it....

I'm providing a statement to correct factual inaccuracies by the officer. Like there was no one else there.
The officer has also offered opinion on various issues he isn't qualified to comment on, by on any event my understanding is that statements should only be fact.
I'm not quite sure I understand your second sentence? But the officers statement is comprised of some fact. Mostly inaccurate fact though - as per the above. And then quite a lot of opinion.

Plus that's irrelevant to the matter I reported to the police where again almost none of the facts were reported accurately. Stating I was in the company of my husband is an error I don't expect to have to correct.

Without knowing the details of what your friend has been charged with it is impossible to say. However as you are providing a statement in his defence it will always differ from the prosecution.
That's why we have courts. To "try the evidence.

Oh goodie another police bashing thread.

There are holes all through your post, but I'm on a 12 hour response shift and have no time to pick at it.

I'm sorry you don't feel you have had the right level of service.

Ultimately you can follow the proper complaint procedures and call 101, state the officers names involved and make a complaint which will go straight to their Sgt
If the Sgt can't deal with it on the ground it will go up the ranks.

I have already reported my concerns over the inaccuracies in the recording of the report I made. However had the officer recorded what I actually said then I wouldn't need to. I only expected that they would note my comments as I have them. Not change or add to them.

As for my friend, I'm not a witness to the actual offence. That did not occur in my presence and I have limited knowledge of it. However I was at the police station when friend attended and therefore know what happened and how the officers statement bears no resemblance to that.

I don't expect a counsel of perfection from the police, nor from anyone in public office. I understand it is a difficult job. But if part of your role is to record incidents accurately surely it is important to get the parties details right? And if you're giving a statement to the court in your capacity as a police officer that is meant to be free from opinion? And shouldn't include made up facts?!

The officers statement I am referring for clarity relates only to what happened at the station not to the offence itself, any interview etc.

So if you are not a witness then why are you giving a statement?
If you didn't witness it how do you know the police are making it up?

Well its useful to me to know that if I ever have cause to give information to the police I should ask them to read back what they have taken down.

Its pretty crazy to have written you were with a person other than the person you stated you were with!

buster its really not that complicated.

The report she is querying details what happened in the interview which she was present for. Incorrectly as it turns out.

What is it that you saw?

Buster, an officer has given a statement detailing what happened in my presence at the police station. This is separate from the offence itself, as friend attended the station to produce a document. The officer has said in that attendance friend distressed the public (I was the only person there) behaved poorly and had tampered with said document. I am providing a statement to confirm that none of that was true.

My statement relates purely to the police station attendance and refuting the officers statement and not to the offence itself.

Morphene, yes lesson learned. Should I have cause to report anything in future I will ask for the report to be read back to me!

I'm not surprised. I had similar happen with 2 totally different cases.

What was the document?
And how do you know it was not tampered with?
If you are providing a statement in support of your friend I am not surprised it differs from the police version after all he is your friend...
This is why we have courts...

So your friend was arrested whilst attending to produce a document?

Why would the officer read back what s/he had written.

Sometimes in a busy situation facts are not recorded accurately like in a fight, or if people have been drinking.

The procedure if giving a statement is the officer will write your account and then you sign it as accurate. If it is not accurate then yo should tell the officer where the errors are and have them corrected.

Without knowing the full facts it's difficult to say your are correct and the Police are at fault. It also sounds like you are trying to find fault where there isn't any or are not aware of how things work.

However I was at the police station when friend attended and therefore know what happened and how the officers statement bears no resemblance to that.

In your opinion. The officer is not you and may have a completely different perception of events.

I completely disagree. This has nothing to do with perception, or 'why we have courts'.

This is about things being properly recorded.

Certain things can be about perception. Your view may be different to another persons view. Admittedly.

But certain things are not open to interpretation.

Is you say : I spent £999 on this tv. Here's the receipt. Then it's later claimed that person x bought tv for £3000. You'd think: No, they said, £999, here's the receipt.

Was the car that hit you Mrs x, green. No it was red. Here is the cctv. The car is red.

Did you, give a list, at the police station, did you say X,Y,Z.
No. I said A,B,C.

Where you in Paris at the time of the murder. No. I was in Berlin. The police recording of my statement confirms that I said I was in Berlin, here's my ticket, and here's the cctv of me coming through Berlin airport.

Police:
Op said she caught the 9.10am from Paddington, had lunch of a sandwich and crisps and took her son to the cinema.

No. I said I caught the 9.40 to Kings Cross, had breakfast of eggs and bacon and was with my husband!

Perception?
No. An inability to record basic facts correctly.

Agree OP. Last year, I was witness to a crime, and because the details were quite complicated (it happened over several days), I made a careful written record of days / times / events in the immediate aftermath, while I could still remember exactly what had happened. The crime was reported and I sent my written account to the police on their request; they thanked me but I heard nothing more. Several months after all this happened, they arrested someone for this offence and others, and I was called again, out of the blue, for a formal statement over the phone which he would type up and then arrange for me to sign.
Of course, by now, I couldn’t remember the exact details of what happened when. The police officer had no interest whatsoever in my “primary source” evidence and just pushed me to give a quick statement there and then, standing on my mobile phone in the middle of a shopping centre, two small children hanging off me. He didn’t care if it was accurate or not, or the fact that on my computer at home I had it all down in complete detail; he just needed to get something down from me on paper there and then. That was the last I heard; so I never did have to sign what he noted (which I wouldn’t have felt comfortable doing as put on the spot like that, I couldn’t be sure it was an accurate account). Ridiculous, and it has really damaged my faith in the police’s investigative procedures.

Thanks Oblomov, that's exactly it. You have explained it better than I could. Sorry you have had similar experience.

Life begins, no that's not what happened. There were 2 separate matters.

In the first, I gave details to the police regarding an incident. Those details were recorded by a police officer. This was not in the midst of a fight or similar. The officer spent some time speaking to me. However what was noted was not read back to me at the time. It was not a statement so I was not given anything to sign. I later found out that various facts were recorded completely incorrectly. Despite having been very clear on those points when I spoke to the officer.

In the second and entirely separate matter I attended a police station with my friend who was required to produce a document. Again, this was not a busy or difficult situation. No fights or anything happening. Friend and I were the only ones present.

The officer made a statement claiming friends behaviour distressed the public (This didnt happen. There was only me there. I was clearly not distressed. And it is not for the officer to speculate that I was).

Officer alleged the doc had been tampered with. There is no evidence for this other than what the officer thinks. Officer is not a forensic scientist and has not tested the document, what he thinks is therefore pure unqualified speculation and is not what I would expect to be in a statement. Indeed I would expect an officer to know this sort of thing shouldn't be in a statement and not include it.

Friend was not arrested on attending the station, and is not charged specifically with tampering with the document.

Thatsalrite, sorry about your experience too. Surely your written account given at the time should have been used, not some info taken from you in a situation where you were put on the spot and it clearly wasn't convenient or easy for you to speak?!

Officers are allowed to note details on things that have happened without the person having to be charged with a crime.

It is the prosecution service and not the police who decide what crimes a person has committed.

And also, a person can act in a way that would ‘distress the public’ despite there only being you there - I imagine they simplified the description of the crime to give you a better understanding. There are crimes covering threatening and abusive behaviour and it doesn’t matter if you personally were distressed or not.

Will this go to court? If so, will these be details that can be challenged and add to your friends defence? If so it could turn out to be a good thing that the police can’t do recording of events accurately? Or will it count against?

It’s sounds like pretty crude attempts to blackening her character which will be at odds with her ‘real’ character and therefore easily countered. If the document is definitely not forged or tampered with, that can be dismissed easily. If you weren’t distressed and no one else was present, that too can be dismissed quickly too (any point in requesting cc tv evidence? Or no?) etc.

It does shake ones faith in the police though, this type of thing.

I have to say my one real experience of the law was almost wholly positive, thank goodness. They were spot on and so, well, expert and good at their job. I wish I’d told them at the time how much it meant to me.
I was terribly vulnerable at the time (the ‘victim’), and if they’d been bad in some way, it would have struck me deeply... but likewise, the way they did the right things also helped so much too.

I’m so sorry you didn’t get the same experience.