The silent rebellion of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire police

In the United Kingdom, we are supposed to have what is called "policing by consent". This means that police officers are ordinary people with some extra powers and training, and they are expected to obey the law like everybody else. Unfortunately, the professional standards departments of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire police disagree. (They are the people who are supposed to deal with crimes or misconduct committed by other police officers.

Davis v Lisle [1936] is a vital part of case law in this country, establishing that police powers can only be used in accordance with the law. To summarise, someone was found not guilty of assaulting and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, because the police officer was trespassing at the time.

Here is a statement from an inspector of the Bedfordshire professional standards department, which was agreed with by an inspector of the Cambridgeshire department, denying that it applies to them:


(Person) refers to a case from 1936, which references Police trespassing, removing Police powers, thus acting unlawfully. It is prudent to note while this may appear to be a successful case from 1936, (Person) needs to appreciate Police powers and processes have changed since 1936, and a comparison from 1936 against current day situations and law cannot be compared.


There was no mention of which changes in police powers are relevant, or which changes in police processes are, and how process changes can change the law. There was no mention of when it is supposed to have ceased to apply, or which court decision established this. The claim that it only 'may appear' to be a successful case is also quite bizarre, as if there's some secret reason why it wasn't successful. And comparing a comparison?

What's more, this is not a 'comparison'. It's called 'case law'. This is how common law works. It's how the law of this country works. Senior police officers are either ignorant, or feigning ignorance of the basics of how the law in this country works. This is case law which establishes that policing in Britain can only be done in accordance with the law. When you break the law, you are no longer policing.


They are certainly, at least, happy to maintain arrests as legitimate even when they admit to trespassing due to their disregard for the need to respect the law. (Though this is probably only for arrests where the purpose is harassment, I expect they know that a judge would not go along with it.) And there are two other important statements they have made. They also believe that they don't need any power of seizure in order to seize property, and they don't need to actually have a warrant in order to enter a property "as if they have one".

Although they won't quite state it directly. Accused of "threatening to seize property without any lawful power of seizure", they responded "it's not a threat, it's telling you what will happen", and repeatedly refused to even acknowledge the "without any lawful power of seizure" part. Not only did they refuse to give a power of seizure, they did not give any reason for keeping it secret either, they did not even acknowledge its absence was being claimed. And accused of entering a house without a warrant or any other power of entry, they said this is "normal when police officers have a warrant", and refused to acknowledge the "without a warrant" part. Police are required to present a search warrant to the occupant when entering under its power.

The only reasonable interpretation is that there would have been no power of seizure, but they don't want to admit it, and there was no warrant, but they don't want to admit it.

Since there was no crime suspected, and therefore no realistic chance of court appearances in either of these cases, it is likely that they think they only need to obey any laws regarding their actions when they expect those actions to lead to a court case, and feel free to violate them when they are just throwing their weight around. But only the police know the reasons for sure.

This even goes beyond what some ordinary police officers are willing to do. One police officer, regarding the exact same situation when the professional standards department said that the police would seize property but could not give a power of seizure, this police officer said that they could not seize property, because they needed a power of seizure to do that. The professional standards department is currently claiming that they have not received this new evidence and so cannot respond to it. Even though they were able to quote it in an email.

Another revealing reaction from the PSD. They received a claim that police officers "clearly knew they had done something wrong, otherwise they would have made an honest record, but chose to deal with it by making a dishonest record instead, and had no qualms about this record being used." They dismissed it as "this seems to be opinion/dissatisfaction} and no complaint".

In fact, according to the IOPC, "A police complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction by a member of the public about the service they have received from a police force" (see here) so they are pretending not to know what a complaint is, despite handling complaints literally being their job. But they also don't seem to understand that police are supposed to be honest, they cannot see any problem with police dishonesty, and with this reaching official records. In fact, honesty is a requirement: "Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position." The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020

According to this report they have a secret "assessment of behaviour guide". Why do these police forces need to keep secret what behaviours of police officers are acceptable? Perhaps it is secret because they know that any lawyer who looked at their guide would see that it authorises police officers to commit offences and systematic dishonesty?

Update: the police officer responsible for claiming Davis v Lisle no longer applies was asked "I need more information to verify that this is not just an expression of rebellion against UK law. Which specific changes in police powers and processes do you refer to? In which court case or cases was this established? Can you tell me anything else which will assist me in verifying your statement?" They said this would be dealt with later, then closed the matter without reply.


Advice/requests for different groups of people:


Reports are low in detail in places to protect the privacy of those involved.

Digitally signed, signature here To verify, base64 decode the signature and:

openssl dgst -sha256 -verify PUBLIC_KEY -signature page.sig page.html

-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----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-----END PUBLIC KEY-----