Thursday 23rd January 2020 saw the magistrate's trial and ultimate acquittal of Metropolitan Police Officer, Detective Constable Kevin Rowley on the charge assault and battery of a young black boy.
You may remember this officer seen on a video that went viral, where the officer is seen using his baton to repeatedly strike a terrified young 17-year-old black boy outside a parade of shops on Heath Park Road, Romford on April 22nd of last year.
The case was heard at Hendon Magistrates Court, a court that is miles away from inner London. I've seen this type of court scheduling before and its usually politically motivated. It's the common practice of moving controversial trials of police officers that take place in inner London, as far away from where the original incident took place, or in where that not possible in the tiniest inaccessible court venues.
On this occasion, the trial was held, in what is a notoriously difficult part of London to get to for 10 am on a Thursday morning.
I suspect, though I cannot prove, that the decision to have the trial in an area of the capital with virtually no African Caribbean communities, was based on finding a court that would be difficult to get to, and would prevent any protests outside the court itself, no doubt justified, on this occasion by concerns for 'the officers safety'
Hendon Magistrates Court No 2 is a tiny court with a public gallery that seats around 20 people. Two-thirds of the public gallery was packed with press and police officers
Last year London's black communities and many more besides, were left angry and traumatised by the shocking video showing a young black boy, pleading with DC Rowley to stop assaulting him. Many Police officers have told me that they believe the violence used was both disproportionate and unnecessary. I agree with that analysis.
The first thing to say about this prosecution is that for a police officer to face charges of battery and assault, on a black person, is an extraordinarily rare event.
In over 40 years in challenging police abuses, this is the first such case I've come across. So it was with some degree of relief and hopeful anticipation that the family of the young boy concerned, and I attended this trail.
There's was the hope that maybe, this trial would hold the police to proper account particularly where the Met themselves admit to using disproportionate force when arresting black males. London's black communities believe they are being racially targeted for drug searches and are subjected to unnecessary violence on arrest, and all this against a backdrop where Black communities public confidence in the Met police is at an all-time low.
So it was with some little hope that the family and myself sat in this far-flung tightly packed, little court.
However, once the prosecution began it was clear to me this wasn't going to be our day.
As the trial unfolded I concluded that bizarrely, the witnesses for the prosecution appeared to me, to be witnesses for the defence.
I have purposely not written this sequentially, as in the order of evidence as it was given on the day. Instead, I have written this as a reflective piece pointing out some of the salient points that struck me as a former Policing Director of London and an ardent campaigner for justice.
That will no doubt lead some to conclude that I'm presenting the evidence to suit my own perspective and people are entitled to that view. Nevertheless, I contend that many in the black community and those prepared to take a critical lens to this case will share my analysis.
My motivation for doing so is to simply present a community perspective informed by decades of institutional police racism and the deeply embedded lack of trust that now exists between the London black community and the police.
Let us start with DC Rowley's evidence to the court. He told the court that his attention was drawn to two black boys walking across a zebra crossing.
He said: 'Initially we saw them as they crossed the zebra and the cars paused. One of them had a wad of cash notes in his hands raised to the sky. It looked a bit out of place."
Black boys on zebra crossing looked out of place?
Here I'm guessing that what he really meant is that these two black boys, looked out of place in the predominantly white area of Romford.
He mentions that the cars paused, well yes, they were crossing the road, what’s the significance of that comment, and what did he expect the cars to do?
He goes on to say one of the boys had a wad of cash in his hand, in fact, they didn't, the eldest boy was holding a single £20 note, pocket money of two brothers who lived locally, and coincidently the only black family in this area. These boys were simply on the way to the shops to change the £20 so they could split the cash between them.
The officer went on to say, 'They looked like they had no purpose there. They walked into a fish and chip shop for five seconds, and walked back out again.'
Firstly, what leads him to conclude, they had no purpose there? Why? Are black boys not supposed to be in Romford?
The boys were local and were simply popping into local shops asking if they could change a £20 note to split their pocket money.
He goes on to say, 'Most people keep money in their wallet or their bag. I said to the other police officer, keep an eye out on those boys. I thought they looked a bit weird.'
Had they been walking with a large amount of cash in their hand, then that may give rise to some suspicion, but these boys had a single £20 note and kids don't usually have a wallet and young men don't usually carry money in bags. When arrested the young man did not have a wad of cash, as described by Rowley, he had precisely £20. The prosecution decided not to pursue that point.
As to the reason why they were stopped, well this comes straight out the police playbook and the most singularly cited reason offered by Met officers for stop and searches; 'I asked them what they had been up to and I was hit with a strong smell of cannabis.'
We've all known plenty of black non-smokers subjected to stop and search who have similarly been wrongly accused by police officers of smelling of cannabis.
In the minds of London's black communities, we consider this as a joke. It always amazes me that while white people report higher drug use, according to the British Crime Survey. much more than black communities, they are not subjected to the same level of racially targeted police stops and searches.
The officer goes on; 'It was coming from them. I told them they were going to be detained as part of a drug search. [The youth] said, 'you're not searching me, I know my rights.'
The officer then reports that at this moment the second boy had runoff. Yes he did, he ran to his nearby home to alert his mother and followed in hot pursuit by another officer.
Rowley’s statement here strikes me as being almost scripted in an effort to begin to frame the boy into the widely held violent black youth stereotype. It’s the trigger words used as a nod and a wink to the magistrate, igniting shared white stereotypes and fears.
The problem was that this evidence was contradicted by a witness who had previously given evidence in which she says she saw the events from an adjacent window overlooking the scene and described the initial encounter as 'quite calm'.
Teri Vigers told the court,
'He was a little bit hesitant, he obviously didn't really want to be there, he was a bit edgy but did allow the police officer to put him in handcuffs without any problem.’
Well yes, being a young kid and being subjected to a stop and search, given the awful reputation of the Met would make most people ‘a little bit hesitant'
Her description of the encounter is at odds with Rowley’s who said the boy was extremely agitated.
Vigers goes on to say,
'He asked the young boy to sit down on the floor, it looked like he was trying to call for backup or speak to someone on the radio.'
'The young boy was asking about his brother, I think he was trying to find out about his brother.'
Ms Vigers told the court she had given her witness statement to
the police the day after the event.
the police the day after the event.
This was a surprise as the family had not at that stage, submitted any formal complaint, so why and for what reason was a statement taken by the police? It could be inferred that the police coached her to provide a helpful statement, as they knew instantly that what Rowley did was wrong.
Personally, I was disinclined to disbelieve her evidence from this point on.
Back to Rowley, he stated in court that once the second boy ran off:
‘I'm now alone with an agitated and aggressive male who is not complying. He's made it clear that I'm not searching for him. It's a concern for me as I'm alone with this male.'
The officer told the court that the boy said he wanted to see his brother and that he tried to reassure him.'
The officer told the court that the boy said he wanted to see his brother and that he tried to reassure him.'
So the older boy was concerned for the safety of his little brother. Given the acute lack of trust in the police, it's perfectly reasonable that he should be concerned.
Witness Terri Vigers also went on to say, after Rowley had placed the boy in cuffs that the boy had sat down, stood up, then sat down, then stood up again, and was the edging away from the officer while DC Rowley goes onto say that boy was struggling like a man possessed.
'First of all, we could smell cannabis. But this behaviour was not possession of cannabis. I've had experience of catching people with knives, drugs, guns.
'He was putting up such a fight I didn't know what he had on him. He hadn't been searched at this point.
'He was aggressive, desperate to get away, pulling me, dragging me, pushing me. It was not the behaviour of someone who has a single count of possession on him.’
'He might be 17, but he's my height and build, and he was very strong. Because he was so aggressive, he had a lot of adrenaline.'
So the boy complied with arrest and allowed himself to be cuffed without and resistance. As for the officer's description, this is a regularly used trope used by police officers, in controversial arrests where they routinely describe black people as possessing superhuman strength, being violently aggressive. A set policing script that has been used regularly for the last 40 years.
Rowley goes onto to state;
'I wasn't trying to hurt him. All I was trying to do was detain him. Because he was in such a rage he was not listening to anything I was trying to do.'
Another witness who lives locally a Mr Anthony Bailey gave his evidence. Mr Bailey said:
'As part of my job I use restraint. He was struggling to restrain the youth.
He went onto say,
'He was struggling to keep him there from what I have experienced in safeguarding.
'As part of my job I use restraint. He was struggling to restrain the youth.
He went onto say,
'He was struggling to keep him there from what I have experienced in safeguarding.
Really? What job is that then? He wasn't asked. The terms restraint and safeguarding are terms usually used by people with either professional policing or security experience or both. The prosecution didn’t ask him.
His evidence was that the young man whilst cuffed was violently swinging the officer around from side to side.
This, of course, is in direct contradiction to Ms Vigers testimony that described the boy as doing nothing more than 'edging away'
Bailey then says, ‘The officer struck him as the teenager did not respond to his command to get down.' I find the word 'command' interesting.
Returning to witness Teri Vigers she went on to state,
‘The police officer said he would have to use force if he didn't listen. He removed his stick and repeated quite a lot of time he didn't want to use it.’
'The police officer stated he didn't want to use force and then struck him on the legs.'
She said the boy was 'trying to irritate the police officer' by screaming, in order to draw a crowd, well yes being beaten will lead you to scream. And let's be real, this isn't Brixton that crowd was white, and even they were angry at what they saw as evidenced by the commentary on the video.
She goes on to say, that Rowley had been ‘reasonably calm until he used the baton.’
She goes on to say, that Rowley had been ‘reasonably calm until he used the baton.’
'I think I recall him saying he didn't want to use force that was after they moved across to the shop.’
'He's obviously got to the point where he was being really nice and really calm and raised his voice and withdraws the baton.’
She makes the whole incident sound like an exercise in textbook community policing.
Yet none of the video audio captured any of this, and yet Vigers, Bailey and the Rowley all claim these words were spoken throughout the later part of the encounter i.e. outside of the parade of shops. All were very clear on this particular point.
The audio from the video is clear and there are no instructions heard from the officer to the boy to sit down, nor is there any warning offered to the boy. Yet everything else is captured, comments by the crowd, traffic noise and the boy himself. Was the officer whispering?
Vigers, Bailey all say that they heard the officers comments in their homes and yet we can hear nothing on the audio. Vigers says she heard the boy expressing concern for his brother from inside her home. Yet throughout the video, the officer shouts get down once.
Vigers, Bailey all say that they heard the officers comments in their homes and yet we can hear nothing on the audio. Vigers says she heard the boy expressing concern for his brother from inside her home. Yet throughout the video, the officer shouts get down once.
Another witness, an elderly white gentleman whose name I did not catch stated he knew the officer personally and was concerned and had wanted to help him. How did he know the officer, Rowley was in plain clothes that day so what was their relationship? The prosecution simply ignored the response.
Hard of hearing, the man was shown a video of the incident and asked if he recognised a man standing near the incident, in a red t-shirt hands on his hips. After scrutinising the video, the man answered he did not recognise the man.
That was strange because the man he was asked if he recognised, was the actual witness himself, which he later conceded to. His evidence clearly couldn't be relied upon.
The prosecution went on, in my view to demonstrate inconsistencies in DC Rowley's initial description of events and the evidence he gave in court however despite this, and the contradictions I've highlighted, the magistrate acquitted the officer.
Of course, the family are deeply disappointed and will be considering the verdict and what options are available to them. There is still the option that the officer though found not guilty of assault could be disciplined by the Metropolitan Police service.
Let us hope, for the sake of police, community relations that this option is exercised.
Am I surprised? Not really, I've seen such travesty's of justice before and will no doubt see them again. This case will, however, reinforce the black community strongly held belief that when it comes to the police, disproportionate violence and black people there is little if any justice to be had.
Speaking to the family they’ve had enough and lost all confidence in British justice, policing and criminal justice. They told me their packing up and leaving the country, which they said had become a hostile environment for young black people.
They didn’t want their sons to suffer the indignity of false accusation, baseless suspicion and violent arrest. They felt betrayed by British institutions. They spoke of the weight of racism being too heavy a burden to carry for their sons. They want them to prosper in a country where talent, not colour is the defining characteristic of young black people.
Angry, depressed and determined, they are heading home to Africa, Ghana to be precise where their sons can be free of the racism so brutally inflicted on them in the UK.
The boys mother spoke to me and said, ‘As black people we’ve spent decades, pleading, begging, cajoling and appealing to the angels of their better natures only to be kicked in the teeth, targeted, excluded and arrested. There comes a time when enough is enough and our duty as parents is to safeguard our children from this toxic racism takes priority.’
I for one couldn’t fault her logic. From the criminalisation of our communities to exclusions from school, the Windrush scandal Britain, raging unemployment and poverty Britain has become hostile and unapologetic for its growing culture of unabashed, unashamed racism and many like this family, are saying maybe its time to leave. Those of us who remain must fight on.
