Leon’s Law
Background
On the 4th November 2013 at Luton Police Station, Leon Briggs (RIP)
died whilst in the custody of Bedfordshire Police. Leon a 39 year old
father of two young children was reportedly detained under Sec.136 of The Mental Health Act

The Justice for Leon Committee is a group made up of Leon’s friends,
neighbours and associates who have come together to ensure Leon did
not die in vain, by not only ensuring justice is done in Leon’s case, but by
also working closely with friends and families who have also suffered the
same experience in order to bring about real changes that will reduce
the chances of deaths in custody on a local and national level.
Death’s in police custody, particularly of young men from minority
groups, has caused considerable social unrest and mistrust in the police
by communities throughout the UK.

Notable cases are those of Sean
Rigg (2008), Christopher Alder (1998), Mark Duggan (2011), Smiley
Culture (2011) and the 14761 deaths following police contact since 1990.
A significant public distrust of the ‘independent’ system of investigating
police has developed, notably as a result of the simple fact that not one
of the 1476 cases has ever resulted in a successful prosecution of the
police officers involved.

 INQUEST STATISTICS on Death's in Police Custody 1990 – present: http://inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-inpolice-custody


Deaths in police custody – The Problem

A key issue in all investigations into deaths in police custody has been
the reliability of police testimony and often conflicting accounts of
independent eye witness testimony. Only this week the coroner, Judge
Keith Cutler, in the inquest into the highly controversial death of Mark
Duggan passed comment on this issue;

“It is not a question of anybody being mistaken. It is something which is
a direct contradiction here; there is that stark problem.”

The 'stark problem' related to the key issue of the location of the gun
alleged to have been in the possession of the deceased at the time of
the shooting.

These controversies as to the reliability of police testimony have also
been seen in the significantly damaging events which unfolded outside
Downing Street in 2012, when a disagreement over comments allegedly
made by the Minister Andrew Mitchell MP resulted in the national
scandal commonly known as 'Plebgate'.

The death of Smiley Culture at his home with the only witnesses being
three Metropolitan Police officers, led to some 5,000 people marching
upon New Scotland Yard.
2 http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/news/crimecourt/
mark_duggan_inquest_coroner_leaves_jury_to_resolve_stark_problem_of_contradictory_police_evi
dence_1_3103080

The controversy in this case being the public's absolute distrust in the
claim that this successful black business man would plunge a kitchen
knife through his own heart. The public are disbelieving of the account
provided by the officers and this has led to ever deepening divide and
distrust of the forces of law and order.

Sean Rigg, who died in 2008 whilst in the custody of officers from
Brixton Police station was also reportedly detained under Sec.136 of the
Mental Health Act 1983. He died following restraint techniques used by
the Police which the inquest jury described as 'more than minimally
contributing' to the death of this young black man. The jury also stated
that the Police had not “afforded even his most basic human rights”
during that interaction.

The case of Sean Rigg has recently been re-opened by the IPCC
following further examination of the case3. Testimony of the officers given
under oath at Sean's inquest led to criminal investigation for the offences
of perverting the course of Justice.

In 1996, the horrific case of Christopher Alder, saw an innocent man, the
victim of a violent assault, dying at the hands of Humberside Police.
Events leading up to his death on the floor of the Police custody suite in
Hull, are poorly evidenced in that only those police present were
witnesses to the events.

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/family-of-sean-rigg-welcome-reopening-of-policeinvestigation-
into-death-8994233.html

 The Solution

In Leon’s case – as in all of these cases – the requirement for police
officers to wear Body Worn Video (BWV) with audio when any interaction
with the public is required, would have provided key evidential material
to clear any controversy and reduce complaint investigations by
providing impartial, accurate evidence.

From the Californian study, Justice for Leon Committee found the use of
BWC's will provide valuable protection against abuse of detainees or
people being stopped and searched by police officers, thereby leading to
a decrease in violent exchanges and complaints.

Leon’s law will also benefit police officers and protect the reputation of
the police more generally, because the current level of public distrust for
police testimony has inevitably led to clouds of suspicion hanging over
officers that have conducted themselves with full probity. The use of
inconvertible video evidence has been key in the few successful
prosecutions of rogue officers, who discredit the fine work that many
police undertake on a daily basis. It is staggering that in cases such as
the Mark Duggan shooting such equipment is not deployed as standard.

In this technological age, with such equipment readily available at
reasonable cost to the public purse, 'Justice for Leon' and our
supporters DEMAND that this equipment is immediately rolled out
to be used as compulsory police equipment in Bedfordshire.

The evidence shows that use of body cameras and audio recordings will
go a long way, at very little cost, to re-assuring the public that the
conduct of officers will be as the public would expect if these systems
are made tamper proof and their use is compulsory.

There have been many pilot studies of the use of body worn camera
equipment in policing operations. Notably the Home Office “Guidance for
the use of Body Worn Video Devices”4 extensively examines the legal
implications of such deployment and confirms the reality that;
‘A picture paints a thousand words’, and a video recording from the
scene of an incident will capture compelling evidence of the activities of
suspects'

Recently Staffordshire police have announced their intention to be the
first UK police force to formally introduce these video systems for all their
officers. The introduction has been warmly welcomed by the Police and
Crime Commissioner Matthew Ellis who confirmed;

“These cameras are exceptional value for money” and notably his belief
that “It will protect people who are being arrested”

The protection for both officers and those arrested is further supported
by extensive studies in the USA. One recent full scale study was

 http://www.revealmedia.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dH4IOGWh9ZI%3D&tabid=156

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2459991/Police-force-equip-officers-body-worn-videocameras.html


Conducted in California demonstrated significant findings;6
“after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints
against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months.
Officers' use of force fell by 60%.”

This fall in use of force by 60% is a massive factor which cannot be
overlooked in the aim of preventing deaths in police custody. The full
published Californian study demonstrates the ease of use for officers
and the financial benefits to the Police department and public purse.
Front-line officers, their representatives and the Home Secretary have
also welcomed the introduction of this equipment, albeit with protections
for officers which should never have been tolerated.

In Staffordshire for example they missed the point completely by allowing the police
‘discretion’ as to whether the equipment is used during arrests.
This defeats a big part of the objective and Leon’s Law will be clear
on this point. The wearing and use of the video/audio equipment
will be compulsory where any interaction with the public is taking
place (except in specific circumstances which will be outlined). Any
officer turning it off or deleting footage will be subject to immediate
disciplinary action and this should be viewed as gross misconduct.

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violencecomplaints-
rialto

 http://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/Wearable_Cameras_Capitol_Hill_Final_Presentation_Jerry_Le
e_Symposium_2013.pdf

The Justice for Leon Briggs Committee believe that in light of Leon's
death, immediate protection for those being arrested and/or detained in
police custody is an urgent priority and one that should receive
immediate attention.

Staffordshire police introduced cameras for all
officers at a cost of just £300,000 – a small price to pay - and the
savings made just on administering less complaints will produce ongoing
year on year savings. Less complaints and less public concerns over
police probity will no doubt assist in the rebuilding of public confidence in
our police force.

We “Justice for Leon Briggs Committee” therefore call on the Chief
Constable and the Police Commissioner to take immediate action to
implement ‘Leon’s Law’ in Bedfordshire forthwith.

The immediate introduction for all Police Constables to wear body
worn video equipment which is to be activated during ALL
interactions with the public.

Public Consultation:

Justice for Leon would wish to extend the opportunity for public
consultation and examination of issues of Human rights and privacy
issues prior to implementation.8 We will seek the support of our
democratically elected political and community leaders to pledge their
support for the implementation of Leon's Law.

 J4L will seek input from leading Human Rights organisation LIBERTY and Birnberg Pierce & Partner solicitors

C.Griffiths
Carlos Griffiths – Chairperson
Signed on behalf of the Justice for Leon Briggs Committee
16 th DECEMBER 2013