Court Finds Lancashire Police Acted Unlawfully on EVERY Issue in Claim by Paul Ponting

Lancashire Police have suffered another significant blow, a public defeat of a civil claim against them in the Preston County Court.

Thank you to John Hagan and the team at DPP Law in Liverpool for their ongoing support.

This is Paul Ponting’s fourth civil claim against Lancashire Police which they decided not to settle out of court and instead used public money to defend the claim in a 5-day trial where the court found in favour of Mr Ponting on every head of the civil claim.

The arrest was unlawful. The entire 8.5-hour detention was unlawful. The force used amounted to assault and battery. The unlawful interference with property amounted to trespass to goods. And the retention of his recording device for eight months was also unlawful and caused an unsafe conviction, as the withheld recording device later proved the officers’ account was false.

The arresting officer denied the (now proven) assault for 7 years. The conviction was later overturned when the Crown Court ordered Lancashire Police to release the device which, on viewing, led the CPS to offer no evidence.

That alone is serious. However, the evidence behind the recent judgment is even more troubling.

This civil claim was not a narrow technical loss by Lancashire Police. It was a trial that exposed appalling decision making, lack of legal understanding, destruction of evidence and ever-changing witness statements to justify the unlawful actions, then devastating admissions under oath that undermined the force’s case.

Setting the Scene

In 2019, Paul Ponting attended Ormskirk Police Station as a victim of crime to give a witness statement. He attended by prior arrangement and was there to seek police assistance.

What followed was not a fast-moving emergency involving any violence. It was a dispute about whether Mr Ponting could visually record his interaction with officers as they insisted they would be recording him on their body-worn video.

Mr Ponting had been told he was entitled to record and had received written confirmation that he could do so and had, in fact, recorded at a prior police station attendance without any issue.

That context matters. This was never a situation where officers were confronting any threat, just a disagreement over filming and a policy that officers said prevented filming, which they later admitted didn’t exist.

The body-worn video evidence showed that unlawful force (an assault) was applied first by an officer against Mr Ponting simply because he put his foot in a door preventing it closing. The officer kicked him, grabbed his arm, twisting it, then forced him against a wall. Only afterwards did the officer say “breach of the peace” as some kind of justification for his loss of control.

The court ultimately found there was no breach of the peace, as no imminent violence was present, therefore no lawful basis for the arrest or any of the despicable police conduct that followed.

Arrest for breach of the peace is a last resort, only justified where no lesser option will suffice, as established in R v Howell.

In other words, as the Judge made clear, the incident should have been one of calm resolution and common sense. Instead, Lancashire Police escalated a routine attendance by a victim of crime into assaulting him, then unlawfully arresting him, followed by unlawful detention, unlawful force, and unlawful seizure of property.

Lawful Filming Was Turned Into an Unlawful Arrest

The judge found there was no breach of the peace, no imminent threat of violence, and no lawful basis to arrest Mr Ponting. The judgment also found the arrest was not necessary and that obvious alternatives existed, including simply allowing him to leave, which he had agreed to do.

That matters because Lancashire Police tried to turn a dispute about lawful filming and access into a supposed breach of the peace to then justify an unlawful arrest, all triggered by the officer assaulting Mr Ponting then denying it. The civil trial evidence showed that the issue was really about non-compliance and irritation, not violence.

One officer on oath accepted that someone merely not doing what they are told is not enough for breach of the peace on its own. Another accepted that before force was used against Mr Ponting, Mr Ponting had not used or intimated any violence whatsoever.

In her judgment HHJ Deane held that the claimant’s conduct was obstructive and rude, but not violent, and that there was no objective basis for any reasonable apprehension of imminent violence as is required for a breach of the peace and that Mr Ponting’s comment of using reasonable force was in defence of the officer assaulting him.

The Officer Used His Foot Then Denied it on Oath

One of the most striking parts of the case concerned the use of force at the doorway.

For almost 7 years, the now retired officer (now police staff) seemingly lied, denying using his foot in any way, but under cross-examination supported by video evidence, accepted that he ‘made contact’ with Mr Ponting’s foot and used enough force to move it. Yet he point-blank denied it was a kick, describing it instead as “more of a slide”. (‘or should that be a sLIEde’)

That distinction is hard to take seriously. If a police officer uses his foot against the foot of an adult male with enough force to dislodge it, most ordinary people will agree that to be a kick, whether it was with a sliding motion, but the officer would not accept this amounted to a kick.

The more damaging point is this: he accepted that this kick (or unlawful use of force) was never mentioned in any of his witness statements or within his mandatory use-of-force report. He accepted under cross-examination that it was an “important detail”.

He also admitted that the force legal department wrote one of his statements, who also omitted this significant evidence, which the officer wilfully signed, arguably demonstrating a force wide intent to mislead the court.

The officer claimed these multiple omissions of key evidence were just human error. Surprisingly, the court did not go so far as to call him dishonest, but the judge expressly stated that she treated his “evolving accounts” with caution and found that the more contemporaneous material better reflected what he actually thought at the time.

This shows that the officer and Lancashire force legal attempted to later re-frame his statements to fit the narrative.

The “Threat” Was Actually a Defensive Response

Mr Ponting’s words about using “reasonable force” were always central to the police case. Lancashire Police tried to falsely use that phrase as proof that violence was imminent when in reality the Judge agreed it was a statement of lawful self-defence.

In cross-examination, the officer reluctantly conceded Mr Ponting’s comment was triggered by his unlawful force against Mr Ponting’s foot. He also accepted that no assault or threat of unlawful violence had been recorded in the mandatory use-of-force form, and that the highest level of resistance recorded was only “active resistance” to the proven unlawful arrest and battery.

The judge’s finding was clear. In the judgment, HHJ Deane held that the statement about “reasonable force” was conditional and defensive, made only after unlawful force had already been used against Mr Ponting.

The Legal Understanding Was Alarmingly Poor

The case also exposed a startling lack of understanding of the law by the arresting officer.

The judge found that the officer misunderstood the law of breach of the peace. That finding fits with the trial notes, which recorded him saying that breach of the peace was a “very loose definition” and that being rude and uncooperative in a public area would count as a breach of the peace.

That is not a small mistake; it proves the officer had no idea what he was doing, yet he was an Acting Inspector, entrusted to be in operational command of Ormskirk Police Station at the time.

Breach of the peace is a narrow, preventative power tied to actual or imminent violence, as in Howell. It is not a catch-all power for dealing with awkward, rude, or difficult people.

No Policy Existed Yet It Was Used to Justify the Dispute

Another striking feature was the supposed policy about filming inside the station.

The evidence showed there was no general force policy preventing Mr Ponting from filming in the police station during the giving of his witness statement, despite this, officers repeatedly told him there was. Mr Ponting repeatedly asked to see it. One officer accepted there was no such general filming policy. Another shifted position and said that he made the decision himself on the day.

That matters because the entire confrontation grew out of this claimed restriction. If no policy existed, the dispute was built on sand from the outset.

Less Drastic Options Were Available and Ignored

The force also struggled badly on any arrest necessity.

Detailed notes taken during the trial show that alternatives were discussed, including using a different location or even a police vehicle. Mr Ponting had asked for alternatives, but officers refused.

The judge found the same. There were clear and less intrusive alternatives, yet officers escalated straight to arrest.

Calm, Compliant Yet Still Held for Hours

The police position on detention was no better.

The notes and BWV record concessions that once Mr Ponting was handcuffed, he was compliant.

Even so, he was detained for around eight and a half hours.

The judge found the entire detention unlawful.

Records Were Destroyed and the Explanation Was Poor

The destruction of the Inspector’s day book is another deeply troubling feature.

The officer accepted under oath that he had made a contemporaneous entry, then later destroyed it himself in December 2021 despite knowing there was a complaint against him.

The explanation was that he believed it was personal property.

Even so, the effect is clear: a key contemporaneous record no longer exists.

Statements Were Signed, But Not Written by the Officer

The officer accepted he did not write one of his statements but signed it.

That raises serious concerns about evidential integrity.

Earlier Proceedings Raise Further Questions

The officer denied using his foot in earlier proceedings.

Now that evidence has been contradicted.

This raises serious questions about reliability.

The Recording Devices Were Held for Eight Months

The device was seized and retained unlawfully.

When finally released, it proved the officer’s account false.

A Pattern of Systemic Failure

• A non-existent policy was asserted.
• The law was misunderstood.
• Force was used and denied.
• Evidence was omitted.
• Records were destroyed.
• Detention continued unlawfully.
• Property was withheld.
• A conviction was secured on withheld evidence.

This is not a single error. It is a pattern.

Lancashire Police Need to Explain Themselves

This judgment is not just a legal defeat. It is a public accountability issue.

The court found entirely in favour of Mr Ponting. That means the police were wrong on all accounts.

Lancashire Police now need to explain why this happened and why public money was spent defending it.