POLICE RAIDS

Police have been criticised for 'burgling' homes in a bizarre bid to prevent crime. The officers walked into homes through unlocked doors and open windows and left behind swag bags packed with valuable items they found. The operation was designed to show how easy it is for burglars to break into properties but some residents were unaware their property had been "burgled", even though they were at home at the time. PC Rob Bolt, a neighbourhood beat manager in the St James area of Exeter, Devon, said, "Officers were able to walk into people's homes and place the swag bags in the properties while we could hear them upstairs."

Police "broke into" more than 50 homes. Local resident Mike Parsons said, "Talk about a police state. Since when have members of the constabulary been allowed to enter into someone's private property uninvited and without a warrant? How long before a police officer is attacked and fatally wounded by a worried householder who hears a noise downstairs and then attacks the intruder? This is trespass plain and simple." Criminal law expert lawyer Neil Scott said the operation was "incredibly risky".

He added, "No one has an automatic right of entry to someone else's property without consent, that applies to police officers and members of the public and whether it is unsecured is irrelevant. Police need a warrant from a magistrates court if they wish to do this or they may enter a property if they believe an offence is being committed. With regard to this initiative, they neither had a warrant nor were they dealing with an offence." Mr Scott said the police could face problems by carrying out such operations.

He said, "What if one of the home owners goes on to claim that something has gone missing while the officers were in the property? There is a risk of an accusation of burglary. What if an item is damaged while they are in the property? This is also burglary, although unlikely to lead to prosecution. And everyone is entitled to defend their property from intruders. Conceivably an officer could have been attacked. If the police tried to prosecute this as assaulting a police officer, the home owner would have a strong legal defence. I presume the force has looked into all this but it seems to me to be a very strange course of action." (source: The Sun, Mar/10)

When Swindon police smashed through a double glazed door and handcuffed Trevor Andrews they claimed that they were acting on "intelligence", but it was the wrong house! Mr Andrews was in the living room of his Swindon home when suddenly the double glazed front door was smashed in and the police swarmed in looking for drugs. He was handcuffed and half stripped and the police were searching through his belongings before they realised that they had smashed in the front door of the wrong house. When Mr Andrews complained to the police they did not even apologise.

In addition Insp Adrian Burt virtually accused him of being a drug trafficer saying, "On this rare occasion no drugs were found. I have reviewed this particular case and the actions of the police are lawful, proportionate and necessary based on the community intelligence. It would be wrong to issue public funds for compensation on this occasion." So, Swindon Police smash their way into an innocent man's house, abuse him and his property, and then when they are proved to be in the wrong, refuse to compensate him and make out it's HIS fault! (Source: Navigor, May/07)

The police are considering a proposal to let selected British Muslims examine the intelligence used to mount anti-terrorism raids before they take place. The proposal will be considered as part of a review of the raid in Forest Gate, east London, when 250 officers stormed a family house searching for a chemical weapon which was not found. One man was shot and police apologised for the "hurt" caused by the raid.

While such a review after a controversial incident is standard, this one is unique because British Muslims are involved from the start. A senior police source with knowledge of the issues involved said, "We are working on sharing more information with the community before, during and after events so they understand as much of the context as we can provide."

Other sources said the review would look at the gathering and assessment of intelligence, which is sparser than in other serious crime. The review will also look at what action police then take, and whether hundreds of police need to storm a private family house. Also on the table is more rapid compensation, whether police can do more to stop or counteract leaks "smearing" suspects.

Andy Hayman, the Met's assistant commissioner in charge of anti-terrorism, has already said lessons would be learned after the raid, which saw two brothers held for eight days and questioned, before being released without charge. The review includes members of the Muslim Safety Forum, which aims to improve relations between police and British Muslim communities.

Azad Ali, its chairman, said fresh measures, such as British Muslims being able to advise the police on their intelligence and how to act on it before any raid, must be found. "Greater co-operation with the police is possible, but it needs the police to take creative steps to build trust," he said. "There are people keen to help the police, but episodes like Forest Gate and the way it was mishandled stoke up the mistrust."

Privately senior officers have said more raids will occur because of the threat of terrorism. But they face several dilemmas. Intelligence they have is sketchy and cannot be hardened up in the way it can in other serious crime. But every episode in which errors appear to be made, cost the police in lost confidence. Senior officers say they need the trust of British Muslims to gain an increased flow of information.

In another sign of the impact of the Forest Gate raid, the head of Labour's ethnic minority taskforce warned that the anti-terrorism battle will not work while Muslims feel picked on. (Source: Guardian, Jun/06)