Should People Get Compensation For Being Arrested Then Released?

[bednobs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22784523
I read this with interest. While it's awful to be arrested in these circumstances, does it really warrant compensation (especially enough to move house and pay for private medical care?)
Does this mean anyone who is arrested then released should get a payout?

[Old_Geezer]

Were I unfairly arrested I'd feel so violated I'd think I'd be entitled to some kind of compensation, but I can see the practical difficulties whereby the police would be loath to arrest anyone and so not do their job, so I can't see it being workable.

[mikey4444]

I am not sure of the law here but couldn't somebody sue for wrongful arrest ? Perhaps it would be a good thing if most people didn't, as the Courts would be overrun by Policemen in the witness box, instead of arresting burglars and stopping speeding motorists !

[ToraToraTora]

No but the Police should have used a bit more common sense here. Why would they have needed to arrest her anyway? Just wait and see if real evidence emerges rather than jumping in like this.

[jno]

I'd imagine this isn't a run-of-the-mill case: bad enough that your child has died, but to be taken to the cells yourself under suspicion must be awful. There must surely have been a better way of handling this?

[jackthehat]

I'm not sure that all the facts have been outlined in this case.

It seems that it was determined pretty early on not to have been murder but a tragic case of misdiagnosis of, and failure to treat, a potentially fatal medical complaint.

As she was 'quickly ruled out' as being responsible for her sons death, perhaps the Police were a bit previous in arresting her before the actual cause of death had been established?

[bednobs]

that all may be i suppose. However, the question remains should we compensate people who have been arrested,t hen released as a general principle?

[sir.prize]

Max Clifford might - just might - answer that question bednobs.

[jackthehat]

I think compensating everyone arrested and then released without charge is unworkable.

Which is why I am surprised that, on the facts given, it has happened in this case.

[LazyGun]

Being arrested for a criminal action is not and should not be seen as a trivial matter. It will have an impact upon mental health, family relationships, friendships, work prospects - to say nothing of the indignity and humiliation incurred through having to undergo the process when innocent of the crime in question.

I think it is the right of anyone in such circumstances to bring a suit against the police in a court, and if the judge agrees, be awarded compensation and a public acknowledgement and apology.

[SeaJayPea]

According to Jeremy Vine, talking to Ken Bruce just now, she was told to leave her house the moment the emergency services arrived, she went to her brother's at which point the police turned up in several riot vans, in full riot gear to take her away. All this just after she'd found her three year old son dead!! She was kept locked up overnight and not allowed anywhere near her child.

If this is true, then of course she's entitled to compensation, it would be wrongful arrest on a grand scale. More to the point, whoever was in charge at the time needs a serious looking-at.

[FredPuli43]

Public policy is rather against it. If claims were permitted, everyone who was arrested and not charged would sue. The present law is that an officer who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a crime has been committed and that the person has committed it, shall arrest that person. All of us run the risk of being arrested on that basis because an officer may have reasonable grounds which prove later to be unfounded. But to change the rule to a requirement of compelling evidence, admissible in law, sufficient to justify a charge would bring obvious difficulties. A policeman could never arrest anyone who was running away from the scene of a crime, for example, though the suspect fitted the description of one of the alleged perpetrators.

The remedy, such as it is, is to sue for wrongful arrest or malicious prosecution. These are based on showing that the police acted without reasonable cause and in bad faith. Understandably, and, perhaps happily, such actions are rare

[hc4361]

Of course compensation shouldn't be paid in the normal course of police arresting an innocent person they suspect of committing a crime.

This case is different because there was no suggestion of a crime having taken place when this woman was arrested. The police should have waited for the post mortem results before even thinking of arresting her.

The PM showed this was not a suspicious death.

[Canary42]

Agree with lazygun.

[Twenty20]

There's a big difference between the Police arresting someone 'on suspicion of...' rather than, for instance, 'the murder of...', although the distinction isn't always clear to people.

I think if you're arrested for 'the murder of...' and it turns out the Police were wrong then you'd have a good case for being compensated. Being arrested 'on suspicion of...' gives the Police a chance to question them without actually accusing them of the murder. In this case however I think they probably went OTT.