Woke Judges?

[Werewolf]

Basically that - it seems to be an absurd conclusion drawn from the fact that actual fare invaders are told they need to give their name and address or else they're liable to face arrest and then they if they give their details just get a fine in the post. The act of fare evasion itself doesn't result in an arrest just a fine in the post ergo the judge has concluded this was excessive for a suspected offence.

The problem is that happens when the actual fare evader is cooperating, she was already not cooperating with the ticket inspectors. Seemingly had the police officer just asked for her name and address there wouldn't have been an unlawful arrest in the eyes of the judge.

But also the police officer just grabbed her arm initially and then she started kicking off so it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to cuff her because of that.

I guess if he'd just said he was arresting her for breach of the peace instead of suspected fare evasion then he'd have been covered too.

Did the officer at the time he grabbed her have a legal reason to lay hands on her?

That is basically what it comes down to and the Judge seems to have decided that given the evidence, the legislation, the case law and the other circumstances he didn't.

This is the thing, it seems that they went from asking her to show her ticket, to physical force when she tried to leave without any inbetween steps on their part.

IIRC fare evasion is a minor offence in the law, refusing to give proof of ticket to the inspector is more serious if the inspector or the police officer had explained that.
Note again she offered to talk whilst walking in her evidence, which means that any suspicion of her refusing to show the ticket is in question in the law.
The officer seems to have grabbed her without any attempt on his part to explain why he was attempting to detain her, which is a failing in that he's gone directly to the use of force, something that is an issue for the police under their procedures, they're meant to use force when other options have failed. if she had been running it might have been justified.

[not quite an edit, but seen after typing the above]
I've just seen a longer version of the video where she is getting the card out and presenting it to the scanner at least twice whilst moving when she is distracted going to get her kid, the scanner actually beeps and it's during that the officer first seems to grab her.

So even the "she didn't present it to the scanner" is a nonsense in the longer video (5 minutes odd), the officer started physical contact whilst she was presenting it, and it looks like she had tried to present it at least 2 or 3 times in the first 30 seconds of that longer video.
And the arrest for "fare evasion" comes AFTER she attempted to present the card and after she was starting to be manhandled by the officer, so she hadn't even failed to comply with the requirement to present a "ticket", let alone the marginally more serious offence of failing to give details after not having a ticket.

Basically it looks like the officer done messed up by touching her before she'd tried to leave (it seems he grabbed her when she walked a couple of steps towards her child), by detaining her after she had attempted to comply with the requirement to present the card, and then the use of force escalated.
Which would explain why the Judge may have considered he had no "reasonable cause to believe she had evaded the fare" at the time he started touching her (she had her card out), and the use of force was over the top after that.

 

[dowie]

Did the officer at the time he grabbed her have a legal reason to lay hands on her?

That is basically what it comes down to and the Judge seems to have decided that given the evidence, the legislation, the case law and the other circumstances he didn't.

That question has already been answered in the post:

"Seemingly had the police officer just asked for her name and address there wouldn't have been an unlawful arrest in the eyes of the judge.

But also the police officer just grabbed her arm initially and then she started kicking off so it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to cuff her because of that.

I guess if he'd just said he was arresting her for breach of the peace instead of suspected fare evasion then he'd have been covered too."

It seems like a bit of a reach by the judge and it's not like there aren't some questions about him. If it is appealed and the Court of Appeal holds up that that's correct then that would be far more robust than this guy.

[not quite an edit, but seen after typing the above]
I've just seen a longer version of the video where she is getting the card out and presenting it to the scanner at least twice whilst moving when she is distracted going to get her kid, the scanner actually beeps and it's during that the officer first seems to grab her.

Why not link to it?

A fare evader can also feign tapping the card and try to walk off so that in itself doesn't mean she shouldn't be stopped and being distracted by her child is a super lame excuse, she clearly had a big attitude problem and was just trying to walk off - let's see the longer video?

 

[BUDFORCE]

Someone needs to make this judge disappear.

 

[dowie]

Here's a longer clip, has a few seconds before the BBC clip starts - she's clearly trying to walk off with another police officer putting her arms out, walking backward to try and get her to stop. She's already starting to kick off at that point before having her arm grabbed by the police officer who was subsequently charged for it: