Duties and Obligations of Police Officers - Essay Example

? OOO Et Al V. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police & OOO Et Al V. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police 2011 Introduction The case OOO et al v. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police of 2011, is a case involving the infringement of the human rights. Based on the case, the Queen’s division held that a violation of the basic human rights of the claimants had been committed. The claimants included four Nigerian ladies. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the provisions of the articles 3 and 4 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). The verdict was that the officers acting as agents of the defendant, had neglected the aspects of investigating on the issue of contention. The issue of contention involved the claims of human trafficking as well as the duties and the powers of the police. The issue involved the claim that the claimants had been exposed to degrading, inhuman treatment, besides being held under servitude and forced compliance. Following the suit, each of the claimants was awarded a cash retribution of 5,000 as non-pecuniary compensation (Benitez et al. 2010). Discussion The case in question was the first of its kind, to be heard in England and the South Whales, especially due to its scope. The case was questioning the scope of the duties and obligations of police officers, with regard to investigating reported instances of the violations of article 3 and 4 of the ECHR. The case involved the abuse faced by four Nigerian women, previously trafficked into the U.K, while still below the age of eighteen – to be used for domestic servitude. The four women had brought a claim against the commissioner of police in charge of the Metropolis, demanding compensation – for the failure of carrying out investigations into the intelligence of the cases presented to the police years back, regarding the illegal trafficking and forced servitude at North London. The Metropolitan Police Unit consented of having received the reports of the breach of the human rights of the four women, as per the provisions of article 3 and 4 of the ECHR. However, the Metropolitan Police disputed the fact that the officers had breached the rights of the claimants, as a result of their failure to investigate the authenticity of the claims of the four women. However, there was no question regarding whether the duty to investigate was demanded under articles 3 and 4 of the ECHR, but, whether the failure to investigate constituted the breach of the duty (Williams & U.N. General Assembly 1981). In deciding the breach to act on the cases of the women, Mr. Williams evaluated in details – the evidence provided and the background information offered by the four women and other present witnesses. These witnesses included the police unit, and all the police officers engaged in the reporting of the matter or involved in evaluating the cases of the four women at some point in time. One of the claimants had also challenged the Metropolitan Police Service to offer her retribution damages amounting to ?25,000, to which they consented. The MPS also expressed regret to her, over their failure to offer the basic standards in examining the circumstances surrounding her plight, which she had reported at the Southgate police station in 2004. Mr. William also considered the conditions surrounding the cases of the three other Nigerian women – who were not party to the ?25,000 case – claiming that they had undergone similar human rights abuse, and had reported the issues to the police. The police had done nothing about their cases (Ovey &White 2006). In the same case, in November 2008 – the four claimants had ordered their solicitor to address the MPS, requiring them to carry out criminal investigations into the case, against the people involved in the abuse of the claimants. In December 2008, the MPS consented to the responsibility of undertaking the investigation into the issues surrounding the human rights abuse of the four. According to the case, it was confirmed that articles 3 and 4 of the ECHR obligated the police – to take action towards preventing any person from going through human rights abuse. The obligation is subject to preventing the treatment of individuals, as prohibited by article 3 and 4 of the ECHR. Mr. Williams, further expressed that the duty to investigate in an urgent manner would arise, in the case, the reporting victim was still at the peril of experiencing the harmful treatment. The duty requires that the police should act with reasonable expedition and in a prompt manner as long as the police were informed of a credible allegation involving the infringement of the rights expressed in article 2, 3 and 4. Additionally, it was noted that the absence of an explicitly identified victim should not avoid the duty of the police to investigate the matter (Ovey &White 2006). According to the evidence presented, the decree was that the MPS was wrong in failing to act. They also declared that the defense of the MPS – that the victims were not cooperative – was not justifiable. This conclusion was based on the fact that the victims remained at the situation of abuse and victimization after 2007, mainly due to the failure of the police to investigate the abuse. Also, during that time, the names and the abuse of the victims remained known to the police, implying that they still wished that the investigation of their cases get effected. Besides, their abuse after reporting the issues was the result of the Police’s failure inability to carry out a successful investigation. As a result, the claimants were declared rightful of getting compensation for the frustration and distress suffered as a result of the Police’s failure to investigate. The ECHR justifies compensation for cases amounting to frustration and distress based on the breach of article 3 and 4 of the ECHR. Conclusively, ?5,000 was awarded to each of the claimants (Ovey &White 2006). Arguing out the same case from the perspective of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the judgment of the case OOO et al vs. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police would take a totally different course. This very act was enacted a few years after the civil war. The chief causes for its enactment included the protection of Southern blacks from the mischief of the Ku Klux Klan. The act sought to establish civil treatment for abuses. In demonstrating the difference in the judgment to be reached, if the current case were to be solved using this act, is the case of Castle Rock V. Gonzales of 2005. This was a case presided over by the U.S supreme court on a 7 to 2 vote. The verdict of the case was that a town and its police authorities would not be held responsible or sued under the 42 U.S.C. §1983 on the account of its failure in enforcing a restraining order. The case in question had led to the execution of the three children of the complainant, by her separated husband (Schabas 1998). So as to understand the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a restraining order, a few things should be noted. It is also, called an order of protection, which is a lawful restriction that prohibits a party from doing or refraining from certain acts. In the case the party in question refuses to heed to the refraining order, they are subjected to criminal or civil penalties, which may involve the payment of damages or conforming to sanctions. Disregarding restraining orders may also lead to the arrest or a possible imprisonment of the victim. This type of order is affected in the event of domestic violence, stalking, harassment and sexual assault. The general purpose of these rules may also be compared to those of protection orders. From the case in question, it is evident that the issues facing the four complainants fell under the bracket of the vices coverable by a restraining order. This is the case, mainly because the abuse they went through can be termed as having taken the form of harassment at certain times (Glendon 2002). In line with the judgment reached in the current Castle Rock V. Gonzales of 2005, the case of the four Nigerian women complainants may have taken this course of judgment. Firstly, the non-cooperation of the victims would have been used as grounds to confirm the lack of commitment in pursuing the cases, on the part of the victims was questionable. Secondly, the failure to carry out the investigation by the police, may have been blamed on the lack of thee commitment of the victims – as often – they chose to conceal the abuse they went though, during interviews by the police. In line with the latter case, the major issue would be that the Metropolitan Police service was not responsible for the implementation of the refraining efforts to avoid the abuse of the victims, especially because they did not show commitment in ending the abuse. From such a perspective, the verdict would state that the police were not responsible for ensuring that the abuse of the victims ended, mainly because the victims did not show the commitment to end it. As a result, the Metropolitan Police Service would be vindicated of any contribution in leading to the continuation of the abuse of the victims (Benitez et al. 2010). Conclusion The case OOO et al v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police of 2011 involved the Metropolitan police force and four Nigerian female complainants, who were suing the police force – as responsible for their continued abuse. This was the case, as the police service had not carried out conclusive investigations into the causes, extents, and the circumstances surrounding the human rights abuse. On the basis of article 3 and 4 of the ECHR, the metropolitan police service was declared guilty of the continued abuse, and was required to pay ?5,000 as damages for the suffering and the torture experienced – after the police had been offered the opportunity to stop the abuse. However, if the case were to be argued out on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, precisely, clause 42 U.S.C. §1983, the judgment would have taken a totally different course. The police authorities would have been relived of the responsibility to offer refraining measures on the abuse of the victims. These refraining measures in the current case would have included the investigation of the cases, mainly because the victims showed no commitment on their part. References Benitez, M et al. 2010, “Do Protection Orders Protect?” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 38 (3), pp. 376–385. Castle Rock V. Gonzales. 545 US 748. Supreme Court of the US. 2005. US Supreme Court Opinions. Glendon, M 2002, A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Random House Press, London. OOO & Others vs. the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. EWHC 1246 (QB). 2011. Civil Rights Act 1871, 17 (U.S Constitution) s. 13, Ovey, C & White, R 2006, Jacobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights,  Oxford University Press, Oxford. Schabas, W 1998, “Canada and the Adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights,”   McGill Law Journal, 43, p. 403. Williams, P & U.N. General Assembly 1981, The International bill of human rights, Entwhistle Books, California. Read More