Dear Chief Constable: Seriously

The Sue Pentel incident outside Barclays was, at best, a sad reflection of our policing and officer training or at worst a complete overreaction to what was an innocuous protest about an important issue, on which I have extensively blogged.

Below are the key issues which I would like to comment on after watching videos and phone footage of the incident:

1. There was no evidence of criminal damage as alleged by the officer, in that there was no evidence of a sticker. Even if there was a sticker, I do not know that this would constitute criminal damage under the 1971 Criminal Damage Act. The act defines criminal damage as the act of intentionally destroying or damaging property belonging to another without a lawful excuse.
2. Police officers threatened to use force to arrest a 72-year-old lady for standing and advocating in a moderate tone, about Gaza. I thought we had sorted this policing behaviour out after universal suffrage was attained.
3. A police officer constantly asked for Sue Penter’s name. A person can refuse to give a Police Officer their name (including when they are being stopped and searched) unless the Officer’s demand for your name is tied to a reasonable suspicion on the part of the Officer that you are committing (or have committed) a criminal offence. If a criminal offence can be clearly established, for example, contravening section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002, this allows the Police to require you to give your name and address. This is also the case if they believe you are or have been engaging in anti-social behaviour (as defined by section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014). Unfortunately, this incident shows the public that still too many police Officers behave as if they have the right to ‘take names’ from whoever they like, and as a consequence, resort to misrepresenting their powers, bluffing, or threatening people who fail to comply.
4. The 72-year-old was at best treated disrespectfully and inappropriately when she was handcuffed and bundled into the back of a police Land Rover. This was done to an elderly lady who posed no threat to either the two police officers or the public.
5. The Police statement issued by Assistant Chief Constable Ryan, saying that their officers acted lawfully and appropriately, shows that the policing hierarchy still wants to defend the indefensible when a simple apology for the officer’s behaviour would have placated public reaction.

I would advise a better public relations effort and to embrace fully what it means by policing with the community.

Suneil Sharma

Former independent member of the NIPB

30^th May 2025

I