Man carrying home his gardening tools arrested by armed police … really?

You may have seen the above somewhat click-baity headline here in the Guardian.

The story goes on to say that:

“…a man who had returned home from his allotment with a trug of vegetables and gardening tools strapped to his belt was arrested by armed police”.

I’ve read the story, which didn’t feel entirely right to me, so I thought in the interests of balance, I’d try and look at what is and is not being said here. Now to be very clear, I wasn’t there, and the officers and the gentleman concerned are not in a position to give any more information, so all I have to go on is what’s in the article.

Let’s go through the story and pick out some of the most interesting parts…

Samuel Rowe … had come back from his allotment in Manchester and decided to trim his hedge with one of his tools, a Japanese garden sickle, when police turned up on his doorstep.

“I just heard shouting behind me, and then two armed officers shouting at me to drop the knife,” he said. “And then they turned me around, pushed me up against my house, cuffed me, and then they arrested me, put me in the back of the van.”

Let’s unpick this. He had come home from his allotment (no indication how far away it was, but let’s assume walking distance) presumably carrying his tools, including what is described as an “Ice Bear Japanese gardener’s sickle”.

I’ve done a quick search, since I had never heard of this tool, and it’s a pretty serious bit of kit - here’s a photo of this exact item:

This doesn’t look like a tool which would be easy to hide - for example in a trug - so we can assume it was on view when he was walking home. I can see how a member of the public might find that concerning, and call the police. And it seems like that’s what happened:

a member of the public said they had seen “a man wearing khaki clothing and in possession of a knife”

When police turn up he's outside his house and has the sickle in his hands. I'm not surprised that the police would have been quite firm with him about dropping the item. They can only go on the information they've been told, and what they see in front of them.

By the way, the Guardian's breathless reporting of the fact that the police who turned up had guns is a bit of a red herring, and a reflection of the media’s obsession with armed police - they love them when they stop terrorists within minutes of an attack, but are otherwise happy to portray them as a threat to the Dixon of Dock Green idealistic vision of policing (which hasn’t been a thing since the 1950s at least).

Armed police carry out routine policing too - from GMP’s statement it seems as though the officers were flagged down by a member of the public. It’s also possible they were deployed by the control room to ‘confirm or negate the existence of a threat’ which is a very low level approach. The article doesn’t clarify but undoubtedly leaves the reader imagining guns were pointed by multiple officers, screaming instructions, like we so often see in TV shows. From experience, I doubt very much this is what happened.

So he’s arrested for possession of the sickle (and according to GMP a ‘dagger’ and a ‘peeling knife’ as well) and taken to a police station.

“They started asking questions, like if I was autistic or anything like that”.

He may well have been asked by a custody sergeant when being booked in if he is autistic - perhaps based on how he presented - and this is a genuine and valid question to ask to understand if a detainee has specific needs (for example, would they benefit from having an appropriate adult with them).   

“…asking me whether I’d ever been in the army, whether I told people I was in the army”.

On the face of it, an odd line of questioning, unless of course he’d suggested he is in the army. It might have been due to the way he was dressed - the original caller said he was in khaki.

Rowe said he was interviewed without legal representation as officers had been unable to reach a solicitor

In over 30 years in uniform, including a year as a custody sergeant, I have never heard of someone being interviewed without legal representation because a solicitor wasn’t available. A duty solicitor is always available. Now there can be delays - a single solicitor might have two or three clients queued up - and in those cases sometimes a detainee can choose not to wait any longer.

But if they change their mind like this, a senior officer (Inspector or above) must come and speak to them to ensure that they are not under duress, and that they’re making the decision of their own free will and for good reasons - not just because they want to get out of custody sooner.

…after spending several hours in custody he said he accepted a caution so he would be released.

A good reason for having a solicitor, who could advise about whether accepting a caution is an appropriate course of action. As Mr Rowe rightly points out:

“I’ve basically got a caution that’s going to show up on a DBS [Disclosure and Barring Service check]"

Note that in order to receive a caution, the offence has to be admitted by the suspect, which according to GMP's statement is the case here.

I note that Mr Rowe is hoping to overturn the caution and that this process is ongoing. If I hear of a result, I'll update this blog post.

Police custody is a complicated and busy place - are you portraying a police custody suite in your next TV or Film production? Get in touch, maybe I can help make things less mysterious and more believable on screen!