The parent – who is not being named to protect the identity of their child – said they were denied the opportunity to be an appropriate adult for their child, that the child wasn’t allowed to call either parent in custody, and a decision to take samples was disproportionate to the offence the teenager was arrested for.
The parent also told Express that the child wasn’t given food during the overnight experience, and is now seeing professional help due to the impact of the incident.
Because the family was already known to the police, it was suggested that there may have been “unconscious bias”.
Police investigated eight separate claims and Deputy Chief Officer Ian Scholes responded in writing twice.
An “operational” decision
In a wide–ranging response, the DCO acknowledged that custody was not “ideal” for a child and explained why certain actions were taken and offered to meet with the parent and child to allay any further concerns.
Pictured: The child was held overnight and was not given any food.
He described the arrest itself as an “operational” decision and said he did “not take issue with that decision itself”.
However, he said: “Your concern that [X] was detained in custody overnight and not given bail is understood and the decision to bail [X] was open to the custody Sergeant.”
“Ideally we would not want a juvenile to be detained in custody”
“Due to the nature of the allegation… I understand why it could have been considered necessary, for the welfare of the complainant, however custody is not an ideal place for a juvenile, especially overnight and I share your concerns,” the DCO continued.
“Ideally we would not want a juvenile to be detained in custody.
“I hope that this incident has not tarnished [X]’s view of the police and I would like to offer to meet with you all to give [X] some reassurance and listen to… your concerns.”
The parents had also complained that the child had not been given food and was unable to make a call to either of them.
The DCO said that a belief that one of the parents was bringing in food also contributed to the teenager not being fed overnight.
On not being allowed to call the parents, it was said that the parents were already informed so “informing [their] mother had been discharged as far as the custody sergeant was concerned”.
“I fully understand that you may still feel aggrieved by this decision”
One of the parents had expressed concerns about not being allowed to act as an ‘appropriate adult’ for the child when they were arrested.
The DCO responded that this decision was taken due to a belief that the parent had “consumed alcohol”. However, the parent was able to act as an appropriate adult the next day.
“It is difficult to reassess whether you should have been allowed to act as the appropriate adult for [X] because I was not present on the night but a decision was made that you should not,” Mr Scholes said.
“Having made that decision an appropriate adult was appointed for the reasons that I have outlined above. I fully understand that you may still feel aggrieved by this decision but I can only reiterate that a decision was made based on the custody officer’s observations at the time and you did act as appropriate adult the following morning.”
Hope that officers work “without prejudice and bias”
The final area of concern related to the parent’s belief that the police were influenced by unconscious bias, as the parents were already known to the police.
“I can understand your concern in this area, however I have not uncovered any evidence of there being bias towards you and your family,” said the DCO.
“It is obvious that officers will know people that they deal with because of the small community in which we all live and work.
“I sincerely hope that officers will work in the community without prejudice and bias.”
Unsuccessful appeal
The complaint is considered closed by Guernsey Police.
The parent appealed the response by writing to the Police Complaints Commission, but the determination of the DCO was upheld.
The Complaints Commission said: “The Commission concluded in respect of Regulation 56(1)(b) that the determination of the Appropriate Authority was appropriate.
“The Commission noted in the Appropriate Authority’s Letter dated 7th December 2023 that he has directed a full review of the specific incident, and the complainant could therefore expect a full explanation and rational of the decisions made in due course. The Commission therefore makes no formal recommendation.”
The Commission did identify that initially “insufficient information had been provided by the Appropriate Authority in respect of the complaints made”. However, the parent has since received the DCO’s specific responses, as referred to above.
“Traumatised”
The parent who made the initial complaint remains concerned about the impact of the arrest ordeal on their child.
“Our [child] has been seeing a professional because of how this has affected [them] and to help [them] get over this all,” they told Express.
“We were advised to make a complaint, which we have, and basically all we got back is… three paragraphs saying no investigation is needed or officers don’t need to be investigated and these officers haven’t done anything wrong.
“Basically a child and family can be treated this way and it’s tough. Not even a sorry to our child or a sorry ever written to [them].”
Despite the DCO offering to meet with the family and “offer reassurance” the parent said they still want their child to be apologised to.