Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads: Motoring Non-motoring forum

Non-motoring > Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads	Legal Questions
Thread Author: zippy	Replies: 13

View Threaded

Fri 11 Apr 25 16:58

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - zippy

www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/surrey-police-uk-mother-arrested-childs-ipad-vanessa-brown/

Reading between the lines, it seems like it may be a malicious claim of theft from an ex-partner.

AIUI, she has the power to confiscate her kids possessions and I suspect that Surrey Police or Berkshire Police (and us as tax payers) will have to pay compensation.

Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 11 Apr 25 18:23

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Zero

Its LBC, the UK equivalent of Fox news. I need know no more to treat this with the scepticism it deserves.

Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 11 Apr 25 19:17

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - zippy

To be fair, other news websites are repeating the article.

Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 11 Apr 25 22:21

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - bathtub tom

It seems she said she didn't know where the I-pads were, when she probably did.

Perhaps she failed the attitude test?

Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 11 Apr 25 22:26

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Fullchat

Now for the truth without selective Victim/Press spin. Sounds like a domestic type incident with the Police in the middle being used.

Press release from Chief Superintendent Aimee Ramm, Northern Divisional Commander:

On Wednesday, 26 March two of our officers attended an address in Cobham following report of a concern for safety.
While they were there, a man in his 40s who was present, reported the theft of two iPads.
This led officers to carry out further enquiries at a second address, where a 50-year-old woman from Cobham was questioned about the iPads and denied any knowledge of their whereabouts.
However, a tracking device on the iPads showed that they were at the address. Officers encouraged the woman to return the items and resolve the matter, however the woman did not cooperate and therefore she was arrested on suspicion of theft.
A search was then carried out using post-arrest powers and the iPads were located.
During this time, officers called South-East Coast Ambulance to attend the address following a further concern for safety. While awaiting ambulance, the officers who had originally attended the address were ending their shift, and therefore replaced by two of their colleagues.
The woman was then taken into custody where the necessary procedures were followed, which included a risk assessment, consultation with a healthcare professional, and the taking of fingerprints and custody photos.
There was a three-hour delay between her solicitor being notified and being ready for consultation with their client.
The woman was subsequently released on conditional bail while further enquiries were carried out to establish the ownership of the iPads. The police bail conditions included not speaking to anyone connected to the investigation, including her daughters, while officers carried out their enquiries.
Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads belonged to the woman's children, and that she was entitled to confiscate these items from her own children. The case was therefore closed the following day with no further action being taken and the bail conditions which had been set were then no longer applicable.
Officers did attend the daughter's school, however this was in relation to the initial concern for safety.

Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 11 Apr 25 23:19

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - zippy

Thanks.

As I suggested above, it does appear to be a malicious claim from the father, plus of course her failure to cooperate.

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 00:05

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Bromptonaut

Failure to cooperate. Suspect that was the issue with the parents who were arrested over their daughter's schooling too.

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 09:21

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Kevin

>Sounds like a domestic type incident with the Police in the middle being used.

>Press release from Chief Superintendent Aimee Ramm, Northern Divisional Commander:

All sounds well and good until you factor in the reports surfacing today which, if correct, say that Mrs whats-her-name confiscated the iPads after a row with her 16yo daughter. The "concern for safety" and subsequent theft allegations were then made to plod by her ex-husband who just happens to be an ex-copper.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/34427834/cops-arrest-mum-ipad-theft-greggs-shoplifting/

Chief Super Ramm should have ended her statement with "A man in his 40s is now being investigated for wasting Police time and behaviour intended to cause distress..."

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 10:29

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - zippy

Failing to cooperate:

Rice v Connolly (1966) 2 QB 414

"At common law there is no legal duty to provide the police with information or otherwise to
assist them...."

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 10:52

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Bromptonaut

>> Rice v Connolly (1966) 2 QB 414
>>
>> "At common law there is no legal duty to provide the police with information or
>> otherwise to
>> assist them...."
>>

True but if you're offered the option to cooperate and refuse then you risk arrest provided there are grounds

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 10:59

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Biggles

Perhaps it might make more sense to first determine whether there are grounds for arresting someone before they are arrested.

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 12:21

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Bromptonaut

>> Perhaps it might make more sense to first determine whether there are grounds for arresting
>> someone before they are arrested.

So far as I can ascertain sequence here is:

1. Estranged parents; daughters with Mother.
2. Mother confiscates I-pads from daughters over some infraction
3. Daughters complain to Father
4. Father (ex Bill) reports Mother for theft of what he alleges are HIS tablets
5. Police visit mother who denies any knowledge of the I-Pads and sends them off with a flea in their ear
6. Tech shows I Pads are at Mother's address
7. She's nicked on suspicion of theft
8. Inquires continued and she was subject to bail conditions during that period.

I would say arrest was not unreasonable particularly if she continued to be truculent when challenged.

Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Apr 25 at 12:23

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 12:31

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - zippy

>> I would say arrest was not unreasonable particularly if she continued to be truculent when
>> challenged.
>>

PACE establishes a range of specific conditions that would make an arrest necessary.

Summary:

To ascertain a person’s name or address. This would be considered an arrest necessity if the police had reason to believe they were being given false information.

Well they knew who she was and where she lived.

To prevent physical harm. This includes harm to the person being arrested, whether from others or from themselves.

Not applicable here.

To prevent loss of or damage to property. This would particularly apply if the individual has a history of theft or criminal damage, for instance.

Not applicable here as they recovered the items.

To prevent an offence against public decency. This only applies if members of the public are going about their business nearby and cannot reasonably avoid the individual.

Not applicable here.

If there is an unlawful obstruction to the highway. In this case, there should be some indication that the obstruction will continue or be repeated without an arrest.

Not applicable here.

To protect a child or a vulnerable person. This includes both the physical and mental wellbeing of the person.

Not applicable here.

To prevent the investigation of an offence or the prosecution of the suspect being hindered. For instance, if there was reason to believe the individual would not attend court following a summons, this would suggest an arrest necessity.

Not applicable here.

According to PACE, even in these cases police must consider other practical alternatives to arrest. Only in the absence of such alternatives is arrest justifiable.

Last edited by: zippy on Sat 12 Apr 25 at 12:32

Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 12 Apr 25 13:20

Arrested for confiscating her kids iPads - Bromptonaut

>> PACE establishes a range of specific conditions that would make an arrest necessary.

>> To prevent the investigation of an offence or the prosecution of the suspect being hindered.
>> For instance, if there was reason to believe the individual would not attend court following
>> a summons, this would suggest an arrest necessity.

Liberty interprets that on as follows:

5. To allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of your conduct
If the officer believes that their investigation will be delayed unreasonably if you’re not arrested. For example, if they need to interview you or collect evidence from you, but don’t believe that you’ll come to the police station voluntarily.

If she was not cooperating and refused to attend for interview voluntarily than I'd say it was applicable.

Whether the response to what turned out to be a civil/domestic issue was reasonable in the first place might be a different question. Once and investigation has begun, rather than Father being told to grow up, we're in started so we'll finish territory.

If the boot was on the other foot, Mother complained that custodial parent had stolen her I-Pads and Police refused to do anything, what would the headline writers have said then?

Reply to this message | Report message

Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys