A police force has admitted the arrest of two parents over messages in a school WhatsApp group was unlawful and has paid the couple £20,000.
Times Radio producer Maxie Allen, 50, and his partner Rosalind Levine, 46, were arrested on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications after a ‘trivial’ dispute about their child’s school.
CCTV footage showed six uniformed officers leading the parents away from their suburban home in front of their crying young daughter in January.
After a five week investigation, Hertfordshire Constabulary found there was no case, and the matter was no further actioned.
The force has now agreed to pay the couple £20,000 despite previously defending its decision.
They have since confessed the legal criteria was ‘not made out’ and have accepted formal liability for wrongful arrest and detention.
However, Hertfordshire Constabulary has defended its decision to probe the couple, pointing out the number of messages sent by the parents to Cowley Primary School.
CCTV shows six uniformed police officers descending on their suburban home before they were led away in front of their crying daughter in January
Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine with their daughters, Sascha, nine, and Francesca
The incident sparked a debate nationwide after the couple were searched and locked up in a cell for eight hours after their school reported them to the local police force.
Mr Allen told The Times: ‘We’re very pleased Hertfordshire constabulary have recognised, albeit belatedly, that our arrests were unlawful.
‘I hope the debate around our case has a positive effect on how these issues are handled in future.
‘The police should not be a tool for public authorities to close down legitimate comment and scrutiny.’
Their arrests came after a series of disputes between the parents and the school over several months, leading to Allen and Levine being banned from the establishment.
In June last year, the school lodged a complaint with the force over the parents’ social media campaign.
Cowley Primary School complained once again in December because of ‘persistent’ calls and emails from the couple.
But Allen and Levine maintained they had contacted the school often due to their daughter Sascha’s needs.
She has epilepsy, is neurodivergent, and is registered disabled.
Following the parent body warning the couple about making ‘inflammatory’ remarks online, Levine made a negative comment about the acting head teacher, as well as the head of governors, in a WhatsApp group.
The parents were then warned by a police officer in December to remove their daughter from the school, and they did the following month.
A week later, they were both arrested by Hertfordshire Constabulary. Now, the force has paid the parents £10,000 each for the ‘unlawful’ arrest.
Hertfordshire Constabulary finally concluded there was no case to answer and has paid £20,000 to the couple following the arrest in January
They said the figure was ‘significantly above that required by the case law and reflects the constabulary’s desire to bring matters to a conclusion’.
Despite Andy Prophet, chief constable of the force, saying they had ‘lawful reason’ to detain the parents on January 29.
While the couple had never been abusive or threatening, the force’s lawyers said there was ‘reasonable suspicion’ of escalation between December and January.
Hertfordshire Constabulary has since acknowledged that the arrest was ‘unlawful’ but the probe into the couple was not.
Their lawyers have also admitted the criteria for arrest under Police and Criminal Evidence Act was not fulfilled.
Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union, said the force, as well as others across the countr,y should ‘never repeat this mistake’.
‘A good place to start would be a recognition that the criminal law is not a tool for protecting delicate feelings, or wounded reputations, and officers must not allow it to be abused in this way,’ he said.
A Hertfordshire Constabulary spokesperson said: ‘Whilst there are no issues of misconduct involving any officer in relation to this matter, Hertfordshire Constabulary has accepted liability solely on the basis that the legal test around necessity of arrest was not met in this instance. It would be inappropriate to make further comment at this stage.’
