Alain Robert is a Frenchman who climbs tall buildings. He has scaled more than 70 of the world's tallest structures including the Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building and the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, but he met his match when he tackled the modest 27-storey Portland House in Victoria Street, London.
The climb itself was a doddle - he climbed alone, using no ropes, pitons or other artificial aids, and reached the top without incident.
But when he got to the top the Metropolitan Police arrested him on suspicion of criminal damage and wasting police time. He was bailed until an unspecified date in February.
Writing on the Adam Smith Institute website, Eamonn Butler said "I don't know what makes the police think their time is so valuable that the antics of this harmless eccentric amount to a waste of it. Presumably they reckon that while they were taking tea on the roof and waiting for 'Spiderman' Roberts to arrive, they could have been out booking motorists for doing 36mph, or harassing middle class citizens for trying to stop thugs breaking into their homes. The police didn't have to be there. Their action reminds me of the supposed lawyer's bill: 'to crossing the road to update you on your case, £100. To crossing back after realizing it wasn't you £100'.
We seem to live in a society where we invent crimes for no good reason. Why punish people for smoking weed (or tobacco for that matter) when the only person caused any harm is themselves? I'd really prefer it if the police sat at home rather than having to think up new reasons to arrest folk".
Being a fair-minded sort of bloke and not given to going off half-cocked (stop sniggering at the back there!) The GOS thought he'd find out the facts before expressing his own moderate and balanced opinion. On the website of the Crown Prosecution Service he found …
Wasting police time - section 5(2) Criminal Law Act 1967 (Archbold 28-224)
Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a charge of wasting police time include:
• false reports that a crime has been committed, which initiates a police investigation;
• the giving of false information to the police during the course of an existing investigation.
The public interest will favour a prosecution in any one of the following circumstances:
• police resources have been diverted for a significant period (for example 10 hours);
• a substantial cost is incurred, for example a police helicopter is used or an expensive scientific examination undertaken;
• when the false report is particularly grave or malicious;
• considerable distress is caused to a person by the report;
• the accused knew, or ought to have known, that police resources were under particular strain or diverted from a particularly serious inquiry;
• there is significant premeditation in the making of the report;
• the report is persisted in, particularly in the face of challenge.
There are statutory offences which involve wasting police time and which should be used instead of section 5(2) when there is sufficient evidence. For example:
• perpetrating a bomb hoax - s51(2) Criminal Law Act 1977;
• false alarms of fire - s.49 Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;
• fraudulent insurance claims based on false reports of crime - deception.
Pretty heavy stuff, you'll agree. But how does all this apply to nutty Alain and his human fly act? Well, it's in the small print …
The offence of wasting police time is committed when a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report orally or in writing tending to show that an offence has been committed; or, give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property; or, show that he has information material to any police inquiry.
So presumably the Met were apprehensive of Alain's safety, and arrested him for his own protection.
No, wait a minute … that doesn't work, does it? I mean, they didn't arrest him until
In fact it looks to me as though they were completely misinterpreting the law (assuming that the CPS advice accurately reflects the law, that is) and acting completely outside their remit. Now there's a surprise.
I could be wrong of course, because the use of English in the advice is so poor and illogical that it actually makes no sense at all. The "offence of wasting police time" occurs when someone knowingly makes a false report "tending to show that an offence has been committed", or "give rise to apprehension for the safety etc." or "show that he has information" and blah, blah. What kind of rubbish is that? A sentence that reads "He made a false report give rise to apprehension" is gibberish.
Mind you, the Metropolitan Police, never an organisation to shirk controversy, are perfectly capable of wasting their own time - they don't need some French nutter 27 floors up for an excuse. Almost anything will do - like the woman who tried to have a a picnic in Parliament Square. She was threatened with arrest because her cake had the word PEACE iced on it and this counted as an unauthorised political protest. Or the reporter who on Red Nose Day wore his red nose in Parliament Square and was also threatened with arrest for holding an unauthorised demonstration.
Or worst of all Maya Evans, who was arrested and convicted for reading out the names of Iraqi and British war dead near the Cenotaph. A bit odd, isn't it, that there's something so potent about the names that saying them aloud in one place is OK, but doing it somewhere else is in some way deleterious to public health or a danger to society? You expect that sort of thing in Harry Potter, but not on the real-life streets of London.
Here, I think I'll try it: "Austin Coke! Colin Lewis! Nathan Maxwell!"
Nope. I'm still here. No puff of blue smoke, and no police cars screeching to a halt. That Cenotaph must be a really magic place They weren't real names, mind you - I took them from a list of football players in Oklahoma, and none of them are dead so far as I know, so perhaps it wasn't a fair experiment.
Of course the Met thought their action was justified because Alain Robert might have fallen off the building and crashed to his death. If this had happened, there's no question that it would have taken up quite a bit of police time, not to mention that of the fire brigade and the ambulance service - fair enough.
But the fact is, it didn't happen. If the Met seriously think it's OK to use their powers to punish people for what they might have done, rather than for what they actually did, they're opening up a very interesting can of worms indeed. Just think of the possibilities. They could …
… raid pubs at 9 o'clock on a Saturday night and arrest every customer in case by closing time they were drunk and might get into a fight …
… arrest girls in short skirts because they might attract the attention of your friendly neighbourhood rapist …
… arrest almost anyone on their way out of the front door in the morning, in case they got in the car, drove off and were involved in an accident …
… arrest all the fans before a football match to prevent any of them causing trouble afterwards …
… arrest all white people in case they indulged in racist behaviour …
… arrest all people of middle-eastern appearance in case they were terrorists planning an attack …
… arrest shoppers as they came out of Tesco's in case they unwrapped their purchases and dropped litter in the street …
… arrest anyone doing anything even vaguely risky, just in case - rock climbers, cavers, hill-walkers, swimmers, hang-gliders, people who go up in balloons, The GOS in his little sailing boat …
… arrest any black person walking down the street because … oh no, they already do that …
… or, come to think of it, they could arrest The GOS just for being grumpy. "Now then, now then, Mr.Sod, I'm arresting you for looking bad-tempered. You look as though you might lose your temper and hit someone. It's going to take me three hours to write all this up, and if that isn't a waste of police time I don't know what is. You're nicked, chummy …"
Some years ago Rowan Atkinson took part in a television comedy sketch in which he played a police constable who had arrested a man in the street for "looking at him in a funny way". Many a true word spoken in jest, they say. But it couldn't really happen, could it?
Could it …?
The GOS says: But then Alain Robert apparently makes these climbs in order to publicise Global Warming, so who the hell cares what happens to him, le tosseur?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2007 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite