2 hours ago
5
A police chief constable has been found guilty of contempt of court with judges set to consider whether he should be punished by imprisonment or a fine.
The court of appeal ruled on Tuesday that Northamptonshire police were in contempt and had been “willfully disobedient” for repeatedly failing to obey rulings to hand over video to a woman who complained she had been wrongly arrested by three officers.
Nadine Buzzard-Quashie was arrested by Northamptonshire police in September 2021, triggering a four-year saga.
She was taken into custody but prosecutors soon dropped the case.
The judgment said: “Her account of her arrest … was that she was physically assaulted by the officers who arrested her, she was physically thrown to the ground and had her face pushed into stinging nettles.”
She wanted video footage of her arrest, including from police body-worn cameras, which the force did not provide.
She complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office which made an order that all video should be handed over, which the force ignored, then a county court judge made another order, which the force failed to obey again.
The force told courts it did not have any more video to hand over, then reversed its position at a hearing in October. The court of appeal judgment said: “This means that all the statements made to the court on behalf of the police force prior to mid-October 2025 were false.”
On Tuesday three appeal court judges issued a blistering and unanimous ruling.
Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Fraser said “misleading and untrue statements … have been made to the court on behalf of the chief constable, both to the county court … and also to the court of appeal in relation to the application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself. To list every single statement made on behalf of the chief constable that has proved to be inaccurate over this lengthy period would lengthen this judgment considerably.”
Ivan Balhatchet has been Northamptonshire’s chief constable since October 2023 and could face up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine. The previous chief constable was Nick Adderley, who now faces wholly separate criminal charges.
Buzzard-Quashie represented herself initially, battling single-handedly against the force and its taxpayer-funded legal department.
The three senior judges said: “What has occurred in this case concerning the retention, production, refusal to produce and possible deletion of such video footage is a matter of significant concern.”
Buzzard-Quashie had asked a lower court to find the chief constable in contempt, but it refused. On Tuesday she won on appeal, with the three judges saying the law allowed the chief constable to be found personally liable with the punishment being up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine.
After her victory, Buzzard-Quashie said:“Northamptonshire police acted in an arrogant and high-handed manner by ignoring my requests for documents, as well as the findings of the Information Commissioner’s Office and a county court order.
“It is astonishing that after four years I am still battling to get a frank, open and honest response about what they did to the evidence around my wrongful arrest and why. I am elated that justice has finally prevailed within the lordships judgment, not just for me, but for all of the other little people that have been silenced or obstructed by institutional power.
“I hope that this judgment, and whatever sanction may follow for the chief constable, serve as an important demonstration that no authority is above the law.”
Her lawyer for the appeal, Marc Livingston, from Janes Solicitors, said: “It is a matter of deep regret that throughout the history of this matter, Northamptonshire police did not appear to have appreciated the position they were in and the duties they owed to the court and my client. It is absolutely astonishing that the scale of their non-compliance only became clear in the two weeks before the appeal hearing, over four years after the incident.”
In a statement Northamptonshire police said: “An apology for the issues has already been given in the shape of the chief constable’s witness statement which has been entered as evidence. We acknowledge we fell short in terms of providing the body-worn footage in a timely fashion and our failure to locate further missing footage when asked.
“The matter has been referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).”
The hearing to decide punishment will be held on 20 November.
