Northamptonshire’s chief constable, Ivan Balhatchet, has been found guilty of contempt of court after repeatedly failing to provide video evidence in a case involving a woman who said she was wrongfully arrested. Judges will decide whether he faces imprisonment or a fine.
The court of appeal ruled Tuesday that the police force was “willfully disobedient” in refusing to release body-worn camera footage to Nadine Buzzard-Quashie. She was arrested in September 2021 by three officers, but prosecutors quickly dropped the case. Buzzard-Quashie said she was physically assaulted during the arrest, including being thrown to the ground and pushed into nettles.
Buzzard-Quashie requested video footage from the arrest. When the force refused, she complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which ordered the police to hand over the material. The force ignored the order, and a county court later made another ruling, which was also disobeyed. In October, the police reversed their position, admitting that prior statements to the courts were false.
The appeal court judges, Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Fraser, issued a unanimous ruling condemning misleading statements made on behalf of Balhatchet. “Misleading and untrue statements … have been made to the court on behalf of the chief constable,” the judgment said. “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.”
Balhatchet, chief constable since October 2023, faces up to two years in prison or a fine. The previous chief, Nick Adderley, faces separate criminal charges. Buzzard-Quashie initially represented herself against the police force and its legal department.
The judges described the retention, refusal to produce, and potential deletion of the footage as “a matter of significant concern.” They confirmed the law allows the chief constable to be held personally liable, with penalties including jail or a fine.
Buzzard-Quashie said after the ruling, “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. I am elated that justice has finally prevailed, not just for me, but for others silenced by institutional power.”
Her appeal lawyer, Marc Livingston, said, “It is a matter of deep regret that throughout this matter, Northamptonshire police did not appear to appreciate the duties they owed to the court and my client. It is astonishing that the scale of their non-compliance only became clear two weeks before the appeal hearing, over four years after the incident.”
Northamptonshire police issued a statement acknowledging the failures. “An apology for the issues has already been given in the shape of the chief constable’s witness statement,” the statement said. “We acknowledge we fell short in providing body-worn footage in a timely fashion and in locating further missing footage. The matter has been referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).”
