A police officer has been found guilty of assaulting a vulnerable 16-year-old who had been filming outside Merthyr Tydfil police station. Inspector Dean Gittoes was unable to control his emotions as he left the boy struggling to breathe, a judge found.
Gittoes stood trial at Cwmbran Magistrates' Court where he denied attacking the member of the "auditing" community, which records videos of public buildings such as police stations and uploads them to YouTube. District Judge Sophie Toms found the 49-year-old committed common assault and had no reasonable grounds to arrest the boy under the Terrorism Act.
The boy had gone to the police station just after 2pm on August 20 last year, wearing a dark mask and a dark hoodie with the hood up. As Gittoes grabbed his hood, the boy could be heard sobbing: "He's choking me... I can't breathe."
Read next: Cocaine dealer begs judge 'please don't send me to jail, I'm my girlfriend's carer'
Judge Toms told Gittoes: "You gave no indication that you were a police officer and I agree with [the boy] that he didn't have to give his name at that stage. You marched towards him and you were clearly agitated. You took no more than 30 seconds to engage and ask questions, before you laid hands to arrest him. It was a snapshot decision... You were unable to control yourself or your emotions, and there was only a fleeting mention of an arrest for terrorism, with no caution given.
"You used significant and in my view unnecessary force to control him and cause pain and discomfort when he had offered no resistance. You just wanted to teach him a lesson. You told him, 'You're a clever little internet freak who's about to learn the hard way.' And he did."
The judge added: "You grabbed his arm, used force against him, marching him into the station, twisting his wrist, causing him to fall to the floor, pushing him against the wall, grabbing the back of his hoodie, preventing him breathing properly... He was crying out in pain throughout the incident. This was a continued, unlawful assault against a vulnerable 16-year-old boy."
In his closing statement prosecutor Jason Howells said the boy — who was released without charge after the arrest — had been "polite" to everyone he interacted with outside the station. "The first officer told him it was OK to film and the second told him not to film," said the solicitor. "He complied and started to walk away from the station.
"He was making his way to the main road. The defendant, a very experienced senior officer, was attending the police station not on duty but between night shifts in order to collect a work phone for his wife."
Mr Howells said Gittoes was "irate" as he questioned the boy at the turnstile gate. "There is a 30-second interaction where he's not made any particular enquiries and has jumped to the conclusion that a person wearing all black and filming is a terrorist," he added.
The solicitor argued that the officer breached the police code of practice by arresting without a warrant when he had no reasonable grounds to suspect a terrorism offence. Mr Howells continued: "He had no information before speaking to him, he was not aware of [the boy's] actions at the police station, he made no enquiries at the police station."
Gittoes, who was wearing a t-shirt and shorts, did not identify himself as a police officer and refused to answer when the boy asked if he was an inspector, said Mr Howells. The solicitor accused the officer of ignoring the boy's protestations that he was just an auditor. "The public has a right to film in public places, the police cannot stop them," he added.
"We were still in Covid times. People were still wearing masks in the street and in shops. That does not automatically make him a terrorist, nor does the fact he was all in black."
The court heard that during the arrest Gittoes took the teenager's mobile phone and did not realise it was still recording as he told the boy: "You're a clever little internet freak who's about to learn the hard way." Mr Howells argued: "That doesn't really seem to relate to terrorism matters."
The solicitor claimed Gittoes' judgement had been "clouded" by anger following a recent confrontation outside the station with another auditor, who had filmed a YouTube video titled: "'Name or I arrest you' — Merthyr police inspector bully boy." Gittoes had also been heard complaining that he was "sick of the bosses" over what he felt was inadequate guidance on dealing with auditors.
"The issue is that when he approached [the boy] he had formed the opinion already that he was a stereotypical terrorist or internet user," Mr Howells added. "He said he was 'getting a bit tired of it,' which is a clear indication that he doesn't care what the boy is there for. He's not going to give him a chance."
Gittoes' colleague in counter-terrorism, DI Katherine Morris, had angered him with her assessment that the boy had not committed a terrorism offence, the court heard. DI Morris had described Gittoes as "aggressive" and "ranting" in their phone conversation, not allowing her to speak.
Mr Howells said the boy had given a "perfectly reasonable" explanation for wearing a mask, adding: "He didn't want his YouTube followers to recognise his reflection in any windows... He was not anti-police and he was trying to show there was a face behind the police."
And Christopher Rees, defending, had said in his closing statement: "Whatever action the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) takes on the employment of this officer, that may or may not follow, but that is not the purpose of today's hearing.
"The key issue is: did the officer genuinely believe he had reasonable grounds to suspect that [the boy] may have committed an offence? All he needs to do is suspect.
"He is exercising his professional judgement. An officer with the experience of Mr Gittoes has to make a decision on the spur of the moment in a difficult situation. He clearly did believe the material [the boy] was filming was, in his opinion, likely to be used by someone intent on serious violence. Otherwise he wouldn't be interested at all in detaining or arresting him."
The barrister pointed out that his client had given 24 years of police service and been promoted to inspector. "Would he capriciously arrest someone he believed he had no grounds to arrest? An officer of that standing and credibility?
"What Mr Gittoes is looking at, objectively, is a masked man dressed all in black, his refusal to give a name, his refusal to cooperate, his filming access points to the station, filming a private area of the police station not accessible to the public."
Mr Rees said Gittoes accepted being "unprofessional" in his description of the boy as a "clown" and "internet freak". But the barrister claimed the comments showed his client's "frustration that nothing was being done" to prevent auditing he feared could assist terrorists.
Judge Toms found the boy's account of the arrest was "honest and credible". She accepted that Gittoes had not been aware of his vulnerabilities at the time.
The judge also pointed to Gittoes' remarks caught on the recording after the arrest: "Six weeks ago I dealt with someone like this and the bosses think it's a joke... Anyone I catch now, I don't give a chance... 36,000 people calling me a s*** on the internet... The bosses have given no support... I'm sick of the bosses here... I've done what I should have done last time... They've got 10 to 20 exact layouts of our building so if you're a terrorist you can look it up... I've had no end of s*** for it."
Gittoes had also hit out at the "spineless" senior officers and complained: "I've had a bad weekend because my dog's not been well." The judge said his "irritation" was clear and his actions were not those of an officer who suspected a terrorism offence was being committed.
"This was just a 16-year-old boy filming for his YouTube channel," she said. "He was no threat to you or others... You were so wound up by your bosses and mentions of you on the internet that you lost all rational thought."
Gittoes, of Oak Tree Rise, did not visibly react to the judge's comments. Mr Rees said: "The consequences in terms of his career are obvious. That will be the biggest punishment for him."
The defendant thanked the judge as she bailed him ahead of sentencing on October 27. You can read our report on the early stage of the trial here.
Following the conclusion of the case, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it will be "liaising" with South Wales Police about next steps regarding "potential disciplinary proceedings".
IOPC Director for Wales, Catrin Evans, said: “While there are occasions when the use of force is required, police officers are entrusted with the power to do so only if it is necessary, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.
“Our investigation examined concerns about the actions of Inspector Gittoes, and the court has found having considered the evidence that the force used in manhandling a 16-year-old boy, who was offering no physical resistance, was excessive and went beyond what was necessary.”
READ NEXT:
