A police force has acknowledged that it unlawfully arrested two parents who had raised concerns about their daughter’s school.
In January, six uniformed officers arrived at the home of Maxie Allen, 50, and Rosalind Levine, 47, arresting them in front of their 10-year-old child. The pair were fingerprinted, searched, and questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property, and then detained in a cell for eight hours. After a five-week investigation, police determined that no further action would be taken.
The arrests, first reported by The Times, drew sharp criticism from free-speech campaigners, who accused the force of overstepping its authority. Hertfordshire Constabulary initially defended its handling of the incident but has since agreed to pay the couple £20,000 in compensation and accepted liability for their wrongful arrest and detention.
The force maintained that the investigation had been prompted by the cumulative effect of complaints and the volume of messages the couple sent to their daughter’s school. In April, Chief Constable Andy Prophet explained that an inspector believed the parents would not attend a voluntary interview and that their electronic devices needed to be secured.
The arrests followed a report from Cowley Hill Primary School in Borehamwood, which cited a high volume of emails and critical comments on WhatsApp during a dispute over the school’s support for the couple’s daughter, who is neurodivergent, epileptic, and registered disabled. The school had already banned the parents from the premises, and they had withdrawn their daughter shortly before the arrests.
Lawyers acting for the force have now conceded that the statutory grounds for arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act were not satisfied, “therefore rendering the arrest unlawful.”
Hertfordshire Constabulary stated: “While there are no issues of misconduct involving any officer in relation to this matter, the force has accepted liability solely on the basis that the legal test regarding the necessity of arrest was not met. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”