Barrie Sharpe at his home

Published: 31 October, 2013
by TOM FOOT

A FASHION label manager accused of obstructing police officers as they arrested a boy throwing firecrackers at cars has walked free from court after key witness evidence was concealed from his defence lawyers.

Barrie Sharpe, 53, was accused of threatening police who he claims were heavy-handed in their arrest of a teenager on Halloween last year. He said he saw them hitting the suspect with batons outside his home in Agar Grove, Camden Town, and felt he had to intervene.

His account was dismissed by officers but a logged 999 call by a woman alleged that “police are battering the shit out of six males” and “battering them with batons”.

It was recorded on the police’s CAD database but not handed to Mr Sharpe’s defence team until a few days before the trial.

Under laws created to ensure everyone gets a fair trial, the police have a duty to give all evidence connected to a case to the Crown Prosecution Service who must “disclose” anything of relevance to the defence team.

Magistrates were told that the officer who was the appointed “disclosure officer” was also the officer who said he had been threatened.

Mervyn Mandell, chairman of the magistrates’ bench, said they were “troubled” to hear about the arrangement – a potential conflict of interests – which they said in their judgement “went against Attorney General guidelines”.

Camden police were at “at the very least at serious fault”, he added.

Police chiefs said yesterday (Wednesday) that officers taking on the two roles was “normal practice” in lower level cases.

Mr Sharpe said he had intervened on the night after hearing a “commotion and the sound of fireworks being set off outside my front door”.

He went out with his son to see what was happening and saw a “boy” shooting firecrackers at cars.

He said the teenager was hit with batons by two police officers, adding: “I said: ‘What are you doing? Stop hitting him, he is not resisting arrest’.”

Mr Sharpe set up the Duffer of St George’s clothing brand in the 1990s. It has a flagship store in Covent Garden and now has a fashion label called Sharpe-Eye.

The magistrates’ judgment said: “It troubles us that the officer in charge and the disclosure officer originally from the beginning and up until August 12 2013 was also the complainant in the case. This goes against the Attorney General’s guidelines.

“We also find it troubling that there was no mention of the independent witness making the phone call.

“At the very least it shows serious fault on the part of the police.”

Camden Police Superintendent Gary Buttercase said yesterday: “We have not received any formal complaint from the court and there are processes in place for the court to bring this to our attention should they feel that any malpractice has occurred.

“It is regular practice in matters such as the offence of Section 4 of the Public Order Act for the arresting officer to be responsible for the whole investigation, which includes disclosure.

“Camden Police will be speaking with the court to establish exactly what has occurred in this instance.”