Judges to Decide Fate of Chief Constable Guilty of Contempt

Published: 12 November 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Northamptonshire’s police chief constable, Ivan Balhatchet, has been found guilty of contempt of court, with judges set to decide whether he should face imprisonment or a fine. The ruling marks the conclusion of a four-year legal struggle stemming from the wrongful arrest of a woman, highlighting both the persistence of ordinary citizens seeking justice and the accountability of public authorities.

The Court of Appeal issued its judgment on Tuesday, concluding that Northamptonshire Police had been “willfully disobedient” by repeatedly failing to comply with court orders to hand over video evidence to Nadine Buzzard-Quashie, the woman who was arrested in September 2021. Her arrest, which she contested as wrongful, involved three police officers and became the focus of a protracted legal battle over transparency and accountability.

Buzzard-Quashie alleged that she had been physically assaulted during the arrest. According to the judgment, she claimed that she was “thrown to the ground” and “had her face pushed into stinging nettles,” painting a stark picture of the treatment she endured. She requested access to all video recordings of the arrest, including footage from officers’ body-worn cameras. Her requests were repeatedly denied, prompting her to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which ordered the police to release the footage. Northamptonshire Police ignored the order. When a county court judge issued a subsequent directive, the force again failed to comply.

At a hearing in October, the police force reversed its position, acknowledging the existence of additional video evidence. The Court of Appeal’s judgment noted that this admission revealed that “all the statements made to the court on behalf of the police force prior to mid-October 2025 were false.”

Three senior judges—Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Fraser—issued a unanimous and highly critical ruling. They emphasised that “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 served as Northamptonshire’s chief constable since October 2023. The ruling leaves him potentially facing up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine. The former chief constable, Nick Adderley, is facing separate criminal charges unrelated to this case.

Buzzard-Quashie initially represented herself, taking on the force and its taxpayer-funded legal team single-handedly. Her persistence in pursuing the case has now been vindicated. The three judges emphasised the broader significance of the case, noting: “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.”

The appeal overturned a previous decision in which a lower court had refused to find the chief constable in contempt. In their ruling, the judges affirmed that the law allows a chief constable to be held personally liable, with the punishment ranging up to two years in prison or a fine.

Following the judgment, Buzzard-Quashie spoke publicly about her relief and vindication. She 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.”

Marc Livingston, the lawyer representing Buzzard-Quashie at the appeal stage, echoed her sentiments, emphasising the force’s lack of appreciation for its legal obligations. “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,” he said. “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.”

Northamptonshire Police issued a statement acknowledging shortcomings in handling the case. The force 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 case highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking accountability from public authorities, particularly when confronting bureaucratic resistance or legal obfuscation. It also underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing compliance and protecting citizens’ rights against institutional misconduct.

Legal experts observing the case have noted that it sets an important precedent, demonstrating that chief officers of police can be personally accountable for contempt of court if they or their staff provide misleading or false statements. The ruling reinforces the principle that no public authority is above the law and that systemic failures cannot shield senior officials from scrutiny or consequences.

The hearing to decide the chief constable’s punishment is scheduled for 20 November. Observers expect the sentencing to be closely watched, not only by the legal community but also by civil rights advocates and members of the public concerned with police accountability.

Beyond the immediate legal ramifications, the case has wider implications for policing in England. It raises questions about transparency, governance, and the responsibilities of senior officials in upholding legal and ethical standards. The Court of Appeal’s judgment makes clear that repeated failures to comply with legal orders, coupled with misleading statements, represent serious breaches of both law and public trust.

Buzzard-Quashie’s persistence throughout the four-year saga exemplifies the impact an individual can have when challenging institutional authority. By pursuing the case from initial arrest through appeal, she has brought attention to the broader issues of police accountability and citizens’ rights in the UK. Her case is likely to influence policy discussions around record-keeping, transparency, and the obligations of police forces to comply promptly with court orders.

As the sentencing approaches, all eyes will be on the judiciary’s decision regarding whether Balhatchet should face imprisonment or a fine. The outcome will send a strong message about the seriousness of contempt of court and the accountability of senior public officials. Regardless of the specific penalty, the judgment reinforces a fundamental principle: that the rule of law applies to all, and public authorities are not immune from scrutiny when they fail to comply with legal obligations.