The chief constable of Northamptonshire Police was in contempt of court over a failure to comply with a court order, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The case arose over the arrest of businesswoman Nadine Buzzard-Quashie at her home in 2021 on charges that were later dropped. She complained to the police alleging she had been physically assaulted, thrown to the ground and her face pushed into stinging nettles. To support the claim she asked for body-worn camera footage. 

The Information Commissioner’s Office ordered all video of her arrest to be produced. Dissatisfied with the police force's ‘piecemeal production’ and its explanation that footage had been deleted, Buzzard-Quashie obtained a county court order for all footage be produced. The order was not complied with. Buzzard-Quashie applied to commit the chief constable for contempt. Her application failed and costs were ordered against her. 

Ruling on her appeal, Lord Justice Fraser, in lead judgment, with whom Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justice Coulson agreed, acknowledged Buzzard-Quashie’s ‘remarkable’ efforts to obtain all the video footage.

He added: ‘Ms Buzzard-Quashie has throughout this extended saga conducted herself in a measured and dignified manner. She has also demonstrated remarkable resilience.

‘Were it not for the resilience of Ms Buzzard-Quashie, but also the pro bono diligence of Ms [Charlotte] Elves, [for Buzzard-Quashie] together with the perseverance of Mr [Elliot] Gold, [instructed by East Midlands Police legal department] the video footage whose existence had been denied by the chief constable on so many occasions was finally discovered just a few days before the hearing before us. This means that all the statements made to the court on behalf of the police force prior to mid-October 2025 were false. This means that, on the facts, the findings by HHJ Genn [who refused the contempt application] could no longer stand.’

Janes Solicitors, which acted pro bono for Buzzard-Quashie, was also thanked for its work.

Read more

Witness statements from the police’s in-house solicitor Simon Staples adduced just before the appeal hearing showed ‘that the position taken by the chief constable throughout the whole period….was factually wrong’. Audit logs, sought by Buzzard-Quashie’s representation, for the officers involved in the arrest led to the discovered of three video files which had not been disclosed.

‘Ms Buzzard-Quashie was entirely vindicated on the facts,’ the judgment said. ‘Her refusal to accept that she had been given everything was entirely justified.’

The judgment noted it was ‘very late in the day and only in the very final days before a contested appeal in the Court of Appeal’ that the search of video footage and the explanation ordered by the court in April 2023 ‘was finally being done’. An email sent the after close of business the day before the CoA hearing from the chief constable ‘stated that “for the purposes of this action alone and proceedings only admitted the contempt”’. An apology from the chief constable to Buzzard-Quashie and to the court was also read out during the hearing.

Allowing the appeal on all grounds, and making a finding of contempt against the chief constable ‘something which was admitted before this court at the hearing of the appeal’, Fraser said a finding of contempt would ‘vindicate the requirements of justice’ adding that it was ‘clear beyond peradventure that the…order was wholly ignored for many months’ and the breach was ‘wilfully disobedient’.

The costs order against Buzzard-Quashie was also reversed, and the matter has been referred to the Independent Office of Police Conduct.