top of page


We have acted for a police force since the establishment of the practice in 2002. The Police Superintendents' Assocation began instructing us in 2017.


Many of our cases concern discrimination,  the legality of stops and searches, arrests, search warrants, detention and prosecutions. We advise on disclosure and barring service checks, and the removal of information held on the Police National Computer.

  • Assault

  • Bullying and harassment

  • Data protection

  • Defamation

  • Discrimination

  • Equality Act 2010

  • False imprisonment

  • Fatalities

  • Firearms

  • Human rights

  • Inquests

  • Judicial review

  • Leveson Inquiry

  • London bombings inquests

  • Malicious prosecution

  • Manchester Arena Inquiry

  • Misfeasance in public office

  • Pensions

  • Production orders

  • Stops

  • Searches

  • Standard operating procedures

  • Stress at work

  • Warrants

Case Summaries



A police force that had decided to carry firearms when patrolling came to Mariel for advice on the mechanics of doing so. She provided ongoing legal support to the head of counter terrorism throughout the implementation of the capability. After reviewing the relevant legislation she drafted the necessary amendments. She advised on a number of issues arising out of the selection of officers for firearms training. She considered the health and safety of officers, including working hours and the storage of weapons. The procedure for obtaining firearms licenses was reviewed, together with disclosure of officers’ General Practitioner records. She considered and amended the draft firearms policy. In the early hours one morning, she received a call to attend the first desk top multi-agency exercise on the force’s armed response to a marauding shooter.


A scrap metal dealer refused to allow the police to execute a section 8 search warrant of his yard and so the claimant was arrested. The warrant covered documents relevant to possible offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers’ Act 2013. The dealer was released on bail after being interviewed under caution, and was never charged with an offence. On Mariel’s advice an early four figure Part 36 offer was made. The dealer later issued proceedings in the High Court claiming substantial damages for assault and false imprisonment. He maintained he had been seriously assaulted while in custody and his business had suffered a significant downturn as a result of the reputational damage associated with the unlawful police raid. The case proceeded to trial before a High Court judge. He failed to beat the Part 36 offer and a costs order was made against him.

bottom of page