Bell v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: CA 19 Jul 2005

The claimant had sued over the way he was treated by the respondent in a fraud investigation. The court had dismissed his claims for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. A prosecution had been commenced but dropped. The judge had held the arrest to be lawful. He sought leave to appeal.
Held: The warrant had not been challenged, and the officers continued to have the protection of the 1750 Act. The officers had not acted to an excess save in the number of documents removed. Leave refused.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 902

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Constable’s Protection Act 1750

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley QBD 10-Nov-1999
When police officers executed a search warrant, it was not proper to remove articles at large, in order later to sift through them, and then to return material not covered by the warrant. There is no absolute prohibition against removing articles . .
CitedPrice v Messenger 1800
Excessive unauthorised or unreasonable behaviour by a police constable loses him the protection of section 6 of the Act of 1750. . .

Cited by:

CitedCopsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd CA 25-Jul-2005
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, . .
CitedFitzpatrick and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 11-Jan-2012
The claimants, two solicitors and their employer firm sought damages alleging trespass and malicious procurement by police officers in obtaining and executing search warrants against the firm in 2007 when they were investigating suspected offences . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228918