The claimants, all under 17 years old, took a peaceful part in a substantial but disorderly demonstration in London. The police decided to contain the section of crowd which included the claimants. The claimants said that the containment of children was unlawful within section 11 of the 2004 Act, and had been excessive in time.
Held: The claims failed. A police officer will not be deterred from performing his public duty to detect or prevent crime just because a child is affected but when he does perform that duty he must, as the circumstances require, have regard to the statutory need under the 2004 Act: ‘section 11 Children Act 2004 requires chief officers of police to carry out their functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children . . However . . we do not consider that the defendant was in breach of this duty or of any of his public law duties.’ There was evidence that many in the crowd were armed, and much delay was caused by searching protesters as they were released: ‘the claim based upon unlawful detention at common law and interference with the claimants’ right to liberty under Articles 5 must fail.’
‘The chief officer’s statutory obligation is not confined to training and dissemination of information. It is to ensure that decisions affecting children have regard to the need to safeguard them and to promote their welfare.’ . . But . . ‘This does not mean that the duties and functions of the police have been re-defined by section 11 . . the guidance accurately states the obligation of chief officers of police ‘to carry out their existing functions in a way which takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children’.’
Pitchford LJ, Supperstone J
[2011] EWHC 2317 (Admin), [2014] 1 All ER 953
Bailii
Children Act 2004 11, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 60, European Convention on Human Rights 5 8 19 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – TS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Oct-2010
The claimant had sought asylum as a child, declaring that he had not applied for asylum elsewhere. His fingerprints were matched to an applicant in Belgium.
Held: Wyn Williams J construed section 55 and the statutory guidance referred to in . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 15-Oct-2007
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment and unlawful detention by the respondent in his policing of a demonstration. They had been held within a police cordon in the streets for several hours to prevent the spread of . .
Cited – Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) SC 10-Jun-2011
Two children were born in Norway to a British mother (M) and Norwegian father (F). Having lived in Norway, M brought them to England to stay, but without F’s knowledge or consent. M replied to his application for their return that the children would . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – Moos and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of the Police of The Metropolis Admn 14-Apr-2011
The claimants, demonstrators at the G20 summit, complained of the police policy of kettling, the containment of a crowd over a period of time, not because they were expected to to behave unlawfully, but to ensure a separation from those who were. . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield CA 12-Oct-2010
The claimant sought a declaration that the duty set out in the 1995 Act applies to the discharge of duties, and to the exercise of powers, by local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 being the part entitled ‘Homelessness’. . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited by:
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Police, Children, Human Rights
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.443762