Roberts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others: CA 4 Feb 2014

The claimant asserted that the provisions of section 60 of the 1994 Act, which allowed personal searches by police officers where no suspicion of misbehaviour was present, infringed her rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. There was no deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5, and nor was the use of the power discriminatory on the grounds of race. There had been an interference with the right to respect for Mrs Roberts’ private life in article 8, but that this remained ‘in accordance with the law’ and was not unlawful.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP CACD, Rafferty, Macur LJJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 69, [2014] 1 WLR 3299, [2014] WLR(D) 50, [2014] HRLR 5, [2014] 2 Cr App R 6

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 60, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRoberts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Admn 17-Jul-2012
The claimant challenged the legality of section 60 of the 1994 Act as an interference in her article 8 rights. She had been caught on a bus without her fare and gave a false name and address. A direction had been given authorising any person to be . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRoberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.521049

British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court: Admn 17 May 2012

There had been a substantial eviction of travellers from Dale Farm. It had attracted widespread coverage by media organisations, among whom, the claimants sought to challenge production orders made by the respondent court for their films.
Held: The judge has the obligation to protect the subject of an application (who, of course, is not before the court) against speculative or unsubstantiated assertion

Judges:

Moses LJ, Eady J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin), [2012] 2 Cr App R 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Media

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459558

Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 18 Jun 2013

The claimant was an observer at a demonstration in central London. Along with others she was detained within a police cordon. She was told she would not be released until she allowed herself to be photographed. This was done in an aggressive and intimidating manner. She said that this was involuntary and that it had been unlawful.
Held: The photographs had been obtained unlawfully and must be destroyed. They could not be retained.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1695 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that . .
CitedWright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Information, Police

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510923

Catt v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 30 May 2012

The claimant objected to the retention of data about him as to his attendance at assorted political protests. He had not engaged in criminality.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1471 (Admin), [2012] HRLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromCatt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Others CA 14-Mar-2013
The appellant sought an order requiring the defendant to to remove entries against his name in police databases. He had been a frequent protester against what he saw to be unlawful activities of a defence contractor. Other members of his group had . .
At First InstanceCatt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459822

Carter v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 27 Jul 2009

An authorisation had been given for the police to exercise additional powers to control anti-social behaviour. It had been marked ‘restricted’, and the notice provisions were not originally complied with. A proper but incomprehensible notice was prepared and an additional more informal but non-compliant notice circulated. The appellant had been standing with others. He had been given a copy of the order, but did not disperse.
Held: Proper proof of the authorisation had to have been provided to the court. It was not. The court examined and criticised te procedures recommended and not followed and made further suggestions. The case was returned with a direction to acquit.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2197 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWest Midlands Probation Board v French Admn 31-Oct-2008
The respondent had been released on licence from prison. On being brought back to court on other allegations, he challenged the validity of the notice of the terms of his licence, and required evidence of those terms. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.374378

Civil Nuclear Police Federation v Civil Nuclear Police Authority: Admn 31 Aug 2016

‘In these judicial review proceedings the sole issue for consideration by the Court is whether the term ‘members of a police force’ in section 10 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’) includes members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (‘CNC’) so that any pension scheme made under or in accordance with that Act must have a normal retirement age of 60. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Langstaff J on 8 March 2016.’

Judges:

Nicola Davies J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2186 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Police

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.569398

M v Leicestershire Constabulary: Admn 8 Jul 2009

Application for permission to apply for judicial review, to quash a decision made by the defendant to give a juvenile final warning to the claimant in relation to an allegation of attempted rape.

Judges:

Sir Anthon May P QBD, Saunders J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3640 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.401938

Wood v North Avon Magistrates Court: Admn 10 Nov 2009

The claimant sought to have quashed a search warrant issued by the respondent.
Held: A judge issuing a warrant needs to give reasons for his decision. They need not be elaborate but they ought to be sufficient to enable the subject of the warrant to understand why the judge was satisfied that the evidence justified issuing it.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Simon J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3614 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Police

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.401949

Regina (on the Application of the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices: Admn 30 May 2002

The Chief Constable applied for anti-social behaviour orders, but the applications were made by his officers under purported delegated powers. The district judge rejected the applications saying that the power to make such an application could not be delegated. The Chief Constable appealed.
Held: He did have a general power of delegation of powers given to him under statute. He remained answerable for his choice of appropriate officers to carry out tasks so delegated. The court however could not interfere in the absence of some irrationality or other manifest error.
courtcommentary.com ‘Carltona’ principle does not depend on status of civil servants as alter ego of their minister. Chief Constable may discharge functions under ss (1) and (2) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 through any officer(s) judged suitable by him for whom he is answerable

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley, Poole

Citations:

Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1087 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSheffield City Council v Ali Admn 7-Jul-2005
The taxi driver had been acquitted for making a false statement to support his application. The magistrates had found that the form he had been requested to use had not been approved properly by the authority. It was accepted that the information, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.172186

Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: CA 26 Nov 1999

The Police had confiscated money suspected to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, but no offence was proved. The magistrates had refused to return the money under the 1897 Act. The claimants now sought to reciver it under civil proceedings.
Held: The judge was wrong to have found public policy grounds for refusing to order what he had found to be such proceeds. There was no statutory power to hold the money and it must be returned: ‘There is no statutory power to confiscate the proceeds of drug dealing within the United Kingdom where the person entitled to possession of the money is not convicted of a drug trafficking offence. I recognise that there may be circumstances where for a variety of reasons a prosecution may not take place. But that does not, in my view, justify expropriation by means of a defence to a civil claim for return of money which has been seized from persons who are not convicted.’
The position was essentially the same whether proceedings were taken against the police directly or whether proceedings were taken pursuant to 1897 Act. In each of the cases, the police initially lawfully seized the money, but the statutory power to retain it was exhausted. ‘the court should not, in my view, countenance expropriation by a public authority of money or property belonging to an individual for which there is no statutory authority’ and ‘if goods are in the possession of a person, on the face of it he has the right to that possession. His right to possession may be suspended or temporarily divested if the goods are seized by the police under lawful authority. If the police right to retain the goods comes to an end, the right to possession of the person from whom they are seized revives. In the absence of any evidence that anybody else is the true owner, once the police right of retention comes to an end, the person from whom they were compulsorily taken is entitled to possession.’

Judges:

May, Pill, Hale, LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 08-Dec-1999, [2000] QB 427, [1999] EWCA Civ 3041, [2000] 2 WLR 546, [2000] 1 All ER 209

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedTinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .

Cited by:

CitedMorgan, Regina (on the Application of) v Justices of Dyfed Powys Magistrates’ Court Admn 18-Jun-2003
Money had been taken by the Police, but after the applicants had been acquitted, they sought it to be returned. Their action was struck out after long delays. They applied to the Magistrates who turned down the application.
Held: The money . .
FollowedRegina (on the application of Carter) v Ipswich Magistrates’ Court Admn 2002
Mrs Carter had paid a man to murder someone. The man was an undercover police agent. In time Mrs Carter was convicted of soliciting to commit murder, but Mr Carter was acquitted. She disclaimed all interest in the money she had paid in favour of her . .
FollowedCostello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary CA 22-Mar-2001
The police seized a car from Mr Costello, believing that it was stolen. The seizure was lawful at the time, by virtue of section 19 of PACE. The police never brought any criminal proceedings against Mr Costello, but they refused to return the car to . .
CitedGough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 2-Mar-2004
The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court . .
CitedMerseyside Police v Hickman and Another Admn 1-Mar-2006
Cash had been seized by the police under the 1984 Act. It was later seized also under the 2003 Act. The respondent said this was unlawful.
Held: The forfeited money could be seized again under the 2003 Act. The 2002 Act allowed appropriate . .
CitedScopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
CitedO’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police Admn 31-May-2012
The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for . .
CitedMerseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90348

Riley v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1990

A police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty by arresting or detaining someone unless that arrest or detention is lawful. Justices are not entitled to infer that a police officer was acting in the course of his duty in carrying out a search pursuant to section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act from his bare, albeit unchallenged assertion in evidence that he was carrying out such a search.
Watkins LJ, gave guidance as to the form in which a case should be stated saying: ‘The Justices must endeavour to ensure in stating a case that, (1) the whole of their findings of fact are contained in one and of course an early paragraph of the case . . ‘

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

(1990) 91 Cr App R 14

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBlench v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 5-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 89. He had argued that he had no case to answer. The officers had received an emergency call to the house, but the female caller . .
CitedSykes v Crown Prosecution Service (Manchester) Admn 16-Oct-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, saying that there had been no evidence that at the time of the events, the officer was acting in the lawful execution of his duty. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police, Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.425321

Katz v Sos (Police and Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters): ECJ 9 Oct 2008

ECJ Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Private prosecutor in substitution for the public prosecutor – Testimony of the victim as a witness.

Citations:

C-404/07, [2008] EUECJ C-404/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Police

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.276795

Glover v Staffordshire Police Authority: QBD 5 Oct 2006

The appellant challenged refusal of payment to her of her late husband’s police pension after she had been convicted of his manslaughter.
Held: The statutory rules were intended to operate alongside the common law rules for forfeiture, and not in substitution for them, and did not work to displace the common law as now expressed in the 1982 Act. The appeal failed.

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2006

Statutes:

Police Pensions Regulations (SI 1987 No 257), Police Pensions Act 1976, Forfeiture Act 1982 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247609

Minto v Police: 1987

When considering a police officer’s assessment that a breach of the peace is imminent, the question of immediacy is in part a question of degree and is highly relevant to the reasonableness of the action taken.
A refusal or failure to co-operate with a police officer’s direction whilst that officer is carrying out his reasonable duty or reasonably exercising a power can amount to obstruction.
The appellants had been convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 in New Zealand came into force four months after the convictions of the appellants. On the appeal by the defendants Robertson J described the argument advanced by counsel on their behalf as follows:

‘He argued that s 16 (which guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly) altered the test for determining the lawfulness of police instructions by now requiring the police to do anything else which is reasonably possible to prevent a breach of the peace before interfering with a protester’s s 16 right. Further, he submitted that the Court should give the Bill of Rights Act retrospective effect, and decide that even if the police instruction was reasonable, and therefore lawful at the time it was given, s 16 retroactively made it unlawful. Counsel’s thesis was that the police must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no other reasonable way of averting a breach of the peace before the request could be upheld as lawful. He argued that the ‘beneficial’ effect of such a retrospective interpretation should overwhelm the presumption against the retrospective effect of statutes.’
Robertson J rejected this argument: ‘Certainly, it would be beneficial from his clients’ point of view to have their misdemeanour undone in this fashion. But I do not accept that it would be ‘beneficial’ for the law or society at large if a Court were to declare invalid that which was valid at the time it was done.’

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[1987] 1 NZLR 374, (1991) 7 CRNZ 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAlbert v Lavin HL 3-Dec-1981
An off duty and out of uniform police officer attempted to restrain the defendant jumping ahead of a bus queue. The defendant struggled, and continued to do so even after being told that of the officer’s status. He said he had not believed that he . .

Cited by:

CitedLaporte, 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. . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247475

Hussein v Choung Fook Kam: HL 1970

When making an arrest, the standard of proof required of the officer is suspicion and no more. It falls well short of prima facie proof. Suspicion should not be elided with guilt, or even prima facie proof of guilt. It ‘is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking: I suspect but I cannot prove.’

Judges:

Lord Devlin

Citations:

[1970] AC 942

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJarrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 14-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and assault after her wrongful arrest. She had waived her handbag at an officer investigating a disturbance and been arrested. The police said the arrest was lawful, she being suspected of common . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.182927

Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division): HL 7 Apr 1998

An application had been made for a production order under section 93H of the 1988 Act which was concerned with the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct. The issue was whether an order obtained for the purpose of assisting in the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct could be used also in relation to the investigation of prior criminal offences.
Held: Police were unable to use section 93(H) to further the investigation of a possible offence. The section was intended only to further the recovery of awards after a conviction.
Lord Hutton referred to the dominant purpose test which had been adopted by the Divisional Court and to the test contended for by the Director of Public Prosecutions which would have required the judge in the Crown Court to be satisfied that the police officer applying for the order ‘had the genuine purpose of investigating the proceeds of criminal conduct and that the application for the order was not a mere device in order to investigate the commission of an offence and to obtain evidence to support a prosecution’. He went on to say: ‘I would make two observations . . The first is that if the true construction of section 93H be the one which I have suggested, then I consider that in the great majority of cases the Circuit Judge will not be faced with a situation where it appears that the police are actuated both by the purpose of investigating the proceeds of criminal conduct and by the purpose of investigating the commission of an offence, and that the judge will only have to consider whether he is satisfied (in addition to the matter certified in section 93H(4)) that the purpose of the application is to investigate the proceeds of criminal conduct. Secondly, in my opinion the nature of the dominant purpose test is well stated in Wade and Forsyth on Administrative Law . . : ‘Sometimes an Act may serve two or more purposes, some authorised and some not, and it may be a question whether the public authority may kill two birds with one stone. The general rule is that its action will be lawful provided that the permitted purpose is the true and dominant purpose behind the Act, even though some secondary or incidental advantage may be gained for some purpose which is outside the authority’s powers. There is a clear distinction between this situation and its opposite where the permitted purpose is a mere pretext and a dominant purpose is ultra vires.’
In those cases where consideration may have to be given to the distinction between the two purposes, or where it may appear that the two purposes may co-exist (an example being where the police wish to investigate a case of living on the earnings of a prostitute), I think that there will be little practical difference between applying the test adopted by Simon Brown LJ and applying the test propounded [counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions], but if a difference were to result, I consider it to be clear that the dominant purpose test is the appropriate one to apply.’

Judges:

Hutton L

Citations:

Times 07-Apr-1998, Gazette 07-May-1998, [1998] UKHL 16, [1999] Crim LR 220, [1998] 2 All ER 193, [1998] 2 WLR 715, [1998] AC 641

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 93(H)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Guildford Crown Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles QBD 29-Oct-1996
The claimant objected to the use by the respondent of orders under the 1988 Act to produce records for investigation and tracing proceeds.
Held: Simon Brown LJ said: ‘In my judgment, therefore, it would be wrong to construe the words in . .

Cited by:

CitedPearce and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another CA 18-Jul-2013
The appellants challenged rejection of their complaints that actions of police officers searching their ‘squats’ when executing search warrants, were unlawful in that they had been intended not as descrbed for the search for stolen goods, but rather . .
CitedMiranda v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others Admn 19-Feb-2014
The claimant alleged that his detention by the police and the removal from him of encrypted computer storage devices purporting to use powers under the 2000 Act. He and his journalist partner had received and published materials said to be of . .
CitedMiranda, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others CA 19-Jan-2016
The claimant had been stopped at Heathrow by the defendant’s officers, and an encrypted data device had been taken from him using powers derived from the 2000 Act. The device was thought to contain material taken from the US NSA security service. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Administrative

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88677

Regina v Chief Constable for Warwickshire and Others Ex Parte Fitzpatrick and Others: QBD 1 Oct 1997

Judicial Review is not the appropriate way to challenge the excessive nature of a search warrant issues by magistrates. A private law remedy is better. Jowitt J said: ‘Judicial review is not a fact finding exercise and it is an extremely unsatisfactory tool by which to determine, in any but the clearest of cases, whether there has been a seizure of material not permitted by a search warrant. In my judgment a person who complains of excessive seizure in breach of section 16(8) should not, save in such cases, seek his remedy by way of judicial review but should rely on his private law remedy when he will have a tribunal which will be able to hear evidence and make findings of fact unfettered by Wednesbury principles. In an appropriate case the court in a private law action is able to grant interlocutory relief on a speedy basis on well recognised principles so that in all but the clearest cases of a breach of section 16(8) judicial review has only disadvantages and no advantages when compared with the private law remedy.’
Any breach of section 15 or 16 renders the search and seizures unlawful.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Jowitt LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 820, [1999] 1 WLR 564, [1998] 1 All ER 65, [1998] Crim LR 290

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 16(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedReynolds v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1985
A search warrant had been obtained under the 1913 Act. The court considered the existence of a tort of obtaining a search warrant maliciously.
Waller LJ discussed the problem facing police officers when a large volume of material were to be . .
Not PreferredRegina v Longman QBD 1988
Lord Lane CJ expressed reservations as to the construction of this provision: whether the consequence of a breach of section 15 or section 16 or both would render a search of premises under a warrant unlawful and he expressed the tentative view, . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court ex parte A J D Holdings Ltd CACD 14-Feb-1992
Nolan LJ said that the phrase used in section 15(6)(b), ‘so far as is practicable,’ is imprecise and that it may well be impossible to draw a clear line between what is and what is not practicable. . .
PreferredRegina v Chief Constable of the Lancashire Constabulary ex parte Parker Admn 2-Jan-1993
There was a two paged document headed ‘warrant to enter and search premises’ which set out all the information required by section 15(6)(a). It did not, however, on its face identify the articles or persons to be sought in subparagraph (b). That . .

Cited by:

CitedFaisaltex Ltd and Others v Lancashire Constabulary and Another QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimants wished to claim damages saying that in executing a search warrant, the defendant had made excessive seizures of material. The claimants sought inspection by independent counsel of the materials seized to establish this in a manner . .
CitedBhatti and Others v Croydon Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant challenged the valiity of search warrants used at his home. He said they were deficient in not including the information as required by the Act. The police said that they were in accordance with the Home Office guidance.
Held: . .
CitedSher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
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.

Police, Torts – Other, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86351

Preston Borough Council v McGrath: ChD 18 Feb 1999

The defendant had been interviewed by the police investigating allegations of corruption. The Council in its civil claim, exhibited documents received from the police, and obtained in that investigation. The receipt of documents by a defendant under an implied undertaking not to use them for another purpose, implied no similar cross undertaking on behalf of the prosecution. The purpose of the undertaking is not served by such an implication.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-1999, Gazette 24-Feb-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPreston Borough Council v McGrath CA 12-May-2000
The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him.
Held: The document had not been given to the police under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Local Government, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85029

Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police: CA 14 Feb 2001

Where a constable arrested someone based upon information on the police national computer, he was not to be held accountable for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, if the information upon which that had in turn been based, did not justify the suspicion. The issue was whether the constable acted reasonably in relying upon that information. The entry itself was reasonable and objective cause for his suspicion, and arrest of the claimant. If information received from a member of the public could be an appropriate basis for an arrest, why should that same information cease to be such a basis when transformed into an entry on the computer.
The chief constable appealed against a finding of false imprisonment and assault, saying the claimant had been arrested properly. He was a passenger in a car which was mistakenly listed as ‘of interest’.
Held: The chief constable’s appeal succeeded. The critical question to be asked in all cases is what is in the mind of the arresting officer: he can never be a ‘mere conduit’ for someone else. It is for that reason insufficient for an arresting officer to rely solely upon an instruction to carry out the arrest. Conversely, however, where the arresting officer’s suspicion is formed on the basis of a police national computer entry, that entry is likely to provide the necessary objective justification. If information from an informer or member of the public can properly found suspicion sufficient for an arrest, why too should not an apparently responsible entry in the computer?

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ VP, Longmore J

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedO’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 21-Nov-1996
Second Hand Knowledge Supports Resaobnable Belief
The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest.
Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded . .
CitedFox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-1990
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: ‘The ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and . .

Cited by:

CitedArmstrong v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police CA 5-Dec-2008
The Chief Constable appealed against a finding that the claimant had been arrested for rape without reasonable grounds. A description of the rapist had been given which the claimant met in several respects, but from which he clearly differed in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81482

X v Local Authority: IPT 25 Aug 2008

The Tribunal examined whether a council’s use of covert CCTV trained on a communal area to detect persistent dog fouling constituted directed surveillance against an individual for which an authorisation under RIPA should have been obtained. It upheld the case against the council, concluding that the facts of that particular case, including the positioning of the covert camera, showed that the activity had breached the Complainant’s Article 8 rights.

Citations:

[2008] UKIPTrib 03 – 50

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.525989

Fraser v Mirza: HL 29 Mar 1993

A complaint made against a police officer may be libellous if it was made with an improper motive: ‘The motive with which a person made a defamatory communication can only be ascertained from an examination of his state of mind at the time he made it, which, as Lord Diplock said, can only be inferred from what he did or said or knew . . In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the respondent’s intentions in respect of what he was trying to convey by the letter are properly to be taken into account for the purpose of ascertaining what was the dominant motive operating on his mind at the time he wrote it . . Absent of belief in the truth of a defamatory allegation actually conveyed is, as Lord Diplock said [in Horrocks v Lowe], usually conclusive evidence of improper motive amounting to express malice. There is no valid reason for not holding that the same inference is necessarily to be drawn where the maker of the communication is proved to have intended by it to convey a defamatory allegation in the truth of which he did not believe, but which on a proper construction of the communication it is found not to bear.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Citations:

Ind Summary 29-Mar-1993, [1993] SC (HL) 27, [1993] UKHL 14, 1993 SLT 527

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedHorrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Police, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80667

Director of Public Prosecutions v Waite: QBD 17 May 1996

The defendant had a scanner tuned to listen in to the police channel. He committed an offence under the section.

Citations:

Times 17-May-1996, (1996) 160 JP 545

Statutes:

Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 5(b)(i)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte Foot Admn 29-Jan-1998
A device which tested for police radar speed check did not intercept a message between persons and therefore was not unlawful. ‘a signal in this context is not a mere electronic impulse but is rather a sign or something of meaning to another person. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80051

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara: QBD 16 Jul 2001

The defendant had been interviewed at the police station, and told that, in the light of his admission, he would be cautioned. He returned with a solicitor, who said that before he could advise his client to accept the caution, he needed to hear the interview tape, and to see the evidence. The police refused access, and the defendant was charged. He then successfully applied for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process. The prosecutor appealed. The court said that without that information, the solicitor could not properly advise his client. The defendant was entitled to informed legal advice. This should not be taken as creating a general obligation on police to provide wide ranging disclosure before charge.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Silber J

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79980

William Cowan v Sir Paul Condon – Metropolitan Police Service: CA 31 Aug 1999

The fact that a vehicle could count as ‘premises’ for the purposes of the Act, did not mean that that could or should restrict the ability of the police to impound a motor vehicle. There was no power to seize premises, but that could not imply that a moveable object was not subject to seizure.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 31-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2031

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79581

Bennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Admn 24 Oct 1997

Police and prosecuting authority have no inherent immunity from suit for tort of misfeasance in public office if the breach is properly made out. Immunity extends to statements made or agreed to be made out of court ‘if these were clearly and directly made in relation to the proceedings in court, for example, witnesses’ proofs of evidence.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott VC

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-1997, (1997) 10 Admin LR 245

Cited by:

CitedDarker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
CitedTaylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78337

Balchin v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary: CA 4 May 2001

The case was being heard before a civil jury. The parties had agreed a description of the facts, and prepared an agreed list of issues where there remained factual disputes. The judge had gone beyond those lists, and acted as if she was trying the case, rather than the jury. She embarked upon a fact-finding exercise of her own, and made factual findings adverse to the police. She should not have done so, but rather summed up for the jury. If she needed findings of fact in order to be able to give rulings, then she should have put those to the jury for their decision.

Citations:

Times 04-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 538

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78098

Baldwin v West Yorkshire Police, orse Baldwin v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 3 Jul 1995

The choice given to a person detained on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol, of giving either a blood or a urine sample was given satisfactorily, if it was done properly and fairly. Curtis J: ‘I would observe that the words of Lord Bridge in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Warren [1993] R.T.R. 58 are not a statute. As I have endeavoured to set out, they are words to guide the lower courts in the interpretation of the statute and how this branch of the law should be approached.
In my judgment, so long as the option given by the statute is explained fairly and properly so that the driver can make an informed decision, the requirements of justice and the efficacy of the driver’s option given by the statute under section 8(2) are ensured. Of course, it is right, as Turner v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Note-1994) [1996] R.T.R. 274, 278L-279A requires, that the explanation of the matters that the driver has to be told in order to exercise his proper right should be detailed.
However, on the facts of this case, in my judgment, this particular defendant did make an informed decision and was given all the necessary explanations and information that he would need to make a proper and informed decision.’

Judges:

Curtis J

Citations:

Ind Summary 03-Jul-1995, [1996] RTR 238

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 8(2)

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78105

Regina v Piggott: 2 Dec 1994

The offender had pleaded guilty to two offences of robbery. He sought to rely on information he had provided to the police in mitigaion. At a hearing before the sentencing judge on 4 November 1993, the police provided the court with a text. At a further hearing on 24 November 1993, defence counsel indicated that there was further relevant material not set out in the text. Prosecuting counsel said he did not know if there was any more information. The judge adjourned sentence for 14 days to enable the defence to put matters before the prosecution. When the case was listed for sentence, there was no new material and the judge proceeded to sentence. The offender appealed and was granted leave on the basis that he had provided material to the court which, if confirmed by the police, would be relevant to sentence. The court directed that the prosecution attend on the appeal and that it should put itself in a position where it could confirm or not confirm the material put forward by the offender. When the appeal was brought on for hearing, no more information had been provided; after argument, the court directed that any relevant information be provided. When the court next sat for the hearing of the appeal, information was provided that broadly confirmed the matters that the offender had sought to have confirmed before the trial judge.
Held: The court was critical of the position taken by the police. It observed: ‘More important the sentencing judge was not made aware of matters of potential relevance to his sentencing decision when the interests of justice required that he should have been given the information now available to this court.
The position facing police officers in the present context is never straight forward and requires careful judgment. However, we reject any suggestion that the decision whether to provide a text or not is simply a matter for the discretion of the police. In principle, if a defendant seeks to put material before the court by way of mitigation, which the court will not begin to consider unless confirmed in writing by the prosecution authority, then accurate information in the appropriate form confirming or refuting, in whole or in part, the assertions made by or on behalf of the defendant should be made available to the sentencing court by the prosecution.’

Citations:

Unreported transcript 2 November 1994

Cited by:

CitedAXN v The Queen CACD 27-May-2016
The defendant argued that greater note should have been taken on his sentencing to allow for the assistance he had given to the police after his arrest.
Held: The current accepted practice is that the text of the letter from the police to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.564848

Regina v Samuel: CA 1988

The defendant had been arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. He asked for a solicitor, but one was refused under section 58 of the 1984 Act. He appealed against his conviction saying that he should have been allowed access to a solicitor.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He could not be refused access to a solicitor after charge where, as here, the initial charges had been of burglary, and the inspector refusing access had to justify the refusal of access to any particular solicitor. The right of a suspect to consult and instruct a lawyer ‘as one of the most important and fundamental rights of a citizen’.

Judges:

Hodgson J

Citations:

[1988] QB 615, [1988] 2 WLR 920, (1987) Cr App R 232

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 58(1)

Cited by:

CitedAmbrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
CitedBeeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.445392

Plange v Chief Constable for Humberside Police: CA 23 Mar 1992

Where an arresting officer knows at the time of arrest that no charge is possible, the arresting officer acts unlawfully. However, it is for the claimant to establish on Wednesbury principles that the decision to arrest in any particular case was unlawful for want of proper exercise of discretion. Parker LJ said that ‘it will only be in very exceptional cases that the condition precedent [in section 24(6) reasonable grounds to suspect] being satisfied, a Wednesbury challenge can succeed’.

Judges:

Parker LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-1992, [1992] 156 LG Rev 1024, (1992) TLR 137

Cited by:

CitedRichardson v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, a teacher, said he had been unlawfully arrested and detained after an allegation of assault from a pupil. Having attended the police station voluntarily, he said that the circumstances did not satisfy the required precondition that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.431558

The London Borough of Lambeth v SCVJ and others: FD 2006

A court was unable to direct the commissioner of the police for the metropolis to disclose or release any sample of the DNA taken from a child for the purposes of comparing it with the DNA taken by other children.

Judges:

Ryder J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 326 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 152

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v D and Others FD 29-Mar-2010
The local authority was investigating allegations involving the family history of children in their care. They sought disclosure by the respondent police authority of the results DNA comparison tests to assist their investigations. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.418421

J W Dwyer Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver: 1967

The owner of a jewellery shop claimed to recover compensation from the police for damage to his shop in a smash and grab raid. Since there were more than 3 robbers, the police accepted that there had been a riot but defended the claim on the basis that the property had not been damaged by ‘persons riotously and tumultuously assembled’ within the wording of section 2 of the 1886 Act. The claimant said that the word ‘tumultuously’ added nothing to riotously or that, if it did, it should be read disjunctively.
Held: The expression ‘riotously and tumultuously’ required there to have been behaviour which was not merely riotous but also tumultuous. The claim failed.
Lyell J provided an historical analysis: ‘I now turn to consider both the meaning of the words and the question as to whether the words ‘riotously and tumultuously’ from their history are to be read as cumulative requirements, differing in character. Until very recently the victims of crime had, in general, no claim to be compensated for the injury they suffered as a consequence of the crime. Compensation for loss caused by a riot was a special case. This raises the question: Why was it made a special case? If a crowd of people collect in angry and threatening fashion this should become obvious to the local forces of order, and it would then become their duty to prevent the crowd from becoming a riot. This is a duty which has been recognised for centuries, and which until the 19th century was put upon the local administrative area, the hundred or wapentake, or whatever name it might be called; and there was a duty upon them to compensate for damage which was done by persons assembled riotously and tumultuously. The Act of 1886, in fact, did no more than modernise the mode of obtaining compensation and transferred the burden from the inhabitants of the hundred or wapentake to the local police authority. There is nothing secret or furtive about a crowd of people who are acting riotously and tumultuously. It seems to me that the right to compensation from public funds was given because public authority had failed to protect the public who were menaced by a threat which was, or ought to have been, obvious to the forces of law and order as they existed from time to time. In my judgment, the word ‘tumultuously’ was added to ‘riotously’ for the specific reason that it was intended to limit the liability of compensation to cases where the rioters were in such numbers and in such state of agitated commotion, and were generally so acting, that the forces of law and order should have been well aware of the threat which existed, and, if they had done their duty, should have taken steps to prevent the rioters from causing damage.’

Judges:

Lyell J

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 970

Statutes:

Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
ApprovedDH Edmonds Ltd v East Sussex Police Authority CA 6-Jul-1988
The plaintiffs Brighton jewellers sought compensation from the police authority for a raid on their premises by three or four men. Kenneth Jones J at first instance held that the incident did not involve a tumultuous assembly and accordingly the . .
CitedBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable CA 12-Feb-2009
The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory . .
CitedYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Damages

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.270264

Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 28 Jul 2006

Sikh protesters set out to picket a theatre production which they considered to offend their religion. The respondent used a existing ASBO dispersal order which had been obtained for other purposes, to control the demonstration.
Held: The appeal failed. A valid order could be used when necessary even if for purposes not foreseen when the order was made. Certain kinds of demonstrations had specific statutory protections, but it was not for the courts to extend those classes.

Judges:

Wall LJ, Wilson LJ, Hallett LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1118, Times 15-Aug-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 3374, [2007] 2 All ER 297

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEzelin v France ECHR 26-Apr-1991
The free speech of protesters should not be curtailed simply because of the unlawful behaviour of one or two individuals. The court considered that ‘that the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly – in this instance a demonstration that had not . .
CitedSierny v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Feb-2006
An authorisation for a dispersal order under the Act must specify, if only in summary form, the grounds upon which it is made. A mere statement that an officer had grounds for making an authorisation was not sufficient. Specification of the grounds . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedRegina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
CitedRedmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999
The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, . .
CitedStankov And The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v Bulgaria ECHR 2-Oct-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed; Violation of Art. 11; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic . .
CitedReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop.
Held: The . .
Appeal fromSingh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243998

Gillan and Quinton, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: CA 29 Jul 2004

The appellants had challenged the lawfulness of being stopped and searched by police. The officers relied on an authorisation made under the 2000 Act. They had been on their way to attending an arms fair, intending to demonstrate.
Held: The Act was to be interpreted without deference to the respondent, and because of the powers granted, it had to be interpreted restrictively. There was insufficient evidence that the respondent had properly considered the instructions to be given to his officers. Police officers had not given statements, only their notebooks had been made available. ‘The onus is on the first respondents to show that the interference with the appellants of which complaint is made was lawful. It is not possible to say that the onus has been discharged on the evidence before us. On the appellants’ evidence remarks were made that suggest that the powers could have been used in order ‘to police’ the protest. This would not be a lawful use of the power.’
It was accepted that the stops were an interference with the claimants’ article 8 rights, but this was proportionate and in accordance with law.
and ‘It is clear that Parliament, unusually, has permitted random stopping and searching, but, as we have already indicated when examining the language of the relevant sections, made the use of that power subject to safeguards. The power is only to be used for a single specified purpose for a period of an authorisation granted by a senior officer and confirmed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the authorisation only has a limited life unless renewed.
We do not find it surprising that the word ‘expedient’ should appear in section 44(3) in conjunction with the power to authorise. The statutory scheme is to leave how the power is to be used to the discretion of the senior officer. In agreement with the Divisional Court, we would give the word its ordinary meaning of advantageous. It is entirely consistent with the framework of the legislation that a power of this sort should be exercised when a senior police officer considers it is advantageous to exercise the power for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
Interpreted in this way, sections 44 and 45 could not conflict with the provisions of the Articles of the ECHR. If those Articles were to be infringed it would be because of the manner of the exercise of the power, not its existence. Any possible infringement of the ECHR would depend on the circumstances in which the power that the sections give is exercised.’

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales Lord Justice Buxton And Lady Justice Arden Dbe

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1067, Times 12-Aug-2004, [2004] 3 WLR 1144, [2005] QB 388

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 44, European Convention on Human Rights 5 8 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromGillan and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis and Another Admn 31-Oct-2003
The applicants challenged by way of judicial review the way they had been stopped and searched under the Act. They attended a demonstration. The search revealed nothing suspicious. General authorisations for such searches had been issued under the . .
CitedRaymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
CitedGuzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
CitedRegina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .

Cited by:

CitedLaporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop.
Held: The . .
CitedAustin and Saxby v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis QBD 23-Mar-2005
Towards the end of a substantial May Day demonstration on the streets of London, police surrounded about 3,000 people in Oxford Circus and did not allow them to leave for seven hours. The claimant who was present, but not involved in any of the . .
Appeal fromGillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
At Court of AppealGillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2008
The court set the questions to be answered later in response to the complaint as to the use of stop and search powers by the British police. . .
At Court of AppealGillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2009
(Admissibility and Summary) . .
At Court of AppealGillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jan-2010
The claimants had been stopped by the police using powers in the 2000 Act. They were going to a demonstration outside an arms convention. There was no reason given for any suspicion that the searches were needed.
Held: The powers given to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.199609

Ancell and Another v McDermott and Others: CA 17 Mar 1993

Police are under no duty to warn road users of a hazard on road. The police have no general liability in negligence for reasons of public policy.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1993, [1993] 4 All ER 355

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
CitedBrooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
CitedWelton, Welton v North Cornwall District Council CA 17-Jul-1996
The defendant authority appealed a finding that it was liable in negligence from the conduct of one of its environmental health officers. The plaintiff had set out to refurbish and open a restaurant. He said the officer gave him a list of things he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Police

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77784

Rex v Ford: 1817

It is not necessary for a person making an arrest to state the charge to the person detained in technical or precise language.

Citations:

(1817) R and R 329

Cited by:

CitedChristie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259577

Regina v Southampton Crown Court ex parte J and P: 21 Dec 1992

A special material warrant was quashed, partly because it was too widely drawn. It was suspected that there had been thefts from the solicitor’s firms client account. Watkins LJ discussed the need for a judge to give reasons for a decision under section 9 of the 1984 Act allowing the police to have access to special procedure materials: ‘The Act does not require a circuit judge to give reasons when making an order inter partes or issuing a warrant ex parte for access to special procedure material. However, challenges to decisions of circuit judges which have come before this Court demonstrate, in my opinion, especially as to ex parte applications, the need for this to be done. Reasons need not be elaborate, but they should be recorded and be sufficient to identify the substance of any relevant information or representation put before the judge in addition to the written information. They should set out what inferences he has drawn from the material relevant to the statutory conditions governing the content and form of the order or warrant sought. Where he has considered the question of legal privilege he should explain why, if he does, he has included in the order or warrant material which is prima facie privileged, or why he has excluded material as subject to privilege. In the latter case, where the excluded material consists of particular documents or categories of documents which might otherwise be included in the material to which access is given, he should explain why, if he does, he has included in the order or warrant material which is prima facie privileged, or why he has excluded material as subject to privilege. In the latter case, where the excluded material consists of particular documents or categories of documents which might otherwise be included in the material to which access is given, he should carefully describe and identify them in the order or warrant.
These requirements may seem onerous for the exercise of a power to which the police often seek recourse as a matter of urgency. But a Circuit Judge has a responsibility not only to assist the effective investigation of crime, but also to protect as needs be the holder of and the person in respect of whom he holds material in confidence from unjustified intrusion into their private affairs.’
Auld LJ said: ‘the fact that a solicitor is himself under investigation is not of itself necessarily a sufficient reason for ordering such an intrusion into his affairs and those of his clients. All the circumstances of the individual application must be taken into account, including, for example, the seriousness of the matter being investigated, the evidence already available to the police to found a prosecution based on it, and the extent to which the solicitor has already been put on notice of interest on his affairs such as might have caused him to hide or destroy or otherwise interfere with incriminating documents.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ, Auld LJ

Citations:

[1993] Crim LR 962

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co Admn 12-May-1999
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and . .
CitedHafner and Hochstrasser (A Firm), Regina (on the Application of) v Australian Securities and Investments Commission Admn 5-Mar-2008
The Commission renewed its application for a review of a decision on their request for judicial assistance in obtaining evidence from the firm. The firm had produced confidential documents to the court, and not disclosed to the Commission.
CitedFaisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Legal Professions

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.260138

Regina ex parte Sussex Police Authority v Beck: QBD 2006

To be disabled from the police force within the meaning of regulation A12 meant that an individual had to be unable to work in any police force; not just the force she was with when she became disabled. There is no national police force.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2006] ICR 570

Statutes:

Police Pension Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 257) 12A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not followedCorkindale v Police Medical Appeal Board and Another QBD 21-Dec-2006
The claimant a police officer appealed a refusal of the Police Medical Board to find her permanently disabled because though she was found such in her present force, another force might be ready to offer her work.
Held: What counted was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.247976

Regina v Central Criminal Court ex parte A J D Holdings Ltd: CACD 14 Feb 1992

Nolan LJ said that the phrase used in section 15(6)(b), ‘so far as is practicable,’ is imprecise and that it may well be impossible to draw a clear line between what is and what is not practicable.

Judges:

Nolan LJ

Citations:

Unreported 14 February 92

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Chief Constable for Warwickshire and Others Ex Parte Fitzpatrick and Others QBD 1-Oct-1997
Judicial Review is not the appropriate way to challenge the excessive nature of a search warrant issues by magistrates. A private law remedy is better. Jowitt J said: ‘Judicial review is not a fact finding exercise and it is an extremely . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.235713

Price v Messenger: 1800

Excessive unauthorised or unreasonable behaviour by a police constable loses him the protection of section 6 of the Act of 1750.

Citations:

(1800) 2 Bos and P 158

Statutes:

Constable’s Protection Act 1750 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBell 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228993

Regina v Bass: CCA 1953

The court considered how to deal with the admission of a statement where the defendant contested its admissibility. Here the defendant said he had not been cautioned before the interview.
Held: It was within the discretion of the judge to admit the interview ‘It is to be observed, as this court pointed out in Rex v Murray [1951] 1 KB 391, that while it is for the presiding judge to rule whether a statement is admissible, it is for the jury to determine the weight to be given to it if he admits it, and thus, when a statement has been admitted by the judge, he should direct the jury to apply to their consideration of it the principle as stated by Lord Sumner, and he should further tell them that if they are not satisfied that it was made voluntarily, they should give it no weight at all and disregard it.’
Byrne J said: ‘This court has observed that police officers nearly always deny that they have collaborated in the making of notes, and we cannot help wondering why they are the only class of society who do not collaborate in such a matter. It seems to us that nothing could be more natural or proper when two persons have been present at an interview with a third person than that they should afterwards make sure that they have a correct version of what was said. Collaboration would appear to be a better explanation of almost identical notes than the possession of a superhuman memory.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ, Byrne and Parker JJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 QB 680, (1953) 17 Cr App R 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIbrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
CitedBally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
CitedRegina v Skinner CACD 6-Dec-1993
Witnesses should not rehearse their evidence together before going into court. Farquharson LJ said: ‘It has certainly been permissible, since Lord Goddard’s time, for officers to confer together in the making up of their notebooks immediately after . .
CitedSaunders and Tucker, Regina (on the Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers and others Admn 10-Oct-2008
The deceased had been shot by police during an armed siege. His family complained that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had declined to order the officers not to confer with each other before making statements.
Held: The authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224426

Director of Public Prosecutions v Kitching: 1989

The statutory power of arrest in section 91 of the CJA 1967 for the offence of drunk and disorderly in a public place was not repealed by section 26(1), despite the absence of any reference thereto in Schedule 2 to PACE.

Citations:

[1990] COD 149, [1990] CLR 394, Times 17-Nov-1989

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1967 91(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 25 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBurke v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 12-Jan-1999
The claimant had lost actions for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault. He sought leave to appeal out of time.
Held: The reasons for requesting an adjournment were quite inadequate, and in the light of Kitching, the case was . .
CitedGapper v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary CA 2-Jul-1998
The court asked whether the power of arrest under s6 of the 1864 Act survived s26 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The 1984 Act affected only the powers given to police officers as police officers. The power under s6 of the Vagrancy Act applied to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196917

London Assurance Company v SainsburyWood Immigration: 28 Jun 1783

An insurance office having paid the assured the amount of the loss sustained by him in consequence of a demolishing by rioters, sued the hundredors under the stat. I G. 1, at. 2, e. 5, s. 6, in their own names. HeId by Lord Mansfield and Butler, J. (Willes and Ashurst, J.J,, dissentient), that the office was not erititled to recover. The insurers could not sue the hundred in their own names and overturned the award of damages by a jury.

Judges:

Mansfield L, Butler, Willes, Ashurst, JJ

Citations:

(1783) 3 Dougl 246, [1783] EngR 109, (1783) 3 Doug 245, (1783) 99 ER 636

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSimpson and Co v Thomson HL 1877
The House discussed the extent of an insurer’s right of subrogation: ‘My Lords, these authorities seem to me to be conclusive that the right of the underwriters is merely to make such claim for damages as the insured himself could have made, and it . .
CitedCaledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Police

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.191157

Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey: CA 10 Jun 1988

Whether an officer had reasonable cause to arrest somebody without a warrant depended upon an objective assessment of the information available to him, and not upon his subjective beliefs. The court had three questions to ask (per Woolf LJ): ‘(a) Did the arresting officer suspect that the person arrested was guilty of the offence? The answer to this question depends entirely on the findings of fact as to the officer’s state of mind. (b) Assuming the officer had the necessary suspicion, was there reasonable cause for suspicion? This is a purely objective requirement to be determined by the judge if necessary on the facts found by a jury. (c) If the answer to the two previous questions is in the affirmative, then the officer has a discretion which entitles him to make an arrest and in relation to that discretion has been exercised in accordance with the principles laid down [in Wednesbury]’
Lawton LJ said: ‘Suspicion by itself, however, will not justify an arrest. There must be a factual basis for it of a kind which the court would adjudge to be reasonable. The facts may be within the arresting constable’s own knowledge or have been reported to him. When there is an issue in a trial as to whether a constable had a reasonable cause, his claim to have had knowledge or to have received reports on which he relied may be challenged. It is within this context that there may be evidential issue as what he believed to be the facts. But it would be for the court to adjudge what were the facts which made him suspect that the person he arrested was guilty of the offence which he was investigating.’

Judges:

Woolf LJ, Sir Frederick Lawton

Citations:

[1988] NLJR 180, Times 15-Jun-1988, [1996] LG Rev Rep 241, [1996] LGR 241

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

CitedJarrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 14-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and assault after her wrongful arrest. She had waived her handbag at an officer investigating a disturbance and been arrested. The police said the arrest was lawful, she being suspected of common . .
CitedCumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police CA 17-Dec-2003
The six claimants sought damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Each had been arrested on an officer’s suspicion. They operated CCTV equipment, and it appeared that tapes showing the commission of an offence had been tampered with. Each . .
CitedO’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 21-Nov-1996
Second Hand Knowledge Supports Resaobnable Belief
The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest.
Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded . .
CitedAl-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
CitedAustin and Saxby v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis QBD 23-Mar-2005
Towards the end of a substantial May Day demonstration on the streets of London, police surrounded about 3,000 people in Oxford Circus and did not allow them to leave for seven hours. The claimant who was present, but not involved in any of the . .
CitedRaissi and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis QBD 30-Nov-2007
The claimants had been arrested under the 2000 Act, held for differing lengths of time and released without charge. They sought damages for false imprisonment.
Held: The officers had acted on their understanding that senior offcers had more . .
CitedCommissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Raissi CA 12-Nov-2008
The Commissioner appealed against an award of damages for false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested shortly after a terrorist attack. The judge had held that they had no reasonable belief of his involvement. The Commissioner did not now . .
CitedRichardson v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, a teacher, said he had been unlawfully arrested and detained after an allegation of assault from a pupil. Having attended the police station voluntarily, he said that the circumstances did not satisfy the required precondition that an . .
CitedHayes v Merseyside Police CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimant had been arrested after a complaint of harassment. The officer then contacted the complainant who then withdrew his complaint. The officer went to visit the complainant to discuss it further. On his return the claimant was released from . .
CitedHowarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .
CitedCommissioner of Police of The Metropolis v Copeland CA 22-Jul-2014
The defendant appealed against the award of damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosection, saying that the question posed for the jury were misdirections, and that the jury’s decision was perverse. The claimant was attending the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190122

Rawlings v Till: 1837

Citations:

(1837) 3 M and W 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedCollins v Wilcock QBD 1984
The defendant appealed against her conviction for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. He had sought to caution her with regard to activity as a prostitute. The 1959 Act gave no power to detain, but he took hold of her. She . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186336

Kenlin v Gardner: QBD 1967

Two school boys, visiting premises for a lawful purpose, aroused suspicion of police officers on duty in plain clothes. One officer produced his warrant card, stated that they were police officers and asked why they were calling at the houses. The boys did not believe that they were police officers. One of them made as if to run away and one of the constables caught hold of his arm and cautioned him. There was then a struggle which involved the other boy.
Held: The officer’s action in catching hold of two schoolboys was performed not in the course of arresting them but for the purpose of detaining them for questioning and so was unlawful.

Winn LJ said: ‘So one comes back to the question in the end, in the ultimate analysis: was this officer entitled in law to take hold of the first boy by the arm – of course the same situation arises with the other officer in regard to the second boy a little later – justified in committing that technical assault by the exercise of any power which he as a police constable in the precise circumstances prevailing at that exact moment possessed?
I regret, really, that I feel myself compelled to say that the answer to that question must be in the negative. This officer might or might not in the particular circumstances have possessed a power to arrest these boys. I leave that question open, saying no more than I feel some doubt whether he would have had a power of arrest: but on the assumption that he had a power to arrest it is to my mind perfectly plain that neither of these officers purported to arrest either of these boys. What was done was not done as an integral step in the process of arresting, but was done in order to secure an opportunity, by detaining the boys from escape, to put to them or either of them the question that was regarded as the test question to satisfy the officers whether or not it would be right in the circumstances, and having regard to the answer obtained from that question, if any, to arrest them.
I regret to say that I think there was a technical assault by the police officers.’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ,, Winn LJ, Widgery J

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 510

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedCollins v Wilcock QBD 1984
The defendant appealed against her conviction for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. He had sought to caution her with regard to activity as a prostitute. The 1959 Act gave no power to detain, but he took hold of her. She . .
CitedWood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-May-2008
The defendant challenged his conviction for obstructing a police officer and threatening behaviour. The officer had taken hold of him to restrain him, not intending to arrest him, but only to establish whether he was a person they were looking for. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186337

Hicks v Faulkner: 1878

Before charging a prisoner, a police officer must have ‘an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the accuser to the conclusion that the person was probably guilty of the crime imputed.’
Once a plaintiff has established his imprisonment, the onus then lies on the defendant to ‘plead and prove affirmatively the existence of reasonable cause’.

Judges:

Judge Hawkins

Citations:

[1878] 8 QBD 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGlinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
CitedOsman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
ApprovedHerniman v Smith HL 1938
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution.
Held: It is the duty of a prosecutor to find out not whether there is a possible defence, but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for prosecution. The House approved the . .
CitedGibbs and others v Rea PC 29-Jan-1998
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided . .
CitedMatin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 20-Jun-2002
The claimant sought to have restored his claim for malicious prosecution.
Held: ‘The fact that there might be an arguable case that the prosecutor was activated by malice, that is to say, to prosecute for an improper motive, does not of itself . .
CitedMcHarg v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police ChD 9-Jan-2004
The claimant police officer sought damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish malice. The claim was struck out. . .
CitedRowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 20-Dec-2006
The claimant succeeded in her claims for general damages against the respondent for personal injury, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, but appealed refusal of the court to award aggravated damages against the chief constable.
Held: . .
CitedMoulton v Chief Constable of The West Midlands CA 13-May-2010
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. He had been arrested and held on allegations of serious sexual assaults, but then released when the matter came to the Crown . .
CitedBT v Crown Prosecution Service CA 16-Dec-1997
The plaintiff appealed against dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution brought against the Service.
Held: Actions for malicious prosecution, against the Crown Prosecution Service are to be examined closely to ensure that they are not . .
CitedWilliamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Sep-2014
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .
CitedMotasim v Crown Prosecution Service and Others QBD 15-Aug-2017
The claimant had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, from his innocent association with people later convicted of terrorism. The defendant discovered evidence which would undermine the case against him, but refuse to disclose it. Eventually, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183666

Glinski v McIver: HL 1962

The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’
A charging officer is simply required to make an assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to withstand examination in the course of ‘a fair and impartial trial’.
The idea of malice covered ‘any motive other than a desire to bring a criminal to justice’. ‘such difficulty as there is in the correct statement and application of the law as to want of reasonable and probable cause, arises from the fact that, while it is for the judge to determine (whether as fact or law) whether there was such want, it is for the jury to determine any disputed facts which are relevant to that determination.’
The House discussed the interaction between malice and want of honest belief: ‘though from want of probable cause malice may and often is inferred, even from the most express malice, want of probable cause, of which honest belief is an ingredient, is not to be inferred.’
Lord Devlin observed: ‘At first sight it is undoubtedly an attractive proposition that a police officer should not be expected to hold an opinion about the guilt and innocence of those he prosecutes; a prosecuting counsel is not expected to hold such an opinion any more than the magistrate who commits for trial . . It derives, I think, a lot of its attraction from the ambiguous use of the word ‘guilt’. If the word is used without qualification, I entirely agree, for the reasons I have given, that a police officer should not be expected to hold an opinion. But when the question to which his mind ought to be directed is no more than the strength of his case, I think it would be unsatisfactory and impracticable to attempt to distinguish between facts proved directly and facts inferred, or (for inference depends on opinion), between fact and opinion generally. Opinion enters into everything from the beginning. The value of a statement taken from a witness depends, until it is tested in court, on the officer’s opinion of the witness’s honesty, accuracy and power of observation.’
Viscount Simonds discussed the extent to which an officer should investigate a possible defence: ‘A question is sometimes raised whether the prosecutor has acted with too great haste or zeal and failed to ascertain by inquiries that he might have made facts that would have altered his opinion upon the guilt of the accused. Upon this matter it is not possible to generalise, but I would accept as a guiding principle what Lord Atkin said in Herniman v Smith [1938] AC 305, that it is the duty of a prosecutor to find out not whether there is a possible defence but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for prosecution.’

Judges:

Lord Denning, Lord Devlin, Viscount Simonds

Citations:

[1962] AC 726, [1962] 1 All ER 696

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDawson v Vasandau 1863
It is not necessary for a charging officer to believe that the prosecution will result in a conviction before charging a prisoner. . .
CitedTempest v Snowden 1952
Decision too charge – whether was warranted
A custody officer is not required to be sure that the accused person is guilty before charging him, but rather he should believe that a charge is warranted . .
CitedHicks v Faulkner 1878
Before charging a prisoner, a police officer must have ‘an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would . .
CitedHerniman v Smith HL 1938
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution.
Held: It is the duty of a prosecutor to find out not whether there is a possible defence, but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for prosecution. The House approved the . .

Cited by:

CitedPalomares v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 11-Oct-1996
The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested, but later the charges were dismissed. The jury found on the trial for malicious prosecution that the officers had not believed the truth of the allegations . .
CitedOsman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
CitedGibbs and others v Rea PC 29-Jan-1998
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided . .
CitedKeegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 3-Jul-2003
The police had information suggesting (wrongly) that a fugitive resided at an address. An armed raid followed, and the claimant occupant sought damages.
Held: The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant required it to be established . .
CitedMcHarg v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police ChD 9-Jan-2004
The claimant police officer sought damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish malice. The claim was struck out. . .
CitedMatin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 20-Jun-2002
The claimant sought to have restored his claim for malicious prosecution.
Held: ‘The fact that there might be an arguable case that the prosecutor was activated by malice, that is to say, to prosecute for an improper motive, does not of itself . .
CitedSinclair v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc CA 12-Dec-2000
The claimant had been prosecuted, but the charge was dismissed as an abuse of process. He now appealed a strike out of his civil claim for damages for malicious prosecution.
Held: The appeal failed. The decision to dismiss the criminal charge . .
CitedCoudrat v Revenue and Customs CA 26-May-2005
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the Customs and Excise. He was arrested and held accused of VAT fraud. Proceedings were discontinued. He had signed an application for . .
CitedClifford v The Chief Constable of The Hertfordshire Constabulary QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office bought by the claimant who was charged with child pornography offences in July 2004. The prosecution had eventually offered no evidence. He said that it should have been . .
CitedBT v Crown Prosecution Service CA 16-Dec-1997
The plaintiff appealed against dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution brought against the Service.
Held: Actions for malicious prosecution, against the Crown Prosecution Service are to be examined closely to ensure that they are not . .
CitedWilliamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Sep-2014
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .
CitedMotasim v Crown Prosecution Service and Others QBD 15-Aug-2017
The claimant had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, from his innocent association with people later convicted of terrorism. The defendant discovered evidence which would undermine the case against him, but refuse to disclose it. Eventually, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182185

Jackson v Stevenson: 1897

At common law, it is contrary to constitutional principle and illegal to search someone to establish whether there are grounds for an arrest

Citations:

(1897) 2 Adam 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Constitutional

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605177

Raissi v Commissioner of Police: QBD 15 Nov 2007

Claim for damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The claimants had been arrested an held as brothers of a third brother arrested for suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. The police applied to have excluded documents including interception warrants.

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3421 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 41(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.271255

McGowan v Chief Constable of Kingston Upon Hull: 21 Oct 1967

The defendant police officers had gone into a house where a child was being held in a man’s arms. The police officers said that they had reason to think that a breach of the peace might occur between the man and his mistress. The question arose as to whether the mistress had authority to give an invitation to the police officers to come in.
Held: Parker LCJ said: ‘Regardless of the invitation, there was sufficient to justify the police entering the house on the basis that they genuinely suspected a danger of breach of the peace occurring.’

Judges:

Parker LCJ, Widgery, O’Connor JJ

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-1967

Cited by:

CitedMcLeod, Mealing (deceased) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner CA 3-Feb-1994
The plaintiff appealed against the dismissal of her claims for trespass and breach of duty by the defendant’s officers. In divorce proceedings, she had been ordered to return certain household goods to her husband, but had failed yet to do so. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.543044

Marcel v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: 1990

Documents had been taken by the defendant’s officers in the course of an investigation into an alleged fraud. The plaintiff now sought their release for the use in civil proceedings so as to prevent his opponent misleading the court.
Held: The claim failed. Since the police were authorised to seize, retain and use the documents only for public purposes related to the investigation and prosecution of crime and the return of stolen property to the true owner, they were not entitled to disclose documents seized under the 1984 Act to a third party for use in civil proceedings to protect his legal rights.
The public interest in ensuring that the documents were used solely for the public purposes for which the power of seizure was conferred was inviolate and outweighed the public interest in ensuring that in the civil proceedings all relevant information should be available to the court.
Where the police or any other public authority used compulsory powers to obtain information and documents from a citizen, that information and those documents were received solely for those purposes and equity would impose on the public authority a duty not to disclose them to third parties except by order of the court.

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson V-C J

Citations:

[1991] 1 All ER 845, [1991] 2 WLR 1118, (1990) 20 IPR 532

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Police, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.448373

Ratcliffe v Eden et al: KBD 22 Nov 1776

There had been a riot by sailors in Liverpool. The cort was asked whether the victim of a riot could recover compensation not only for the damage to his house but for also the destruction of the furniture and household goods within his house. The hundred argued that the victim could not recover for the furniture and goods as their destruction was a separate and independent act from the damage to the house.
Held: The argument was rejected. The 1714 Act had altered the nature of the offence; rioters were no longer trespassers but felons and were to be hanged. Before the 1714 Act the trespassers would have been liable in damages. Under the Act the inhabitants of the hundred instead were liable in damages and this was an inducement to them to perform their duty of preventing or suppressing riots. As the destruction of the furniture and goods occurred at the same time as the damage to the house, it was part of the demolition of the house just as it would be if the pulling down of the house crushed the furniture.
Lord Mansfield stated: ‘This is the great principle of the law, that the inhabitants shall be in the nature of sureties for one another. It is a very ancient principle; as old as the institution of the decennaries by Alfred, whereby the whole neighbourhood or tithing of freemen were mutual pledges for each other’s good behaviour. The same principle obtains in the Statutes of Hue and Cry. It is the principle here.’ Ashhurst J agreed.
Aston J advocated a liberal interpretation: ‘The object and principle of this Act was, to transfer the damages occasioned by the trespass, from the rioters to the hundred; to make it felony in the offenders themselves, and to put the party injured in the same state as before. It is a remedial law, and ought to be extended.’

Judges:

Lord Mansfield, Aston J. Ashhurst J

Citations:

[1776] EngR 58, (1776) 2 Cowp 485, (1776) 98 ER 1200

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Riot Act 1714

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.373325

Hyde v Cogan And Others: 22 Jun 1781

After the anti-Catholic ‘Gordon Riots’ in London in June 1780, which caused extensive damage and destruction of property, including Lord Mansfield’s house in Bloomsbury Square, damages were claied from the local hundred. The hundred argued that the 1714 Act was penal against both the trespasser and the hundred and ought to be interpreted narrowly.
Held: (Lord Mansfield present but not taking part) It was not penal, but remedial, and was to be interpreted liberally.
Buller J said that, as a result, it should be interpreted liberally.
Willes J, said that the furniture in a London house might be worth twice as much as the house itself, and that a liberal interpretation brought household goods within the scope of the statutory compensation scheme.

Judges:

Willes, Ashhurst and Buller JJ

Citations:

[1781] EngR 69, (1781) 2 Doug 699, (1781) 99 ER 445

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.372535

Middleweek v The Chief Constable of Merseyside (Note): CA 1990

The plaintiff had been awarded damages for false imprisonment by the jury on the basis that his otherwise lawful detention at a police station had been made unlawful because it was unreasonable in the circumstances to keep him in a police cell.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded.
Ackner LJ said: ‘We agree with the views expressed by the Divisional Court that it must be possible to conceive of hypothetical cases in which the conditions of detention are so intolerable as to render the detention unlawful and thereby provide a remedy to the prisoner in damages for false imprisonment. A person lawfully detained in a prison cell would, in our judgment, cease to be so lawfully detained if the conditions in that cell were such as to be seriously prejudicial to his health if he continued to occupy it, eg, because it became and remained seriously flooded, or contained a fractured gas pipe allowing gas to escape into the cell. We do not therefore accept as an absolute proposition that if detention is initially lawful, it can never become unlawful by reason of changes in the conditions of imprisonment.’

Judges:

Ackner LJ

Citations:

[1990] 3 WLR 481

Citing:

CitedWilliams v Home Office (No 2) 1981
Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the . .
CitedRegina v Board of Visitors of Gartree Prison, Ex parte Sears 14-Mar-1985
A prisoner sought damages in respect of cellular confinement and loss of privileges.
Held: Mann J. said: ‘If a person is imprisoned in a place where he is lawfully so imprisoned, then it does not seem to me that a variation in conditions of . .

Cited by:

ErroneousRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.271097

Kaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation: KBD 1916

It was argued that a claim under the 1886 Act was a claim for ‘alleged neglect or default’ within the meaning of the 1893 Act, so that the claim was time-barred under that Act.
Held: The argument failed. The 1893 Act did not apply.
Lush J said: ‘In this case the police authority failed to fix the compensation to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs and they brought this action. It was an action to recover compensation under the statute; it was not brought to recover damages for any default on the part of the police authority; it was simply an action to recover such an amount as the county court judge might think right to allow as compensation for the damage done to the plaintiffs’ property’.

Judges:

Lush J, Rowlatt J

Citations:

[1916] 1 KB 860

Statutes:

Public Authorities Protection Act 1893, Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Cited by:

CitedBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
CitedYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Limitation

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270266

Pitchers v Surrey County Council: 1923

In 1919 there was a riot involving Canadian soldiers from a local Camp. They released fellow soldiers in custody and raided the officers’ mess, and damaged and stole the contents of a tailor’s shop and other shops known as ‘Tin Town’ – a group of shops erected with the permission of the military authorities on a part of the Portsmouth Road which ran through the camp. The plaintiff was the owner of the tailor’s shop and sued the defendant police authority under the 1886 Act.
Held: Swift J said: ‘The defendants contend that although it is true that a house, shop or building has been destroyed it is not a house, shop or building in any police district, as the police had no jurisdiction over Witley Camp, the action of the military having taken Witley Camp completely out of the police district.’ and ‘But the Act of Parliament does not give a citizen a right to compensation for damage by riot on any principle of blaming the police over the matter. The fact that the damage has been done in spite of the care and protection of the police or because of the negligence of the police does not affect the right of the claimant to have compensation. It is a right which is given to the individual who is hurt by a riot to have his damages shared by the whole of the community, and the community for the purpose of this sharing is the police district within which the building injured or destroyed is situated.’
Swift J went on to say that the fact that the camp was a private place did not prevent it from being a place in which a riot could take place’But it is said that the police had no control over the soldiers and that they were helpless to do anything. I do not think that that contention is right. I think that the police had the right of control directly a felony was committed in their presence. Of course they had not the power of exercising control. I have stated what opinion I have formed of the three police officers who gave evidence before me. I have not the slightest doubt that they had sufficient courage to try to stop the disturbance; they would, however, have been foolish men had they attempted to do so, as it could not possibly have done any good and they might have been very seriously hurt if not actually killed in endeavouring to quell the disturbance, but the fact that it may not be physically possible for the police to quell a disturbance does not affect the question of their legal rights. I am far from being satisfied that if the police in the neighbourhood of a military camp see the soldiers breaking it up they have not a legal right to apprehend them for the breach of the peace or for the felony which they are committing.’ and
‘The right to compensation does not seem to me to be in the least degree dependent upon any action or inaction on the part of the police. It is quite clear that it would have been physically impossible for all the police in Surrey, who I think numbered 280 at this time, to have taken control of that camp without the assistance and support of the military authorities. It would have been a physical impossibility for them to have reduced some hundreds of rioters, many of whom I suppose were armed or had access to arms, to such a state that they could say that the riot was quelled. But no one here suggests any neglect or impropriety on the part of the police. Every one who has heard this case I should think has come to the conclusion that they acted with great discretion and great propriety in the matter. But the Act of Parliament does not give a citizen a right to compensation for damage by riot on any principle of blaming the police over the matter. The fact that the damage has been done in spite of the care and protection of the police or because of the negligence of the police does not affect the right of the claimant to have compensation. It is a right which is given to the individual who is hurt by a riot to have his damages shared by the whole of the community, and the community for the purpose of this sharing is the police district within which the building injured or destroyed is situated. The plaintiff is entitled to have the wrong which was done to her shared by all the contributors to the police fund in the police district of Surrey.’

Judges:

Swift J

Citations:

[1923] 2 KB 57

Statutes:

Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Cited by:

CitedBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
Appeal FromPitchers v Surrey County Council CA 2-Jan-1923
The claimant sought payment for damages to his property after imprisoned Canadian troops were released and came into the town causing damage.
Held: Lord Sterndale said: ‘it is said that this camp under the circumstances ceased to be within the . .
CitedYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270268

Ford v Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District: 1921

Bailhache J considered a claim under the 1886 Act: ‘There must be judgment for the plaintiff, and the question of the quantum of damages must be referred.’

Judges:

Bailhache J

Citations:

[1921] 2 KB

Statutes:

Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Cited by:

CitedBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270267

Kinsella v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire: QBD 24 Aug 1999

Where a police force is sued for negligence the questions of public policy which might prevent the case proceeding might be raised in interim proceedings before the trial, and there is no rule of law requiring them to be dealt with only at the trial of the action, provided there was sufficient information to allow such a decision on the pleadings.

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-1999

Police

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.82802

Regina v Fennell: CACD 1971

A father was accused of assaulting a police constable in order to release his son from custody. He pleaded self defence, saying that he had believed the arrest unlawful.
Held: The defence failed. A defendant seeking to justify an assault, pleading self-defence by reference to his belief must show that the belief was not only honest but also reasonable.
Lord Widgery CJ considered the nature of self defence: ‘It was accepted in the court below that if the arrest had been, in fact, unlawful the appellant would have been justified in using reasonable force to secure the release of his son. This proposition has not been argued before us and we will assume, without deciding it, that it is correct. Mr. Bain referred us to a number of authorities concerned with the use of force in self-defence and pointed out that a sufficient justification was there established if the accused genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that a relative or friend was in imminent danger of injury, even though that belief was based on an honest mistake of fact: R v Chisam (1963) 47 Cr A R 130. Mr. Bain then contended that by a parity of reasoning a father who used force to effect the release of his son from custody was justified in so doing if he honestly believed on reasonable grounds that (contrary to the fact) the arrest was unlawful.
We do not accept that submission. The law jealously scrutinises all claims to justify the use of force and will not readily recognise new ones. Where a person honestly and reasonably believes that he or his child is in imminent danger of injury it would be unjust if he were deprived of the right to use reasonable force by way of defence merely because he had made some genuine mistake of fact. On the other hand, if the child is in police custody and not in immediate danger of injury, there is no urgency of the kind which requires an immediate decision, and a father who forcibly releases a child does so at his peril. If in fact the arrest proves to be lawful, the father’s use of force cannot be justified.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 QB 428

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Chisam CCA 1963
A defendant’s belief founding a plea of self defence must be both honest and reasonable. A sufficient justification was established if the accused genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that a relative or friend was in imminent danger of injury, . .

Cited by:

RejectedBeckford v The Queen PC 15-Jun-1987
(Jamaica) Self defence permits a defendant to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be. ‘If then a genuine belief, albeit without reasonable grounds, is a defence to rape because it negatives the . .
CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
CitedSkelton, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester Crown Court Admn 5-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.258671

Dibble v Ingleton: 1972

A motorist was suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol and was required to provide a specimen of breath. He claimed that he had consumed alcohol only a few minutes earlier and the constable had to wait until 20 minutes had elapsed before administering a breath test. Meanwhile the appellant consumed more alcohol supplied to him by a passengers so making it impossible for the constable to perform his duty under the Road Safety Act. The question for the court was whether the drinking of alcohol, with the intention of making it impossible to ascertain from a specimen taken subsequently if the level of alcohol in his body when he was stopped exceeded this prescribed limit, could amount to wilful obstruction of the officer in the execution of his duty.
Held: Obstruction may consist in persisting in conduct of a positive nature which is, taken by itself, entirely lawful.
Bridge J said: ‘For my part I would draw a clear distinction between a refusal to act, on the one hand, and the doing of some positive act on the other. In a case, as in Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 Q.B. 414, where the obstruction alleged consists of a refusal by the defendant to do the act which the police constable has asked him to do – to give information, it might be, or to give assistance to the police constable – one can see readily the soundness of the principle, if I may say so with respect, applied in Rice v Connolly, that such a refusal to act cannot amount to a wilful obstruction under section 51 unless the law imposes upon the person concerned some obligation in the circumstances to act in the manner requested by the police officer.
On the other hand, I can see no basis in principle or in any authority which has been cited for saying that where the obstruction consists of a positive act, it must be unlawful independently of its operation as an obstruction of a police constable under section 51. If the act relied upon as an obstruction had to be shown to be an offence independently of its effect as an obstruction, it is difficult to see what use there would be in the provisions of section 51 of the Police Act 1964.’

Judges:

Bridge J

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 480

Statutes:

Police Act 1964 51(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRice v Connolly 1966
No Legal Duty to Assist a Constable
At common law there is no legal duty to provide the police with information or otherwise to assist them with their inquiries. Lord Parker set out three questions to be answered when asking whether there had been an obstruction of an officer in the . .

Cited by:

CitedLaporte, 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. . .
CitedLunt v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1993
The defendant had been in a road traffic accident. The police came to his house to investigate the accident, but he refused to unlock the door to allow them entry. Stating reliance on section 4 of the 1988 Act, the officers threatened to force . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.247479

Regina (A) v Chief Constable of C: QBD 2001

The court considered the disclosure of unproved allegations as between police forces. Police authorities had disclosed information concerning the claimant to each other and in one case to a local authority. The information related to allegations of criminal conduct by the applicant towards children. These had been investigated but never prosecuted. The information was divulged to a prospective employer following the application by the claimant for a job as a primary school teacher.
Held: The court should consider whether a ‘pressing need’ could be shown.
There was no ‘decision’ such as to attract an obligation requiring to be judged according to the rules of procedural fairness (and therefore by implication no Article 6(1) claim): ‘What then of the position of the D constabulary when the information was passed by them to the local education authority? There cannot be the slightest doubt that the local education authority had a lawful interest and a ‘pressing’ need to receive the information which was in the possession of the county police since it was or could be important as affecting the decision which it was required to make. In one sense, the local education authority was the body best qualified to decide what, if anything, it would make of the information with which it was being provided. If it was uncertain about the strength of the complaints and needed to know more in order that it could make an informed decision, it was always at liberty to ask for assistance from the communicating police force for its opinion about that matter. It would thereafter be for it to decide whether, or to what extent, the non-conviction material should inform its decision. Before it did, it would, of course, have to provide the applicant with at least the gist of that information and offer him the opportunity to make representations about it.’

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 461

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDr D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 19-Jul-2006
The doctor complained of the use of Alert letters where he was suspected of sexual abuse of patients, but the allegations were unsubstantiated. He complained particularly that he had been acquitted in a criminal court and then also by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights, Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244746

Dillon v O’Brien and Davis: 1887

Constables were entitled, upon a lawful arrest of a person charged with treason or felony to take and detain property ‘found in his possession’ which would form material evidence in his prosecution for crime.

Judges:

Palles CB

Citations:

(1887) 16 Cox CC 245

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236329

Regina (A and Another) v Inner South London Coroner: CA 2 Nov 2004

Police officers sought anonymity when asked to appear before a coroner’s court, citing fear of violence if named. The family of the deceased appealed an order granting that to them.
Held: The coroner had heard evidence that a family member had told the officers they would be at risk if a verdict of unlawful killing was not returned. The decision by the coroner not to grant anonymity was a mistake.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromA and Another v Inner South London Coroner QBD 24-Jun-2004
At an inquest into the death of a civilian apparently shot by police officers, the officers applied for anonymity, which the coroner refused. They sought judicial review.
Held: How witnesses participated in coroners inquests was to be decided . .
CitedA and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Lord Saville of Newdigate and others CA 28-Jul-1999
Former soldiers who had been involved in the events in Londonderry in 1972, and were to be called to give evidence before a tribunal of inquiry, still had cause to fear from their names being given, and so were entitled to anonymity when giving such . .

Cited by:

Appealed toA and Another v Inner South London Coroner QBD 24-Jun-2004
At an inquest into the death of a civilian apparently shot by police officers, the officers applied for anonymity, which the coroner refused. They sought judicial review.
Held: How witnesses participated in coroners inquests was to be decided . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Police

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.219421

Brazil v Chief Constable of Surrey: QBD 1983

The appellant had been convicted of assaulting a female police officer in the course of her duty when attempting to search her at a police station under section 23(2). She said that the police officers had not been acting in the execution of their duty because a search imposed a restraint on a person’s freedom and also an interference with the right to privacy under Article 8(1) of the ECHR.
Held: A police constable was not normally entitled to carry out such a search without first telling the victim of the search why it was necessary in the particular case. The reason for a police officer exercising a search is to allow the person to be searched to object that the reason is inadequate: Counsel: ‘If persons do not know why they are being searched, they have no basis on which to form a view whether or not that search is justified in the circumstances.’ Robert Goff LJ: ‘I can see no difficulty in general terms in the officer explaining to the person no doubt in the simplest and most ordinary language, why the search is proposed. In my judgment, generally speaking, that ought to be done. Consistent with the speech of Viscount Simon in Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573, there may well be circumstances where the giving of such reasons would not be necessary. To give an example, the circumstances may be such that it is perfectly obvious why a search is necessary. If so, it would be otiose for the officer concerned to give an explanation.’ and ‘In general terms, the citizens of this country should not have their freedom interfered with unless it would be lawful to do so, and, in my judgment, an explanation should generally be given to persons why a personal search is to be carried out.’

Judges:

Robert Goff LJ, McNeill J

Citations:

[1983] 3 All E R 537, [1983] 1 WLR 1155

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(2)

Citing:

CitedChristie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime, Human Rights, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.211414

Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Switalski: 1991

It is preferable, in an ordinary case, for an application for a search warrant in a solicitor’s office to be made on notice. However, if a solicitor under investigation were to have knowledge of what was contemplated the material sought might disappear or be tampered with before it could be seen by the investigator, a judge might be persuaded that an ex parte application was appropriate and necessary.
Neill LJ said: ‘There is . . . a very powerful argument in support of the proposition that a warrant issued under section 9 schedule 1 of the 1984 Act should, however wide its scope, contain some express condition to exclude items subject to legal privilege.’

Judges:

Judge Savill QC, Neill LJ

Citations:

[1991] COD 119, (1991) CLR 559

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 10

Cited by:

CitedMiller Gardner Solicitors, Regina (on the Application of) v Minshull Street Crown Court Admn 20-Dec-2002
Police investigating crime obtained a warrant to search a solicitor’s offices for details of their clients. The solicitors appealed.
Held: The details required, namely dates of contacts with a certain telephone number were not legally . .
CitedRegina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co Admn 12-May-1999
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Legal Professions

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197744

Mason v Sainsbury: 19 Apr 1782

A claim was made upon insurance after a riot. The court asked asked ‘Who is first liable?’ This was not an issue of chronology but of establishing where the primary responsibility lay to make good the loss. The Act laid the primary responsibility with the inhabitants of the hundred, and it did not matter that the insurer had indemnified the insured. Lord Mansfield said: ‘The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The argument turns much on want of precision in stating the case, as most arguments do. The office paid without suit, not in ease of the hundred, and not as co-obligors, but without prejudice. It is, to all intents, as if it had not been paid. The question, then, comes to this, can the owner, having insured, sue the hundred? Who is first liable? If the hundred, it makes no difference; if the insurer, then it is a satisfaction, and the hundred is not liable. But the contrary is evident from the nature of the contract of insurance. It is an indemnity. Every day the insurer is put in the place of the insured. In every abandonment it is so. The insurer uses the name of the insured. The case is clear: the Act puts the hundred, for civil purposes, in the place of the trespassers; and, upon principles of policy, as in the case of other remedies against the hundred, I am satisfied that it is to be considered as if the insurers had not paid a farthing.’
Buller J said: ‘The better way is to consider this as a contract of indemnity. The principle is, that the insurer and insured are one, and, in that light, paying before or after can make no difference. I am, therefore, clearly of opinion, that the hundred cannot avail themselves of this defence.’ and ‘It has been admitted, and rightly, that the hundred is put in the place of the trespassers.’
Willes J said: ‘I am of the same opinion . . The hundred is not answerable criminally, but they cannot be considered as free from blame. They may have been negligent, which is partly the principle of the Act.’

Judges:

Lord Mansfield CJ, Buller J

Citations:

(1782) 3 Dougl 61, [1782] EngR 37, (1782) 3 Doug 61, (1782) 99 ER 538

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Riot Act 1714

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSimpson and Co v Thomson HL 1877
The House discussed the extent of an insurer’s right of subrogation: ‘My Lords, these authorities seem to me to be conclusive that the right of the underwriters is merely to make such claim for damages as the insured himself could have made, and it . .
CitedCaledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
CitedYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Police

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.191156

Hughes v National Union of Mineworkers: QBD 1991

The court struck out as disclosing no cause of action a claim by a police officer who was injured while policing the miners’ strike and who alleged that the police officer in charge had deployed his men negligently.
Held: The officer in charge plainly owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. While there were circumstances in which a police officer might owe a duty of care to another, such a duty did not extend to circumstances where what was called in question was the immediate operational control of policemen seeking to deal with violent public disorder where the plaintiff’s injuries were directly caused by those perpetrating the disorder. ‘as a matter of public policy, if senior police officers charged with the task of deploying what may or may not be an adequate force of officers to control serious public disorder are to be potentially liable to individual officers under their command if those individuals are injured by attacks from rioters, that would be significantly detrimental to the control of public order. It will no doubt often happen that in such circumstances critical decisions have to be made with little or no time for considered thought and where many individual officers may be in some danger of physical injury of one kind or another. It is not, I consider, in the public interest that those decisions should generally be the potential target of a negligence claim if rioters do injure an individual officer, since the fear of such a claim would be likely to affect the decisions to the prejudice of the very task which the decisions are intended to advance.

Judges:

May J

Citations:

[1991] 4 All ER 278, [1991] ICR 669

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
CitedAnns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedKnightley v Johns and others CA 27-Mar-1981
There had been an accident in a tunnel, blocking it. The defendant inspector ordered a traffic constable to ride into the tunnel on his motorcycle against the flow of traffic. The constable crashed and sought damages for negligence against the . .
CitedRigby and another v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire 1985
The police were found liable to pay damages for negligence having fired a gas canister into the plaintiffs’ gunsmith’s hop premises in order to flush out a dangerous psychopath. There had been a real and substantial fire risk in firing the canister . .

Cited by:

CitedMullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
CitedBici and Bici v Ministry of Defence QBD 7-Apr-2004
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries incurred when, in Pristina, Kosovo and during a riot, British soldiers on a UN peacekeeping expedition fired on a car.
Held: The incidents occurred in the course of peace-keeping duties. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190038

Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police: ChD 12 Dec 2003

The claimant had failed in an action for damages against the respondent, and had failed to pay the costs award. The respondent issued a statutory demand. He claimed that it was invalid because the chief constable had changed in the interim, and there had been no assignment of the benefit of the order.
Held: The office of chief constable was not a corporation, but an office. Some assignment was required. There was no statutory assignment, but there had been an equitable one. An equitable assignment need take no particular form: ‘All that is needed is a sufficient expression of an intention to assign’. Equity would treat as done that which ought to have been done.

Citations:

Times 24-Dec-2003, [2003] EWHC 3391, [2004] 1 WLR 1425

Statutes:

Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925) 6.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAttorney-General for New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd PC 14-Mar-1955
(Australia) The Crown could not recover damages for the loss of the services of a police constable as the result of injuries caused by the negligence of a third person. A chief constable was an office held under the Crown, and the usual relationship . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromCoulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police CA 8-Oct-2004
The appellant had failed in his action against the police and been ordered to pay the costs. A statutory demand was issued in the name of the respondent, but as the new chief constable had no deed of assignment, he was only equitable assignee.
See AlsoCoulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police CA 13-Jul-2005
An appeal was made against an order refusing to set aside a second statutory demand. The demand was to enforce payment of an order for costs made in proceedings between the parties. The first statutory demand had been upheld, and the judge found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Insolvency, Equity

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189946

Regina (on the application of Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police) v Daventry Justices: 2001

Appeals against decisions by magistrates under the Act can be by way of application for judicial review.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 446

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMorgan, Regina (on the Application of) v Justices of Dyfed Powys Magistrates’ Court Admn 18-Jun-2003
Money had been taken by the Police, but after the applicants had been acquitted, they sought it to be returned. Their action was struck out after long delays. They applied to the Magistrates who turned down the application.
Held: The money . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188400

Raymond Lyons and Co Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: QBD 1975

A suspected thief had left a valuable ring with the claimant jewellers for valuation. They reported the matter to the police and handed the ring to them. The suspected thief never reappeared, and no-one claiming to be the true owner emerged. The police did not return the ring to the jewellers, who applied to the Magistrates Court under the 1897 Act. The magistrates declined to order the police to return the ring, on the ground that the jewellers were not the owners of it.
Held: The appeal failed. The procedure under the 1897 Act is suitable only for ‘straightforward, simple cases where there is no difficulty of law and the matter is clear’. He added: ‘I would discourage them from attempting to use the procedure of the Act of 1897 in cases which involve a real issue of law or any real difficulty in determining whether a particular person is or is not the owner’. Where there was a real issue of law or any real difficulty in determining whether a particular person was or was not the owner, a claim should be brought in the civil courts.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1975] 1 All ER 335, [1975] QB 321

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1

Cited by:

CitedMorgan, Regina (on the Application of) v Justices of Dyfed Powys Magistrates’ Court Admn 18-Jun-2003
Money had been taken by the Police, but after the applicants had been acquitted, they sought it to be returned. Their action was struck out after long delays. They applied to the Magistrates who turned down the application.
Held: The money . .
CitedGough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 2-Mar-2004
The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court . .
CitedO’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police Admn 31-May-2012
The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188402

Regina (on the application of Carter) v Ipswich Magistrates’ Court: Admn 2002

Mrs Carter had paid a man to murder someone. The man was an undercover police agent. In time Mrs Carter was convicted of soliciting to commit murder, but Mr Carter was acquitted. She disclaimed all interest in the money she had paid in favour of her husband. He applied to the Magistrates under the Act, asking for the money be returned to him. They declined, holding that they had a discretion which they declined to exercise it in favour of Mr Carter, given that ‘the money had been intended to bring about the death of a human being’. He applied for judicial review.
Held: Referring to Webb, the magistrates had not been entitled to take account of the matter which had conditioned their decision. He quashed their decision and ordered that the police must pay the money out to Mr Carter.

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 332 Admin

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1

Citing:

FollowedWebb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 26-Nov-1999
The Police had confiscated money suspected to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, but no offence was proved. The magistrates had refused to return the money under the 1897 Act. The claimants now sought to reciver it under civil proceedings.

Cited by:

CitedMorgan, Regina (on the Application of) v Justices of Dyfed Powys Magistrates’ Court Admn 18-Jun-2003
Money had been taken by the Police, but after the applicants had been acquitted, they sought it to be returned. Their action was struck out after long delays. They applied to the Magistrates who turned down the application.
Held: The money . .
CitedMerseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188401

Reynolds v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: 1985

A search warrant had been obtained under the 1913 Act. The court considered the existence of a tort of obtaining a search warrant maliciously.
Waller LJ discussed the problem facing police officers when a large volume of material were to be examined: ‘To do a detailed examination in the house would no doubt have required several police officers to be there for some days causing disturbance to the householder, that might require comparisons to be made with other documents already in the possession of the police. This would require either the documents to be taken to the police station or the other documents to be brought to the house. ….. Searching and taking away papers is an invasion of liberty and any such action must be carefully scrutinised. Where it is done in pursuance of a search warrant or on arrest, the police must consider the way in which they perform the search. If there are only a few papers, no doubt they can be carefully scrutinised on the spot without too much disturbance to the household. If there are many papers, it may be in the best interests of the householder for the police to be broadly selective, i.e. rule out documents which are clearly irrelevant, and take others which they reasonably believe to be of evidential value to examine more closely at the police station. It will of course be of the greatest importance to ensure that documents which prove to be of no evidential value should be returned at the earliest opportunity. In my judgement the question in every such case must be whether the police were acting reasonably or not.’ and
‘The police were not entitled to seize every document that they could lay hands on, at all events without the approval of the first plaintiff. On the other hand, they wer entitled to take documents which they reasonably believed to be forged or would be of evidential value in proceedings for fraud. The officers could obviously take a file which would contain such a document without separating out the individual sheet and it would be a matter for the jury whether what they had taken was reasonable.’
Slade LJ: ‘(1) No matter how convenient this course may seem to be, a police officer acting under a search warrant issued under the Forgery Act 1913 is not entitled, without the consent of the owner, indiscriminately to remove from the premises each and every file, book, bundle or document he can lay his hands on, even if only for the purpose of temporary sorting. Before doing so, he must have regard to the nature and contents of the item in question.
(2) However, provided that he acts reasonably in so doing, he is entitled to remove from the premises files, books, bundles or documents which at the time of removal he reasonably believes contain (i) forged material, or (ii) material which might be of evidential value, as showing that the owner is implicated in some other crime.
(3) Any necessary sorting process in relation to all items removed (e.g., those contained in files and bundles) should be carried out with reasonable expedition and those of them which are not found to fall within either of the two relevant categories should then be returned reasonably promptly to the owner.’
Purchas LJ: ‘This is an area in which the balance between the importance of assisting the police in the detection of crime, and preserving the rights of the individual, must be scrupulously observed. Provided that the police have reasonable grounds in relation to any particular document or file of documents, or other property, for thinking that it might be connected with any crime committed by the first plaintiff, then it would be open to the jury to find that the removal of it was a justified and reasonable action to take in order to make a further and more detailed examination elsewhere. But if the jury were not satisfied that the documents involved in the seizure did command the reasonable suspicion of the police, then, in my view, the jury ought to have found in favour of the plaintiff in respect of trespass to those particular documents.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Slade LJ, Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1985] QB 881

Statutes:

Forgery Act 1913 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoReynolds v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 18-May-1982
The plaintiff had been awarded andpound;12,000 damages for false imprisonment by the Commissiner’s officers. Officers had suspected the existence of a repeat arsonist operating an insurance fraud. The plaintiff’s husband owned one of the properties. . .

Cited by:

CitedGibbs and others v Rea PC 29-Jan-1998
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable for Warwickshire and Others Ex Parte Fitzpatrick and Others QBD 1-Oct-1997
Judicial Review is not the appropriate way to challenge the excessive nature of a search warrant issues by magistrates. A private law remedy is better. Jowitt J said: ‘Judicial review is not a fact finding exercise and it is an extremely . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184702

Regina v Booth and Jones: 1910

Channell J said: ‘the moment you have decided to charge him and practically got him into custody, then, inasmuch as a judge even cannot ask a question or a magistrate, it is ridiculous to suppose that a policeman can. But there is no actual authority yet that if a policeman does ask a question it is inadmissible; what happens is that the judge says it is not advisable to press the matter.’ (approved on appeal)

Judges:

Channell J

Citations:

(1910) 5 Criminal Appeal Reports 179

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIbrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Evidence, Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184200

Regina (on the application of Whitehead and Daglish) v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset: Admn 2001

Criminal charges against the officers had been stayed. They subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings.
Held: An acquittal is a finding or determination that a defendant is not guilty of an offence. A stay does not involve such a finding. Section 104 refers to acquittal. The legislative intention was to refer to the case where there had been a finding of not guilty. In this case, no new evidence was adduced, the evidence was the same. The Judge had determined that the prosecution case at its highest, if all the witnesses were believed, did not establish the criminal charge. Any finding in disciplinary proceedings, if the charges were the same, would conflict with that determination. There was a real determination to the extent that on the evidence the charges could not be made out. The officer in the instant case was in the same position as if there had been a finding that he was not guilty of a criminal offence.

Judges:

Richards J, Moses J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 433

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 104

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181625

Regina v Police Complaints Board ex parte Madden and Rhone: 1983

Double jeopardy, properly understood, is best described in the phrase ‘No man should be tried twice for the same offence’. The court emphasised the word ‘tried’.

Judges:

McNeill J

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 447

Citing:

CitedConnelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Natural Justice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181626

NTL Group Limited v Ipswich Crown Court: QBD 22 Jul 2002

The applicant operated an e-mail system. E-mails would normally be deleted after being read. The police sought an order under the 1984 Act for certain emails to be retained in connection with an investigation. The applicant argued that this would put them in conflict with the 2000 Act, by requiring them to intercept the e-mails.
Held: Parliament could not have meant the 2000 Act to defeat the powers under the 1984 Act. No damage would be done, since the order sought retention only, and a further order would be required before any emails were disclosed. The police had the necessary power to make the request, and the applicant would not be in breach in complying with it.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Curtis

Citations:

Times 06-Aug-2002, Gazette 08-Aug-2002

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9 Sch 1, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 1 2(7) 2(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.174347

Brooker and Brooker v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: CA 26 Oct 1998

The plaintiffs claimed damages against the respondents for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. By mistake the defendants disclosed a letter from a senior officer supporting the allegation, despite which the Police Complaints Authority had denied the claim. The defendants now sought to argue it could not be relied upon, and for its return under Derby -v- Weldon.
Held: Whether the document contains evidence or whether it is admissible are two separate and distinct questions. Here though it contained evidence it should not be admitted. Public interest immunity applied, and there was a need for senior officers to be free to comment to the police complaints authority without restraint. Leave to appeal against the order requiring the return of the document was not given.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1619

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDerby and Co Ltd v Weldon (No 8) CA 27-Jul-1990
There had been a lengthy and contentious process of discovery. Certain documents with legal professional privilege had also been handed over inadvertently. The plaintiff sought their return and an order against them being used.
Held: The . .
CitedTaylor v Anderton (Police Complaints Authority Intervening) CA 19-Jan-1995
Reports, which had been prepared for the purposes of a police complaint procedure, could be entitled to protection from disclosure under a public interest immunity certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the documentation and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.145098

S v S (Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police Intervening): CA 9 Sep 1998

A court should order the police to divulge the address of a child in contact cases where they are re-assured that the child is not at risk, but, for example, domestic violence may have occurred. An officer cannot promise confidentiality but his views should be respected.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Sep-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, Times 24-Aug-1998

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 33, Family Law Act 1986 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88953

Regina v Mentuck: 15 Nov 2001

Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Courts – Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – Publication bans – Criminal proceedings – Trial judge granting one-year ban as to identity of undercover police officers and refusing ban as to operational methods used in investigating accused – Whether Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear Crown appeal from trial judge’s order – Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 40(1), (3).
Criminal law – Publication bans – Appropriate scope of publication ban – Undercover police investigation – Crown seeking publication ban protecting identity of police officers and operational methods used in investigating accused – Trial judge granting one-year ban as to identity of officers and refusing ban as to operational methods – Whether trial judge erred in ordering ban.

Judges:

McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Citations:

[2001] 3 SCR 442, 2001 SCC 76

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedA v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.564189

Mercer v Oldham: QBD 1984

The respondent had recovered his car from the police via a complaint to the magistrates, having lent it to his brother-in-law, who had used it in a burglary. The magistrates found that he had not known of the intended use. The police had taken no steps to ascertain his state of knowledge, and the magistrates ordered the police to pay his costs. The police appealed by case stated against the order for costs.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The conduct of the police justified the order. In the course of judgment the Court said: ‘In matters of this kind, it was of the utmost assistance to the justices that the police should be present at court, both to indicate whether or not they objected to the order being made, and to test the evidence of a claimant. In such circumstances, the justices would normally make no order for costs. But they did have a discretion, and if they considered that the police had gone beyond the usual rule merely assisting the justices, and actively opposed the order, then there was no reason why the justices should not, in the exercise of their discretion, order the police to pay costs. That was clearly what happened in the present case.’

Citations:

[1984] Crim LR 232

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Police, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.401966

The King v Charles Pinney, Esquire: 1 Nov 1832

The case of the Bristol Riots. Littledale J said that, although the posse comitatus might be called out by a justice of the peace, it was generally done by the sheriff.

Judges:

Littledale J

Citations:

[1832] EngR 777, (1832) 3 B and Ad 947, (1832) 110 ER 349

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.319724

Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 6 Feb 2003

The claimant had begun proceedings for the return of money held by the respondent. His action was stayed for inactivity, and the respondent later had the claim struck out on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to proceed.
Held: The claim could still be tried without unfairness, and accordingly it should not have been struck out. The court applied Taylor rather than Grovit. Strinking out th claim would not best serve the interests of justice. The defendant had no title to the money, but the court made an order for costs of earlier parts of the action in favour of the respondent.

Judges:

Davies J

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 51.19(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedChief Constable of Northumbria v Costello CA 3-Dec-1998
A woman police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell. She sought damages for the failure of a senior officer nearby not to come to her aid, and from the chief constable under his vicarious liability.
Held: The chief constable’s appeal . .
CitedTaylor v Anderson and Another CA 7-Nov-2002
The claimant sought to overturn an order striking out his claim for damages for personal injury, after inordinate delay in prosecuting his claim.
Held: It will be rare for a claim to be struck out for such a reason under the transitional . .
CitedGrovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromFay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire CA 10-Dec-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.179121

Regina v Sanghera: CA 26 Oct 2000

The search of a victim’s premises which continued after evidence had come to light suggesting the victim might be a suspect was in breach of the codes of practice where it continued without the consent of the occupier. Evidence which was derived from that continued search was unlawful. Nevertheless, it was fair to admit the evidence since the defendant was not challenging the facts as to what was found and would have still been able to offer any explanation of the search results.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Codes of Practice PACE 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85472

Regina v Chelmsford Crown Court, Ex Parte Farrer: QBD 27 Oct 1999

The licensed shotgun owner kept his guns locked in his mother’s house, and she knew the whereabouts of the key, but was not herself licensed. The police objected to the renewal saying she had access to them and they were not therefore kept securely.
Held: The proper issue was for the potential licence holder to establish that the condition requiring security was satisfied. Case remitted.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 05-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Firearms Rules 1989 (1989 No 854) 4(4)(iv)(a) 3(4)(iv)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Chelmsford Crown Court, Ex Parte Farrer CA 29-Mar-2000
A shotgun owner kept his guns locked in his mother’s house, and she had access to the key. She was not licensed. The police objected to the renewal saying she had access to them, and they were not therefore kept securely.
Held: The proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85173

Regina v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Ex P Lainton: CA 4 Apr 2000

The decision by a chief constable whether to extend the probationary period of a constable could properly be delegated to his assistant chief constable. The power to extend a probationary period could only be exercised before it actually expired. There was no statutory power to re-instate a probationary status for this purpose. At the expiry of the probation the officer became an officer simpliciter unless such an order had been made.

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Police Regulations 1995 (1995 No 215) 14(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police ex parte Lainton Admn 10-Jun-1999
The decision by a chief constable whether to extend the probationary period of a constable was one which he could not be expected to exercise himself and could properly be expected to be delegated. The power to extend a probationary period could be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85180

Dhesi v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 9 May 2000

Where a person was arrested and the duty arose for him to be told of the reason for his arrest, that duty could be satisfied by a different officer than the one who actually performed the arrest. The purpose of the section was to protect the person arrested by letting him know why he was arrested. That purpose would not be defeated by the reason being given then or as soon as practicable thereafter by another officer.

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79955

Clarke v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police and Crewe: CA 14 Jun 1999

The police have a duty of care to arrested persons to record fully the times spent custody by an arrested person. A failure to do so can mean that such a person’s detention in prison is later extended unlawfully. This result is entirely foreseeable, and the police officer is liable in damages for such wrongful detention.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-1999, Gazette 16-Jun-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79202

Abrahams v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis: CA 8 Dec 2000

The claimant had been arrested for swearing at a police officer. After her arrest, the claimant made admissions to secure a caution, rather than risk prosecution. She later sought to begin a civil action for damages against the police in the course of which she the denied the matters which she had earlier admitted.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against a strike out of her claim succeeded. The admissions had been secured by an apparent breach of duty by the officer, and she was not be estopped from bringing the claim. The formal caution is not so closely analogous to a conviction that the claimant should be barred from beginning civil proceedings because of it. An attack on the caution did not involve attacking any decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Lord Justice Mantell said: ‘the caution was not brought about by any decision of a court of justice, so did not fall foul of the rule in Saif Ali. An attack on it did not involve attacking a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

Gazette 01-Feb-2001, Times 21-Dec-2000, [2001] 1 WLR 1257, [2000] EWCA Civ 3043, [2000] Po LR 374

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSaif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (a Firm) HL 1978
Extent of Counsel’s Immunity in Negligence
The House considered the extent of a barrister’s immunity from action in negligence, and particularly whether it covered pre-trial acts or omissions in connection with civil proceedings.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit extended only to . .

Cited by:

CitedRoberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77618

Clough v Bussan: 1990

The defendant, after a car crash, joined in the police as third party defendants, saying that they had contributed to a car accident by failing to do anything about traffic lights which they knew were out of order.
Held: The action against the police failed. Although the police had received information, they had not in any sense taken control of the relevant hazard. There was no sufficient relationship between the police and the claimant to give rise to a common law duty of care.

Judges:

Kennedy J

Citations:

[1990] 1 All ER 431

Cited by:

CitedHertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Police

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276397