Category: Police

Director of Public Prosecutions v Meaden: Admn 1 Dec 2003

The defendant had been charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The prosecutor appealed a finding of no case to answer. He had been present in a house when the police executed search warrants. He had refused to obey an order requiring him to stay in one room whilst an officer searched the remainder of the house.
Held: The warrant had been to search both the house and anybody present. That implied a power to detain the person to be searched for a short period. There is no general power of arrest for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.
Rose LJ, Jackson J
[2003] EWHC 3005 (Admin), Times 02-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 945, [2004] 4 All ER 75
Bailii
Police Act 1996 89(1) 89(2), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v Hepburn CA 13-Dec-2002
The claimant sought damages from the police. They had executed a search warrant, and one officer detained the claimant during the raid.
Held: A person who mistakenly restrained an individual in the mistaken belief that he had been lawfully . .
Cited – Donnelly v Jackman 1970
Turner J considered the law of attempt: ‘He who sets out to commit a crime may in the event fall short of the complete commission of that crime for any one of a number of reasons. First, he may, of course, simply change his mind before committing . .
Cited – Regina v Rahman CACD 1985
False imprisonment is a common law offence, defined as consisting in ‘the unlawful and intentional or reckless restraint of a victim’s freedom of movement from a particular place. In other words it is unlawful detention which stops the victim moving . .
Cited – O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex CA 12-Dec-1997
Police, when using force to enter premises, must still give their reasons for effecting their entry, to the occupant, unless this was impossible or undesirable.
Buxton LJ said: ‘This paragraph strictly speaking did not apply in the present . .
Cited – Regina v Jones; Regina v Nelson CACD 26-Mar-1999
Police officers have no power to use reasonable force, to compel a suspect to undergo an identification by confrontation. Powers generally phrased in the Act did not override an individual suspect’s rights. Beldam LJ said that the requirement that . .
Cited – Bentley v Brudzinski QBD 1982
A police officer arrived at a situation. Answering a signal from a colleague, he placed his hand on the shoulder of a man in order to attract his attention. The man the hit the officer and was charged with assaulting the officer in the execution of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.189143

Kuru v State of New South Wales: 12 Jun 2008

Austlii (High Court of Australia) Torts – Trespass to land – Power of police to enter private premises – Police officers went to suburban flat after receiving report of male and female arguing – Police treated report as ‘violent domestic’ – Occupier invited police to ‘look around the flat’ – Occupier later asked police to leave premises – Police did not leave and remained on premises for longer than it would reasonably have taken them to leave – Whether statutory justification for police to remain on premises – Proper construction of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 357F and 357H – Whether express refusal by occupier immediately terminated authority of police ‘to so enter or remain’ on premises, irrespective of fulfilment of purposes for which entry effected.
Torts – Trespass to land – Power of police to enter private premises – Whether common law justification for police to remain on premises – Whether entry could be justified as directed to preventing a breach of the peace.
Words and phrases – ‘enter or remain’, ‘expressly refused’, ‘breach of the peace’.
[2008] HCA 26
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Gillies v Procurator Fiscal, Elgin HCJ 1-Oct-2008
The police went to the defendant’s flat to find her boyfriend. She refused them access, but when they saw him, the police officers called out that he was under arrest under the 1995 Act, and forced their way past the door and the defendant. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.276522

Catt, 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 been convicted of offences of violence, but not him.
Lord Dyson MR, Moore-Bick, McCombe LJJ
[2013] 3 All ER 583, [2013] EWCA Civ 192, [2013] 1 WLR 3305, [2013] HRLR 20, [2013] WLR(D) 108
Bailii, WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Catt 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.471733

Plunkett and Another, Regina v: CACD 13 Mar 2013

The defendants appealed against their convictions after admission of secret tape recordings made by the police in breach, said the defendants of the 2000 Act and unlawful. The recordings had been in the police van. The Crown said that this was not a private vehicle, and not intrusive surveillance under the 2000 Act.
Held: Whilst there may be justification for treating a police or prison cell as private that could not be extended to a police van. It was not a private space.
The judge had found that in view of the continuing danger to the untraced victim of the kidnapping, the authorisation for the recording was proportionate. That decision was correct, and there was no breach of the defendants’ article 6 rights.
Sir John Thomas P QBD, Swift, MacDuff JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 261, [2013] WLR(D) 98, [2013] HRLR 19, [2013] Crim LR 765, [2013] 2 Cr App R 2, [2013] 1 WLR 3121
Bailii, WLRD
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(b), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mason, Wood, McClelland, Tierney v Regina CACD 13-Feb-2002
The appellants appealed their convictions on two grounds. First the judge who had heard the case was an acquaintance of the chief constable of the investigating force, and second evidence had been admitted of tape recordings of non-privileged . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.471670

W, Regina (On the Application of) v Chief Constable Of Kent Police: Admn 6 May 2009

‘The first two claimants – both of whom are children aged 11 – and the third claimant David Morris seek permission to challenge their stop-and-searches under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘PACE’) on 5 and 6 August 2008. The stop-and-searches took place during a protest held between 3 and 11 August 2008 against the planned development of a coal-fired power station in Kent. The protesters held a Climate Change Camp. The focus was environmental. Environmental protests and other activities were also held at the camp. The police had received intelligence that some protesters were intent on causing damage to the power station. A website connected to the protest stated that ‘the single aim’ of some protesters was to shut down ‘a climate criminal’.’
Roderick Evans J
[2009] EWHC 2264 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 June 2021; Ref: scu.375173

Amin v Director General of The Security Service (MI5) and Others: QBD 26 Jun 2013

The claimant sought damages for personal injury and false imprisonment.
Held: The claim was struck out as an abuse of process. There was an overlap with findings made against him in the Crown Court in a voir dire taking place in the course of his earlier conviction and sentence.
Irwin J
[2013] EWHC 1579 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Amin v Director General of The Security Service and Others CA 26-Jun-2015
The claimant’s claims against the police had been struck out as a collateral attack on a criminal court decision.
Held: ‘If the former decision was made in criminal proceedings leading to a conviction, it is proper to focus attention on the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.511090

Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge: CA 24 May 2002

[2002] EWCA Civ 894, [2002] ICR 1135, [2002] Emp LR 998, [2002] IRLR 651, [2002] Po LR 146
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 10-Jul-2000
. .
See Also – Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 21-Sep-2001
The Chief Constable appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim by the respondent that he had racially discriminated against her. Force members had used code words for racially abusive terms about her. The claim was that he was vicariously . .
See Also – Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge CA 11-Dec-2001
. .
Appeal From – Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 13-Dec-2001
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) CA 20-Dec-2002
The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.270470

Milton v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 16 Mar 2007

The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, saying that his special skills as a trained police driver should have been allowed for. He had driven on a motorway at average speeds of 148mph.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The district judge had been wrong to take into account background material when the words of the statute were clear. The court was unable to ‘accept that section 2A(3) requires that a circumstance relating to a characteristic of the individual accused driver should be taken into account if it is unfavourable to him but cannot be taken into account if it is favourable the favourability of the circumstance is irrelevant. Accordingly, it seems to me that the fact that the driver is a Grade 1 advanced police driver is a circumstance to which regard must be had, pursuant to section 2A(3).’
Smith LJ, Gross J
[2007] EWHC 532 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 2481, [2007] 4 All ER 1026
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 2, Road Traffic Act 1991 2A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Collins CACD 7-Mar-1997
The defendant, a Grade 1 advanced police driver, had driven very fast in pursuit of a stolen car. He crossed a junction at high speed and collided with another vehicle causing two deaths. He gave evidence that he believed that the police were . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Milton Admn 1-Feb-2006
The prosecutor appealed acquittal of a police officer who had been driving at 150mph. The judge had allowed for the fact that the officer believed that this was safe because of his training.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The test was objective. . .
Cited – Regina v Woodward (Terence) CACD 7-Dec-1994
On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it . .
Cited – Regina v Marison CACD 16-Jul-1996
A diabetic who drove anticipating a diabetic attack was driving recklessly and his act constituted dangerous driving. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bannister, Regina v CACD 28-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. As a police officer he had driven at over 110 mph on a motorway in the wet, lost control and crashed. He said that the fact that he had undertaken the police advanced drivers’ course . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.250046

Woods v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: CA 26 May 1995

The court in considering the period of detention of the claimant, asked itself whether the circumstances were such that the decision of the custody sergeant was unreasonable in the sense that no custody sergeant, applying common sense to the competing considerations before him, could have continued to detain the suspect.
Nourse, Beldam and Kennedy LJJ
Unreported, 26 May 1995
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor (A Child Proceeding By his Mother and Litigation Friend C M Taylor) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 6-Jul-2004
The Chief Constable appealed aganst a finding that his officers had wrongfully arrested and imprisoned the claimant. The claimant was 10 years old when arrested, and complained that the officers had not properly advised him of the nature and purpose . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.198675

Wilding v Chief Constable of Lancashire: CA 22 May 1995

The court considered a claim by a woman for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention by police officers who had reasonably suspected her of burglary of the house of her former partner. In interview by the police, she denied the offence and made assertions that prompted the officers to contact the complainant to ask him to attend the police station to deal with them before continuing with the interview. Within about two hours after the complainant had been contacted and had made a statement, the police decided that there would be no further enquiries. They released the woman without charge, initially on bail, and subsequently did not charge her with any offence. On the issue whether it had been necessary, by reference to section 37(2) and (3) of PACE, to detain her in custody while they made those further enquiries.
Held: Attempts to define, or to provide synonyms for, ‘necessary’ should be avoided. In such circumstances a court: ‘should ask itself the question, in circumstances like this, whether the decision of the custody sergeant was unreasonable in the sense that no custody officer, acquainted with the ordinary use of language and applying his common sense to the competing considerations before him, could reasonably have reached that decision.
Applying that test in this case, I bear in mind that what was being suggested was a comparatively short period of detention, so that the officers, having checked with . . the complainant . . whether or not there had been, for example, one telephone call about money or whether the appellant did in fact owe him any money, might then continue the interview, or restart the interview, for the purpose they had contended they had, which was obtaining evidence relating to the offence by questioning her. Looking at the matter from that standpoint, it seems to me that the custody officer could reasonably, in the circumstances of this case, have come to the conclusion that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the appellant without being charged was necessary within the meaning of the section.’
Nourse, Beldam and Kennedy LJJ
Unreported, 22 May 1995
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 37(2) 37(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor (A Child Proceeding By his Mother and Litigation Friend C M Taylor) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 6-Jul-2004
The Chief Constable appealed aganst a finding that his officers had wrongfully arrested and imprisoned the claimant. The claimant was 10 years old when arrested, and complained that the officers had not properly advised him of the nature and purpose . .
Cited – Al-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 . .
Cited – Richardson 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 . .
Cited – Hayes v Merseyside Police CA 29-Jul-2011
hayes_merseysideCA2011
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.198674

T, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis: Admn 27 Apr 2012

The claimants said that warning notices issued to them by the defendant in connection with allegations of harassment, and the retention of associated records infringed their article 8 rights.
Held: The claim failed.
Eady J
[2012] EWHC 1115 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 2978, [2012] WLR(D) 126, [2012] ACD 72
Bailii, WLR
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.453064

Irving v National Provincial Bank: CA 1962

Goods were seized by the police from the claimant. Neither the claimant nor the defendant could establish that they were the true owners. Under section 1 the first court directed the goods to be delivered to the defendant as the person who appeared to be the lawful owner. The claimant sued the defendant claiming ownership of the goods.
Held: The Court rejected the claim. Holroyd Pearce LJ said'[The 1897] Act was passed in substitution for an earlier Act, the Metropolitan Police Court Act, 1839, which by section 29 made similar provisions. It provides practical machinery to deal with a practical situation. Although the Act does not, until the expiration of six months, affect the right of any person to take proceedings, it does alter the fact of possession. When an order has been made by a tribunal under the Act for delivery of property to a claimant, the Act cannot have intended the claimant to remain a bailee for the former possessor. The claimant has, by due process of law, after inquiry, had physical possession transferred to him. It is still open to anyone during the ensuing six months to claim the goods from him, provided that the claimant can establish his right to do so. Had the Act intended, it could have preserved the prior rights of possession in the former possessor. But it has not done so, and previous possession of goods now in the hands of another does not raise a presumption of present title in the previous owner, unless the person who has received them from him has done so as a wrongdoer or as agent of bailee of the previous owner. . . This view of the matter is in accordance with the dictum of Cockburn CJ in [Buckley].’ and ‘under this Act of 1897 . . . the plaintiff can no longer rely on a presumption from his previous possession. Therefore the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to the notes or to damages for their conversion. If he cannot discharge that burden he fails in the action. The judge rightly held that his story on that matter was not to be believed, and that he failed to discharge the onus or proof. I entirely agree with the judgment of the judge.’
References: [1962] 2 QB 73
Judges: Holroyd Pearce LJ
Statutes: Police (Property) Act 1897
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Buckley v Gross 1863
    The court had to decide the ownership of of tallow which had been kept at warehouses. In a fire; it melted and flowed down the sewers into the river where part of it was collected by a man with no right to it; and he sold it to the claimant. The . .
    ((1863) 3B and S 556)
  • Cited – Betts v Receiver of Metropolitan Police District and Carter Paterson and Co Ltd 1932
    The police seized from the claimant certain cloth believing it to be stolen from Carter Paterson and delivered it to Carter Paterson, without any order under the 1897 Act. The claimant sued the receiver and Carter Paterson.
    Held: Since the . .
    ([1932] 2 KB 595)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Costello 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 . .
    (, [2001] EWCA Civ 381, [2001] 1 WLR 1437, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 216, [2001] 3 All ER 150)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194104

Regina (Aru) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: CA 30 Jan 2004

The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed.
Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter where there had been a final disposal of the matter. Any appeal must be to the House of Lords. The police caution operated as such, and no review would lay. The section referred to a criminal ’cause or matter’ not to proceedings. An official caution appeared to be a way of disposing of a complaint.
Maurice Kay LJ noted the use of the phrase ‘criminal cause or matter’ denoted a ‘wider ambit’ than merely ‘criminal proceedings’.
References: Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1697
Judges: Waller, Longmore, Maurice Kay, LJJ
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 5, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1), Administration of Justice Act 1960 1(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Armand v Home Secretary 1943
    . .
    ([1943] AC 147)
  • Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
    An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
    (Times 06-Feb-01, , , [2001] 1 WLR 196, [2001] 1 All ER 815, [2001] UKHL 3, [2002] ILPr 27)
  • Cited – Day v Grant (Note) CA 1985
    (January 1985) The court must look to the underlying nature of the proceedings in which the order was made and against which an appeal was sought to see to which court an appeal lay. ‘So Lord Wright was saying that you look not at the particular . .
    ([1987] QB 972)
  • Appeal from – Aru, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Admn 23-May-2003
    . .
    (, [2003] EWHC 1310 (Admin))

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
    farrelly_ccniQBNI09
    Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
    Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
    (, [2009] NIQB 20)
  • Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
    farrelly_ccniQBNI09
    Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
    Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
    (, [2009] NIQB 20)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193378

A and Another, (On the Application of) v The Central Criminal Court and Another: Admn 26 Jan 2017

(As redacted) Search warrants were challenged on the grounds that insufficient care had been taken of the possibility of the presence of privileged and or ‘excluded’ material.
References: [2017] EWHC 70 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 339, [2017] 1 WLR 3567
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Ouseley J, Lord Justice Gross
Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – S, F and L, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of The British Transport Police and Another Admn 20-Jun-2013 (, [2013] EWHC 2189 (Admin), [2014] 1 All ER 268, [2013] WLR(D) 312, )
    The claimants, solicitors, challenged search warrants issued against their homes and professional premises.
    Held: The court considered the proper procedure to be used when the police wish to search the premises or homes of solicitors for . .
  • Cited – Gittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011 (, [2011] EWHC 131 (Admin), [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 219)
    The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.573493

Duncan v Jones: KBD 1936

The appellant was about to make a public address in a situation in which the year before a disturbance had been incited by her speaking. A policeman believed reasonably that a breach of the peace would occur if the meeting was held, and ordered the appellant not to hold the meeting. The appellant however persisted in trying to hold the meeting and obstructed the police officer in his attempt to prevent her from doing so. Neither the appellant nor anyone present, committed, incited or provoked a breach of the peace, but the appellant was held to have wilfully obstructed the officer in the execution of his duty.
Held: The fact that the officer reasonably apprehended a breach of the peace was a justification for the finding that he was acting in the execution of his duty. The police may prevent a demonstration on the public highway where there was any fear of a breach of the peace.
Lord Hewart CJ: ‘English law does not recognize any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes’.
References: [1936] 1 KB 218, (1935) 154 LT 110, [1935] All ER 711
Judges: Lord Hewart CJ, Humphreys and Singleton JJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire QBD 1987 ((1987) 85 Cr App R 143)
    The defendants were arrested after distributing leaflets outside a furriers, and appealed against convictions for obstructing the highway.
    Held: The appeals succeeded. In deciding whether there was a lawful excuse for a technical obstruction . .
  • Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999 (Times 05-Mar-99, , Gazette 17-Mar-99, Gazette 31-Mar-99, , [1999] 2 AC 240, [1999] UKHL 5, [1999] 2 WLR 625, [1999] 2 All ER 257, (1999) 6 BHRC 513, (1999) 3 CHRLD 4)
    21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
  • Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004 ([2005] QB 678, , [2004] EWCA Civ 1639, Times 13-Dec-04, [2005] All ER 473)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999 (Times 28-Jul-99, , , [2000] HRLR 249, [1999] EWHC Admin 733, [1999] Crim LR 998, (1999) 7 BHRC 375, (1999) 163 JP 789, CO/188/99)
    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, . .
  • Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006 (, [2006] UKHL 55, Times 14-Dec-06, [2007] 2 WLR 46, [2007] 2 All ER 529, [2007] 2 AC 105, (2006) 22 BHRC 38)
    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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.192205

Halliday v Nevill: 1984

References: (1984) 155 CLR 1
Coram: Brennan J
Ratio: Brennan J said: ‘A police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave and licence of the person in possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass and acts outside the course of his duty unless his entering or remaining on the premises is authorized or excused by law.’ and ‘The common law presumes that when Parliament creates a novel power, it does not intend thereby to authorize the commission of a trespass to facilitate its exercise: Morris v Beardmore [1981] A.C. 446; Colet v The Queen (1981) 119 DLR (3d) 521 . The general protection which the common law accords to persons in possession of private property is undiminished by the creation of the novel power unless Parliament expressly provides otherwise.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gillies v Procurator Fiscal, Elgin HCJ (Bailii, [2008] ScotHC HCJAC – 55, 2008 GWD 31-476, 2008 SCCR 887, 2008 SCL 1316, 2008 SLT 978, 2009 JC 25, [2008] HCJAC 55)
    The police went to the defendant’s flat to find her boyfriend. She refused them access, but when they saw him, the police officers called out that he was under arrest under the 1995 Act, and forced their way past the door and the defendant. The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 02 December 2019
Ref: 276519

Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: HL 22 Jan 1998

Taylor_SFOHL1998
References: Times 04-Nov-1998, [1998] UKHL 39, [1999] 2 AC 177, [1998] 4 All ER 801, [1998] 3 WLR 1040
Links: House of Lords, Bailii
Coram: Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton
Ratio: 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 trial of others. The plaintiff sought damages in defamation.
Held: The documents which had been prepared for a criminal investigation, and which were disclosed as part of prosecution case, but not relied on in that prosecution, may only be used by defence for the purposes of that trial. They cannot be used to form the basis of an action for defamation. The documents were disclosed under an obligation imposed on the prosecution. The absolute immunity rule ‘is designed to encourage freedom of speech and communication in judicial proceedings by relieving persons who take part in the judicial process from the fear of being sued for something they say.’ The immunity extended also to statements made out of court which could fairly be said to be part of the process of investigating crime. The court referred in this connection to investigators and the prosecuting officials with whom they are required to communicate.
Lord Hope (with whom Lord Hutton agreed) observed: ‘I do not think that it is possible to overstate the importance, in the public interest, of ensuring that material which is disclosed in criminal proceedings is not used for collateral purposes’.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘I find it impossible to identify any rational principle which would confine the immunity for out of court statements to persons who are subsequently called as witnesses. The policy of the immunity is to enable people to speak freely without fear of being sued, whether successfully or not. If this object is to be achieved, the person in question must know at the time he speaks whether or not the immunity will attach. If it depends upon the contingencies of whether he will be called as a witness, the value of the immunity is destroyed. At the time of the investigation it is often unclear whether any crime has been committed at all. Persons assisting the police with their inquiries may not be able to give any admissible evidence; for example, their information may be hearsay, but none the less valuable for the purposes of the investigation. But the proper administration of justice requires that such people should have the same inducement to speak freely as those whose information subsequently forms the basis of evidence at a trial.
When one turns to the position of investigators, it seems to me that the same degree of necessity applies. It would be an incoherent rule which gave a potential witness immunity in respect of the statements which he made to an investigator but offered no similar immunity to the investigator if he passed that information to a colleague engaged in the investigation or put it to another potential witness. In my view it is necessary for the administration of justice that investigators should be able to exchange information, theories and hypotheses among themselves and to put them to other persons assisting in the inquiry without fear of being sued if such statements are disclosed in the course of the proceedings.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Taylor Monarch Assurance Plc v Director of Serious Fraud Office, McKenzie, Law Society Rogerson CA (Gazette 24-Sep-97, Times 27-Aug-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2163)
    Qualified privilege attached to defamatory documents which had been prepared as part of a criminal investigation. For the court to allow an action would be approve a form of parasitic attack on the trial. . .
  • Cited – Mahon v Rahn QBD (Unreported, 19 June 1996)
    Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers.
    Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation . .
  • Cited – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA (Times 14-Jun-00, Gazette 29-Jun-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 185, [2000] 1 WLR 2150, [2000] EMLR 873, [2000] Po LR 210, [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 1, [2000] 4 All ER 41)
    The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
  • Cited – Munster v Lamb CA ((1883) 11 QBD 588)
    Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.
    Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences . .
  • Cited – Watson v M’Ewan HL ([1905] AC 480, [1905] UKHL 1, Bailii, (1905) 13 SLT 340, (1905) 7 F (HL) 109)
    A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .
  • Cited – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL ([1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 2 WLR 338, [1982] 1 All ER 532, (1982) 126 SJ 136)
    The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
    Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
  • Cited – Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others ([1981] 1 WLR 184, [1981] 1 All ER 715)
    The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no . .
  • Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD (Gazette 15-Jul-92, [1993] 1 WLR 619, (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1)
    The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
    Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
  • Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL (Independent 30-Jun-95, Times 30-Jun-95, [1995] 2 AC 633, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 All ER 353, [1995] 3 WLR 152, [1995] 3 FCR 337, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, 94 LGR 313, [1995] Fam Law 537, [1995] 3 FCR 337)
    Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case, only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give . .
  • Cited – Regina v Keane CACD (Independent 16-Mar-94, Times 15-Mar-94, [1994] 1 WLR 746, [1994] 2 All ER 478, (1994) 99 Cr App R 1)
    Public Interest Immunity Certificates for the protection of informants must be used only carefully. The Crown must specify the purpose of the public interest immunity certificate. The principles on disclosure in Ward are not limited to scientific . .
  • Cited – Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1) CA (Times 12-Jun-97, [1998] QB 424)
    Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.
  • Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL (Gazette 03-Sep-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 33, [1998] AC 367, [1997] 3 All ER 769, [1997] 3 WLR 447, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 66)
    The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
    Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
  • Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd ([1991] 1 WLR 756)
    A party and his legal representatives receiving documents under a process of discovery is under an implied undertaking to use those documents for the purposes of those proceedings only. It is an obligation imposed by operation of law by virtue of . .
  • Cited – Ex parte Coventry Newspapers Ltd CA ([1993] QB 278, [1993] 1 All ER 86, [1992] 3 WLR 916)
    Documents had been disclosed by the Police Complaints Authority under court order for an appeal against conviction. They related to an investigation of the conduct of police officers who had given evidence against the appellant. The newspaper, now . .
  • Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA ([1963] 1 QB 528, [1962] 3 All ER 380)
    Two police officers gave evidence in a criminal prosecution of others, that the plaintiff, a barrister, had behaved improperly by obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequently gave similar evidence at an inquiry before . .
  • Cited – Roy v Prior HL ([1971] AC 470, [1970] 2 All ER 729)
    The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
    Held: . .
  • Cited – Bennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn (Times 24-Oct-97, (1997) 10 Admin LR 245)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA (Times 09-Jul-96, [1996] 8 Admin LR 633, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1311)
    The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
  • Cited – Attorney-General’s Guidelines Practice Note (Criminal Evidence: Unused Material) ([1982] 1 All ER 734)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Jeffries CACD ([1968] CLY 661)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD (Gazette 15-Jul-92, [1993] 1 WLR 619, (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1)
    The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
    Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
  • Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Shannon ([1974] CLY 546)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Maguire CACD ([1992] 2 All ER 433, [1992] QB 936, (1992) 94 Cr App Rep 133 , [2006] EWCA Crim 1239)
    The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
    Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Davis; Regina v Rowe; Regina v Johnson CA (Gazette 10-Mar-93, [1993] 1 WLR 613, [1993] 97 Cr App R 110)
    Guidance was given on the procedures to be followed for applications for non-disclosure for public interest immunity. The court identified three types of case. In the first, and most frequent case the prosecution must notify the defence of the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) CACD (Independent 22-Jun-94, Gazette 31-Aug-94, Times 20-Jun-94, [1994] 1 WLR 1599)
    The Crown Prosecution Service was under no obligation to disclose evidence which might be damaging to a Defendant’s witness’ credibility. The Attorney General’s disclosure guidelines do not have the force of law and need updating. . .
  • Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL ([1978] AC 171, [1977] 2 WLR 201, [1977] 1 All ER 589, Bailii, [1977] UKHL 1)
    Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
    Lord Simon of . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL (Gazette 17-Aug-00, Times 01-Aug-00, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 44, [2001] AC 435, [2000] 3 WLR 747)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Preston Borough Council v McGrath CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 151)
    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 . .
  • Appealed to – Taylor Monarch Assurance Plc v Director of Serious Fraud Office, McKenzie, Law Society Rogerson CA (Gazette 24-Sep-97, Times 27-Aug-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2163)
    Qualified privilege attached to defamatory documents which had been prepared as part of a criminal investigation. For the court to allow an action would be approve a form of parasitic attack on the trial. . .
  • Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA (Times 15-Jun-98, Gazette 01-Jul-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 958, [1999] QB 966, [1998] 3 All ER 541, [1998] 3 WLR 925)
    A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
    Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
  • Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA ([2005] 4 All ER 609, Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 226, Times 14-Mar-05, [2006] 1 WLR 3083)
    The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
  • Cited – A, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI (Bailii, [2001] NIQB 21)
    The applicant, who feared for his life if identified, sought the release to him of materials discovered by the police in searching premises associated with a loyalist paramiliitary group. He thought that they might include information sourced form . .
  • Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, Times 31-Oct-06, [2007] 2 WLR 286, (2006) 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 All ER 1, [2006] 3 FCR 447, [2007] LS Law Medical 1, [2007] Fam Law 214, [2007] ICR 701, [2007] QB 462, 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 FLR 1398, [2006] 44 EG 196)
    The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
  • Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL (Times 02-Mar-07, Bailii, [2007] UKHL 7, [2007] 3 All ER 269, [2007] Crim LR 731, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 6, [2007] 2 AC 270)
    The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
    Held: The practice . .
  • Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1025 (QB), Times 07-Jun-07, [2007] 1 WLR 2933, [2007] EMLR 624, [2007] EMLR 23)
    There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
  • Cited – Westcott v Westcott QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2501 (QB))
    The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
    Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
  • Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 818, Times 27-Aug-08, [2009] QB 407, [2009] 2 WLR 838, [2009] 1 All ER 727, [2009] EMLR 2)
    The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
  • Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD ([2009] EMLR 18, Bailii, [2009] EWHC 411 (QB))
    The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .
  • Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 825 (QB))
    The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
  • Cited – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1186 (Admin))
    The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
    Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
  • Cited – Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 783)
    On a search of his house, the police found a bullet cartridge on the claimant’s property. It was sent for testing but due to a mistake it was reported as a live cartridge. The prosecution was only dropped after some months when the mistake was . .
  • Cited – Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1409)
    The appellant challenged an order of the Commercial Court refusing permission for documents disclosed in English litigation to be used in litigation proceedings in Guernsey. The principal issue is whether the judge correctly weighed up the . .
  • Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 909, [2013] IRLR 820, [2013] WLR(D) 306, [2013] 1 WLR 3052, [2013] ICR 1158, [2013] CP Rep 46)
    The claimant was a non-wite head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 07 August 2018
Ref: 135006

London Assurance Company v Sainsbury: 28 Jun 1783

References: (1783) 3 Dougl 246, [1783] EngR 109, (1783) 3 Doug 245, (1783) 99 ER 636
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Mansfield L, Butler, Willes, Ashurst, JJ
Ratio: An insurance otlice 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.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Simpson and Co v Thomson HL ((1877) 3 App Cas 279)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL (House of Lords, Times 13-Feb-02, Bailii, [2002] UKHL 4, [2002] 1 LLR 553, [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 261, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 321, 2002 SLT 278, [2002] CLC 741, 2002 SC (HL) 117, [2002] BLR 139, 2002 SCLR 346, 2002 GWD 6-178)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 01-Jan-18
Ref: 191157

Kenlin v Gardner: CA 1967

References: [1967] 2 QB 510
Coram: Winn LJ
Ratio: 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.’
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – Collins v Wilcock QBD ([1984] 3 All ER 374, [1984] 1 WLR 1172, (1984) 79 Cr App R 229, [1984] Crim LR 481, (1984) 148 JP 692)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Wood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 1056 (Admin), Times 14-May-08)
    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. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 18 February 2017
Ref: 186337

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

References: [1993] Crim LR 962
Coram: Watkins LJ, Auld LJ
Ratio: 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.’
Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 05-Aug-16
Ref: 260138

Kuru v State of New South Wales; 12 Jun 2008

References: [2008] HCA 26
Links: Austlii
Ratio: Austlii (High Court of Australia) Torts – Trespass to land – Power of police to enter private premises – Police officers went to suburban flat after receiving report of male and female arguing – Police treated report as ‘violent domestic’ – Occupier invited police to ‘look around the flat’ – Occupier later asked police to leave premises – Police did not leave and remained on premises for longer than it would reasonably have taken them to leave – Whether statutory justification for police to remain on premises – Proper construction of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 357F and 357H – Whether express refusal by occupier immediately terminated authority of police ‘to so enter or remain’ on premises, irrespective of fulfilment of purposes for which entry effected.
Torts – Trespass to land – Power of police to enter private premises – Whether common law justification for police to remain on premises – Whether entry could be justified as directed to preventing a breach of the peace.
Words and phrases – ‘enter or remain’, ‘expressly refused’, ‘breach of the peace’.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gillies -v- Procurator Fiscal, Elgin HCJ (Bailii, [2008] ScotHC HCJAC_55, 2008 GWD 31-476, 2008 SCCR 887, 2008 SCL 1316, 2008 SLT 978, 2009 JC 25, [2008] HCJAC 55)
    The police went to the defendant’s flat to find her boyfriend. She refused them access, but when they saw him, the police officers called out that he was under arrest under the 1995 Act, and forced their way past the door and the defendant. The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 30-Jun-16
Ref: 276522

Holgate-Mohammad v Duke, orse Mohammed-Holgate v Duke: HL 1984

References: [1984] 1 AC 437, [1984] 2 WLR 660
Coram: Lord Diplock
Ratio:A police officer had purported to arrest the plaintiff under the 1967 Act, suspecting her of theft. After interview she was released several hours later without charge. She sought damages alleging wrongful arrest. The judge had reasonable grounds for suspicion, and that the period of detention was not excessive. However the use of an arrest to place her under pressure was improper. On appeal the chief constable succeeded, the court saying that the question was whether the decision to arrest was Wednesbury unreasonable; was it made in good faith, and did it take into account any irrelevant factors.
Held: The idea that a suspect might more readily confess at a police station under arrest was a proper consideration, and given the reasonable cause for suspicion, the arrest was lawful.
Lord Diplock set out the common law principles as to what amounted to an arrest. Arrest is a continuing act. It starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody, either by action or by words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester’s control, and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or remanded in custody by a judicial act. The mere act of taking a person into custody does not constitute an arrest unless the person knows, either at the time when he is taken into custody or as soon thereafter as it is reasonably practical to inform him, upon what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is being arrested.
The Wednesbury principles are applicable not only in proceedings for judicial review but also for the purpose of founding a cause of action at common law for trespass by false imprisonment.
Statutes: Criminal Law Act 1967 2(4)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Shields -v- Merseyside Police CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 1281)
    The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for assault and false imprisonment. The officer arresting her wrongly believed that she had already been arrested, and it was said that he could not have gone through the steps necessary for an . .
  • Cited – Lumba (WL) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 12, Bailii Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0062, UKSC 2010/0063, SC Summary)
    The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
  • Cited – Richardson -v- The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 773 (QB), [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 1)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (2011] 1 WLR 1299, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 23, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2009/0022, SC Summary, SC)
    The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
  • Cited – Haile -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest SC (UKSC 2014/0185, SC Video, [2016] 1 All ER 579, [2015] 1 AC 1471, Bailii, [2015] UKSC 34, [2015] WLR(D) 234, [2015] 1 AC 1471, [2015] HLR 24, [2015] PTSR 784, [2015] 2 WLR 1441, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary)
    ‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 28-Jun-16
Ref: 426031

Regina v Piggott; 2 Dec 1994

References: Unreported transcript 2 November 1994
Ratio 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.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – AXN -v- The Queen CACD (Bailii, [2016] EWCA Crim 590)
    The defendant argued that geater 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 tesxt of the letter from the police to the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 28-May-16
Ref: 564848

Regina v Mentuck; 15 Nov 2001

References: [2001] 3 SCR 442, 2001 SCC 76
Links: anlii
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Canlii Ratio 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.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – A -v- British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC ([2015] 1 AC 588, 2014 SC (UKSC) 151, 2014 SCLR 593, Bailii, [2014] UKSC 25, [2014] 2 All ER 1037, 2014 GWD 15-266, [2014] WLR(D) 196, [2014] 2 WLR 1243, [2014] EMLR 25, 2014 SLT 613, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0159, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17-May-16
Ref: 564189

Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board; 4 Oct 2007

References: [2007] 3 SCR 129, 2007 SCC 41 (CanLII), 40 MPLR (4th) 1, 230 OAC 260, 160 ACWS (3d) 573, [2007] SCJ No 41 (QL), JE 2007-1867, [2007] CarswellOnt 6265, 64 Admin LR (4th) 163, 50 CCLT (3d) 1, 368 NR 1, 50 CR (6th) 279, 285 DLR (4th) 620, 87 OR (3d) 397, [2007] 3 SCR 129, 2007 SCC 41 (CanLII)
Links: Canlii, Canlii
Coram: McLachlin CJ and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Torts – Negligence – Duty of care – Police investigation – Whether police owe duty of care to suspects in criminal investigations – If so, standard of care required by police investigating a suspect – Whether police officers’ conduct in investigating suspect was negligent.
Police – Investigation – Negligence – Whether Canadian law recognizes tort of negligent investigation.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21-Dec-15 Ref: 556825

Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton; 26 Sep 2003

References: [2003] ZASCA 98, [2003] 4 All SA 117 (SCA)
Links: Saflii
Coram: Howie P, Mthiyane, Conradie, Heher JJA and Van Heerden AJA
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal – Subject: Delict – police – legal duty to exercise reasonable care in considering, investigating & recommending application for firearm licence – liability for shooting by unfit person to whom firearm licence issued
The police were held liable to the victim of a shooting for negligently issuing a firearm licence to the attacker, who had a history of psychosis, personality disorder and alcohol abuse. The agreed statement of facts did not suggest that the victim was at higher risk than any other member of the public.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21-Dec-15 Ref: 556823

Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police; 30 Aug 1990

References: 74 OR (2d) 225, 72 DLR (4th) 580, 5 CCLT (2d) 77, [1990] OJ No 1584 (QL), 10 WCB (2d) 577, 1 CRR (2d) 211, 50 CPC (2d) 92, 40 OAC 161, 22 ACWS (3d) 869
Links: Canlii
Coram: O’Leary, Saunders and Moldaver JJ
Ontario – High Court of Justice, Divisional Court – Negligence — Duty of care — Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to life, liberty and security — Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult — Charter rights violated — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Equality rights — Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult — Charter rights violated — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1).
On August 24, 1986, the plaintiff was raped by a serial rapist who subsequently pleaded guilty to a number of sexual assaults including the attack on the plaintiff. All of the attacks occurred within a one-year period in the same vicinity and involved single white women living in second or third floor apartments to which the rapist gained entry through a balcony door. In this action, the plaintiff sued the Chief of Police at the time of the assault, the investigating officers in charge of the case and the Board of Commissioners of Police for damages. The plaintiff alleged a cause of action in tort and a cause of action for violating her rights to security of the person and her right to equal protection under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defendants moved to have the action dismissed as not disclosing a cause of action. The motion was dismissed. Leave having been granted, the defendants appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed and the plaintiff’s action allowed to proceed.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21-Dec-15 Ref: 556824

Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security; 16 Aug 2001

References: (2001) 12 BHRC 60, [2001] ZACC 22, 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC), 2001 (10) BCLR 995 (CC)
Links: Saflii
Coram: Ackermann, Goldstone JJ
Constitutional Court of South Africa – The applicant had been assaulted by a man awaiting trial for attempted rape. Both police and prosecutor had recommended bail despite a history of sexual violence. She applicant sued the ministers responsible for the police and prosecution service, saying that they had failed to ensure that the magistrate was properly informed about the risk he posed to women in the vicinity of his home, including the applicant. Her claim was dismissed by the High Court and its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal, but she succeeded on appeal to the Constitutional Court, relying on a provision in section 39(2) of the constitution which required the courts when developing the common law to ‘promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights’. The Constitutional Court decided that it would not be appropriate for itself to determine whether the law of delict required to be developed so as to afford a right to the applicant to claim damages if the police or prosecutor were negligent. It said that it was by no means clear how the constitutional obligations on the state should translate into private law duties towards individuals, and that the court would be at a grave disadvantage in deciding the issue without a fully reasoned judgment of the High Court or Court of Appeal. It set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the matter to the High Court.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20-Dec-15 Ref: 556811

The King v Charles Pinney, Esquire; 1 Nov 1832

References: , [1832] EngR 777, (1832) 3 B & Ad 947, (1832) 110 ER 349
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Littledale J
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.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20-Nov-15 Ref: 319724

Mason v Sainsbury; 19 Apr 1782

References: (1782) 3 Dougl 61, [1782] EngR 37, (1782) 3 Doug 61, (1782) 99 ER 538
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Mansfield CJ, Buller J
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.’
Statutes: Riot Act 1714
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Simpson & Co -v- Thomson HL ((1877) 3 App Cas 279)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Caledonian North Sea Ltd -v- London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL (House of Lords, Times 13-Feb-02, Bailii, [2002] UKHL 4)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others -v- Bedfordshire Police Authority CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1110, [2010] 2 WLR 1322, [2010] 2 All ER 221)
    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 . .

Last Update: 11-Sep-15 Ref: 191156

Regina (Jones) v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary; 31 Oct 2005

References: Times 04-Nov-2005
The claimant challenged the revocation by the respondent of his pedlar’s licence. He had been arrested on a charge involving dishonesty, and his certificate was taken from him and held.
Held: The powers available were to the police to refuse to renew a certificate or to a magistrates court to revoke licence. The police did not have the power to do as they had. The declaration was granted.
Statutes: Pedlar’s Act 1871 5(1)

Regina v Grant; 17 Jul 2009

References: 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 SCR 353, 309 DLR (4th) 1, 245 CCC (3d) 1, 66 CR (6th) 1, 253 OAC 124
Links: Canlii
Coram: McLachlin CJ and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Arbitrary detention – Right to counsel – Encounter between accused and police going from general neighbourhood policing to situation where police effectively took control over accused and attempted to elicit incriminating information – Whether police conduct would cause a reasonable person in accused’s position to conclude that he or she was not free to go and had to comply with police demand – Whether accused arbitrarily detained – Whether accused’s right to counsel infringed – Meaning of ‘detention’ in ss. 9 and 10 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Enforcement – Exclusion of evidence – Firearm discovered as result of accused’s statements taken in breach of his right against arbitrary detention and right to counsel – Firearm admitted into evidence at trial and accused convicted of five firearms offences – Whether admission of firearm bringing administration of justice into disrepute – Revised framework for determining whether evidence obtained in breach of constitutional rights must be excluded – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 24(2).
Criminal law – Firearms – Possession of firearm for purposes of weapons trafficking – Whether simple movement of firearm from one place to another without changing hands amounts to weapons trafficking – Meaning of ‘transfer’ of weapon for purposes of ss. 84, 99 and 100 of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ambrose -v- Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 43, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2011/0101, 2011 SLT 1005, [2011] 1 WLR 2435)
    (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 . .

Marper -v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Feb 2008

References: [2008] ECHR 178, 30562/04
Links: Bailii
Grand Chamber – Press Release – The applicant complained of the retention by the police of DNA and fingerprint records – The applicants both complain about the retention of their fingerprints and DNA samples and the fact that they are being used in ongoing criminal investigations. They are also concerned about the possible future uses of those samples and, in general, that their retention casts suspicion on people who have been acquitted or discharged of crimes. They further contend that, as people without convictions who are no longer suspected criminals, they should be treated in the same way as the rest of the unconvicted population of the United Kingdom. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 August 2004 and declared admissible on 16 January 2007. The Chamber to which the case was assigned decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber on 10 July 2007.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Marper -v- United Kingdom; S -v- United Kingdom ECHR (30562/04, Bailii, [2008] ECHR 1581, Times, (2008) 158 NLJ 1755, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, [2009] Crim LR 355)
    (Grand Chamber hearing) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion, samples of their DNA had been taken, but despite being released without charge, the samples had retained on the Police database.
    Held: (Unanimous) The . .

Last Update: 30-Sep-15 Ref: 278518

Regina v Cox; 18 Sep 1992

References: (Unreported), 18 September 1992, Times 02-Dec-1992, [1992] CLY 886
Coram: Ognall J
Whether the questioning of a suspect in a police station amounted to an interview was a question of fact dependant upon all the circumstances, including the rest, arrival at the police station, caution, the notification of rights, and the nature of the questions asked. The defendant doctor administered potassium chloride to a dying patient. The court had to look to the ‘primary purpose’ of his act.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Airedale NHS Trust -v- Bland CA (lip, [1993] 2 WLR 316)
    The official Solicitor appealed a decision that doctors could withdraw medical treatment including artificial nutrition, from a patient in persistent vegetative state.
    Held: The doctors sought permission to act in accordance with recommended . .
  • Cited – Airedale NHS Trust -v- Bland HL (lip, [1993] AC 789, [1993] 2 WLR 316, Bailii, [1992] UKHL 5)
    The patient had been severely injured in the Hillsborough disaster, and had come to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought permission to withdraw medical treatment. The Official Solicitor appealed against an order of the Court . .
  • Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA (Times 10-Oct-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 254, [2001] 1 FLR 267, [2000] 4 All ER 961, [2001] Fam 147, [2001] 2 WLR 480, [2001] 9 BHRC 261, [2000] 3 FCR 577, [2001] Fam Law 18, (2001) 57 BMLR 1, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 425, [2001] UKHRR 1)
    Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .

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

References: Times 21-Oct-1967
Coram: Parker LCJ, Widgery, O’Connor JJ
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.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – McLeod, Mealing (deceased) -v- Metropolitan Police Commissioner CA (Ind Summary 21-Feb-94, Bailii, [1994] EWCA Civ 2, [1994] 4 All ER 553)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 27-Feb-16 Ref: 543044

Marper -v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jan 2007

References: [2007] EHCR 110, 30562/04
Links: Bailii
Coram: J. Casadevall, P
Decision as to admissibility – the applicants complained of the retention by police of DNA and fingerprint samples and records.
Held: Admissible.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Marper -v United Kingdom; S -v- United Kingdom ECHR (Bailii, [2008] ECHR 178, 30562/04)
    Grand Chamber – Press Release – The applicant complained of the retention by the police of DNA and fingerprint records – The applicants both complain about the retention of their fingerprints and DNA samples and the fact that they are being used in . .
  • See Also – Marper -v- United Kingdom; S -v- United Kingdom ECHR (30562/04, Bailii, [2008] ECHR 1581, Times, (2008) 158 NLJ 1755, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, [2009] Crim LR 355)
    (Grand Chamber hearing) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion, samples of their DNA had been taken, but despite being released without charge, the samples had retained on the Police database.
    Held: (Unanimous) The . .

Last Update: 30-Sep-15 Ref: 278517

Martin v Watson: HL 14 Jul 1995

References: Times 14-Jul-1995, Gazette 06-Sep-1995, Independent 19-Jul-1995, [1996] AC 74, [1995] 3 WLR 318, [1995] 3 All ER 559
Coram: Lord Keith of Kinkel
Ratio The plaintiff had been falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbour, for indecent exposure whilst standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been arrested and charged, but at a hearing before the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. He appealed against the decision that he could not claim in malicious prosecution.
Held: The appeal succeeded, though there was no English authority on the topic. Since the facts relating to the alleged offence were solely within the complainant’s knowledge, and that as a practical matter the police officer who laid the information could not have exercised any independent discretion, the complainant could be sued for malicious prosecution, and upheld an award of damages against her. The complainant had ‘in substance procured the prosecution’. The police officer to whom the complaint was made had no way of testing the truthfulness of the accusation.
The tort of malicious prosecution can be committed by a informer knowingly and maliciously laying a false complaint to the police. The actions taken by the police are insufficient intervention to interfere with that liability. To ground a claim for malicious prosecution a plaintiff must prove (1) that the law was set in motion against him on a criminal charge; (2) that the prosecution was determined in his favour; (3) that it was without reasonable and proper cause, and (4) that it was malicious.
Ratio Lord Keith said: ‘It is common ground that the ingredients of the tort of malicious prosecution are correctly stated in Clerk & Lindsell on Torts ‘In action of malicious prosecution the plaintiff must show first that he was prosecuted by the defendant, that is to say, that the law was set in motion against him on a criminal charge; secondly, that the prosecution was determined in his favour; and thirdly, that it was without reasonable and probable cause; fourthly, that it was malicious.” and ‘The essential feature of malicious prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. If that has occurred it is immaterial that the abuse has involved giving evidence in a court of law.’
and ‘Where an individual falsely and maliciously gives a police officer information indicating that some person is guilty of a criminal offence and states that he is willing to give evidence in court of the matters in question, it is properly to be inferred that he desires and intends that the person he names should be prosecuted. Where the circumstances are such that the facts relating to the alleged offence can be within the knowledge only of the complainant, as was the position here, then it becomes virtually impossible for the police officer to exercise any independent discretion or judgment, and if a prosecution is instituted by the police officer the proper view of the matter is that the prosecution has been procured by the complainant.’
Ratio Lord Keith also said: ‘Analogies were sought to be drawn with the immunity afforded in respect of evidence given in a court of law, which extends also to statements made to solicitors engaged in preparation for pending proceedings: Watson v M’Ewan . . No such analogy is, however, helpful. The essential feature of malicious prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. If that has occurred it is immaterial that the abuse has involved giving evidence in a court of law. That was held in Roy v Prior [1971] A.C. 470 in relation to an action for malicious arrest . .
Similar considerations apply to statements made to the police under circumstances where the maker falls to be regarded as having in substance procured the prosecution. There is no way of testing the truthfulness of such statements before the prosecution is brought. To deny any remedy to a person whose liberty has been interfered with as a result of unfounded and malicious accusations in such circumstances would constitute a serious denial of justice.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Roy -v- Prior HL ([1971] AC 470, [1970] 2 All ER 729)
    The court considered the tort of maliciously procuring an arrest.
    Held: Police officers are given a general immunity against suit, in respect of matters occuring at court, to avoid repeated actions challenging their evidence.
    Lord . .
  • Appeal from – Martin -v- Watson CA (Gazette 23-Mar-94, Times 27-Jan-94, Independent 26-Jan-94, [1994] 2 WLR 500, [1994] QB 425, [1994] 2 All ER 606)
    The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, saying that the defendant had made a complaint to the police knowing it to be false that the claimant had indecently exposed himself. Acting on the complaint the police had arrested and charged . .
  • Cited – Watson -v- M’Ewan HL ([1905] AC 480, [1905] UKHL 1, Bailii, (1905) 13 SLT 340, (1905) 7 F (HL) 109)
    A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Keegan and Others -v- Chief Constable of Merseyside CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 936, Times 17-Jul-03, Gazette 11-Sep-03, [2003] 1 WLR 2187)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Sinclair -v- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 319)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Mahon, Kent -v- Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA (Times 14-Jun-00, Gazette 29-Jun-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 185, [2000] 1 WLR 2150, [2000] EMLR 873, [2000] Po LR 210, [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 1, [2000] 4 All ER 41)
    The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
  • Cited – Westcott -v- Westcott QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2501 (QB))
    The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
    Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
  • Cited – Mckie -v-Strathclyde Joint Police Board and others SCS (ScotC, Bailii, [2003] ScotCS 353)
    . .
  • Cited – Gregory -v- Portsmouth City Council CA (Times 26-Nov-97, Gazette 03-Dec-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2645)
    The plaintiff councillor had been disciplined by the defendant for allegations. The findings were later overturned, and he now sought damages alleging malicious prosecution.
    Held: The categories of malicious prosecution are closed, and it was . .
  • Leading Case – Westcott -v- Westcott CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 818, Times 27-Aug-08, [2009] QB 407, [2009] 2 WLR 838, [2009] 1 All ER 727, [2009] EMLR 2)
    The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
  • Cited – Alford -v- Cambridgeshire Police CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 100)
    The claimant police officer had been held after an accident when he was in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle into the neighbouring respondent’s area. The prosecution had been discontinued, and he now appealed against rejection of his claims for . .
  • Cited – Hunt -v- AB CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1092, Times)
    The claimant sought damages from a woman in malicious prosecution, saying that she had made a false allegation of rape against him. He had served two years in prison.
    Held: The claim failed. A complainant is not a prosecutor, and is not liable . .
  • Cited – The Ministry of Justice (Sued As The Home Office) -v- Scott CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1215)
    The claimant had been falsely accused of assault by five prison officers. The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim of of malicious prosecution.
    Held: Proceedings for malicious prosecution cannot be regarded as being . .
  • Cited – Silcott -v- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA (Times 09-Jul-96, [1996] 8 Admin LR 633, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1311)
    The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
  • Cited – Gregory -v- Portsmouth City Council HL (Times 02-Feb-00, Gazette 10-Feb-00, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 3, [2000] 1 AC 419, [2000] 1 All ER 560, [2000] 1 WLR 306, [2000] BLGR 203, [2000] Po LR 3, (2000) 2 LGLR 667)
    Disciplinary proceedings had been taken by the local authority against Mr Gregory, a council member, after allegations had been made that he had failed to declare conflicts of interest, and that he had used confidential information to secure a . .
  • Cited – Howarth -v- Gwent Constabulary and Another QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2836 (QB))
    The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the defendant. He had been charged with perverting the course of justice. He had worked for a firm of solicitors specialising in defending road traffic prosecutions. . .
  • Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis -v- Copeland CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1014)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 05-May-16
Ref: 83445