Category: Police

Pitchers v Surrey County Council: 1923

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

Judges:

Swift J

Citations:

[1923] 2 KB 57

Statutes:

Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Cited by:

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

Police, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270268

Ford v Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District: 1921

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

Judges:

Bailhache J

Citations:

[1921] 2 KB

Statutes:

Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Cited by:

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

Police

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270267

Kinsella v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire: QBD 24 Aug 1999

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

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-1999

Police

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.82802

Regina v Fennell: CACD 1971

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

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 QB 428

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Crime, Police

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.258671

Dibble v Ingleton: 1972

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

Judges:

Bridge J

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 480

Statutes:

Police Act 1964 51(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Lunt v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1993
The defendant had been in a road traffic accident. The police came to his house to investigate the accident, but he refused to unlock the door to allow them entry. Stating reliance on section 4 of the 1988 Act, the officers threatened to force . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.247479

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

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

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 461

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Police, Human Rights, Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244746

Dillon v O’Brien and Davis: 1887

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

Judges:

Palles CB

Citations:

(1887) 16 Cox CC 245

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236329

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

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

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Coroners, Police

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.219421

Brazil v Chief Constable of Surrey: QBD 1983

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

Judges:

Robert Goff LJ, McNeill J

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(2)

Citing:

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

Police, Crime, Human Rights, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.211414

Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Switalski: 1991

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

Judges:

Judge Savill QC, Neill LJ

Citations:

[1991] COD 119, (1991) CLR 559

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 10

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Police, Legal Professions

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197744

Mason v Sainsbury: 19 Apr 1782

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

Judges:

Lord Mansfield CJ, Buller J

Citations:

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

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Riot Act 1714

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Insurance, Police

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.191156

Hughes v National Union of Mineworkers: QBD 1991

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

Judges:

May J

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Police, Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190038

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

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925) 6.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Police, Insolvency, Equity

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189946

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

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

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 446

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188400

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

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

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1

Cited by:

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

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188402

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

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

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 332 Admin

Statutes:

Police (Property) Act 1897 1

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188401

Reynolds v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: 1985

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

Judges:

Waller LJ, Slade LJ, Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1985] QB 881

Statutes:

Forgery Act 1913 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184702

Regina v Booth and Jones: 1910

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

Judges:

Channell J

Citations:

(1910) 5 Criminal Appeal Reports 179

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Evidence, Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184200

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

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

Judges:

Richards J, Moses J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 433

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 104

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181625

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

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

Judges:

McNeill J

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 447

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Police, Natural Justice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181626

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

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

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Curtis

Citations:

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

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Police

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.174347

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

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

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1619

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.145098

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

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 33, Family Law Act 1986 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88953

Regina v Mentuck: 15 Nov 2001

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

Judges:

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

Citations:

[2001] 3 SCR 442, 2001 SCC 76

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

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

Media, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.564189

Mercer v Oldham: QBD 1984

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

Citations:

[1984] Crim LR 232

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Police, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.401966

The King v Charles Pinney, Esquire: 1 Nov 1832

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

Judges:

Littledale J

Citations:

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

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

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

Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.319724

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

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

Judges:

Davies J

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 51.19(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Civil Procedure Rules, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.179121

Regina v Sanghera: CA 26 Oct 2000

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

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2000

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85472

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

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

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2000

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85180

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

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Licensing, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85173

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

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

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79955

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

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

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79202

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

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

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77618

Clough v Bussan: 1990

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

Judges:

Kennedy J

Citations:

[1990] 1 All ER 431

Cited by:

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

Negligence, Police

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276397

Regina (W) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another: CA 11 May 2006

The Commissioner appealed against a declaration that an authorisation given for creation of a dispersal area was unlawful.
Held: The proceedings appeared at first to be merely hypothetical, but the issue as to whether a police officer had use reasonable force to remove a child from a dspersal area was a live issue of general public concern. The word ‘remove’ in s 30(6) carried a coercive power, and therefore a police officer, and other similarly empowered by the Act, could use reasonable force to achieve the purpose of the Act.

Judges:

Judge LJ, May LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

Times 22-May-2006

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 30(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina on the Application of PW v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, The London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames Admn 20-Jul-2005
W, a child of 14 sought judicial review of an order to remove persons under the age of 16 from dispersal areas in Richmond.
Held: The issue was whether the power given to police to remove youths was permissive or coercive. The power given ‘is . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State Home Dept ex parte Wynne HL 17-Mar-1993
A prisoner wishing to appear at court in civil proceedings needed under the Act to apply for his own production to court, and to make arrangement for payment of the costs of being produced at court.
Held: A Legislature could so provide even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242872

Harrison v Bush: 1855

The office of Secretary of State is in theory one and indivisible.
Lord Campbell CJ stated: ‘In practice, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department . . belongs peculiarly the maintenance of the peace within the kingdom, with the superintendence of the administration of justice as far as the Royal prerogative is involved in it.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell CJ

Citations:

(1855) 5 E and B 344, [1855] EngR 41, (1855) 5 El and Bl 344, (1855) 119 ER 509

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Hinchy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 3-Mar-2005
The applicant had been dependent upon income support, and had then come to receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA). She therefore received additional income support, but the office did not adjust that benefit down when her DLA stopped. The . .
Cited – Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Police, Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223211

Weir v Bettison: CA 2003

Judges:

Sir Denys Henry

Citations:

[2003] ICR 708

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.216398

Lindley v Rutter: CA 1981

The defendant had been taken into police custody upon arrest for disorderly behaviour. Police officers, acting in accordance with what they believed to be standing orders to search every female prisoner, in the face of a refusal by the defendant to be searched, searched her and in so doing removed her brassiere.
Held: Persons detained in police custody must not be searched unless there is a ‘very good reason’ for doing so

Judges:

Donaldson LJ

Citations:

[1981] QB 128

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.211413

United States v Ramsey: 6 Jun 1977

United States Supreme Court – Title 19 U.S.C. ss 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant. Acting pursuant to the statute and regulations, a customs inspector, based on the facts that certain incoming letter-sized airmail envelopes were from Thailand, a known source of narcotics, and were bulky and much heavier than a normal airmail letter, opened the envelopes for inspection at the General Post Office in New York City, considered a ‘border’ for border-search purposes, and ultimately the envelopes were found to contain heroin. Respondents were subsequently indicted for and convicted of narcotics offenses, the District Court having denied their motion to suppress the heroin. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applicable to persons, baggage, and mailed packages did not apply to the opening of international mail, and that the Constitution requires that before such mail is opened a showing of probable cause must be made and a warrant obtained.
Held:
1. Under the circumstances, the customs inspector had ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that there was merchandise or contraband in the envelopes, and therefore the search was plainly authorized by the statute. Pp. 611-616.
2. The Fourth Amendment does not interdict the actions taken by the inspector in opening and searching the envelopes. Pp. 616-625.
(a) Border searches without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 616-619.
(b) The inclusion of international mail within the border-search exception does not represent any ‘extension’ of that exception. The exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country, and no different constitutional standards should apply simply because the envelopes were mailed, not carried the critical fact being that the envelopes cross the border and enter the country, not that they are brought in by one mode of transportation rather than another. It is their entry into the country from without it that makes a resulting search ‘reasonable.’ Pp. 619-621.
(c) The border-search exception is not based on the doctrine of ‘exigent circumstances,’ but is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general principle that a warrant be obtained. Pp. 621-622.
(d) The opening of international mail under the guidelines of the statute only when the customs official has reason to believe the mail contains other than correspondence, while the reading of any correspondence inside the envelopes is forbidden by the regulations, does not impermissibly chill the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, and any ‘chill’ that might exist under such circumstances is not only ‘minimal’ but is also wholly subjective. Pp. 623-624.

Citations:

[1977] USSC 97, 431 US 606, 97 SCt 1972, 52 LEd2d 617

Links:

Worldlii

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Police, Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590308

Regina v Simmons: 1988

(Supreme Court of Canada) A contraband search based on reasonable suspicion of the presence of smuggled material is an exception to the usual requirements for searches imposed by section 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Dickson CJ said: ‘People do not expect to be able to cross international borders free from scrutiny . . Consequently, travellers seeking to cross national boundaries fully expect to be subject to a screening process. This process will typically require the production of proper identification and travel documentation and involve a search process . . ‘

Judges:

Dickson CJ

Citations:

[1988] 2 RCS 495

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590394

Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville: CA 3 Sep 2003

The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done also by the employer under section 41(2). The law had been changed after Liversidge. A chief constable must delegate his responsibilities, and the court could not say that what occurred fell outside the scope of s41(2), and it was therefore a question of fact for the tribunal.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Peter Gibson, Kay LJJ

Citations:

Times 10-Sep-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 17(1) 41(2), Police Act 1996 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – 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 . .
Cited – Burton and Another v De Vere Hotels EAT 3-Oct-1996
Two black waitresses, clearing tables in the banqueting hall of a hotel, were made the butt of racist and sexist jibes by a guest speaker entertaining the assembled all-male company at a private dinner party.
Held: The employer of the . .
Cited – Hendricks v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 27-Nov-2002
The appellant appealed a finding of the Employment Appeal Tribunal against her. She had complained of sex and race discrimination. She alleged that the Tribunal had concentrated on the issues of policy within the respondent police force.
Held: . .
Cited – MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
Cited – Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
Cited – Farah v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis CA 9-Oct-1996
Individual officers, but not the police force itself are answerable in a race discrimination claim. The force is not vicariously liable for an individual officer’s acts. . .

Cited by:

Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Police, Discrimination

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.186305

Johnson v Whitehouse: 1984

There is a relevant distinction between suspecting and believing in a police officer’s mind: ‘the dictionary definitions of those words . . of course, do show that the word ‘believe’ connotes a greater degree of certainty, or perhaps a smaller degree of uncertainty, than the word ‘suspect’.’

Judges:

Nolan J

Citations:

[1984] RTR 47

Cited by:

Cited – Keegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 3-Jul-2003
The police had information suggesting (wrongly) that a fugitive resided at an address. An armed raid followed, and the claimant occupant sought damages.
Held: The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant required it to be established . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.184711

Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same: CA 8 May 2003

The claimants sought damages for injuries alleged to have been received at the hands of prison officers whilst in prison. They now sought disclosure by the police of statements made to the police during the course of their investigation.
Held: The court ordered the police to disclose witness statements obtained during a criminal investigation, because that was necessary in order to dispose fairly of a civil action about the same subject matter.
Disclosure against third parties should be regarded as the exception rather than the rule and not simply ordered by way of routine. the balance was between the confidence that existed in statements made to the police for the purposes of an investigation on the one hand and disclosure necessary to dispose fairly of a civil action against the Home Office in respect of alleged assaults on prisoners on the other hand. In this case the balance fell in favour of disclosure.
Scott Baker LJ said: ‘The court has in cases such as the present a difficult balancing exercise to perform between the two conflicting public interests. For my part I would not put interviews under caution of suspects into any special category. It seems to me all who make statements to or answer questions by the police do so in the expectation that confidence will be maintained unless (1) they agree to waive it, or (2) it is overridden by some greater public interest. The weigh to be attached to the confidence will vary according to the particular circumstances with which the court is dealing. In the present case the countervailing public interest is one which in my judgment is of very great weight and one which outweighs the desirability of maintaining confidentiality. In conducting the balancing exercise the judge had clearly in mind the need to maintain the confidences so far as it was possible to do so. To that end he imposed stringent conditions on the extent and manner of disclosure. This is in my view a course which should always be followed in similar cases where the court decides that disclosure is required.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Scott Baker LJ, Wilson J

Citations:

Times 12-May-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1952, [2003] EWCA Civ 655

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and UKCC CA 26-May-1999
The issue was the potential disclosure by the police to the nurses’ regulatory body of confidential information concerning the plaintiff, the matron of a nursing home. There had been insufficient evidence to charge the plaintiff with a criminal . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .

Cited by:

Cited – Banks and Another v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 15-Mar-2004
The claimant sought a review of the respondent’s failure to deal fairly with him by not making proper disclosure of information upon which it had relied in making a movement restriction notice as regarded the claimant’s herd of beef cattle. Trading . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
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 – Phillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
Cited – Clifford v NGN Ltd and Mulcaire ChD 3-Feb-2010
There are three steps in every case where a party seeks disclosure from a third party: ‘(1) First it has to be shown that the documentation is likely to support the case of the applicant or adversely affect the case of the respondent. The word . .
Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Cited – Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others CA 31-Oct-2014
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.182171

Clarke v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 28 Jun 2001

A car owner left it in another’s custody whilst on holiday. The car was stolen and reported as such. The car was later found abandoned. The police were unable to contact the owner, and the claimant refused to pay the collection charges. The claimant asserted that the impounding of the vehicle was unlawful, since the car had not been abandoned within the section.
Held: The regulations required only that the car should appear to have been abandoned to the officer who found it. It was not necessary to show that it had actually been abandoned. Moreover the claimant was not sufficiently authorised to make the claim on behalf if the still absent owner.

Judges:

Longmore LJ, Carnwath J

Citations:

Gazette 26-Jul-2001

Links:

Times

Statutes:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 99 101(4), Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 (1986 No 183) 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Road Traffic

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.159503

Regina (Green) v Police Complaints Authority and Others: QBD 21 Dec 2001

The applicant complained about a breach of his human rights by police behaviour and sought to inspect statements made by eye witnesses to the incidents complained of. The Police Complaints Authority replied that it was necessary for their function to disclose such statements.
Held: Public confidence in the adherence of the state to the rule of law required the involvement of the victim to the extent necessary to safeguard his legitimate interests. That could not be satisfied merely by providing reasoned decisions, and the Authority had failed to discharge its duties to the applicant.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002

Statutes:

Police Act 1996 80(1)(a)

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Police Complaints Authority and Others v Regina CA 26-Mar-2002
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘Given the PCA’s right under section 76(7)(b) to such other information as they need for the purpose of reaching their section 76 decision, I am inclined to think that, if, after obtaining the complainant’s comments upon any . .
At First Instance – Regina v Police Complaints Authority ex parte Green HL 26-Feb-2004
Discovery was sought of statements created during the investigation of a complaint against a police officer. The claimant argued that a police officer had deliberately driven his car at him.
Held: The investigation by a separate police force . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.167401

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Ex Greater Manchester Police: CA 13 Mar 2001

The police authority purchased new cars, and sought to reclaim the VAT paid. The case was brought by judicial review because no appeal lay against the refusal of the Commissioners to allow this. A government scheme was intended to allow publicly funded bodies to make reclaims of VAT notwithstanding that they were not registered for VAT. Since VAT registered bodies could not either make this particular reclaim on new car purchases. The scheme which blocked refund on certain items prevailed.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 (1992 No 3222)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Police, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88420

Henderson v Chief Constable of Cleveland Constabulary: CA 16 Mar 2001

Police arrested the claimant on Friday, but before releasing him on the Saturday they executed a warrant they had known about on arrest, resulting in his being kept in custody over the weekend. He claimed false imprisonment. The court held that the police had a discretion as to when to execute the warrant, but that discretion must not be exercised unreasonably. There may be many proper reasons for delaying the execution of the warrant, but a general policy which removed the discretion would be wrong.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81314

Amann v Switzerland: ECHR 16 Feb 2000

(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant national legislation of adequate protection against arbitrary interference.

Judges:

Mrs E Palm P

Citations:

(2000) 30 EHRR 843, [2000] ECHR 88, 27052/95

Links:

Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Conjoined Hearing – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Conjoined Hearing – Fitt v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
Conjoined Hearing – Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
See Also – Amann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to interception of telephone call; Violation of Art. 8 with regard to creation and storing of information card; Preliminary objection . .

Cited by:

Conjoined Hearing – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.471639

Leveratt v Independent Police Complaints Commission: CA 2010

The claimant had said that he wished to appeal against the decision made by the respondent on his complaint. The Commission replied that it was functus officio.
Held: Wall LJ said: ‘The IPCC took the view that it was in the lawyer’s phrase, functus officio, that is to say it had done what it had to do. It had heard the appeal, it had decided the appeal, reached a conclusion, that was it and it was not going to do anything else.’ and ‘In my judgment this is a very simple issue. The IPCC made it pretty clear in December 2007 that their decision was final. They made it very clear in the course of subsequent correspondence that they did not propose to take any further action.’ The complainant’s appeal failed.

Judges:

Wall Lj

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 243

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Coker, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission QBD 16-Nov-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondents on her complaint, which was that no misconduct proceedings had been brought. Her brother had been arrested and died in custody. The Commission had recommended such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.467181

Regina (Muldoon) v Independent Police Complaints Commission: Admn 2009

Parker J outlined the court’s powers as regards decisions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission: ‘The IPCC is an independent statutory appeal body to whom Parliament has entrusted the function of reviewing the findings of investigations into police complaints if that is what an appellant requests. The IPCC’s decisions are likely to involve matters of judgment. For these reasons this court will allow the IPCC a discretionary area of judgment and will not intervene unless satisfied that the IPCC has gone beyond that permissible area to reach a conclusion not fairly and reasonably open to it . . It has also been said that the court should not expect or look in the appeal decision for the sort of tightly argued judgment that might be expected of a Chancery judge. On the contrary, what is important and necessary is that the conclusion should be clear and the reasons for those conclusions can be readily understood by the complainant, the police officers concerned and the relevant police authority, who may need to review their procedures in the light of the decision.’

Judges:

Parker J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3633

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cubells, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission CA 15-Oct-2012
The claimant’s mother had died in hospital. The claimant said that she had died as a result of failures by doctors, and had asked the coroner and police to investigate his allegation that she had been deliberately harmed to cover up missed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.464902

Neilson v Laugharne: CA 1981

A claim was made against the Chief Constable of Lancashire for trespass, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest and assault. The Chief Constable’s response to the letter before action was to write to the plaintiff’s solicitors stating he had decided to call for an investigation under section 49 of the Police Act 1964, that the investigating officer would be contacting them and the plaintiff, and that the question of compensation would be considered at the conclusion of the investigation. The defendant claimed that, save for the plaintiff’s own statement, statements taken from the plaintiff and a number of other people were protected on public interest grounds and by litigation privilege. The affidavit in support of the public interest claim was by the deputy chief constable. That in support of the claim of litigation privilege was by a common law clerk who stated that the dominant purpose of the investigating officer’s inquiry was to obtain evidence for the defence to the action.
Held: The claim to public interest immunity succeeded but that to litigation privilege did not. The court preferred to rely on the Chief Constable’s initial letter rather than the clerk’s affidavit. A police investigation is not part of the administration of justice.
Oliver LJ stated that the Chief Constable’s letter to the plaintiff’s solicitors demonstrated that the dominant purpose of the investigation was the statutory purpose and that had its dominant purpose been to provide material for the threatened legal proceedings it was a very tricky letter indeed because it in effect invited the prospective plaintiff to make a statement to the representative of the prospective defendant under the guise of carrying out a statutory inquiry.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Oliver and O’Connor LJJ

Citations:

[1981] QB 736, [1981] 1 All ER 829, [1981] 2 WLR 537

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Peach v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1986
Statements made to the police about the death of Mr Blair Peach should be disclosed to his mother in her action against the police because, although they were made partly for the purpose of a complaint against the police and so would to that extent, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.451299

Chapman v Director of Public Prosecutions: CA 1989

The section required a constable to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence had been committed before he could arrest without warrant.
Held: Bingham LJ said: ‘It is not of course to be expected that a police constable in the heat of an emergency, or while in hot pursuit of a suspected criminal, should always have in mind specific statutory provisions, or that he should mentally identify specific offences with technicality or precision. He must, in my judgment, reasonably suspect the existence of facts amounting to an arrestable offence of a kind which he has in mind. Unless he can do that he cannot comply with section 28(3) of the Act by informing the suspect of grounds which justify the arrest.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1989] 89 Cr App R 190

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(6)

Cited by:

Cited – Shields v Merseyside Police CA 17-Nov-2010
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 – McCann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Aug-2015
Appeal by case stated against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appellant had been protesting. She, correctly, thought the land to be a rivate highway. The police officer had thought it a public hghway and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.426032

Beard v Wood: 1980

The court discussed the power of a constable to stop a driver.
Held: Provided the officer was acting in good faith the statutory powers given to him he need have no grounds for stopping a driver. Nothing in the section required the prosecutor to show that a constable in uniform acting in the execution of his duty under that section was acting under some common law power for he derived his duty and his powers from the terms of section 159 itself. Since the facts established that the defendant, when driving a vehicle on a road, was required to stop by a uniformed constable not acting capriciously, the defendant, seemingly, had no answer to the charge.

Citations:

[1980] RTR 454

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Steel v Goacher QBD 1985
Griffiths LJ discussed the lawfulness of a police officer’s stopping of a motorist, and said: ‘It should, however, be stated that the police officer was acting within the execution of his duty by virtue of his power at common law and not by virtue . .
Cited – Beckett, Regina (on The Application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court Admn 22-Jan-2004
The applicant had unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped randomly to check his documents and the road worthiness of the older car.
Held: The appeal failed. May LJ said: ‘Whether it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.425322

Baker v Oxford: 1980

The court considered the distinction between ‘belief’ and ‘suspicion’ when powers of arrest are exercised.

Citations:

[1980] RTR 315

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.412279

Regina v Austin and others: CACD 16 May 2008

The defendants sought leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to supply drugs. The prosecutor relied on surveillance evidence showing meetings and telephone calls between the defendants; evidence from recording devices in defendants’ cars; evidence of money transfers, and he placed reliance on telephone intercept material. This material was in the form of recordings of mobile phone conversations said to have been made by intelligence agencies in Colombia; and recordings on cassette of conversations between a defendant in England and a defendant on a Colombian landline, again said to have been made in Colombia. Disclosure of intercept evidence gathered outside the United Kingdom is not prohibited under section 17 RIPA. The defendants challenged the admissibility of the intercept evidence on the ground that there was no evidence that it had been obtained by Colombian rather than British authorities. They further argued that even if it was obtained by Colombian authorities, there was evidence that it had been altered and fabricated and so was unreliable and should not be admitted. The judge ruled that the intercepts were made in Colombia and that their reliability was a matter for the jury. He gave a later ruling that, in light of the strictures of section 17 RIPA, the defence at trial could only suggest the negative, i.e. that the recordings had not been made in Colombia, and not the positive, i.e. that the recordings had been made in the United Kingdom and therefore infringed RIPA. The defendants appealed, arguing that the interpretation of section 17 by the judge did not accord with the House of Lords judgment in Attorney General’s Reference No 5 of 2002.
Held: It was arguable that the judge’s approach was too restrictive in law and that some investigation of whether the intercepts were made in the UK may have been permissible.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 1183

Statutes:

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 17 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002) HL 14-Oct-2004
The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Knaggs v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Jan-2009
The claimants had been prosecuted following authorised intrusive surveillance. They challenged the laws which prevented them from asking questions about interception, and therefore from defending themselves. The defendants said that the police had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.372613

Brawls v Walkingshaw: HCJ 1994

The court interpreted what was meant by ‘detained’ within the section: ‘The essential element of detention, within the proper meaning of that word, is the intervention of some outside agency to ensure that the person remains where he has been put. To detain somebody is to keep him in confinement or under restraint.’

Judges:

Lord Justice-General Hope

Citations:

1994 SCCR 7

Statutes:

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 2

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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

Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.276518

Regina v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, Ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board: CA 1982

The CEGB wanted to undertake a survey using its statutory powers to check whether land might be suitable for a nuclear power station, and wanted the police to prevent demonstrators from preventing the survey. It now requested an order of mandamus to oblige the chief constable to provide the level of support requested.
Held: The appeal against refusal of mandamus was rejected. Such a police decision was not one to be interfered with by a court of law. The CEGB should first consider its own self-help remedies. It had the power to use the resaonable minimum of force, even though this might risk a breach of the peace.

Citations:

[1982] QB 458, [1981] 3 WLR 967, [1981] 3 All ER 826

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1957 35, Town and Country Planning Act 1971 281(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Raissi CA 12-Nov-2008
The Commissioner appealed against an award of damages for false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested shortly after a terrorist attack. The judge had held that they had no reasonable belief of his involvement. The Commissioner did not now . .
Cited – McConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 1990
The plaintiff sought damages from the police. She had gone into a store and refused to leave when so requested. The police officer escorted her from the premises. She tried to re-enter the premises, and the officer exercised his common law right to . .
Cited – Humberside Police v McQuade CA 12-Jul-2001
Defendant’s appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Police, Utilities

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.276255

Great Central Railway Co v Bates: CA 1921

A police officer has no right to enter land merely because most reasonable householders ‘would not as a rule object if the matter was done bona fide and no nuisance was caused’

Judges:

Atkin LJ

Citations:

[1921] 3 KB 578

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.276520

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 his duty. He was acquitted.
Held: The acquittal was upheld. The officer who was assaulted was acting as agent of a colleague and, unknown to the officer assaulted, that first officer was acting outside the scope of his duty.

Citations:

(1982) CLR 825, [1982] 75 Cr App R 217

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.272773

Smith v Chief Constable of Essex: CA 2008

The claimant sought damages from the police, saying that the way they had handled the witness protection programme had led to him suffering injury.
Held: The action which had been struck out by the court below should be restored, because even though ‘the story of the common law would not therefore appear to promise a favourable outcome to the present claim’ and ‘the claimant’s case in the present state of the law ( was) ‘fraught with difficulty’ the court did not regard it ‘as inevitably doomed to failure’.
Sedley LJ said: ‘no duty of care is owed by the police to the public at large so as to render them liable to an individual who suffers harm from their neglect’ but nonetheless ‘it has become clear . . that in some cases involving the police the very proximity of the parties can not only create a duty of care but can overcome the public policy considerations which would otherwise bar the claim.’

Judges:

Rimer LJ, Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – K v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another QBD 30-May-2008
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim in negligence. He had leaped from a window in a suicide attempt. The accommodation was provided by the defendant whilst caring for him under the 1983 Act.
Held: The case should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Litigation Practice, Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.270320

Welsh v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: 1993

On conviction for one offence, the plaintiff asked for two other offences to be taken into consideration. He was bailed pending sentence. He was then arrested for the other offences and wrongfully held in custody. The Crown Prosecution Service had negligently failed to notify the police of the events in court. W sought damages. The claim was struck out and on appeal, the CPS relied on section 2(5) of the 1947 Act.
Held: The immunity related only to the exercise of judicial functions. The process of notification of the request not a judicial act. Though the CPS had immunity when acting as advocate, this falure occurred in its general administrative duties. The claim was restored.

Judges:

Tudor Evans J

Citations:

[1993] 1 All ER 692

Statutes:

Crown Proceedings Act 1947

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (a Firm) HL 1978
Extent of Counsel’s Immunity in Negligence
The House considered the extent of a barrister’s immunity from action in negligence, and particularly whether it covered pre-trial acts or omissions in connection with civil proceedings.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit extended only to . .
Cited – Kirkham v Anderton, The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester police CA 20-Dec-1989
The claimant’s husband hanged himself in Risley Remand Centre after the police had failed to warn the prison authorities that he was (as the police knew) a suicide risk. He was suffering from clinical depression and had previously attempted suicide . .

Cited by:

Cited – Welton, Welton v North Cornwall District Council CA 17-Jul-1996
The defendant authority appealed a finding that it was liable in negligence from the conduct of one of its environmental health officers. The plaintiff had set out to refurbish and open a restaurant. He said the officer gave him a list of things he . .
Cited – Connolly-Martin v Davis CA 27-May-1999
A claim was brought by a party against counsel for his opponent who had gone beyond his authority in giving an undertaking for his client.
Held: The claim had no prospect of success, and had been struck out correctly. Counsel offering to the . .
Still good law – An Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.272857

Rex v Howarth: 1828

There is no need for a police officer to tell a man why he is being arrested when he must, in the circumstances of the arrest, know the reason already.

Citations:

[1828] 1 Moody 207

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Crime, Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.259576

King v Hodges: 1974

The court considered that a police officer’s powers were exercisable when he reasonably believed that a breach of the peace was about to take place.

Citations:

[1974] Crim LR 424

Cited by:

Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.247473

Regina v Longman: QBD 1988

Lord Lane CJ expressed reservations as to the construction of this provision: whether the consequence of a breach of section 15 or section 16 or both would render a search of premises under a warrant unlawful and he expressed the tentative view, based on the use of the singular ‘it’, that the unlawfulness referred to the warrant rather than the search, albeit that this would appear to defeat the intention of the framers of the Act.

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ, Boreham and Pill LJJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 619

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not Preferred – Regina v Chief Constable for Warwickshire and Others Ex Parte Fitzpatrick and Others QBD 1-Oct-1997
Judicial Review is not the appropriate way to challenge the excessive nature of a search warrant issues by magistrates. A private law remedy is better. Jowitt J said: ‘Judicial review is not a fact finding exercise and it is an extremely . .
Cited – Bhatti and Others v Croydon Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant challenged the valiity of search warrants used at his home. He said they were deficient in not including the information as required by the Act. The police said that they were in accordance with the Home Office guidance.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.235714

Regina v Walsh (Gerald Frederick): CACD 1990

W faced a charge of robbery. At the police station on arrest he was first refused access to a solicitor. The police conceded that the refusal was a breach of s58, and that the officer had failed to record the interview as required, and to give an opportunity to read and sign the interview record written up later. The judge had nevertheless admitted the evidence obtained.
Held: The failures were a ‘significant and substantial’ breach both of the section and of the Codes of Practice. Whilst the officer might have acted in good faith that did not constitute an excuse. The court’s conclusion that the failures would have made no difference was not supported. The availability of other evidence was not enough to support the conviction and it was quashed.

Citations:

[1990] 91 Cr App R 161

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 54 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Dianne Senior and Samantha Senior CA 4-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed convictions for being involved in the illegal importation of cocaine, saying that questioning at the airport before a caution was administered was unlawful. By the time they were asked about the cases, the customs officers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.194889

Dallison v Caffery: CACD 1965

It is for the detaining authority to justify all periods of detention.
The court described the common law duty on a prosecutor to disclose material. Lord Denning MR said: ‘The duty of a prosecuting counsel or solicitor, as I have always understood it, is this: if he knows of a credible witness who can speak to material facts which tend to show the prisoner to be innocent, he must either call that witness himself or make his statement available to the defence. It would be highly reprehensible to conceal from the court the evidence which such a witness can give. If the prosecuting counsel or solicitor knows, not of a credible witness, but a witness whom he does not accept as credible, he should tell the defence about him so that they can call him if they wish. Here the solicitor, immediately after the court proceedings [for committal before the magistrates], gave the solicitor for the defence the statement of Mr. and Mrs. Stamp; and thereby he did his duty.’
Diplock LJ said that it is for the trial judge objectively to determine whether the suspicion held by a police officer and used to justify an arrest was reasonable and that whether there are such grounds or not is a question of law: ‘The test whether there was reasonable and probable cause for the arrest or prosecution is an objective one, namely, whether a reasonable man, assumed to know the law and possessed of the information which in fact was possessed by the defendant, would believe that there was reasonable and probable cause.’
He described the continuing nature of an arrest: ‘The trespass by the arrestor continues so long as he retains custody of the arrested person, and he must justify the continuance of his custody by showing that it was reasonable. What is reasonable conduct on the part of a police officer in this respect may not be the same as what would be reasonable conduct on the part of a private arrestor.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Goddard LJ, Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1965] 1 QB 348, [1964] 2 All ER 610

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL 20-Feb-1997
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 – Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL 24-Jul-1997
The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Raissi CA 12-Nov-2008
The Commissioner appealed against an award of damages for false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested shortly after a terrorist attack. The judge had held that they had no reasonable belief of his involvement. The Commissioner did not now . .
Cited – Alford v Cambridgeshire Police CA 24-Feb-2009
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 – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
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 . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
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 . .
Cited – Hayes v Merseyside Police CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimant had been arrested after a complaint of harassment. The officer then contacted the complainant who then withdrew his complaint. The officer went to visit the complainant to discuss it further. On his return the claimant was released from . .
Cited – Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Sep-2014
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .
Cited – Humberside Police v McQuade CA 12-Jul-2001
Defendant’s appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.193795

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 any act sufficiently overt to amount to an attempt. Second, he may change his mind, but too late to deny that he had got so far as an attempt. Third, he may be prevented by some outside agency from doing some act necessary to complete commission of the crime-as when a police officer interrupts him while he is endeavouring to force the window open, but before he has broken into the premises. Fourth, he may suffer no such outside interference, but may fail to complete the commission of the crime through ineptitude, inefficiency or insufficient means. The jemmy which he has brought with him may not be strong enough to force the window open. Fifth, he may find that what he is proposing to do is after all impossible-not because of insufficiency of means, but because it is for some reason physically not possible, whatever means be adopted. He who walks into a room intending to steal, say, a specific diamond ring, and finds that the ring is no longer there, but has been removed by the owner to the bank, is thus prevented from committing the crime which he intended, and which, but for the supervening physical impossibility imposed by events he would have committed. Sixth, he may without interruption efficiently do every act which he set out to do, but may be saved from criminal liability by the fact that what he has done, contrary to his own belief at the time, does not after all amount in law to a crime.’

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[1970] CLY 2218, [1970] NZLR 980, [1970] 1 WLR 562

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Collins v Wilcock QBD 1984
The defendant appealed against her conviction for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. He had sought to caution her with regard to activity as a prostitute. The 1959 Act gave no power to detain, but he took hold of her. She . .
Preferred – Haughton v Smith, On Appeal From Regina v Smith (Roger) HL 21-Nov-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to handle stolen goods. They were to be delivered to him in a van, but the meat was intercepted and recovered by the police. The defendant argued that he should not be convicted of . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186338

Thomas v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 1982

The court deprecated the ‘spoils’ system which operated within the post office.
Lord Diplock set out the purposeof the constitutional commission: ‘The whole purpose of Chapter VIII of the Constitution which bears the rubric ‘The Public Service’ is to insulate members of the civil service, the teaching service and the police service in Trinidad and Tobago from political influence exercised directly upon them by the government of the day. The means adopted for doing this was to vest in autonomous commissions, to the exclusion of any other person or authority, power to make appointments to the relevant service, promotions and transfers within the service and power to remove and exercise disciplinary control over members of the service. These autonomous commissions, although public authorities, are excluded by section 105(4)(c) from forming part of the service of the Crown.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1982] AC 113, (1981) 32 WIR 375, [1981] 3 WLR 601

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Perch, Dennie and Commissiong v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 20-Feb-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The postal system had been transferred to a company. Employees complained that they had been public servants and had lost privileges associated with that employment, and provisions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Constitutional, Police

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186584

Dawkins v Lord Rokeby: HL 1875

The court unanimously confirmed the judgment of the lower court and expressly adopted the reasoning given. Witnesses before tribunals recognised by law should be able to ‘give their testimony free from any fear of being harassed by an action on an allegation, whether true or false, that they acted from malice.’

Citations:

(1875) LR 7 HL 744

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Dawkins v Lord Rokeby 1873
dawkins_rokeby1873
Police officers (among others) are immune from any action that may be brought against them on the ground that things said or done by them in the ordinary course of the proceedings were said or done falsely and maliciously and without reasonable and . .
At First Instance – Dawkins v Lord Rokeby 1866
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Trapp v Mackie HL 1979
Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185759

Hussein v Chang Fook Kam: PC 1970

In determining whether the information available to an officer is sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion and charge, the test to be applied by a police officer is ‘Suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjuncture or surmise where proof is lacking: ‘I suspect but I cannot prove’. Suspicion arises at or near the starting point of an investigation of which the obtaining of prima facie proof is at the end.’ A reasonable suspicion is ‘a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking’.

Judges:

Lord Devlin

Citations:

[1970] AC 942

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Dumbell v Roberts CA 1944
The court discussed the nature of reasonable grounds for suspicion for an arrest. The threshold for the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion is low, and the requirement is limited. Scott LJ said: ‘The protection of the public is safeguarded . .

Cited by:

Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183667

Re G; Re R Note (Wards) (Police Interviews): FD 19 Mar 1990

Sir Stephen Brown P gave judgment in a case in which the police sought permission, which was granted, to administer cautions to two wards of court.
Held: He said: ‘There is, therefore, no difficulty over the granting of leave in these two cases. However, the occasion has prompted the Commissioner to seek clarification of the appropriate procedure to be followed by the police generally in cases involving minors who are wards of court . . The problem which is perceived by the Commissioner relates to the duties of the police which arise when they arrest a minor who turns out to be a ward of court. The Registrar’s Direction of 18 July 1988 [1988] 2 FLR 260 endeavoured to give guidance and instructions in circumstances where it becomes necessary for the police to seek to interview a child who is a ward of court either as a potential witness or as a victim of a crime or more particularly as a suspect. The Direction sought to take into account the practical difficulties arising where as a matter of urgency it was necessary that the police should take immediate action . . However, I am told that the police are still in doubts as to what their duties are in relation to a minor who in fact is a ward whom they wish to investigate for alleged complicity in a crime, that is to say, to interview him as a suspect. It is strongly contended on behalf of the police that there ought not to be any special requirement laid upon them in those circumstances over and beyond the duties which are laid down as of general application to juveniles by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
I would seek at this stage, pending further consideration of the general position relating to the interviewing of wards, to assist by stating the position so far as the police are concerned when they wish to interview a suspect or a victim who is in fact a ward. In the majority of cases there will be no time, in any event, to seek the court’s leave before the interviewing of a minor in such circumstances. Provided that the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 with regard to juveniles are complied with, the duty upon the police is discharged. They have no extra duty to perform. There is, of course, a duty upon those having the care of the minor to inform the court at the earliest practical opportunity of what has taken, place, but there is no further duty upon the police themselves in those circumstances. At this stage I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to be thought to amend, as it were, the Practice Directions dealing with the interviewing of wards. It is my intention that the whole matter should be considered in the light of the representations and submissions which have been made to me today and I have indicated to counsel for the Official Solicitor and to counsel for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that it would be helpful if representations were to be made administratively to me identifying the particular difficulties which are perceived at present. It is clear that there are misunderstandings and I am assured that the police are anxious fully and properly to discharge their duties. They are anxious for assistance in order to make their position clear. Accordingly, I do not propose to give an instant ‘Practice Direction’ at this stage. I make it clear for their assistance that when they arrest a minor who in fact is a ward then they may properly proceed to interview him in accordance with their normal procedure provided of course that they comply with the provisions relating to all juveniles under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It will then be for the person having charge of the minor to notify the court of what is taking place or has taken place.
It must be remembered, however, that the status of wardship is important and because the court is involved its interest cannot be overlooked. The court must maintain its authority over the minor and over significant events which affect the minor. It is for that reason that I believe the matter should be further considered so that a satisfactory overall direction may be given. It is probably desirable for the sake of clarity that the position of a ward as a suspect or potential defendant should be dealt with separately from that of a ward whom it is desired to interview for other purposes, for example, as a witness. I will, therefore, take time for consultation and consideration. In due course, I hope that a further Practice Direction may be issued which will clarify the matters which are at present giving rise to concern. For the moment, however, I wish to make it clear that the court cannot relieve the police or any other person from the general duty of seeking the leave or consent of the court before taking steps which significantly affect the life of a ward of court.
That is the fundamental position, but where a suspect is arrested, then it seems appropriate that I should make it clear that the police should not be inhibited from following their normal procedures with regard to such a person. That is all that I propose to say at this stage while indicating that the matter will receive further consideration with a view to giving directions in an appropriate form in due course.’

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown P

Citations:

[1990] 2 FLR 347

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Children

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588223

Re B (A Minor): FD 15 Dec 1989

Ewbank J considered the case of a ward of court, aged 17.5 years who had been arrested by the police on suspicion of burglary and said: ‘After he was arrested he was interviewed by the police who did not know that he was a ward of court. They became aware that he was a ward of court at his trial, and the police accordingly brought the matter to the attention of the wardship court on the basis of the Practice Direction of 18 July 1988 . .
It is suggested that the wording of . . paragraph [(b)] implies that, if there is no urgency about the interviews, leave ought to be sought; and if prior leave has not been obtained, subsequent approval should be sought. I am told that these matters are going to be the subject of an application to the President in due course . .
The statutory provision in relation to interviews with children in police detention are contained in s 57 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This provides that where a child or young person is in police detention various steps must be taken. These provisions apply to children under 17 and do not apply to children over 17. The ward was 17.5, and accordingly under the statutory provision it was not necessary to inform anyone of the arrest or detention of the child.
In the circumstances, in a case of a child over 17 who is a ward of court, in my judgment, it is accordingly not necessary for prior leave to be sought or for subsequent approval to be sought of any steps taken by the police in respect of the arrest or detention of the child. I accordingly make no order on the application in this case.’

Judges:

Ewbank J

Citations:

[1990] FCR 469

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Police

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588220

Practice Direction (Ward: Witness at Trial) (No 2): FD 18 Jul 1988

‘The registrar’s direction of 11 November 1987, Practice Direction (Ward: Witness at Trial) [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1739, set out the procedure to be followed to obtain leave for the police to interview a child who is a ward of court. It provided that all applications for leave should be made to a judge on summons on notice to all parties.
That procedure is hereby modified to the extent that where a party may become the subject of a criminal investigation and it is considered necessary for the ward to be able to be interviewed without that party knowing that the police are making inquiries, the application for leave may be made ex parte to a judge without notice to that party. Notice should, however, where practicable be given to the guardian ad litem.
There will be other occasions where the police need to deal with complaints, or alleged offences, concerning wards where it is appropriate, if not essential, for action to be taken straight away without the prior leave of the wardship court. Typical examples may be: (a) serious offences against the ward such as rape, where the medical examination and the collection of forensic evidence ought to be carried out promptly, (b) where the ward is suspected by the police of having committed a criminal act and the police wish to interview him in respect of that matter, (c) where the police wish to interview the ward as a potential witness. This list is not exhaustive. There will inevitably be other instances where immediate action is appropriate.
The President and judges of the Family Division are of the opinion that, where any such instances are encountered, the police should notify the parent or foster parent with whom the ward is living or other ‘appropriate adult’ within the Home Office Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers, so that that adult has the opportunity of being present when the police interview the child. Additionally, if practicable the guardian ad litem (if one has been appointed) should be notified and invited to attend the police interview or to nominate a third party to attend on his behalf. A record of the interview or a copy of any statement made by the ward should be supplied to the guardian ad litem. Where the ward has been interviewed without the guardian’s knowledge he should be informed at the earliest opportunity and (if it be the case) that the police wish to conduct further interviews. The wardship court should be appraised of the situation at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter by the guardian ad litem, the parent, foster-parent (through the local authority) or other responsible adult.’

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown P

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Updated – Practice Direction (Ward: Witness at Trial) EW 11-Nov-1987
‘Where the police desire to interview a child who is already a ward of court application must be made for leave for the police to do so . . If it is desired to conduct any interview beyond what is permitted by the order further application should be . .

Cited by:

Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Police

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588739

In re A (A Minor) (Wardship: Police Caution): FD 28 Jun 1989

The Court considered the role of the wardship court where the police wished to caution a ward of court. The question fell into two parts. In relation to the first, Cazalet J said this: ‘The decision as to whether to caution in lieu of prosecuting is a matter which is wholly within the discretion of the appropriate prosecuting authority. The question has been raised as to whether, when the juvenile concerned is a ward of court, the court has any power to intervene or play some part in such decision-making process.’
Having referred to In re K (Minors) (Wardship: Criminal Proceedings) [1988] Fam 1, he continued: ‘In my view, similar considerations apply in the present circumstances, and it is for the prosecuting authority and that authority alone to decide whether to caution in lieu of prosecuting in a particular case. The court has no power to intervene in this decision-making process.’

Judges:

Cazalet J

Citations:

[1989] Fam 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Police

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588740

Regina v Chester Justices ex parte Kenneth Smith: QBD 1978

The wife of an offender applied for an order of mandamus requiring Magistrates to determine an application under s.1 of the 1897 Act for delivery to her of a car which the Crown Court had held was used in an offence and then had made an order under section 43 of the 1973 Act.
Held: The Magistrates had been wrong to conclude that the issue of ownership had been determined in the Crown Court; it granted an order of manadamus.

Citations:

(1978) 67 Cr App R 133

Statutes:

Police Act 1897 1, Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 43

Cited by:

Cited – O’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police Admn 31-May-2012
The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.464594

Regina v Troth: CACD 1979

The offender, a partner in a business, used a lorry which was partnership property to steal coal. The other partner was unaware of that use. An order had been made in the Crown Court to deprive the offender of his rights in the lorry.
Held: The order was quashed. After referring to the application made to the Magistrates under s.1 of the 1897 Act, where the Magistrates had declined jurisdiction, the court said: ‘We do not say it is impossible for the Court to make an Order in a case such as this nor do we say it is impossible for the police to take proper steps under [the 1897 Act]. But clearly in the case of a partnership, it leads to difficulties which may be so onerous as to make it not worth while making the order in the first instance.’ An increased financial penalty might have been taken instead of making the order.

Citations:

(1979) 1 Cr App R (S) 131

Statutes:

Police Property Act 1897

Cited by:

Cited – O’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police Admn 31-May-2012
The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for . .
Cited – Regina v Kearney CACD 11-Mar-2011
The defendant had been convicted of stealing petrol to use in his hire-purchase car. The court ordered cessation of his interest in the car as part of its sentence. He appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. After the order had been made, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Magistrates

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.464595

Regina v Guildhall Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Primlaks Holdings Co. (Panama) Inc: 1990

The exercise of a power of search is a draconian power.

Citations:

[1990] 1 QB 261

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Primlaks (UK) Ltd 1989
A prerequisite to making an administration order under section 8(1) is that the court considers making such an order ‘would be likely to achieve’ one of the statutory purposes.
Held: This required the court to be satisfied there is a ‘prospect . .

Cited by:

Cited – Faisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.278231

Turnbull v Scott: 1990

Police officers had gone to the appellant’s house to arrest him under section 2 of the 1980 Act. They obtained no response after knocking at the front door, although at one point the appellant appeared at an upper window. Finding the back door ajar, the officers entered the house through the open door ‘and, this is important, they did so because they were unsure whether the appellant was still in the house or had gone away’ (per Lord Cowie, delivering the opinion of the court).
Held: The officers were acting in the execution of their duty when they crossed the threshold. The question whether the police have acted unlawfully and gone beyond the execution of their duties in entering premises without a warrant must be dependent on the particular circumstances of each case.

Judges:

Lord Cowie

Citations:

1990 SCCR 614

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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

Police

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.276524

Bearmans Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver: CA 1961

Sellers LJ said: ‘The second plaintiffs had paid some andpound;5,000 for that theft; and for their respective losses these plaintiffs sought to recover damages under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886’
The court considered that a liberal approach was appropriate for the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings.

Judges:

Sellers LJ, Devlin LJ

Citations:

[1961] 1 WLR 634, [1961] 1 All ER 384

Statutes:

Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Police, Damages, Evidence

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.270269

Docker, Head, and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 17 Mar 1998

Immunity from suit for abuse of process attaching to judicial process was attached also to steps taken as part of the investigation of a crime with a view to a possible prosecution of the matter. Auld LJ said: ‘The whole point of the public policy reason for the immunity is to encourage honest and well-meaning persons to assist justice even if dishonest and malicious persons may on occasion benefit from the immunity.’

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Apr-1998, Gazette 29-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 522

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.144000

Spicer v Holt: HL 1977

Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘ ‘Arrest’ is an ordinary English word. Whether or not a person has been arrested depends not on the legality of the arrest but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases.’
Lord Edmund-Davies said that there is no separate tort of unlawful or wrongful arrest and that it is a species of false imprisonment because it has the effect of depriving a person of their liberty.

Judges:

Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Edmund-Davies

Citations:

[1977] AC 987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Murray v Ministry of Defence HL 25-May-1988
The plaintiff complained that she had been wrongfully arrested by a soldier, since he had not given a proper reason for her detention.
Held: The House accepted the existence of an implied power in a statute which would be necessary to ensure . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.259574

Regina v Smith: 1959

The court considered a situation where one admission was made at 10.00 pm one night under a threat or inducement, and a second statement was made the next morning before a different investigator and after the usual caution was given. The issue was whether the second statement was still under the influence of the threat or inducement of the first.
Held: Even the most gentle threats or slight inducements will taint a confession, thoughh ‘The court thinks that the principle to be deduced from the cases is really this: that if the threat or promise under which the first statement was made still persists when the second statement is made, then it is inadmissible. Only if the time-limit between the two statements, the circumstances existing at the time and the caution are such that it can be said that the original threat or inducement has been dissipated can the second statement be admitted as a voluntary statement.
This court, however, is of the clear opinion that the second statement was admissible. No doubt, the opening reference to what it was said he had said to the regimental sergeant-major put the appellant in a difficulty. No doubt it was introduced by Sergeant Ellis in the hope that thereby he might get a continued confession; but it is quite clear that the effect of any original inducement or threat under which the first statement was made had been dissipated. Quite apart from the fact that the caution was given and given twice, some nine hours had elapsed and the whole circumstances had changed. The parade had ended. The rest of the company had gone to bed. The effect of the threat or the inducement was spent. On those grounds this court has come to the conclusion that the oral and written statements made to Sergeant Ellis were clearly admissible.’
The test for causation of a death at common law is that it is a ‘substantial or significant cause’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

(1959) 43 Cr App R 121, [1959] 2 WLR 623, [1959] 2 QB 35, [1959] 2 All ER 193

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Police, Crime

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.553626

Wheatley v Lodge: 1971

An arrest was found to have been lawful because the officer’s explanation was sufficient even though it could not have been understood by the suspect who was deaf. A police officer was required to take reasonable steps to communicate the fact of an arrest to the defendant. An arrest would be lawful if this requirement was satisfied, even if a defendant was not aware he or she was being arrested because of deafness or an inability to understand English.

Judges:

Browne J, Lord Parker CJ and Ashworth J

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 29, [1971] 1 All ER 173

Cited by:

Cited – Abbassy v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 28-Jul-1989
The court considered what information had to be given to a suspect on his arrest.
Held: The question whether or not the information given is adequate has to be assessed objectively having regard to the information which is reasonably available . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.538888

Paskal v Ukraine: ECHR 15 Sep 2011

The applicant, a serving policeman with a university degree in law was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He signed a procedural rights notification form and noted that he wished to appoint a lawyer whom he named as his advocate. He was then questioned, without a lawyer being present, about the robbery just after he had explicitly expressed that wish. It was argued that this was a case of an implied waiver.
Held: The Court was mindful in a number of its judgments of the vulnerable position of a suspect vis-a-vis the investigative authorities and had emphasised the paramount importance of access to a lawyer before the first questioning as a means to counter the imbalance between the parties. Recalling the Grand Chamber’s observations in Salduz, that neither the letter nor the spirit of article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial, as long as a waiver of the right is given in an unequivocal manner and was attended by safeguards commensurate to its importance, it addressed the question whether the waiver constituted ‘an act of the applicant’s free will and informed procedural choice’. The fact that the applicant was a policeman and a lawyer himself might not mean that he was not vulnerable and in need of an advocate’s support. But the level of his expertise could not be discounted in assessing whether his consent to participate in the particular questioning was well-informed. The court concluded that the waiver was effective as he was not coerced to give any statement in defiance of his will.

Judges:

Dean Spielmann, P

Citations:

Unreported, 15/09/2011, 24652/04

Links:

HUDOC

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Cited by:

Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.449899

Peach v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 1986

Statements made to the police about the death of Mr Blair Peach should be disclosed to his mother in her action against the police because, although they were made partly for the purpose of a complaint against the police and so would to that extent, in principle, attract public interest immunity from disclosure, they were made predominantly for the purpose of the investigation by the police of a violent death, to which no such immunity attached.
Fox LJ said: ‘As I understand the position it is the duty of the chief officer of police to convey to the coroner, for the purposes of a public inquest, all material in its possession touching the cause and circumstances of the death . . As a matter of sensible public administration it seems essential that the Coroner should have the material obtained by the police so that he, the Coroner, can decide what witnesses to call and to investigate the matter generally.’
Purchas LJ said: ‘In my judgment, in the class of documents with which we are now faced there is an overwhelming bias in favour of the public interest being served by the disclosure of those documents and that, therefore, there is no justification for creating a new class of privileged documents which would be the effect of extending the class in respect of which Neilson v. Laugharne [1981] Q.B. 736 remains an authority to the class of documents with which the court is concerned in this appeal.’

Judges:

Fox LJ

Citations:

[1986] QB 1064, [1986] 2 WLR 1080, [1986] 2 All ER 129

Citing:

Cited – Neilson v Laugharne CA 1981
A claim was made against the Chief Constable of Lancashire for trespass, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest and assault. The Chief Constable’s response to the letter before action was to write to the plaintiff’s solicitors stating he had decided to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Coroners

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.451298

Arias and Others v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police and Another: CA 1 Aug 1984

A police officer searched premises under a warrant seizing documents of a trust corporation managed by the occupier. The trustees sought return of the documents or, alternatively, copies of them. The police believed that the documents were evidence of a widespread fraud and that the documents were crucial to their investigations and that the investigation might be ‘hampered’ and disclosure might provide ‘an opportunity to fabricate evidence’. The police claim succeeded. The trustees appealed
Held: The appeal succeeded. May LJ giving the leading judgment said: ‘For my part I respectfully do not think that in that passage from his speech in IRC v. Rossminster . . which I have just read, Lord Diplock was intending to go as far as that. It seems to me quite apparent from his reference to ‘other evidence’ on the relevant application being ‘strong enough to justify the inference that no reasonable person could have thought so’ necessarily contemplates that to which Lord Morris referred in his speech in Conway v. Rimmer . . namely that in all these cases where there are conflicting public interests the ultimate decision as to which is to prevail must depend upon the exercise of discretion by the judge before whom the relevant application is made, that is to say by him conducting an appropriate balancing exercise of the one public interest against the other, and of the harm which would result from denying one public interest against the harm which would result from denying the other. That that is the duty of the court in these circumstances is, I think, quite apparent also from such cases as D v. NSPCC. . . In that context I quote paragraphs 19 and 21 of the learned judge’s judgment: ‘The second defendant –that is, the detective constable — has sworn that all the documents are crucial to his investigation and the reason why copies should not be provided he goes on to say, is because if they are disclosed at this stage there is a future real danger that his investigations may be hampered and an opportunity provided to fabricate evidence.
I am not satisfied that the evidence I have considered is strong enough to justify the inference that the Second Defendant has no reasonable grounds for his belief and accordingly this application for a mandatory injunction is refused.’
It will be immediately apparent that the learned judge’s reference to ‘evidence’ and ‘inference’ in paragraph 21 stems from the dictum of Lord Diplock in the Rossminster case which I have quoted . . ‘For my part I accept that in the factual context of the present case a claim to a public interest to retain documents so that criminal investigations may be properly prosecuted is at least arguable. I also accept, however, Mr. Purnell’s submission that in this particular case the claim to that public interest immunity goes very much further than it has in any other case. He submits, for instance, that it would not be difficult in almost any case –particularly any case involving documentary material –for the prosecuting authority to come along and depose genuinely on affidavit to their fear that if the documents were disclosed the alleged offenders might seek to fabricate defences. This shows, he submits, how wide is the claim for immunity in this appeal.
For the reasons which I have tried to give, I think at the end of the day, in these cases where there are two conflicting public interests involved and one cannot at once say that in the particular circumstances one or the other must clearly prevail, it is a question for the court to perform the sort of balancing exercise to which I have referred, setting the one public interest against the other, the benefit of which will accrue from the maintenance of the one against the benefit which will accrue from the maintenance of the other, and also the harm which will accrue from not allowing one or the other to succeed . . Whilst I bear in mind what Lord Morris said in his speech in Conway v. Rimmer . . that one must remember that it may sometimes be difficult for a person claiming this particular public interest privilege to condescend to substantial particulars for the very reason that, if he does, he may give the whole game away at that stage, I am satisfied that the evidence in the two affidavits to which I have referred, when properly and realistically analysed, is really only speculation. What the officer says, for instance, in the most recent affidavit is that, if the information were to be made available, ‘it would enable them, if so minded, to attempt to cover their tracks by the production of other documents based on the information contained in the documents which I hold.
As I have said, I take the view that in all these cases what the court has to do is to conduct the appropriate balancing exercise. I would not wish it to be thought that in every case something more than the mere statement of belief on reasonable grounds on the part of the relevant police officer or revenue officer is required. Each of these cases, in which this conflict of public interest arises has to be decided on its own facts having regard to all the circumstances of the case as they then appear to the court. Doing the balancing exercise in the present case, however, bearing in mind the view that I take of the speculative character of the evidence proffered on behalf of the respondents, I am driven to the conclusion that the fact that these documents are the appellants’ own documents, and that they are only asking for copies of them to enable the trust business to be carried on, even if they may wish to prepare their defence to any criminal prosecution which may hereafter be instituted, leads to the balance coming down clearly in favour of the appellants . . In my judgment, to make good that claim would require substantially more cogent evidence than is available in the affidavits sworn by the detective constable in the instant case.’

Judges:

Kerr, May LJJ

Citations:

(1984) SJ (128) 784

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Conway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Police

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.443852

Chief Constable of Gwent v Dash: 1986

In the absence of malpractice, oppression, caprice or opprobrious behaviour, there is no restriction on the stopping of motorists by a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequent requirement of a breath test if the officer then and there genuinely suspects the ingestion of alcohol.
Lloyd LJ said: ‘The word ‘malpractice’, as it has come to be used in this field, seems to me to cover cases where the police have acted from some indirect or improper motive or where the conduct on the part of the police could be described as capricious. The random stopping of cars under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 for the purpose of detecting crime, or for inquiring whether the driver has had too much to drink, cannot be so described. Nor can it be said that the police were acting from some indirect or improper motive. However much the public may dislike the random stopping of cars, I cannot agree that random stopping by itself involves malpractice, and if Donaldson LJ said otherwise in Such v Ball to which Macpherson J has referred, then, I would very respectfully disagree.’
Macpherson J said: ‘in summary, therefore, the police are, in my judgment, not prohibited from the random stopping of cars within the limits already referred to; but are, of course, prohibited from requiring breath tests at random, which is a very different thing. That distinction must always be borne in mind.’

Judges:

Lloyd LJ, Macpherson J

Citations:

[1986] RTR 41

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972 159

Cited by:

Cited – Beckett, Regina (on The Application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court Admn 22-Jan-2004
The applicant had unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped randomly to check his documents and the road worthiness of the older car.
Held: The appeal failed. May LJ said: ‘Whether it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.425323

Power-Hynes and Another v Norwich Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 26 Jun 2009

The claimant accountant sought the quashing of a search warrant granted by the respondent to the police.
Held: The warrant failed to comply with s. 15(6)(b) of PACE and was invalid.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1512 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Global Cash and Carry Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 19-Feb-2013
The claimant sought an order quashing a search warrant, and for damages. The officer had said that he had evidence that the claimants were storing an distributing from the premises large quantities of counterfeit goods and drugs.
Held: The . .
Cited – AB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Police

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.347257

Gavin v London (City) Police Authority: 1944

The words ‘in the execution of duty’ are to be given a ‘benevolent’ interpretation.

Citations:

[1944] KB 358

Cited by:

Cited – Merseyside Police Authority v Police Medical Appeal Board and others Admn 23-Jan-2009
Two police officers had been granted additional retirement annuities on the basis that they had been injured in the execution of their duty. The chief constable denied this. A police officer who was on annual leave was injured whilst exercising the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.280144

Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: CA 31 Jul 2001

The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in the fall. The doctrine of ex turpi no oritur actio applied. In order to establish a claim he would have to rely upon the illegality of his own act. No duty would arise before his arrest, and the arrest acted to increase his duty not to seek to escape. Some duties would arise to an arrested person, but not this.
Sir Murray Stuart-Smith Set out the following principles: ‘1. The operation of the principle arises where the claimant’s claim is founded upon his own criminal or immoral act. The facts which give rise to the claim must be inextricably linked with the criminal activity. It is not sufficient if the criminal activity merely gives occasion for tortious conduct of the Defendant.
2. The principle is one of public policy; it is not for the benefit of the Defendant. Since if the principle applies, the cause of action does not arise, the Defendant’s conduct is irrelevant. There is no question of proportionality between the conduct of the Claimant and Defendant.
3. In the case of criminal conduct this has to be sufficiently serious to merit the application of the principle. Generally speaking a crime punishable with imprisonment could be expected to qualify. If the offence is criminal, but relatively trivial, it is in any event difficult to see how it could be integral to the claim.
4. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 is not applicable where the Claimant’s action amounts to a common law crime which does not give rise to liability in tort.’

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, Sedley LJ, Stewart-Smith Sir

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1249, [2002] 1 WLR 218, [2002] PIQR P10, [2002] 3 All ER 78

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
Cited – Kirkham v Anderton, The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester police CA 20-Dec-1989
The claimant’s husband hanged himself in Risley Remand Centre after the police had failed to warn the prison authorities that he was (as the police knew) a suicide risk. He was suffering from clinical depression and had previously attempted suicide . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
Cited – Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary and others CA 15-May-1998
The claimant a seventeen-year-old youth who had been arrested during a drunken brawl, kicked his way out through the door of the police van in which he was being transported and jumped out while it was moving at about twenty-five mph striking his . .
Cited – Clunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 5-Dec-1997
The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis . .
Cited – Holman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality.
Held: The defence . .
Cited – Revill v Newbery CA 2-Nov-1995
The defendant owned a shed on an allotment and slept there at night in order to protect his property from the attentions of vandals and thieves. Among other items in the shed the defendant, aged 76 at the time, kept a 12-bore shotgun and cartridges. . .
Cited – Pitts v The Personal Representatives of Mark James Hunt (Deceased) and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff and a friend had spent the evening drinking at a disco before setting off on the friend’s motorcycle. The plaintiff was aware that the motorcyclist was neither licensed to ride a motorcycle nor insured. During the journey, the . .
Cited – Colburn v Patmore 1834
A person who is declared by law to be guilty of a crime cannot be allowed to recover damages against another person who has participated in its commission.
Lord Lyndhurst said: ‘I can see no reason, for my part, why a defendant, who is not . .
Cited – Cakebread v Hopping Bros Ltd CA 1947
Cohen LJ discussed the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, saying: ‘The maxim ex turpi causa is based on public policy, and it seems to me plain on the facts of this case that public policy, far from requiring that this action shall be . .
Cited – National Coal Board v England HL 1954
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found . .
Cited – Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .
Cited – Saunders v Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
The parties had agreed for the sale and purchase of land and chattels, but had deliberately misdescribed the apportionment so as to reduce tax liability. The purchasers then brought an action for misrepresentation. The vendor replied that the action . .
Cited – Hall v Hebert 29-Apr-1993
(Canadian Supreme Court) After they had been drinking heavily together, Mr Hebert, who owned a muscle car, allowed Mr Hall to drive it, including initially to give it a rolling start down a road on one side of which there was a steep slope. The car . .
Cited – Thackwell v Barclays Bank plc 1986
The plaintiff was party to a fraudulent scheme under which a cheque had been made payable to him. The plaintiff’s signature endorsing the cheque to a third party was forged and in reliance on the forgery the bank credited the third party. The . .
Cited – Cross v Kirkby CA 18-Feb-2000
The claimant was a hunt saboteur and the defendant a local farmer. The claimant shouted to the defendant ‘You’re fucking dead’ and jabbed him in the chest and throat with a broken baseball bat. In order to ward off further blows, the defendant . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Riches v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Feb-1985
The defendant published serious defamatory allegations against several plaintiff police officers. The defendant newspaper appealed against an award of andpound;250,000 exemplary damages for their defamation of the respondent police officers.

Cited by:

Cited – Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another CA 25-Jun-2008
The claimant was a victim of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. He later committed and was convicted of a manslaughter and detained under the 1983 Act. He said that the accident had caused a major personality change. The defendant relied on the defence . .
Cited – Gray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.136175

Campbell v Vannet: 1997

Police officers who had just seen a serious crime (of supplying or offering to supply heroin) being committed from within premises were held to be entitled to force entry to the premises with a view to apprehending the person who was suspected of having committed the crime.

Citations:

1997 SCCR 787

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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

Police

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.276523

Eccles v Bourque: 11 Oct 1974

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) An action was brought by the appellant against the respondents, three constables on the Vancouver Police Force, for damages for trespass alleged to have been committed when the police officers entered the appellant’s apartment to apprehend one C, for whom there were three outstanding warrants. The officers were in plain clothes but were armed. They gave notice of presence by knocking on the door of the apartment and after it was opened notice of identity was given. An officer then told the appellant the reason for the entry. C was not found in the apartment. The appellant was successful at trial, but, on appeal, the Court of Appeal by a majority reversed. Leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Canlii Per Laskin C.J. and Judson, Spence and Dickson JJ.: The submission that a person who is by s. 450 of the Criminal Code authorized to make an arrest is, by s. 25, authorized by law to commit a trespass with or without force in the accomplishment of that arrest, provided he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, was not accepted. Section 25 merely affords justification to a person for doing what he is required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, if he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, and for using necessary force for that purpose. The question was whether the respondents were required or authorized by law to commit a trespass, not whether they were required or authorized to make an arrest. If they were authorized by law to commit a trespass, the authority for it must be found in the common law for there is nothing in the Criminal Code.
Unlike civil process, in the execution of criminal process the test is whether there are reasonable and probable grounds for acting. If the police officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe that the person named in the warrant for arrest is in the home of a stranger he has the right, after proper demand, to enter the home forcibly, to search and to arrest. In the present case the police officers had reasonable and probable grounds for believing that C was in the appellant’s apartment.
Except in exigent circumstances, the police officers must make an announcement prior to entry. In the ordinary case, before forcing entry, they should give (i) notice of presence by knocking or ringing the doorbell, (ii) notice of authority, by identifying themselves as law enforcement officers and (iii) notice of purpose, by stating a lawful reason for entry. On the facts of this case, proper notice was given.

Judges:

Laskin CJ and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpre JJ

Citations:

(1974) 50 DLR (3d) 753

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

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

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.276521

Humphries v Connor: 1864

The plaintiff walked the streets of Swanlinbar, Co Cavan, wearing an orange lily, an action which was ‘calculated and tended to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects’, according to the defendant’s pleadings. Several followed the plaintiff ‘and in consequence thereof caused very great noise and disturbance . . and threatened the plaintiff with personal violence for wearing said emblem.’ The defendant, a sub-inspector of Constabulary, requested the plaintiff to remove the emblem. When she refused he ‘gently and quietly, and necessarily and unavoidably’ removed the emblem. The plaintiff sued him for trespass. The plaintiff demurred.
Held: The court considered the duty of a police officer when faced with what he thought was an imminent breach of the peace: ‘With respect to a constable, I agree that his primary duty is to preserve the peace; and he may for that purpose interfere, and, in the case of an affray, arrest the wrongdoer; or, if a breach of the peace is imminent, may, if necessary, arrest those who are about to commit it, if it cannot otherwise be prevented.’
Hayes J: ‘It would seem absurd to hold that a constable may arrest a person whom he finds committing a breach of the peace, but that he must not interfere with the individual who has wantonly provoked him to do so.’

Judges:

Fitzgerald J, O’Brien and Hayes JJ

Citations:

(1864) 17 ICLR 1

Cited by:

Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.247472