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

Judges:

Woolf LJ, Sir Frederick Lawton

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190122

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

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

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ,, Winn LJ, Widgery J

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 510

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – 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 . .
Cited – Wood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-May-2008
The defendant challenged his conviction for obstructing a police officer and threatening behaviour. The officer had taken hold of him to restrain him, not intending to arrest him, but only to establish whether he was a person they were looking for. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186337

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

Judges:

Judge Hawkins

Citations:

[1878] 8 QBD 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Glinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
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, . .
Approved – Herniman v Smith HL 1938
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution.
Held: It is the duty of a prosecutor to find out not whether there is a possible defence, but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for prosecution. The House approved the . .
Cited – 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 – Matin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 20-Jun-2002
The claimant sought to have restored his claim for malicious prosecution.
Held: ‘The fact that there might be an arguable case that the prosecutor was activated by malice, that is to say, to prosecute for an improper motive, does not of itself . .
Cited – McHarg v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police ChD 9-Jan-2004
The claimant police officer sought damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish malice. The claim was struck out. . .
Cited – Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 20-Dec-2006
The claimant succeeded in her claims for general damages against the respondent for personal injury, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, but appealed refusal of the court to award aggravated damages against the chief constable.
Held: . .
Cited – Moulton v Chief Constable of The West Midlands CA 13-May-2010
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. He had been arrested and held on allegations of serious sexual assaults, but then released when the matter came to the Crown . .
Cited – BT v Crown Prosecution Service CA 16-Dec-1997
The plaintiff appealed against dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution brought against the Service.
Held: Actions for malicious prosecution, against the Crown Prosecution Service are to be examined closely to ensure that they are not . .
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 – Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service and Others QBD 15-Aug-2017
The claimant had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, from his innocent association with people later convicted of terrorism. The defendant discovered evidence which would undermine the case against him, but refuse to disclose it. Eventually, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183666

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

Judges:

Lord Denning, Lord Devlin, Viscount Simonds

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Palomares v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 11-Oct-1996
The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested, but later the charges were dismissed. The jury found on the trial for malicious prosecution that the officers had not believed the truth of the allegations . .
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 – 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 – 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 – McHarg v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police ChD 9-Jan-2004
The claimant police officer sought damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish malice. The claim was struck out. . .
Cited – Matin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 20-Jun-2002
The claimant sought to have restored his claim for malicious prosecution.
Held: ‘The fact that there might be an arguable case that the prosecutor was activated by malice, that is to say, to prosecute for an improper motive, does not of itself . .
Cited – Sinclair v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc CA 12-Dec-2000
The claimant had been prosecuted, but the charge was dismissed as an abuse of process. He now appealed a strike out of his civil claim for damages for malicious prosecution.
Held: The appeal failed. The decision to dismiss the criminal charge . .
Cited – Coudrat v Revenue and Customs CA 26-May-2005
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the Customs and Excise. He was arrested and held accused of VAT fraud. Proceedings were discontinued. He had signed an application for . .
Cited – Clifford v The Chief Constable of The Hertfordshire Constabulary QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office bought by the claimant who was charged with child pornography offences in July 2004. The prosecution had eventually offered no evidence. He said that it should have been . .
Cited – BT v Crown Prosecution Service CA 16-Dec-1997
The plaintiff appealed against dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution brought against the Service.
Held: Actions for malicious prosecution, against the Crown Prosecution Service are to be examined closely to ensure that they are not . .
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 – Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service and Others QBD 15-Aug-2017
The claimant had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, from his innocent association with people later convicted of terrorism. The defendant discovered evidence which would undermine the case against him, but refuse to disclose it. Eventually, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182185

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

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3421 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 41(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.271255

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

Judges:

Parker LCJ, Widgery, O’Connor JJ

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-1967

Cited by:

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

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.543044

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

Judges:

Ackner LJ

Citations:

[1990] 3 WLR 481

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.271097

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

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