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 police station as appropriate adult for her son. Her mobile phine rang, and she was asked to turn it off, whch she did. However her scond phone then rang and the officers took hold or her to forcible remove her from the custody suite.
Held: The appeal failed. The evidence had been difficult and contradictoty, however: ‘there were substantial arguments advanced on behalf of the claimant, Ms Copeland. CCTV, which does not show any blows being struck to PC Bains, despite the fact that there were two blows to the same place, show PC Bains and others who were there immediately after the alleged blows were struck. No attempt was made by PC Bains or the others to arrest or restrain the complainant on the spot, even though she was alleged to have struck him immediately before. He was content for her to stand at the end of the room unrestrained, speaking to PC Townsend. The CCTV, which we have seen, shows PC Bains in that period standing in a relatively relaxed position with his hands on his hips.’
Maurice Kay VP, Moses, Patten LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1014
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCommonwealth Life Assurance Society Limited v Brain 1935
(High Court of Australia) Dixon J said: ‘that no responsibility was incurred by one who confines himself to bringing before some proper authority information which he does not believe, even although in the hope that a prosecution will be instituted, . .
CitedCastorina v Chief Constable of Surrey CA 10-Jun-1988
Whether an officer had reasonable cause to arrest somebody without a warrant depended upon an objective assessment of the information available to him, and not upon his subjective beliefs. The court had three questions to ask (per Woolf LJ): ‘(a) . .
CitedDavidson v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Another CA 31-May-1993
A store detective said the plaintiffs had stolen from the store. He was wrong. The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendant for false imprisonment.
Held: If the police use their own discretion to arrest a suspect, an informer is not liable . .
CitedMartin v Watson HL 13-Jul-1995
The plaintiff had been falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbour, for indecent exposure whilst standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been arrested and charged, but at a hearing before the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown . .
CitedAl-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
CitedHunt v AB CA 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages from a woman in malicious prosecution, saying that she had made a false allegation of rape against him. He had served two years in prison.
Held: The claim failed. A complainant is not a prosecutor, and is not liable . .
CitedThe Ministry of Justice (Sued As The Home Office) v Scott CA 20-Nov-2009
The claimant had been falsely accused of assault by five prison officers. The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim of of malicious prosecution.
Held: Proceedings for malicious prosecution cannot be regarded as being . .
CitedTTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
CitedMahon v Rahn and others (No 2) CA 8-Nov-1999
Brooke LJ attempted to draw a distinction between simple cases. . .
CitedGrobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 24-Oct-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the judgement in his favour for damages for defamation.
Held: The Court of Appeal was not able to quash a jury verdict as perverse, and the appeal succeeded. An appellate . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; Ref: scu.535152