The plaintiffs Brighton jewellers sought compensation from the police authority for a raid on their premises by three or four men. Kenneth Jones J at first instance held that the incident did not involve a tumultuous assembly and accordingly the claim against the defendant police authority failed. On appeal it was conceded on behalf of the plaintiffs that the 1886 Act imposed an additional requirement that the assembly be tumultuous. It was submitted however that it would suffice if the assembly in question caused bystanders to behave tumultuously in the sense of making a lot of noise, and that Lyell J had been wrong in Dwyer when stating that ‘tumultuous’ connoted an assembly of some considerable size.
Held: Kerr LJ rejected the first contention, regarding it as self-evident that whatever conduct or effect is involved in the adverb ‘tumultuously’ must relate to the persons who are assembled together, both ‘riotously’ and ‘tumultuously’. On the second point, Kerr LJ said that as a matter of first impression the connotation of ‘multitude’ or ‘crowd’ or ‘mob’, or of a large number of people, had been introduced into the meaning of ‘tumultuous’ and ‘tumult’. He continued: ‘Moreover, these aspects were considered with great care, and after a full citation of all the authorities, by Mr Justice Lyell in the most recent of the cases to which we were referred, JW Dwyer Limited -v- Metropolitan Police District Receiver [1967] 2 QB 970, [1967] 3 WLR 731. Mr Justice Kenneth Jones followed that case and I would do exactly the same, because it is an admirable judgment on this very section’ and
‘I would accept the analysis of the phrase ‘riotously and tumultuously’ assembled together’ of Mr Justice Lyell in Dwyer’s case. Looked at in that way, there is no error in concluding that ‘tumultuously adds something more than mere noise to the minimum assembly of three people required to constitute a riot.
The other point which Mr Poulton took was that Mr Justice Lyell’s suggestion that what matters is whether or not the police should have been alerted was satisfied in the present case, since there was a great deal of noise. He said that this should have attracted the attention of the police. I do not accept that. It is certainly not the kind of picture which Mr Justice Lyell had in mind when he gave his impression of a ‘riotous and tumultuous assembly’. After all, this was not a case of a crowd which had assembled and which should have attracted the attention of the police by its very presence. On the contrary. These robbers drew up in a van quietly and then stormed out, no doubt making a good deal of noise, but in the minimum time possible. And they then vanished as quickly as they could. The whole nature of the raid was one of furtiveness at the beginning, and then surprise and speed of departure thereafter. In my view that is far from a ‘riotous and tumultuous assembly’.
Balcombe J added: ‘I would also like to express my complete agreement with the judgment of Mr Justice Lyell in Dwyer’s case.’
Judges:
Kerr, Balcombe LJJ, Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce
Citations:
Times 15-Jul-1988
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – J W Dwyer Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver 1967
The owner of a jewellery shop claimed to recover compensation from the police for damage to his shop in a smash and grab raid. Since there were more than 3 robbers, the police accepted that there had been a riot but defended the claim on the basis . .
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 . .
Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable CA 12-Feb-2009
The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory . .
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: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.270265
