Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Police - From: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Makanjuola v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1992] 3 All ER 617; (1990) 2 Admin LR 214
1990

Henry J
Vicarious Liability, Employment, Police
A plain clothed off duty police officer gained entry to premises by production of his warrant card. He enquired as to the immigration status of the two residents. He told them they were in breach of the immigration regulations, and demanded sexual favours, which the female resident acceded to, in return for his refraining from reporting the irregularities. Held: The Commissioner was not liable for the actions of the officer under Section 48(1) of the 1964 Act. The phrase "police functions" referred to" the ordinary police functions of investigating, preventing, discovering and reporting crime, including the power of arrest". The first defendant contended that the same approach should be applied in this case. "Purported", here meant "in the professed performance of his functions" or "pretending to be acting in the course of his employment". Obtaining entry to the premises by identifying himself as a police officer and going on to make enquires was in purported performance of his police functions, and a statement by the officer that he intended to arrest, report, warn or take no further action would also be in purported performance of his police functions. However, the claim was not concerned with something which a police officer might in certain circumstances be entitled to do, but something which the resident could never have believed was or could have been done in the performance of his duty, it being clear to her as it would have been to anyone else, that the demand for sexual favours was one which no one could make as a police officer.
Police Act 1964 48(1)
1 Citers



 
 McConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police; CA 1990 - [1990] 1 WLR 364
 
Regina v Absolam (1988) 89 Cr App R 332; [1990] CLY 789
1990
CACD
Bingham LJ
Criminal Evidence, Police
A was arrested. He was already on bail for possession of cannabis, and in the hope finding further evidence he was asked to empty his pockets, 'and put the drugs on the table' he did so and admitted selling drugs. Held: The procedure should only have followed the giving of a caution. This was precisely the situation sought to be avoided by the Code of Practice, and the breach was not remedied by the subsequent caution. The passage should have been excluded. If the judge had thought there were significant and substantial breaches all the answers might have been excluded.
Bingham LJ said: "The learned judge further held that the series of questions and answers . . were not an interview. It is of course plain that this was not in any formal sense a conventional interview, but equally in our judgment it is plain that it was an interview within the purview of the Code, in that it was a series of questions directed by the police to a suspect with a view to obtaining admissions on which proceedings could be founded."
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78(1)
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, Ex parte Cotton; CA 1990 - [1990] IRLR 344
 
Marcel v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1991] 1 All ER 845; [1991] 2 WLR 1118; (1990) 20 IPR 532
1990

Browne-Wilkinson V-C J
Police, Intellectual Property
Documents had been taken by the defendant's officers in the course of an investigation into an alleged fraud. The plaintiff now sought their release for the use in civil proceedings so as to prevent his opponent misleading the court. Held: The claim failed. Since the police were authorised to seize, retain and use the documents only for public purposes related to the investigation and prosecution of crime and the return of stolen property to the true owner, they were not entitled to disclose documents seized under the 1984 Act to a third party for use in civil proceedings to protect his legal rights.
The public interest in ensuring that the documents were used solely for the public purposes for which the power of seizure was conferred was inviolate and outweighed the public interest in ensuring that in the civil proceedings all relevant information should be available to the court.
Where the police or any other public authority used compulsory powers to obtain information and documents from a citizen, that information and those documents were received solely for those purposes and equity would impose on the public authority a duty not to disclose them to third parties except by order of the court.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984


 
 Regina v Walsh (Gerald Frederick); CACD 1990 - [1990] 91 Cr App R 161
 
Middleweek v The Chief Constable of Merseyside (Note) [1990] 3 WLR 481
1990
CA
Ackner LJ
Torts - Other, Police
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."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Clough v Bussan [1990] 1 All ER 431
1990

Kennedy J
Negligence, Police
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.
1 Citers


 
Turnbull v Scott 1990 SCCR 614
1990

Lord Cowie
Police
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.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Guildhall Magistrates' Court, ex parte Primlaks Holdings Co. (Panama) Inc [1990] 1 QB 261
1990


Police
The exercise of a power of search is a draconian power.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Riley v Director of Public Prosecutions (1990) 91 Cr App R 14
1990
Admn
Watkins LJ
Crime, Police, Magistrates
A police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty by arresting or detaining someone unless that arrest or detention is lawful. Justices are not entitled to infer that a police officer was acting in the course of his duty in carrying out a search pursuant to section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act from his bare, albeit unchallenged assertion in evidence that he was carrying out such a search.
Watkins LJ, gave guidance as to the form in which a case should be stated saying: "The Justices must endeavour to ensure in stating a case that, (1) the whole of their findings of fact are contained in one and of course an early paragraph of the case . . "
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18
1 Citers


 
Alexandrou v Oxford (Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police) [1993] 4 All ER 328; [1990] EWCA Civ 19; (1991) 3 Admin LR 675
16 Feb 1990
CA
Glidewell LJ, Slade LJ
Police, Negligence
A shop was burgled. The shop-owner blamed the police for their negligent investigation. Held: The police were not liable in negligence.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Re G; Re R Note (Wards) (Police Interviews) [1990] 2 FLR 347
19 Mar 1990
FD
Sir Stephen Brown P
Police, Children
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."
1 Citers


 
Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 2 WLR 814; [1991] CLY 2671
31 Jul 1990
QBD
Mr Justice Hidden
Damages, Personal Injury, Negligence, Police
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant's employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for personal injuries by way of nervous shock, having seen the match on television, and knowing that their relatives were in the crowd. Held: It was reasonably foreseeable that close family members of the deceased who saw the events on television would suffer nervous shock, as also would those themselves involved as rescuers. Others who were not physically present, or who were not close family members should not recover.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ lip ]
 
Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police 74 OR (2d) 225; 72 DLR (4th) 580; 5 CCLT (2d) 77; [1990] OJ No 1584 (QL); 10 WCB (2d) 577; 1 CRR (2d) 211; 50 CPC (2d) 92; 40 OAC 161; 22 ACWS (3d) 869
30 Aug 1990

O'Leary, Saunders and Moldaver JJ
Police, Negligence
Ontario - High Court of Justice, Divisional Court - Negligence -- Duty of care -- Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult.
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Right to life, liberty and security -- Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult -- Charter rights violated -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Equality rights -- Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension more difficult -- Charter rights violated -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1).
On August 24, 1986, the plaintiff was raped by a serial rapist who subsequently pleaded guilty to a number of sexual assaults including the attack on the plaintiff. All of the attacks occurred within a one-year period in the same vicinity and involved single white women living in second or third floor apartments to which the rapist gained entry through a balcony door. In this action, the plaintiff sued the Chief of Police at the time of the assault, the investigating officers in charge of the case and the Board of Commissioners of Police for damages. The plaintiff alleged a cause of action in tort and a cause of action for violating her rights to security of the person and her right to equal protection under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defendants moved to have the action dismissed as not disclosing a cause of action. The motion was dismissed. Leave having been granted, the defendants appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed and the plaintiff's action allowed to proceed.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom 12244/86; 12245/86; (1990) 13 EHRR 157; [1990] ECHR 18; 12383/86
30 Aug 1990
ECHR

Human Rights, Police, Torts - Other
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: "The "reasonableness" of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention which is laid down in Article 5(1)(c). The court agrees with the Commission and the government that having a "reasonable suspicion" presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as "reasonable" will however depend upon all the circumstances."
As to the duty to inform a suspect about the reason and purpose of hs arrest: "Paragraph (2) of Article 5 contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. This protection is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph (2) any person arrested must be told in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph (4). Whilst this information must be conveyed 'promptly' (in French: 'dans le plus court délai'), it need not be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest. Whether the content and promptness of the information conveyed were sufficient is to be assessed in each case according to its special features."
ECHR Judgment (Merits) - Violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-2; Violation of Art. 5-5; Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4 and 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
European Convention on Human Rights 5(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Lewis and Evans v The Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary; CA 11-Oct-1990 - [1990] EWCA Civ 5; [1991] 1 All ER 206
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.