

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. Â
		Police - From: 1999 To: 1999 This page lists 52 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018. Â Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1999] NI 237 1999 Carswell LCJ, Nicholson and Campbell LJJ Police, Torts - Other, Northern Ireland The claimant had been arrested and complained at his treatment. Held: The failure to give reasons as to why his access to a solicitor was a breach of statutory duty, but there was no private law claim for damages. 1 Citers Â Â Burke v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police; CA 12-Jan-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 548 Â Ali Reza v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis; Greenwich and Bexley Family Health Service [1999] EWCA Civ 646 25 Jan 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary Times, 27 January 1999; Gazette, 17 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 655; [1999] 1 WLR 662 26 Jan 1999 CA Clarke LJ Torts - Other, Police The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful imprisonment for the period of 2 hours and 20 minutes from 5.25am (when the first review should have taken place in accordance with sections 40(1)(b) and 40(3)(a)) until 7.45am. The plaintiff succeeded at trial,and was awarded £500 in damages. Held: The Chief Constable's appeal was dismissed. The duty to review a suspect's detention within six hours is absolute and a failure to review with a continued detention constitutes wrongful imprisonment until the defect is remedied. Damages may be limited where the suspect was asleep and would not in any event have been released. Clarke LJ said: "In these circumstances the judge held that the plaintiff was being unlawfully detained as from 5.25am. I agree. Section 34(1) of the Act is mandatory. As already stated, it provides that a person shall not be kept in police detention except in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. The plaintiff was detained at 11.25pm on 30 July, so that by section 40(3)(a) a review of his detention should have taken place before 5.25am on 31 July. No such review took place. It follows, as I see it, that from that time the plaintiff was not being detained in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. It further follows from section 34(1) that his detention was thereafter unlawful until some event occurred to make it lawful." Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 34 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased); HL 11-Feb-1999 - Times, 16 July 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [1999] 3 WLR 363; [1999] UKHL 35; [2000] 1 AC 360; [1999] 3 All ER 897 Â Â Preston Borough Council v McGrath; ChD 18-Feb-1999 - Times, 18 February 1999; Gazette, 24 February 1999 Â Regina v Merseyside Police Authority ex parte Yates CO/4181/97; [1999] EWHC Admin 157 19 Feb 1999 Admn Police 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Gibson v Orr, the Chief Constable, Strathlclyde Police; SCS 26-Feb-1999 - [1999] ScotCS 61; 1999 SCLR 661; 1999 SC 420 Â Samuels v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 883 3 Mar 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Porter v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1055 22 Mar 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Singh v Commissioner for Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1100 25 Mar 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Jones (Derek); Regina v Nelson (Gary); CACD 26-Mar-1999 - Times, 21 April 1999; Gazette, 06 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 867 Â Â Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 1999 (Lynn); CACD 26-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Crim 862 Â Brindle v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1118 29 Mar 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Crooks v Ebanks [1999] UKPC 17; Appeal No 32 of 1997 30 Mar 1999 PC Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Sir Andrew Leggatt Commonwealth, Personal Injury, Police PC (Jamaica) Whilst chasing an armed criminal, the police officer tripped, discharging his gun, which hit the claimant. She sought damages. The officer claimed immunity under the Act. Held: The dropping of the revolver and the discharging of the round were not for the purpose of vindicating and giving effect to the law, and the officer did not have immunity. In the historical context of the distinction between an action on the case and an action for trespass, a claim in respect of consequential injury arising from negligence would have been brought as an action on the case. Therefore it would have been unnecessary to provide in section 33 that: "Every action to be brought against any Constable for any act done by him in the execution of his office, shall be an action on the case as for a tort", if that section was to apply to a claim in negligence for consequential injury. Constabulary Force Act 1935 33 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] Â Â Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Duckenfield etc; Admn 31-Mar-1999 - Times, 21 April 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 286; [2000] 1 WLR 55 Â Marshall v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1175 15 Apr 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Clark v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police [1999] EWCA Civ 1357 7 May 1999 CA Damages, Police, Torts - Other It was appropriate for courts in all cases to give juries both general guidance on awarding damages and guidance as to the range of awards available in the circumstances. The court aslo set out the proper approach to the award of aggravated damages and exemplary damages against police. The figures the court set out were applicable to what it termed "a straightforward case", and they were not to be used in a "mechanistic manner". Where the defendant is the employer of the police officers involved, exemplary damages are unlikely to have a role, and aggravated damages should be awarded if the aggravating features would result in the claimant not receiving sufficient compensation for his injury. The bad character of the claimant was a factor which made for a "discount" on the damages. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Christopher Mark Coore v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [1999] EWCA Civ 1366 10 May 1999 CA Torts - Other, Police, Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Gibson v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police Times, 11 May 1999 11 May 1999 OHCS Police, Negligence The police once having taken control of a dangerous traffic situation retained responsibility for it. Having failed to erect warnings or traffic cones after an accident at a collapsed bridge, and leaving the site unattended, the police were responsible, Â Â Regina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co; Admn 12-May-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 424 Â Fanoiki v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1432 19 May 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Re N [1999] EWCA Civ 1452; [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med 257 20 May 1999 CA Criminal Practice, Police, Negligence The claimant was a victim of a rape. She alleged that the police had mishandled the prosecution, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the defendant, which in turn, she said exacerbated her own post traumatic stress disorder. Held: "In my judgment an attempt to formulate a duty of care in this way is wholly misconceived. If a duty of care exists at all it is a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Plaintiff from suffering injury, loss or damage of the type in question, in this case psychiatric injury. " Clarke LJ: It was at least arguable that where a forensic medical examiner carries out an examination and discovers that the person being examined has a serious condition which needs immediate treatment, a duty is owed to the examinee to disclose those facts. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Pearson [1999] EWHC Admin 469 20 May 1999 Admn Police Appeal by police officer against dismissal for misconduct. [ Bailii ] Â Swinney and another v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (No 2) Times, 25 May 1999 25 May 1999 QBD Police A police informant was owed a duty of confidentiality by the police. His information brought him into a special relationship with the police, and they could be liable in damages for failing to take reasonable steps to protect that confidence. 1 Cites Â Chartered Trust Plc v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis v Andrew and Sully [1999] EWCA Civ 1481 26 May 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and UKCC Times, 28 May 1999; Gazette, 09 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1497; [2000] 1 WLR 25; [1999] 3 All ER 604; [1999] Lloyds Rep Med 335; (2000) 2 LGLR 340; (1999) 50 BMLR 296 26 May 1999 CA Kennedy, Otton, Waller LjJ Intellectual Property, Police 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 offence. The regulatory body wished to consider disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff unsuccessfully sought an injunction to restrain the disclosure. Held: A countervailing public interest prevailed. The police investigating serious allegations were entitled to reveal the results to a professional regulatory body supervising the suspect. Such information is received by the police in confidence, and remains subject to the same limitations. However: "In order to safeguard the interests of the individual, it is . . desirable that, where the police are minded to disclose, they should, as in this case, inform the person affected of what they propose to do in such time as to enable that person, if so advised, to seek assistance from the court. In some cases, that may not be practicable or desirable, but in most cases that seems to . . be the course that should be followed." and "In my view, the guiding principles from the exercise of the power to disclose . . are those ennunciated in ex parte Thorpe. Each of the Respondent authorities had to consider the case on its own facts. A blanket approach was impermissible. Having regard to the sensitivity of the issues raised by the allegations of sexual impropriety made against LM, disclosure should only be made if there is a 'pressing need'. Disclosure should be the exception and not the rule. That is because the consequences of disclosure of such information for the subject of the allegations can be very damaging indeed. The facts of this case show that disclosure can lead to loss of employment and social ostracism, if not worse. Disclosure should, therefore, only be made if there is a pressing need for it." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police ex parte Lainton Times, 13 July 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 531 10 Jun 1999 Admn Police 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 exercised even after it had actually expired. Police Regulations 1995 (1995 No 215) 14(2) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Clarke v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police and Crewe Times, 14 June 1999; Gazette, 16 June 1999 14 Jun 1999 CA Police, Torts - Other 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. Â Regina v Metropolitan Police Force Disciplinary Tribunal ex parte Lawrence [1999] EWHC Admin 588 23 Jun 1999 Admn Police [ Bailii ] Â Thomas v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1673 24 Jun 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Graham Charles Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary [1999] EWCA Civ 1685 25 Jun 1999 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge Police, Torts - Other The claimant sought damages after his arrest by armed police. The defendant appealed a substantial award of damages. Held: The section required the officer to have reasonable grounds for suspecting the arrestees to be guilty of the offence. The constable must suspect both that an arrestable offence has been committed and that the citizen he is arresting is guilty, and in addition he is required to have reasonable grounds for these suspicions. Held: The state of mind of the officer at the time of the arrest reflected a degree of uncertainty, or to use Lord Devlin’s words, a state of “conjecture or surmise”. This state of mind, suspicious but uncertain, was based on reasonable grounds, and the arrest was lawful. Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(6) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Leatherdale v Surrey Police Headquarters [1999] EWHC Admin 631 2 Jul 1999 Admn Police, Licensing Firearms Act 1968 29(2) [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Kellam, Ex Parte South Wales Police Authority; QBD 2-Jul-1999 - Times, 24 August 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 627 Â In Re Lawrence Times, 13 July 1999 13 Jul 1999 QBD Police The right of a complainant in police disciplinary proceedings to have with them at any hearing a friend did not prevent a friend attending even though he was a solicitor engaged in a related case provided only that he could properly be described as a family friend within the regulation. Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (1985 No 518) 18.2 Â Â Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 23-Jul-1999 - Times, 28 July 1999; [2000] HRLR 249; [1999] EWHC Admin 733; [1999] Crim LR 998; (1999) 7 BHRC 375; (1999) 163 JP 789; CO/188/99 Â Pearl v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1947 23 Jul 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Selmouni v France (1999) 29 EHRR 403; 25803/94; [1999] ECHR 66; (2000) 7 BHRC 1 28 Jul 1999 ECHR L Wildhaber, P Human Rights, Police Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The claimant said that he had been severely beaten whilst detained in police custody for interview. Held: "Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . . Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15(2) even in the event of public emergency threatening the life of the nation . . In order to determine whether a particular form of ill-treatment should be qualified as torture, the court must have regard to the distinction, embodied in Article 3, between this notion and that of inhuman or degrading treatment. As the European Court has previously found, it appears that it was the intention that the Convention should, by means of this distinction, attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering . . The acts complained of [in Selmouni] were such as to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear, anguish, and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance. The court therefore finds elements which are sufficiently serious as to render such treatment inhuman and degrading . . In any event, the court reiterates that, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 . . The court has previously examined cases in which it concluded that there had been treatment which could only be described as torture . . However, having regard to the fact that the Convention is a ´living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions', the court considers that certain acts which were classified in the past as ´inhuman and degrading treatment' as opposed to ´torture' could be classified differently in future . . It takes the view that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies." European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions Kingston Upon Hull City Council ex parte East Riding of Yorkshire Council [1999] EWHC Admin 751 28 Jul 1999 Admn Police, Local Government [ Bailii ] Â Director of Public Prosecutions v Mark Swann [1999] EWHC Admin 768 30 Jul 1999 Admn Police, Crime Police Act 1996 89(2) [ Bailii ] Â Brian Anthony Jones v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police [1999] EWCA Civ 2037 30 Jul 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Brian Anthony Jones v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police [1999] EWCA Civ 2038 30 Jul 1999 CA Police [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Chief Constable of British Transport Police ex parte William Farmer [1999] EWCA Civ 2051 30 Jul 1999 CA Henry LJ, Potter LJ, Mummery LJ Police The probationer constable had assisted another probationer to cheat at his examinations. He appealed his dismissal. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kinsella v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Times, 24 August 1999 24 Aug 1999 QBD Police 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. Â SPV v AM and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 2111 27 Aug 1999 CA Lord Justice Schiemann Employment, Discrimination, Police The respondent sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that he was an appropriate respondent to the claimant's claim for sex discrimination. The claimant had been a police officer, and claimed she had been the subject of repeated and unwanted sexual advances from the respondent. He argued that only the Chief Constable was an appropriate defendant. Held: A police officer against whom an allegation of discrimination was made was a proper respondent in addition to the Chief Constable. The case of Fara was of no assistance to him. The legislation clearly allowed that he might have responsibility. Discrimination Act 1975 6(2)(b) 41(1) 42 17(1) 1 Cites Â William Cowan v Sir Paul Condon - Metropolitan Police Service Gazette, 02 September 1999; Times, 31 August 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 2031 31 Aug 1999 CA Police The fact that a vehicle could count as 'premises' for the purposes of the Act, did not mean that that could or should restrict the ability of the police to impound a motor vehicle. There was no power to seize premises, but that could not imply that a moveable object was not subject to seizure. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 [ Bailii ] Â Osman v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 28 September 1999 28 Sep 1999 QBD Police Where an officer sought to stop and search a member of the public, he had a clear duty under the Act to supply details of his name and station, even though his number was shown on his uniform. The duty under the Act was clear and easily complied with. An arrest which followed a failure to comply with this was an unlawful arrest. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 2(3)(a) Â Linehan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC 4005 (Admin) 8 Oct 1999 Admn Laws LJ, Potts J Crime, Police Appeal by way of Case Stated against a decision convicting the Applicant of two charges of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. He had refused entry to officers acting under a section 18 authority, the appellant's sone being in custody. Held: The facts recorded as having been found in the Case Stated do not include any proposition to the effect that the officers explained that they proposed to search the premises for the proceeds of a burglary for which the Applicant's son had been arrested. The appeal was allowed. Police Act 1996 89(1) - Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Lamothe and Others v Commissioner of Police Of the Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 3034 25 Oct 1999 CA Lord Bingham CJ, May LJ Police, Litigation Practice The court was asked as to the propriety of the procedure adopted by the circuit judge, who when considering a claim for false imprisonment, assault and trespass had initially acceded to an application by the defendant which was made without notice before deciding in the absence of the claimant first that the defendant's officers had reasonable grounds for believing the particular person was present in the premises and second that the claimants would be prohibited from asking any questions of the defendants' witnesses which might reveal the grounds for their belief. The ground of appeal was that the procedure adopted by the circuit judge was contrary to the ordinary rules of procedure and was unfair. Lord Bingham CJ explained that where the complaint was lack of particularity, then the defendant had three choices when faced with the contention that the claim should be struck out as disclosing no defence. They were first to accept that the paragraph should be struck out and second to contend that the paragraphs were unobjectionable while the third course which might be combined with the second course was to accept that the paragraphs were objectionable as they stood but to contend that they could be saved by amendment and by the addition of appropriate particulars. If the defendant felt inhibited from disclosing information, then this would be the proper subject of a claim for Public Iinterest Immunity. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Chelmsford Crown Court, Ex Parte Farrer; QBD 27-Oct-1999 - Gazette, 27 October 1999; Times, 05 November 1999 Â Â Regina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley; QBD 10-Nov-1999 - Gazette, 25 November 1999; Times, 10 November 1999; [2000] QB 576; [2001] All ER 411; [2000] 2 WLR 409 Â Â Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police; CA 26-Nov-1999 - Gazette, 08 December 1999; [2000] QB 427; [1999] EWCA Civ 3041; [2000] 2 WLR 546; [2000] 1 All ER 209 Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Police - From: 1999 To: 1999