The claimant sought damages alleging unlawful arrest and search and detention. He had served a term of imprisonment for having made false expenses claims to the House of Lords. This raid occurred on his release. The arrest was planned and made to support the search without the need to establish urgency.
Held: The claim succeeded. Once the arrest was made, there was no reason why a search should only take place if danger was perceived. However the only possible support for the arrest would be under 24(5)(e) of the 1984 Act, that is to allow prompt investigation. ‘in the circumstances of this case I cannot accept that there was any rational basis for rejecting alternative procedures, such as those adopted successfully by the Metropolitan Police. There were simply no solid grounds to suppose that he would suddenly start to hide or destroy evidence, or that he would make inappropriate contacts. There was only the theoretical possibility that he might do so. I can, therefore, see no justification for by-passing all the usual statutory safeguards involved in obtaining a warrant.’ As to the subsequent detention at the police station, ‘ the subsequent detention could not be regarded in itself as lawful simply because the custody officer did not have the same information laid before him.’
Eady J
[2013] EWHC 243 (QB)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(5)(e) 32
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – 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 – Rawlinson and Hunter Trustee and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 31-Jul-2012
The claimants sought to have search warrants issued under the 1987 Act set aside, saying that they had been procured by non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: The search warrants were set aside: ‘the fact that one or more suspects have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Torts – Other
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.470998