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.
 3 All ER 617, (1990) 2 Admin LR 214
Distinguished – Hutchinson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Another QBD 27-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages for assault by a probationary constable. The constable had been called to a drunken party for Sainsbury’s employees.
Held: The claimant had been assaulted. Miss Morgan had introduced herself as a police officer, had . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability, Employment, Police
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230140