The pursuer had been arrested under warrant. He complained that other officers in Strathclyde assualted him when iin custody. That complaint was rejected after investigation, and proceedings were refused either by way of criminal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings. He made a civil complaint saying that he had been denied his human right and that there had been no effective investigation. He now appealed against rejection of that complaint.
Held: The claim was incompetent.
Lord Clarke said: ‘Any practitioner in the business of civil litigation might, when faced with this omnibus approach to several claims in a single action, query the appropriateness of this approach. He or she might reflect that in a single sheriff court action a straightforward claim for damages for assault finds itself coupled with (a) a claim for breach of the substantive obligation under article 3 of the Convention and (b) claims against two defenders ‘severally’ for breaches of the obligation arising under the article as regards investigation and inquiry. One action is being brought against two separate defenders with three distinctive juristic bases of claim being made.’
Judges:
Lord Clarke (Opinion)
Citations:
[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 16, 2011 Rep LR 62, 2011 SLT 387, 2011 GWD 9-209, [2011] CSIH 16
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Roghts 3
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Appeal from – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Human Rights
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.430272