Cases relating to Actions Against the Police
CROOK V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF ESSEX POLICE [2015] EWHC 988 (QB)
The Claimant brought a claim for damages against the Defendant, the Chief Constable of Essex Police in respect of breach of confidence, breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and for breach of his rights to private and family life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 arising from a press release by Essex Police on 3 August of 2010. The claims were brought against the Defendant as the Chief Officer of Essex Police having responsibility for the conduct of his officers by virtue of s 88 of the Police Act 1996 and as vicariously liable for their acts and omissions.
SHAW V HM CORONER FOR LEICESTER CITY AND SOUTH LEICESTERSHIRE ROBINSON V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE [2014] EWCA Civ 294 (QB)
In 2007 the deceased had been diagnosed with a defective heart valve. He suffered from aortic valve stenosis, a progressive disease which could prove fatal. Treatment might be by open heart surgery, but that carried obvious risks. An alternative treatment was undertaken, known as Transaortic Valve Implantation “TAVI”. The procedure involved placing an artificial valve into the defective valve via a catheter in the femoral artery. Shortly after the new valve had been fitted, the deceased began to bleed from his aorta. It was decided to open his chest to determine the source of bleeding. Doctors did their best to stem the blood flow, and insert drains. He was then transferred to the intensive care unit, but died not long after his arrival.
ROBINSON V WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE [2014] EWCA Civ 15
The Claimant was walking down a relatively busy street in Huddersfield when she became caught up in the arrest of a drug dealer. She was knocked to the ground and injured. She sued the local Chief Constable for damages for personal injury. The question for the court was the extent to which the Chief Constable was liable, if at all, in negligence for what happened to her.The allegedly negligent officer was on an unrelated errand when he spotted a man dealing in 'Class A' drugs. He contacted a senior officer about what he should do. It was agreed he should make an arrest as quickly as possible, and preferably whilst Williams was still in possession of the drugs. He called for back up and considered possible locations for the arrest. He concluded it had to be on the street.
The Claimant was walking down a relatively busy street in Huddersfield when she became caught up in the arrest of a drug dealer. She was knocked to the ground and injured. She sued the local Chief Constable for damages for personal injury. The question for the court was the extent to which the Chief Constable was liable, if at all, in negligence for what happened to her.The allegedly negligent officer was on an unrelated errand when he spotted a man dealing in 'Class A' drugs. He contacted a senior officer about what he should do. It was agreed he should make an arrest as quickly as possible, and preferably whilst Williams was still in possession of the drugs. He called for back up and considered possible locations for the arrest. He concluded it had to be on the street.
ROBINSON V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE [2014] EWCA Civ 13 (QB)
The Claimant was walking down a relatively busy street when she became caught in the arrest of a drug dealer. She was knocked to the ground and injured. She took action against the police. The incident was caught on CCTV. At trial the claim was dismissed.
DIL AND OTHERS V COMMISSIONERS OF THE POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS [2014] EWHC 2184 (QB)
The Claimants (save for one) were environmental activists or campaigners on social justice. They brought claims for deceit, misfeasance, assault/battery or negligence against the Metropolitan Police.
WALKER V COMMISSIONER FOR THE POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS [2014] EWCA Civ 897
The Claimant got into a fight with the police, following a complaint that he had hit his partner. He was detained by the police and charged with assault of a police officer. He was acquitted on the grounds that his initial detention had been unlawful. It was found that a police officer had restricted his movements in a doorway, without intending or purporting to arrest him, thereby detaining him unlawfully. He claimed damages for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution. A circuit judge rejected his evidence and the claim failed totally. He appealed to the Court of Appeal.
LORD HANNINGFIELD V ESSEX CONSTABULARY [2013] EWHC 243 (QB)
The Claimant claimed damages from the police for his allegedly unlawful arrest by five police officers at his home in September 2011 and in respect of what was said to have been an unlawful search of those premises on that occasion.
ZH (A PROTECTED PARTY BY GH, HIS LITIGATION FRIEND) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS [2012] EWHC 604 (Admin)
The Claimant was a severely autistic and epileptic nineteen year old, who suffered from learning difficulties and could not communicate by speech. He brought a claim for assault and battery, false imprisonment, unlawful disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and breaches of Articles 3, 5 and/or 8 under the Human Rights Act 1998 and for declaratory relief.
The Claimant was a severely autistic and epileptic nineteen year old, who suffered from learning difficulties and could not communicate by speech. He brought a claim for assault and battery, false imprisonment, unlawful disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and breaches of Articles 3, 5 and/or 8 under the Human Rights Act 1998 and for declaratory relief.