Amy Clarke secures the dismissal of false imprisonment and personal injury claims in three recent trials for the Chief Constable of British Transport Police, Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
In February, Amy acted for the Chief Constable of British Transport Police in a five-day jury trial of a claim for false imprisonment and assault. The Claimant had committed fare evasion before assaulting a PCSO and being arrested by the Defendant’s officers. After extensive evidence from the officers involved, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favour of the Defendant on each of the ten questions they were required to answer. Last week, the Court held that the arrest had been entirely lawful and therefore the claim was dismissed. Following legal argument on the applicability of the QOCS regime and whether or not this case could truly be described as a “mixed claim”, Amy successfully sought permission for British Transport Police to enforce the costs order against the Claimant on the basis that it was a mixed claim. The Court determined that the Claimant ought to pay 50% of the Defendant’s costs.
This is the most recent in a sequence of three successful trials for Amy. In March, she defended the Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police in a claim for false imprisonment arising from the arrest of an individual for harassment of their ex-partner, those acts having allegedly occurred in the context of contentious family proceedings. The claim was dismissed and the Defendant’s costs were awarded in full.
Earlier this month, Amy also defended the Metropolitan Police in an eight day jury trial in Central London County Court. That claim involved a claim for false imprisonment and assault, arising from the search of an individual under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and his arrest for driving without insurance. Throughout the trial, and in spite of no pleaded cause of action under the Equality Act 2010, the Claimant repeatedly accused the four officers involved of being racist and of having malicious motivations for engaging with him on the day in question. At the conclusion of the evidence, Amy argued that the Claimant’s evidence at trial revealed that the assault allegation was so inherently weak and inconsistent that it could not safely be determined by the jury. The Claimant subsequently abandoned the assault claim.
The jury accepted the Defendant’s evidence on the basis for the search of the Claimant, and for his arrest. The claim was dismissed, with 100% of the Defendant’s costs ordered to be paid by the Claimant. Having abandoned the assault claim, the Claimant could not enjoy the benefit of costs protection.