Peter Taheri successfully defends necessity challenge to arrest in false imprisonment civil trial

Peter Taheri was instructed by Plexus Law, on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The trial, at the County Court in Central London, before HHJ Freeland KC, considered a challenge by the Claimant to the necessity of his arrest, in circumstances where the Claimant had voluntarily attended at the Police station within about 10 minutes of being asked over the telephone to attend to assist with paperwork on an ongoing matter. Although the Claimant attended voluntarily, the arresting officer did not ask if the Claimant would agree to a voluntary interview, instead arresting the Claimant on arrival at the Police station.

Although there was no contemporaneous written evidence supporting the arresting officer’s contention that he reasonably believed arrest to be necessary to protect a vulnerable person (the ground in question not having been entered onto the custody record nor spelt out in the officer’s witness statement), the Court was persuaded that protecting vulnerable persons was in fact at the forefront of the arresting officer’s mind. This was because of the extreme seriousness of the criminal allegations for which the Claimant was arrested, including clear allegations of witness intimidation (with a petrified alleged victim) and the alleged brandishing and making of threats using a firearm, which in turn remained outstanding. There had also allegedly been an alarming escalation in the reported witness intimidation and risk to life. Further, the Claimant (and the firearm) had not been located over a number of days, including by firearms officers who went to look for him, despite the Claimant having been circulated as wanted as a suspected Category A offender.

The Court applied the recent case law to the effect that arrest had to be the practical and sensible option: the Court accepted that voluntary interview was not viable and was not practical or sensible on these facts. The Court rejected the Claimant’s argument that there was a free-standing requirement to offer a voluntary interview (and that the Claimant could have been arrested if he declined to co-operate), emphasising that context is important.

The Claimant’s claims of false imprisonment and assault failed, but a claim of conversion / trespass to goods valued at £276.79 had been admitted and so the Claimant was awarded that sum plus interest. Costs were awarded on a basis favourable to Peter’s client, bearing in mind that the admitted conversion was a minor subsidiary element of the case and bearing in mind that the Claimant had failed to beat a Part 36 offer that had been made on behalf of Peter’s client.

Peter Taheri regularly appears in Inquests as well as in a wide range of Police civil claims in the County Court and High Court, including in relation to claims of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, assault, negligence, conversion, misfeasance, and malicious prosecution claims.

---

Authors

Peter Taheri

Call 2007

Related areas

Police Law

---