Robert Talalay

Bobby’s practice embraces all areas of civil, public and employment law relevant to policing. He acts in all types of case involving the police including judicial review, data protection claims, arrest, detention, misfeasance and malicious prosecution claims, claims for breaches of the ECHR (including claims concerning investigations (art.2 and 3), detention (art.5), the right to privacy (art.8), and the rights to (religious) expression and assembly (arts.9-11)) freedom of information appeals, internal misconduct proceedings, inquests, discrimination, personal injury, employment, and police involvement in family cases.

Bobby also provides training on diverse matters including police misconduct, internal staff discipline and employment law.

Bobby regularly appears in multi-track trials in both the High Court and County Court, judicial reviews, complex and high-profile misconduct proceedings, high-value personal injury claims, and inquests. Bobby has been involved with some of the most high-profile recent police cases, including a challenged to the MPS’s use of Live Facial Recognition and a challenge to national guidance on consensual cross-sex strip searching for trans detainees. Recent trials include: a high-value life-long loss of earnings claim by a ballet dancer whose ankle was injured during a stop and search, a claim for £1.5m for life-long injury said to arise from an arrest, a claim where a person was stabbed when in police custody on the street, a claim where the same man was arrested four times in a short period of time and was alleging malice, a claim for over £300,000 for psychiatric injury and loss of job opportunities arising from detention and data processing, and many others.

Featured Police Law cases

---

R (Sex Matters) v (1) National Police Chiefs’ Council & (2) Chief Constable British Transport Police [2026] EWHC 1954 (Admin)

Junior counsel for the Defendants (led by Fiona Barton KC) in a challenge to guidance permitting cross-sex strip searching outside the framework of PACE when done with the informed consent of all persons. Following the For Women Scotland judgment in the Supreme Court, the NPCC and BTP amended their guidance to (a) understand the same-sex searching requirements in PACE to refer to biological sex irrespective of whether a person had a Gender Recognition Certificate and (b) to permit cross-sex searching for trans detainees outside the framework of PACE where the detainee and the officer freely consented to that approach. Sex Matters, a gender critical charity, challenged that guidance as ultra vires. The Court dismissed the claim, holding that consent was a proper basis for a search, that officers could act as citizens under a consensual agreement, and that PACE did not preclude consent as a basis for a search.

---

R (Thompson) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin)

Junior counsel for the Defendant (led by Anya Proops KC, and alongside Raphael Hogarth). This was a high-profile challenge to the MPS’s policy on the use of live facial recognition (LFR) and whether it was “in accordance with the law” and “prescribed by law” for the purposes of art.8 and arts.10 and 11 ECHR respectively. The Divisional Court undertook a detailed analysis of the domestic and European authorities and upheld the guidance as lawful.

---

JXK v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2026] EWHC 608 (KB)

A police constable, since convicted and dismissed, had illegally accessed his ex-partners information on police systems and had divulged confidential information to his then-current partner. He had processed these data in breach of his training, policy, and contrary to clear instructions on accessing the databases. There was no dispute that his doing that was unlawful, but the Court held that the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for the officer’s actions. Access to a database alone was not sufficient when he had been clearly instructed not to act as he did, and the Court held he was on a frolic on his own.

---

Loxton v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2025] 12 WLUK 105

A high-value civil action brought by a former ballet dancer, whose ankle had been irreparably damaged by a police officer during a stop and search. The claim was brought in the tort of battery, but turned on the lawfulness of the stop and search as well as the level of force used.

---

Chief Constable of Sussex Police and anor v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230

Junior counsel for the First Appellant (led by Jason Beer KC and Georgina Wolfe, and having represented the Chief Constable alone in the County Court, successfully, and in the High Court) in a significant appeal concerning the principle of advocate immunity and the extent to which that extends to police officers providing information to the CPS for use in court. The case concerned a CPS advocate saying the confidential address of a victim in court in front of her abuser for the purpose of obtaining a bail condition. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and upheld the decision of the County Court that both the CPS advocate and the police in providing that address were immune from suit in respect of the revelation of that address.

---

Sleeper v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 151 (KB)

A Christian street-preacher was arrested for displaying signs about Islam in Borough three weeks after the terrorist attack there in 2017. His claim that his arrest was unlawful and contravened his right to free speech, religious belief, and to assembly was dismissed at trial. Mr Sleeper appealed. The judgment Sleeper represents a significant contribution to public order law, particularly in (a) clarifying the relationship between statutory powers and human rights obligations and (b) clarifying the law with regard to s.5 Public Order Act 1986 offences. The judgment affirms that there is no obligation on police to conduct a separate proportionality assessment before arresting someone without a warrant for an offence which engages their qualified Convention rights.

---

Warburton v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2023] EWCA Civ 209

Counsel for the Respondent in an appeal following strike out in a Data Protection Act claim. The case concerned the scenario where (a) there were prospective amendments being discussed prior to a claim being settled, (b) it was settled by way of Part 36 before the amendments were granted permission, and (c) a fresh claim was brought covering the same ground as those amendments. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision that the new proceedings abused the Henderson principle and fell to be struck out.

---

R (Chief Constable of British Transport Police) v Police Misconduct Panel v PC Imran Aftab v Independent Office for Police Conduct [2023] EWHC 589 (Admin)

Counsel for the IOPC in judicial review brought by BTP against the decision not to dismiss an officer who had used his warrant card to engage in inappropriate behaviour with a passing female member of the public. The judge, allowing the claim, held that the Panel had failed to grasp the seriousness and significance of the officer’s conduct and the impact that such conduct has upon public confidence in the police.  He held that a warrant card provides an officer with the means to disable, disarm, placate and reassure members of the public so that they acquiesce to the officer in ways that they would not to a member of the public.  The use of a warrant card to influence a lone woman for the officer’s personal gain so seriously undermines public confidence that it is corrosive to policing by consent.  He held that this conduct should properly have been characterised as APSP (abuse of position for a sexual purpose) and “serious corruption” which has no place in policing

---

Inquests arising from the Keyham mass shootings

Junior counsel for Devon and Cornwall Police, led by Fiona Barton KC, in the inquests arising from the murders perpetrated by Jake Davison. The Senior Coroner for Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon heard the inquests touching upon the deaths of the five deceased over a six-week period, with particular focus on the acts and omissions of Devon and Cornwall police, and particular the Firearms Licensing Unit and the decision to grant and then, following seizure, return his shotgun to Jake Davison.

---

Pathan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2022] EWHC 3244 (KB)

Counsel for the Respondent in an appeal against a costs order made against the Claimant following the claim being dismissed at trial (in which Bobby also represented the Commissioner). The appeal concerned (a) the correct interpretation of CPR r. 44.13, i.e. when a party obtained qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) protection and (b) how to approach the exercise of apportionment when considering the extent of enforcement under CPR r. 44.16(2)(b).

---

YZ v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & National Police Chiefs’ [2021] EWCA Civ 683

Junior Counsel for the NPCC (led by Jason Beer KC) in the Court of Appeal. In the absence of a direct challenge to any of the national guidance on the retention and processing of information, the Court proceeded on the basis that both were lawful and then went on to reject the challenge on all grounds. In coming to its decision, the Court considered that the NPCC’s guidance did not impose an evidential burden on the applicant but started from the position that it was strictly necessary and proportionate to retain information on the PNC unless there were exceptional circumstances – in practice, where the record is inaccurate or where there is some wider public interest involved. The Court held that the judge below did not err either in his approach to applying the test of strict necessity or in judging the approach taken by the Respondent to the request to delete the data as satisfying the requirements of both the DPA 2018 and art.8 of the ECHR.

---

R (QSA) v National Police Chiefs’ Council & Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 272 (Admin)

Junior Counsel for the NPCC (led by Jason Beer KC) in the Divisional Court. The case concerned the art.8 ECHR compatibility of the NPCC’s policy that all convictions of recordable offences be retained on the Police National Computer until the person reached 100 years of age. The Divisional Court held that it was lawful and proportionate for the NPCC to have drawn a bright line given the importance of retaining a comprehensive register of criminal convictions for policing, criminal justice and public safety purposes.

---

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v (1) Information Commissioner & (2) Rosenbaum (GIA/2230/2019)

Counsel for the appellant police force in the Upper Tribunal. The case concerned whether the MPS could neither confirm nor deny whether or not it held information on whether the National Front had been investigated by Special Branch. The appeal revolved around the ambit of the exception in s.23(5) FOIA 2000, where there is no requirement to confirm or deny possession of information where doing so would involve the disclosure of information that ‘relates to’ a listed body dealing with national security matters. The case is highly significant in the area of information law as defining the scope of s.23(5) – see the detailed analysis on the Panopticon information law blog.

---

R (RD) v Secretary of State for Justice & The National Police Chiefs’ Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1346

Junior Counsel for the NPCC (led by Jason Beer KC) in the Court of Appeal. The case concerned the compatibility of the Rehabilitation from Offenders (Exceptions) Order 1975 with art.8 ECHR and specifically whether it was lawful, necessary and proportionate for the legislation to require applicants to the office of constable (and other offices and professions of the utmost integrity) to disclose all cautions and convictions, including those spent or protected or given when the applicant was a child. The Court of Appeal held that it was lawful and proportionate for the legislation to have drawn a bright line (and to draw it where it did) given the nature of the offices in question, the quality of the legal framework, and the need to ensure the applicants’ utmost integrity.

---

R (II) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2020] EWCA 2528 (Admin)

Counsel for the Commissioner in judicial review proceedings concerning the retention of data of a child referred to the police under the Prevent duty and whether continued retention breached the child’s art.8 ECHR rights and/or was a breach of the DPA or the public sector equality duty. 

---

Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Gray [2019] EWCA Civ 1675

Counsel for the Chief Constable in the Court of Appeal. The case concerning the correct interpretation of the fees regime in the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 for those subject to a civil restraint order seeking permission to issue a claim and the appropriate restrictions on vexatious litigants’ right to access to justice.