Sarah Taylor successfully defends false imprisonment and trespass claim

Sarah was instructed by DWF for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in this claim arising from the Claimant’s arrest on suspicion of allowing himself to be carried in a vehicle taken without the owner’s consent (s.12, Theft Act 1968). The matter was heard over 4 days before a Circuit Judge and jury at Central London County Court. The Claimant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and subsequent detention, and contended that the taking of his biometric data amounted to trespass to the person as a consequence. The Claimant accepted that there were reasonable grounds to suspect he had committed the offence. His claim was that his arrest and detention had not been necessary and the length of his detention was excessive.

The Court heard evidence from the Claimant, the arresting officer and the officer who authorised his detention and release. The evidence explored the challenges faced by police officers dealing with a dynamic investigation upon attendance at the scene of a road traffic collision. The circumstances were that at around 2am officers attended the scene of a road traffic collision between a police vehicle and a member of the public. Initially, officers thought that the only occupant of the member of the public’s car was the driver, who was injured and intoxicated. Checks showed that the vehicle was neither registered to nor insured by the driver. After around 30-45 minutes, it became apparent that the Claimant had been a passenger but had left the scene. He had not made himself known to officers or sought to enquire as to the driver’s, his relative, welfare whilst being treated by paramedics. He was located behind the police cordon, filming the scene on his mobile phone.  Both males were arrested under s.12 of the Theft Act 1968. The Claimant was detained thereafter at a police station until his interview was conducted and the evidence reviewed, after which he was released with no further action at around 7pm. The Court explored what can reasonably be expected of officers in their initial investigations and considered when the need to use less intrusive interventions (such as a voluntary interview at a later date) may be overridden by the risk of disappearance of a suspect and the need to conduct a prompt and effective investigation.

The jury rejected the Claimant’s claim that the arresting officer had not actually believed that it was necessary to arrest the Claimant. The jury also rejected the Claimant’s claim that the custody sergeant had not actually believed that it was necessary to detain him. The Court then went on to consider whether such beliefs were reasonable and whether the period of detention was excessive. The Court rejected each aspect of the claim. The Court found that the arresting officer’s belief was anchored firmly in objectively reasonable, sustainable grounds, particularly in light of the Claimants conduct at the scene which could objectively be described as evasive and verging on the bizarre. The Court found that the Custody Sergeant’s belief in necessity to detain was also based on very strong reasonable grounds. Any lesser interventions were demonstrated by the Commissioner’s officers to be wholly unrealistic and not viable or sensible options while this investigation was ongoing. The Court found that the length of detention in its entirety was reasonable and proportionate, having taken a pragmatic approach to the reality of the sensible, reasonable and proportionate practicalities of matters that need to be undertaken whilst a person is detained in circumstances such as these.

The Commissioner was awarded his costs in full, with full enforceability (the claim not being subject to QOCS protection) and an order for an interim payment on account of costs.

Sarah accepts instructions in all of Chambers’ core practice areas and has particular interest in police law, inquests and inquiries, and public and administrative law.

---

Related barristers

Sarah Taylor

Call 2014

Related areas

Police Law

---