Zander Goss successfully defends Metropolitan Police in false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claim

HHJ Saggerson has today handed down a reserved judgment dismissing a claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution arising out of a late-night traffic in July 2017. Zander Goss (instructed by Emma Gallimore of Weightmans LLP) advised and represented the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis from the outset of proceedings.

The Claimant was stopped at a red light at the Victoria Memorial outside Buckingham Palace when she abruptly moved into a left-turn filter lane, which had a green light. This manoeuvre occurred directly in front of a marked Metropolitan Police car, which was forced to brake to avoid collision. Suspecting that C had driven carelessly, constables stopped C on the Mall and required her to undergo a preliminary breath test. Across 17 attempts on the breathalyser and despite instructions from constables, C either blew too hard, too soft, or not at all, leading police to suspect that she was concealing being intoxicated. C was arrested and taken to a custody suite, where an evidential breath test found C to have 0.00 blood alcohol. C complained about the constables’ actions before being returned to her car on the Mall, where she was reported for the original careless driving offence. C’s conviction in the magistrates’ court was reversed on appeal to the Crown Court.

In the civil trial (where C was represented), Zander’s cross-examination of C laid bare that her evidence was ‘unreliable—and in some important respects simply untruthful’, as the Judge found. In addition to the typical issues in a claim of this nature, her case raised unusual points such as:

• Whether the constables unreasonably gave her too many opportunities to comply with the roadside breath test, such that C’s continued detention became unlawful.
• Whether C’s offers to attend a station to use a different breathalyser meant that her arrest under s 6D(2) Road Traffic Act 1988 was a Wednesbury unreasonable exercise of a constable’s discretionary power to arrest (thus seeking to apply a ‘necessity’ test analogous to s 24(5) PACE despite the s 6D(2) power of arrest not specifying a necessity test).

HHJ Saggerson found in favour of the Commissioner on every issue before the Court, dismissing the claim in full and ordering C to pay over 80% on account of the Commissioner’s costs of the proceedings.

Zander routinely acts for police forces across the country in civil claims, inquests, and police disciplinary proceedings, as well as providing operational advice on all manner of issues faced by the police.