Surrey Police v PC & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1274 (Fam)
Kieran Upadrasta v The Commissioner of the City of London Police
17 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1853 (KB)
High Court
A police officer wrongly detained a man in his home. The man tried to sue but initially got it wrong. Even though the judge who later said he could sue didn't have the right to do so, it was still okay because the law says it is sometimes okay to let small errors slide. The police tried to get the case thrown out quickly but couldn't because there are lots of unanswered questions.
Key Facts
- •Claimant seeks damages for false imprisonment, trespass, and assault by police officers who entered his home and detained him under the Mental Health Act 1983, section 136.
- •The incident occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Claimant shielding at home.
- •Police entered the Claimant's home using keys obtained from the concierge after a social worker reported an email from the Claimant expressing suicidal intentions.
- •The Claimant was taken to a place of safety at Homerton Hospital under section 136.
- •The initial claim was struck out for lack of section 139 leave under the Mental Health Act 1983.
- •A Master granted section 139 leave without notice to the Defendant, despite lacking the authority to do so according to Practice Direction 2B.
Legal Principles
Masters are prohibited from granting section 139 leave under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Practice Direction 2B, paragraph 3.1(g)
The de facto authority doctrine validates acts of an officer or judge performed under a general supposition of competence, even if their appointment is invalid.
Fawdry v Murfitt [2003] QB 104, Baldock v Webster [2006] QB 315, Popely v Popely [2018] EWHC 276 (Ch)
Court orders must be obeyed unless and until set aside.
R (Majera) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 46
Section 139 leave should be granted if the claim is not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2007] UKHL 31, Winch v Jones [1986] QB 296
The burden of justifying a trespass rests on the defendant.
O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex [1998] 1 WLR 374
Summary judgment is inappropriate where there are unresolved factual disputes.
Partco Group Ltd & Anor v Wragg & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 594
Detention is a matter of fact, not a legal concept.
Lewis v Chief Constable of South Wales [1991] 1 All ER 206
The Code of Practice to the MHA should not be departed from without cogent reasons.
R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 58
Outcomes
The Master's order granting section 139 leave is valid.
The de facto authority doctrine applies; the Master was not a usurper, and the procedural failings did not invalidate the order. The Claimant's claim was validly commenced.
Defendant's application to strike out the claim is dismissed.
The Master's order was not a nullity and the Claimant's procedural errors did not warrant strike out. Strike out is a draconian remedy of last resort.
Defendant's application for summary judgment is dismissed.
Material factual disputes remain regarding the officers' intentions, the timing of the detention, and whether the Claimant was in immediate need of care or control. These disputes preclude summary judgment.
The Master's order is not set aside.
The Master correctly granted section 139 leave as the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and deserves further investigation.
Similar Cases
IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police
[2023] EWHC 2793 (Admin)
Victoria Clark v The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
[2023] EWHC 2565 (KB)
Marzieh Ansari v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2006 (KB)
MTA v The Lord Chancellor
[2024] EWCA Civ 965