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
16 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2565 (KB)
High Court
A woman was arrested while unwell. The police used force, which a judge said was okay. The judge also said keeping her in custody later that day was wrong, but she needed to be somewhere safe anyway, so she only got a small amount of money.
Key Facts
- •Victoria Clark (Claimant) was arrested and detained by Merseyside Police (Defendant).
- •The Claimant was mentally unwell and had assaulted her mother and attempted self-harm.
- •The Claimant was arrested and detained overnight at a police station.
- •During detention, an incident occurred involving the Claimant allegedly grabbing a detention officer's ankle, leading to the officer using force.
- •The Claimant's continued detention was reviewed at 02:23 and 09:59 on March 13, 2016.
- •The Claimant appealed the judge's decision on several grounds, primarily concerning the ankle-grab incident and the lawfulness of the continued detention.
Legal Principles
In a civil trial, issues of fact are for the jury, and issues of law are for the judge.
Safeway v Tate [2001] QB 1120
A judge can withdraw an issue from the jury if, on the evidence, no reasonable jury could reach a different conclusion.
Alexander v Arts Council [2001] EWCA Civ. 514
In actions for false imprisonment, the question of whether the defendant acted reasonably is for the judge, but this is based on facts found by the jury if there is a conflict of evidence.
Balchin v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2001] EWCA Civ. 538
A person can use reasonable force to prevent crime (Criminal Law Act 1967, s.3(1)) and a constable can use reasonable force in exercising powers under the PACE Act (PACE Act 1984, s.117).
Criminal Law Act 1967, s.3(1); PACE Act 1984, s.117
Reasonableness of force is not judged with precision but considers the circumstances.
Reed v Wastie [1972] Crim LR 221 (summarized in Cross v Kirkby [2000] EWCA Civ. 426)
The reasonableness of police detention decisions is reviewed under the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223
Police detention must be in accordance with PACE Act 1984, Part IV.
PACE Act 1984, s.34
Custody officers must consider the need for clinical attention for detainees with mental health issues (PACE Code C 2014, 9.5).
PACE Code C 2014, 9.5
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on grounds 1-3 and 9.
The Recorder's decision to withdraw the ankle-grab issue from the jury was justified due to lack of contradictory evidence. The use of force was deemed reasonable. The detention at 02:23 was lawful.
Appeal allowed on Ground 11.
The detention at 09:59 was unlawful as no reasonable inspector could have made that decision given the available evidence regarding the Claimant's mental health.
Nominal damages of £5 awarded.
Nominal damages were appropriate given the circumstances and agreement between parties. The Claimant required detention, and any delay was minimal.