Victoria Clark v The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
[2023] EWHC 2565 (KB)
The Chief Constable of Essex v Matthew Carter
2 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 126 (KB)
High Court
A man was arrested and the police forcefully removed his clothes to put him in a safety suit because he was acting violently and wouldn't answer questions about whether he might hurt himself. A judge initially said the police were wrong, but a higher court ruled the police acted lawfully because the law only requires the police to genuinely believe someone might hurt themselves, not that it's a reasonable belief, and this belief was justified given the circumstances.
Key Facts
- •Matthew Carter was arrested and detained at Southend Police Station on December 14, 2017.
- •The arrest followed an altercation in a pub.
- •Carter's detention involved three phases: a struggle at the custody desk (Phase 1), forceful removal of clothing in cell 28 (Phase 2), and another altercation in cell 26 (Phase 3).
- •Carter claimed damages for personal injury, including aggravated and exemplary damages.
- •The Recorder found for Carter on Phase 2 liability and against him for Phases 1 and 3.
- •The Chief Constable appealed the liability finding for Phase 2 and the quantum of damages.
Legal Principles
A custody officer can use reasonable and proportionate force to defend themselves or others, or to protect the safety of a detainee.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), Sections 36, 39, 54, 117; Code of Practice under PACE; College of Policing Guidance.
A custody officer can require removal of clothing if they believe it necessary to protect the safety of a detainee or others, using reasonable and proportionate force.
PACE Section 54; Code of Practice Annex A, Section B; College of Policing Guidance.
Under Section 54(4) PACE, clothing can be seized if the custody officer believes the person may use it to cause physical injury to themselves or another; reasonableness of belief is not explicitly required.
PACE Section 54(4).
Reasonable force may be used if necessary in the exercise of powers conferred by PACE.
PACE Section 117.
Relevant case law includes *PD -v- Chief Constable of Merseyside Police*, *Pile -v- Chief Constable of Merseyside Police*, and *Goodenough -v- Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police*.
Case law cited in the judgment.
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Recorder misdirected himself by requiring a 'reasonable belief' under Section 54(4) PACE, which only requires an actual belief. The evidence supported Sgt Bailey's belief that Carter posed a risk of self-harm, justifying the removal of his clothing and the use of force. The Recorder's finding that alternatives existed was deemed unrealistic.