Police - 1999

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 55 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Cullen -v- Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1999] NI 237
1999 Carswell LCJ, Nicholson and Campbell LJJ	Police, Torts - Other, Northern Ireland	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant had been arrested and complained at his treatment. Held: The failure to give reasons as to why his access to a solicitor was a breach of statutory duty, but there was no private law claim for damages.

Burke -v- Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1999] EWCA Civ 548
12 Jan 1999 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown Mr Justice Wilson	Police, Crime	Casemap 1 Cites
	The claimant had lost actions for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault. He sought leave to appeal out of time. Held: The reasons for requesting an adjournment were quite inadequate, and in the light of Kitching, the case was hopeless. Leave refused.
	Link[s] omitted

Ali Reza -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis; Greenwich and Bexley Family Health Service [1999] EWCA Civ 646
25 Jan 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Roberts -v- Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary [1999] EWCA Civ 655; [1999] 1 WLR 662
26 Jan 1999 CA Clarke LJ	Torts - Other, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful imprisonment for the period of 2 hours and 20 minutes from 5.25am (when the first review should have taken place in accordance with sections 40(1)(b) and 40(3)(a)) until 7.45am. The plaintiff succeeded at trial,and was awarded £500 in damages. Held: The Chief Constable's appeal was dismissed. The duty to review a suspect's detention within six hours is absolute and a failure to review with a continued detention constitutes wrongful imprisonment until the defect is remedied. Damages may be limited where the suspect was asleep and would not in any event have been released. Clarke LJ said: "In these circumstances the judge held that the plaintiff was being unlawfully detained as from 5.25am. I agree. Section 34(1) of the Act is mandatory. As already stated, it provides that a person shall not be kept in police detention except in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. The plaintiff was detained at 11.25pm on 30 July, so that by section 40(3)(a) a review of his detention should have taken place before 5.25am on 31 July. No such review took place. It follows, as I see it, that from that time the plaintiff was not being detained in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. It further follows from section 34(1) that his detention was thereafter unlawful until some event occurred to make it lawful."
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 34
	Link[s] omitted

Nash -v- Chief Constable of South Wales Police [1999] EWCA Civ 705
3 Feb 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis -v- Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) [1999] 3 WLR 363; [1999] UKHL 35; [2000] 1 AC 360; [1999] 3 All ER 897
11 Feb 1999 HL Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough	Police, Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was caustive of the death by suicide. Held: Police and other officers of the state who take people into custody have a duty towards those so held of reasonable care. Where there was a known risk of self-harm or suicide, they had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent such acts. It was not open to them to plead novus actus interveniens or volenti non fit injuria in defence of an action by the estate of a deceased. A duty to protect against obvious risks or self-inflicted harm exists only in cases in which there is no genuine and informed choice, such as the despair of prisoners which may lead them to inflict injury on themselves. "whatever views one may have about suicide in general, a 100 per cent. apportionment of responsibility to Mr. Lynch gives no weight at all to the policy of the law in imposing a duty of care upon the police. It is another different way of saying that the police should not have owed Mr. Lynch a duty of care. The law of torts is not just a matter of simple morality but contains many strands of policy, not all of them consistent with each other, which reflect the complexity of life. An apportionment of responsibility "as the court thinks just and equitable" will sometimes require a balancing of different goals. " Lord Hoffmann: "This philosophy [the individualist philosophy of the common law] expresses itself in the fact that duties to safeguard from harm deliberately caused by others are unusual and a duty to protect a person of full understanding from causing harm to himself is very rare indeed." Lord Hope of Craighead: "It is unusual for a person to be under a duty to take reasonable care to prevent another person doing something to his loss, injury or damage deliberately. On the whole people are entitled to act as they please, even if this will inevitably lead to their own death or injury."
	Link[s] omitted

Preston Borough Council -v- McGrath
18 Feb 1999 ChD Burton J	Criminal Practice, Local Government, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant had been interviewed by the police investigating allegations of corruption. The Council in its civil claim, exhibited documents received from the police, and obtained in that investigation. The receipt of documents by a defendant under an implied undertaking not to use them for another purpose, implied no similar cross undertaking on behalf of the prosecution. The purpose of the undertaking is not served by such an implication.

Regina -v- Merseyside Police Authority ex parte Yates CO/4181/97; [1999] EWHC Admin 157
19 Feb 1999 Admn	Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Gibson -v- Orr, the Chief Constable, Strathlclyde Police [1999] ScotCS 61; 1999 SCLR 661; 1999 SC 420
26 Feb 1999 SCS Lord Hamilton	Scotland, Police, Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	The pursuer and his passengers were injured when he drove off a bridge which had been damaged in a severe rainstorm. He claimed in negligence against the police, who had been informed of the collapse of the bridge, but had not erected any warning signs. As a result, a car fell into the river, killing two people and injuring a third. Held: Lord Hamilton rejected a submission that, by reference to Hill, there was “no general duty of care owed by the police towards private individuals”. His Lordship said: "there is no close analogy, in my view, as regards the policy issue between the exercise by the police of their function of investigating and suppressing crime and the exercise by them of their function of performing civil operational tasks concerned with human safety on the public roads. It was not disputed that the police enjoy no immunity on public policy grounds in respect of the manner in which a constable drives his police vehicle or his motor cycle on the public roads. There would likewise be no immunity, in my view, in respect of the manner in which a constable in charge of directing traffic on such a road performed that function. Likewise, there is no immunity, in my view, in respect of the manner in which other civil road safety operational tasks are carried out by police officers where there is no inherent problem of conflict with instructions issued by superior officers or with duties owed to other persons. Lord Hamilton later commented on what he called “a tide in the English courts” towards a wide interpretation of what had been said in Hill, which he suggested “may now be running less strongly”. He continued: "Moreover, the decision of the Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom [[1998] ECHR 101], together with the position adopted by the UK Government before that court that ‘the exclusion was not a blanket exclusion of liability but a carefully and narrowly focused limitation which applied only in respect of the investigation and suppression of crime, and even then not in every case’, may also lead to some reconsideration of the scope of the public policy immunity accorded to the police in some of the English decisions."
	Police (Scotland) Act 1967 39(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Samuels -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 883
3 Mar 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Porter -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1055
22 Mar 1999 CA	Police
	[ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Duckenfield and Another; Regina -v- South Yorkshire Police Authority and Another; Ex Parte Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et Al [1999] EWHC Admin 261; [1999] EWHC Admin 266; [1999] EWHC Admin 267
24 Mar 1999 Admn Laws LJ	Criminal Practice, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	Criminal Justice Act 1987 - Police Act 1996
	Link[s] omitted

Singh -v- Commissioner for Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1100
25 Mar 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 1999 (Lynn) [1999] EWCA Crim 862
26 Mar 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice, Police	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There was an obligation to destroy fingerprints and samples in respect of persons who were acquitted. Nevertheless, if such material was unlawfully retained, it could be used for the purpose of investigating another offence, and the evidence could be used in a subsequent trial unless it was excluded at the judge's discretion.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Jones (Derek); Regina -v- Nelson (Gary) [1999] EWCA Crim 867
26 Mar 1999 CACD	Criminal Evidence, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	Police officers have no power to use reasonable force, to compel a suspect to undergo an identification by confrontation. Powers generally phrased in the Act did not override an individual suspect's rights. Beldam LJ said that the requirement that reasonable force may be used to secure conditions of detention does not authorise the use of force to bring about a confrontation.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 117; Code D
	Link[s] omitted

Brindle -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1118
29 Mar 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Crooks -v- Ebanks [1999] UKPC 17; Appeal No 32 of 1997
30 Mar 1999 PC Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Sir Andrew Leggatt	Commonwealth, Personal Injury, Police	Casemap 1 Cites
	PC (Jamaica) Whilst chasing an armed criminal, the police officer tripped, discharging his gun, which hit the claimant. She sought damages. The officer claimed immunity under the Act. Held: The dropping of the revolver and the discharging of the round were not for the purpose of vindicating and giving effect to the law, and the officer did not have immunity. In the historical context of the distinction between an action on the case and an action for trespass, a claim in respect of consequential injury arising from negligence would have been brought as an action on the case. Therefore it would have been unnecessary to provide in section 33 that: "Every action to be brought against any Constable for any act done by him in the execution of his office, shall be an action on the case as for a tort", if that section was to apply to a claim in negligence for consequential injury.
	Constabulary Force Act 1935 33
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Duckenfield; Murray; Regina -v- South Yorkshire Police Authority And; Ann Adlington (on Behalf of Hillsborough Family Support Group); Duckenfield; Murray and Hillsborough Police Authority etc [1999] EWHC Admin 286; [2000] 1 WLR 55
31 Mar 1999 Admn Laws LJ	Police, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Private prosecutions had been brought against two retired police officers, D and M, in relation to the Hillsborough disaster; and the Director had refused a request by the officers to take over and discontinue those prosecutions, stating that his policy was to take over a prosecution to discontinue it only where there was clearly no case to answer, or the public interest factors tending against the prosecution clearly outweighed those factors tending in favour, or the prosecution was likely to damage the interests of justice. The police officers sought judicial review of that decision. Held: The court rejected a challenge by both officers to the lawfulness of the Director's policy; he had full power to refuse to take over a private prosecution and to discontinue it. The criteria are not the same as for the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It was not wrong for a Police authority to carry out the acts it saw as necessary to maintain and efficient force. "The argument here, at least as originally put forward in M.'s skeleton argument, was that because of his view (referred to in the reasons letter) that private prosecutors are not bound to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors (Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report, 1993-94) when deciding whether to institute proceedings, the D.P.P. has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the principles in the Code are irrelevant to his discretion under sections 6(2) and 23(3). But the D.P.P. has nowhere stated that he regards the Code as systematically or generally irrelevant to his power to discontinue. Indeed, as I shall show, there are some aspects of the Code which are reflected in his approach to the question, how his policy should be applied in this case. In truth, however, it could not be right for the D.P.P. to apply across the board the same tests, in particular the 'reasonable prospect of conviction' test referred to in the correspondence, in considering whether to take over and discontinue a private prosecution as the Code enjoins Crown Prosecutors to follow in deciding whether to institute or proceed with a prosecution themselves; the consequence would be that the D.P.P. would stop a private prosecution merely on the ground that the case is not one which he would himself proceed with. But that, in my judgment, would amount to an emasculation of section 6(1) and itself be an unlawful policy; and in fairness Mr. Harrison made it clear that he did not submit so much. The very premise of section 6(1) must be that some cases will go to trial which the D.P.P. himself chooses not to prosecute."
	Police Act 1996 - Criminal Justice Act 1987
	Link[s] omitted

Marshall -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1175
15 Apr 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Clark -v- Chief Constable of Cleveland Police [1999] EWCA Civ 1357
7 May 1999 CA	Damages, Police, Torts - Other	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	It was appropriate for courts in all cases to give juries both general guidance on awarding damages and guidance as to the range of awards available in the circumstances. The court aslo set out the proper approach to the award of aggravated damages and exemplary damages against police. The figures the court set out were applicable to what it termed "a straightforward case", and they were not to be used in a "mechanistic manner". Where the defendant is the employer of the police officers involved, exemplary damages are unlikely to have a role, and aggravated damages should be awarded if the aggravating features would result in the claimant not receiving sufficient compensation for his injury. The bad character of the claimant was a factor which made for a "discount" on the damages.
	Link[s] omitted

Christopher Mark Coore -v- Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [1999] EWCA Civ 1366
10 May 1999 CA	Torts - Other, Police, Litigation Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Gibson -v- Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police
11 May 1999 OHCS	Police, Negligence
	The police once having taken control of a dangerous traffic situation retained responsibility for it. Having failed to erect warnings or traffic cones after an accident at a collapsed bridge, and leaving the site unattended, the police were responsible,

Regina -v- Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co [1999] EWHC Admin 424
12 May 1999 Admn Kennedy LJ VP, Mitchell J	Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Police	Casemap
	The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and so the police had applied to a circuit judge under section 9. Held: The order should be quashed. The judge should have given reasons for his order. "it is not always easy for a hard-pressed circuit judge to remember to give reasons when he has no more assistance than can be provided by a police officer on his own making what the officer no doubt regards as a formal ex parte application, but the reality is that - (1) the person or persons against whom an order has been made are entitled to know why it is made: (2) the requirement to give reasons should help to ensure that a judge does, as he must, address each of the statutory requirements before making the order, and - (3) if it is necessary to review an order in this court reasons will be of great assistance. We will know why the judge decided as he did. " Neither the police nor the court below appeared to have given thought to the need to resptrict the scope of the search order, and thus to bypass the protection given by the Act to special material.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 9
	Link[s] omitted

Camiller -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1418
14 May 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Fanoiki -v- Commissioner of Police of Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1432
19 May 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Re N [1999] EWCA Civ 1452; [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med 257
20 May 1999 CA	Criminal Practice, Police, Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant was a victim of a rape. She alleged that the police had mishandled the prosecution, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the defendant, which in turn, she said exacerbated her own post traumatic stress disorder. Held: "In my judgment an attempt to formulate a duty of care in this way is wholly misconceived. If a duty of care exists at all it is a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Plaintiff from suffering injury, loss or damage of the type in question, in this case psychiatric injury. " Clarke LJ: It was at least arguable that where a forensic medical examiner carries out an examination and discovers that the person being examined has a serious condition which needs immediate treatment, a duty is owed to the examinee to disclose those facts.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Pearson [1999] EWHC Admin 469
20 May 1999 Admn	Police
	Appeal by police officer against dismissal for misconduct.
	Link[s] omitted

Swinney & another -v- Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (No 2)
25 May 1999 QBD	Police	1 Cites
	A police informant was owed a duty of confidentiality by the police. His information brought him into a special relationship with the police, and they could be liable in damages for failing to take reasonable steps to protect that confidence.

Woolgar -v- Chief Constable of Sussex Police and UKCC [1999] EWCA Civ 1497; [2000] 1 WLR 25; [1999] 3 All ER 604
26 May 1999 CA Kennedy LJ	Intellectual Property, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	The issue was the potential disclosure by the police to the nurses' regulatory body of confidential information concerning the plaintiff, the matron of a nursing home. There had been insufficient evidence to charge the plaintiff with a criminal offence. The regulatory body wished to consider disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff unsuccessfully sought an injunction to restrain the disclosure. Held: A countervailing public interest prevailed. The police investigating serious allegations were entitled to reveal the results to a professional regulatory body supervising the suspect. Such information is received by the police in confidence, and remains subject to the same limitations. However: "In order to safeguard the interests of the individual, it is . . desirable that, where the police are minded to disclose, they should, as in this case, inform the person affected of what they propose to do in such time as to enable that person, if so advised, to seek assistance from the court. In some cases, that may not be practicable or desirable, but in most cases that seems to . . be the course that should be followed." and "In my view, the guiding principles from the exercise of the power to disclose . . are those ennunciated in ex parte Thorpe. Each of the Respondent authorities had to consider the case on its own facts. A blanket approach was impermissible. Having regard to the sensitivity of the issues raised by the allegations of sexual impropriety made against LM, disclosure should only be made if there is a 'pressing need'. Disclosure should be the exception and not the rule. That is because the consequences of disclosure of such information for the subject of the allegations can be very damaging indeed. The facts of this case show that disclosure can lead to loss of employment and social ostracism, if not worse. Disclosure should, therefore, only be made if there is a pressing need for it."
	Link[s] omitted

Chartered Trust Plc -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis -v- Andrew and Sully [1999] EWCA Civ 1481
26 May 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Police Complaints Authority (ex parte Mercy Akenzua) [1999] EWHC Admin 507; [1999] EWHC Admin 507
27 May 1999 Admn	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Clarke -v- Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police and Crewe
14 Jun 1999 CA	Police, Torts - Other
	The police have a duty of care to arrested persons to record fully the times spent custody by an arrested person. A failure to do so can mean that such a person's detention in prison is later extended unlawfully. This result is entirely foreseeable, and the police officer is liable in damages for such wrongful detention.

Thomas -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1673
24 Jun 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Graham Charles Parker -v- Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary [1999] EWCA Civ 1685
25 Jun 1999 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge	Police, Torts - Other	Casemap
	The claimant sought damages after his arrest by armed police. The defendant appealed a substantial award of damages. Held: The section required the officer to have reasonable grounds for suspecting the arrestees to be guilty of the offence. The constable must suspect both that an arrestable offence has been committed and that the citizen he is arresting is guilty, and in addition he is required to have reasonable grounds for these suspicions. Held: The state of mind of the officer at the time of the arrest reflected a degree of uncertainty, or to use Lord Devlin’s words, a state of “conjecture or surmise”. This state of mind, suspicious but uncertain, was based on reasonable grounds, and the arrest was lawful.
	Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(6)
	Link[s] omitted

Williamson -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis; Chief Constable of Hampshire and Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire [1999] EWCA Civ 1741
1 Jul 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Leatherdale -v- Surrey Police Headquarters [1999] EWHC Admin 631
2 Jul 1999 Admn	Police, Licensing
	Firearms Act 1968 29(2)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Kellam, Ex Parte South Wales Police Authority [1999] EWHC Admin 627
2 Jul 1999 QBD	Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	An officer victimised on duty by fellow officers and suffering stress had been injured in the execution of his duty for the legislation, and so was entitled to claim benefits under the Pensions Regulations. The officer suffered harassment after his wife, also an officer, complained about malpractice in her unit. The causal connection test need not be applied in any legalistic way.
	Police Pensions Regulations 1987 (1987 No 257)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Ex P Lainton
13 Jul 1999 QBD	Police
	The decision by a chief constable whether to extend the probationary period of a constable was one which he could not be expected to exercise himself and could properly be expected to be delegated. The power to extend a probationary period could be exercised even after it had actually expired.
	Police Regulations 1995 (1995 No 215) 14(2)

In Re Lawrence
13 Jul 1999 QBD	Police
	The right of a complainant in police disciplinary proceedings to have with them at any hearing a friend did not prevent a friend attending even though he was a solicitor engaged in a related case provided only that he could properly be described as a family friend within the regulation.
	Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (1985 No 518) 18.2

Redmond-Bate -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] HRLR 249; [1999] EWHC Admin 733; [1999] Crim LR 998; (1999) 7 BHRC 375; (1999) 163 JP 789; CO/188/99
23 Jul 1999 Admn Sedley LJ	Human Rights, Crime, Police	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility. Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, eccentric, heretical, unwelcome and provocative provided it did not tend to provoke violence. There was no reasonable inference available in this case to the police officer that the appellant, preaching about morality, was about to cause a breach of the peace. Sedley LJ said: "A judgment as to the imminence of a breach of the peace does not conclude the constable's task. The next and critical question for the constable, and in turn for the court, is where the threat is coming from, because it is there that preventive action must be directed. It is only if otherwise lawful conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that it will, by interfering with the rights or liberties of others, provoke violence which, though unlawful, would not be entirely unreasonable that a constable is empowered to take steps to prevent it . . Mr Kealy for the prosecutor submitted that if there are two alternative sources of trouble, a constable can properly take steps against either. This is right, but only if both are threatening violence or behaving in a manner that might provoke violence" and "The test to determine whether the police officer's action was reasonable was an objective one, in the sense that it was for the courts to decide, not whether the view taken by that officer fell within the broad band of rational decisions but whether, in the light of what he knew and perceived at the time, the court was satisfied that it was reasonable to fear an imminent breach of the peace and that reasonableness had to be evaluated without the qualifications of hindsight."
	Police Act 1996 89(2)
	Link[s] omitted

Pearl -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 1947
23 Jul 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Williamson -v- Commissioner of Police for Metropolis; Chief Constable of Hampshire and Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire [1999] EWCA Civ 1973
26 Jul 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions Kingston Upon Hull City Council ex parte East Riding of Yorkshire Council [1999] EWHC Admin 751
28 Jul 1999 Admn	Police, Local Government
	Link[s] omitted

Brian Anthony Jones -v- Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police [1999] EWCA Civ 2037
30 Jul 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Brian Anthony Jones -v- Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police [1999] EWCA Civ 2038
30 Jul 1999 CA	Police
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Chief Constable of British Transport Police ex parte William Farmer [1999] EWCA Civ 2051
30 Jul 1999 CA Henry LJ, Potter LJ, Mummery LJ	Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	The probationer constable had assisted another probationer to cheat at his examinations. He appealed his dismissal.
	Link[s] omitted

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Mark Swann [1999] EWHC Admin 768
30 Jul 1999 Admn	Police, Crime
	Police Act 1996 89(2)
	Link[s] omitted

Kinsella -v- Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire
24 Aug 1999 QBD	Police
	Where a police force is sued for negligence the questions of public policy which might prevent the case proceeding might be raised in interim proceedings before the trial, and there is no rule of law requiring them to be dealt with only at the trial of the action, provided there was sufficient information to allow such a decision on the pleadings.

SPV -v- AM and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 2111
27 Aug 1999 CA Lord Justice Schiemann	Employment, Discrimination, Police	Casemap 1 Cites
	The respondent sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that he was an appropriate respondent to the claimant's claim for sex discrimination. The claimant had been a police officer, and claimed she had been the subject of repeated and unwanted sexual advances from the respondent. He argued that only the Chief Constable was an appropriate defendant. Held: A police officer against whom an allegation of discrimination was made was a proper respondent in addition to the Chief Constable. The case of Fara was of no assistance to him. The legislation clearly allowed that he might have responsibility.
	Discrimination Act 1975 6(2)(b) 41(1) 42 17(1)
	Link[s] omitted

William Cowan -v- Sir Paul Condon - Metropolitan Police Service [1999] EWCA Civ 2031
31 Aug 1999 CA	Police
	The fact that a vehicle could count as 'premises' for the purposes of the Act, did not mean that that could or should restrict the ability of the police to impound a motor vehicle. There was no power to seize premises, but that could not imply that a moveable object was not subject to seizure.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
	Link[s] omitted

Osman -v- Director of Public Prosecutions
28 Sep 1999 QBD	Police
	Where an officer sought to stop and search a member of the public, he had a clear duty under the Act to supply details of his name and station, even though his number was shown on his uniform. The duty under the Act was clear and easily complied with. An arrest which followed a failure to comply with this was an unlawful arrest.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 2(3)(a)

Lamothe and Others -v- Commissioner of Police Of the Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 3034
25 Oct 1999 CA Lord Bingham CJ, May LJ	Police, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court was asked as to the propriety of the procedure adopted by the circuit judge, who when considering a claim for false imprisonment, assault and trespass had initially acceded to an application by the defendant which was made without notice before deciding in the absence of the claimant first that the defendant's officers had reasonable grounds for believing the particular person was present in the premises and second that the claimants would be prohibited from asking any questions of the defendants' witnesses which might reveal the grounds for their belief. The ground of appeal was that the procedure adopted by the circuit judge was contrary to the ordinary rules of procedure and was unfair. Lord Bingham CJ explained that where the complaint was lack of particularity, then the defendant had three choices when faced with the contention that the claim should be struck out as disclosing no defence. They were first to accept that the paragraph should be struck out and second to contend that the paragraphs were unobjectionable while the third course which might be combined with the second course was to accept that the paragraphs were objectionable as they stood but to contend that they could be saved by amendment and by the addition of appropriate particulars. If the defendant felt inhibited from disclosing information, then this would be the proper subject of a claim for Public Iinterest Immunity.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Chelmsford Crown Court, Ex Parte Farrer
27 Oct 1999 QBD	Licensing, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	A shotgun owner kept his guns locked in his mothers house, and she knew the whereabouts of the key. She was not licensed. The police objected to the renewal saying she had access to them and they were not therefore kept securely. It was held that the proper issue was for the potential licence holder to establish that the condition requiring security was satisfied. Case remitted.
	Firearms Rules 1989 (1989 No 854) 4(4)(iv)(a) 3(4)(iv)(a)

Regina -v- Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley [2000] QB 576; [2001] All ER 411; [2000] 2 WLR 409
10 Nov 1999 QBD Kennedy LJ	Criminal Practice, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	When police officers executed a search warrant, it was not proper to remove articles at large, in order later to sift through them, and then to return material not covered by the warrant. There is no absolute prohibition against removing articles for which legal professional privilege was claimed, provided the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the material was not so protected. Material removed, but then found not to have been covered by the warrant, must be returned immediately. The court disagreed that, before seizing the document, the officer had to be satisfied that it did not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege. "The officers are not, for example, required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material sought does not consist of or include items subject to legal professional privilege". Kennedy LJ said: "I accept, of course, that any failure to comply with the requirements of either section 15 or section 16 renders the whole process of entry and search unlawful . ."
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8(1)

Webb -v- Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2000] QB 427; [1999] EWCA Civ 3041; [2000] 2 WLR 546; [2000] 1 All ER 209
26 Nov 1999 CA May, Pill, Hale, LJJ	Torts - Other, Police	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The Police had confiscated money suspected to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, but no offence was proved. The magistrates had refused to return the money under the 1897 Act. The claimants now sought to reciver it under civil proceedings. Held: The judge was wrong to have found public policy grounds for refusing to order what he had found to be such proceeds. There was no statutory power to hold the money and it must be returned: "There is no statutory power to confiscate the proceeds of drug dealing within the United Kingdom where the person entitled to possession of the money is not convicted of a drug trafficking offence. I recognise that there may be circumstances where for a variety of reasons a prosecution may not take place. But that does not, in my view, justify expropriation by means of a defence to a civil claim for return of money which has been seized from persons who are not convicted." The position was essentially the same whether proceedings were taken against the police directly or whether proceedings were taken pursuant to 1897 Act. In each of the cases, the police initially lawfully seized the money, but the statutory power to retain it was exhausted. "the court should not, in my view, countenance expropriation by a public authority of money or property belonging to an individual for which there is no statutory authority" and "if goods are in the possession of a person, on the face of it he has the right to that possession. His right to possession may be suspended or temporarily divested if the goods are seized by the police under lawful authority. If the police right to retain the goods comes to an end, the right to possession of the person from whom they are seized revives. In the absence of any evidence that anybody else is the true owner, once the police right of retention comes to an end, the person from whom they were compulsorily taken is entitled to possession."
	Police (Property) Act 1897 1(1)
	Link[s] omitted