CASE DIVISION) ? Lord Justice Rimer ? Lord

CASE NAME AND CITATION
? Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis ( 2014 ) EWCB CIV
897
COURT AND JUDGES :-
? COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
? Lord Justice Rimer
? Lord Justice Tomlinson
? Sir Bernard Rix
PARTIES :-
? Walker Appellant
? Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis Respondent
REPRESENTATION :
? Anthony Metzer Appellant
? Mark Ley Morgan Respondent
MATERIAL FACTS :
Mr. Walker got into a fight with his partner (Ms Lecky). Within a short
period of time everything was finished and Mr.Walker was detained by the
Police for seven hours before being released on bail and was charged with
assault of a police officer .
He was emancipate, on the ground that his initial detention had been
unlawful . It was found that PC Adam (the police officer) had restricted his
movements in a door way without intending to arrest him. Unlawful Detain was
amount Mr.Walker’s reactions to be reasonable.
Letter of claim almost comes after two years, claiming damages for False
Imprisonment , Assault and Malicious Prosecution. Unfortunately, a circuit
judge rejected his evidence and the claim failed totally.
Then Mr.Walker appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Statement given by Mr.Walker
? Mr.Walker stated that , he was blocked in a door way by PC Adam and
he had caused injuries ( a black eye , swellings , scrapes and cuts )
? Also his evidence was supported by his mother, who gave evidence
saying that she heard “Calm down mate or you will end up getting
arrested” ( word arrest being used ) .
Statement given by Police
? PC Adam stated that he had drawn up for police station within half an
hour and also he had grounds to assume Mr.Walker of an arrestable
offence (punched his girlfriend and aggressive behavior).
? But he had decided to make enquires before arresting him. It is clearly
stated that he was “not free to move”. He had blocked the way only to
prevent Mr.Walker , but he did not touch the claimant.
? Mr.Walker was arrest for “Public Order” and had not added section 5
which he had in his mind. Also Mr.Cracknell who came to assist PC
Adam , had stated that officer was bitten by Mr.Walker and he was
kicked and bloody .
QUESTION OF LAW ISSUES
01) Was Mr.Walker’s initial detention in the door way unlawful ,
thus amounting to false imprisonment ?
02) If so , was Mr.Walker’s reaction to that detention a reasonable and
proportionate exercise in self – defence ?
03) Was the purported arrest for ” public Order ” a valid within the
section 28 ( 3 ) of PACE ?
DECISION
? The court held that Mr.Walker would be entitled to receive the amount
of 5 pounds under the first circumstance but in his second and third
would be diminished.
DETAILED REASONS FOR THE DECISION
LORD JUSTICE RIX’S JUDGEMENT
? Rix LJ states that apart from the basic facts described above, it also
shows that police evidence brought up by Mr.Cracknell along with
Ms.buckmasters and PC Barton was surpportive for PC Adam for the
arrestment of the claimant . PC Adam had warned him before arresting
him. Such that he wanted only to enquire and due to his aggressive
behavior he had been handcuffs. However did not amount to a
deprivation of liberty or unlawful false imprisonment .Whereas there was
no physical restrain and with regard to the evidence given by PC Adam
can be regarded as trustworthy because, the claimant had not made any
complaints at the time.
WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE,
All the reasons given by the claimant fails under section 28 ( 3 ) of PACE
moreover fails to prove that he was subjected to a force. In brief there was,
there had been, trivial and technical, amounting to a few seconds.
ACCORDING TO ROBERT LJ Explained that , until the police officer decides
to arrest and inform the relevant , he has to stay like ” An Ordinary “. Even in
brief detention had been unlawful. Claimant’s reactions had been unreasonable
and disproportionate in threatening violence and carrying out of actual violence.
Furthermore he demonstrates , if a police officer , not exercising the power
of arrest , apprehend in a way that goes beyond the adequate conduct of an
ordinary member of the public which will be ” False Imprisonment “.
Mr.Mark Ly Morgan accepts that there was a detention and intention to
detain on the part of PC Adam.
WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE,
RIX LJ found that there was no reasonable and proportional exercise in self
defence. Nevertheless it would be wrong for the court, which has not heard or
seen to rewind the judge’s decision on such point.
WITH REGARD TO THIRD ISSUE ,
Mr.Metzar claimed that ” public order ” is not a legally and factually
adequate ground for arrest.
Rix LJ states that Mr.Walker must have been aware that he was being
arrest for his conduct. As a result, Claimant’s appeal against the finding that he
had initially been detained lawfully succeeded, but he failed in his other
challenges. This meant he would receive a nominal amount of five pounds.
Lord Justice Tomlinson and Rimer agreed with the above mentioned
judgments.
COSTS:
In relation to the costs , the court held that the claimant should recover
with 25% of the costs of the Appeal.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Concerning to the above mentioned details, it is clear that appeal has been
dismissed on the second and third circumstances because :
? It was wrong to reverse the judge’s decision without any eye witnesses.
? Claimants’ reactions were unreasonable and unproportional.
And
? Mr.Walker was being aware of his arrest was due to his conduct and
public order.
Although the claimant fails to prove the provided reasons and that
excessive force been exerted by PC Adam there was a trivial and technical false
imprisonment for a few seconds. Therefore, Mr.Walker has rewarded £ 5 on the
first ground of appeal.