In a claim for damages for false imprisonment following an unlawful arrest, a procedural failure whereby the arresting officer did not personally have reasonable cause to suspect the respondent of committing an offence rendered the detention unlawful, but did not merit substantial damages. On the finding that the claimant would have been arrested lawfully had it not been for the unlawful arrest, he had not suffered an actual loss and only nominal damages were merited.
A police officer who had been bitten by a man whilst helping other officers restrain him was “acting in the execution of his duty” for the purposes of the Police Act 1996 s.89(1). Although the restraint by his colleagues had been unlawful, the officer had an independent justification for his intervention, namely to prevent his fellow constables from being assaulted. In so finding, the court distinguished the case of Cumberbatch v Crown Prosecution Service  EWHC 3353 (Admin).
Police officers had been acting in the execution of their duty when they arrested an individual for an imminent breach of the peace following his aggression towards them. Although they had previously told him they might arrest him for breach of the peace if he did not leave his parents’ home, that had not been the breach of the peace for which he had been arrested, so he had not been resisting an unlawful arrest.
A decision by Thames Valley Police that there was insufficient evidence to justify action against a local authority for fraud, forgery, copyright infringement, perjury and perverting the course of justice was not flawed. The police had carried out a proper and independent investigation into allegations that the local authority had created an inaccurate plan to support enforcement action and that it had been dishonest as to how the plan came about.
A claimant failed to show that disclosure on enhanced criminal record certificates of an allegation of sexual assault of which he had been acquitted was disproportionate and inaccurate.