KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)

The claim concerns an incident on 24th November 2020 when two police officers attended a 999 call made by the Claimant in which he reported being punched in the face by his half-brother, William Balmain, at the house where his half-brother lives, with his wife, mother-in-law and infant child.

The Claimant asserts he looked after the house where the incident took place on his father's behalf. He told the police that he would attend once or twice a week to collect rent, undertake maintenance and check on refurbishment work in the kitchen . He lives nearby.

It is undisputed that when the police arrived at the scene, the Claimant was standing outside the property with injuries appearing to be a broken nose. His half-brother was inside and said that the Claimant should not be at the property. The half-brother was recorded on police body worn video to have a bloodied scratch to his right forehead and blood was observed around his hands (which he said was from the Claimant scratching him).

According to the Claimant he had removed his half-brother’s bike into the back garden shortly before the assault complained of, in accordance with “house rules” but his half-brother disagreed stating that he was entitled to keep it inside. In terms of witnesses, the half-brother’s wife and mother-in-law said they believed the Claimant was the aggressor and should not be at the house, but they had not personally witnessed any assault. The Claimant's father confirmed to police that the Claimant had permission to attend the communal areas on his behalf.

The police noted mobile phone footage taken by the Claimant but considered that it did not show the assault sufficiently clearly to reveal who was the aggressor in the altercation, although parts of the footage were consistent with the account given by the Claimant. At the moment on the footage that the half-brother gets close to the Claimant the camera turns away and the Claimant is heard shouting that he had been attacked. The Claimant believes there is more to be seen on the recording than the police have identified. For example, he says at paragraph 26 of the Particulars that “In one, essential frame, a fist, resembling a mace, can be seen striking my face. Repeatedly prompting and asking the arrogant police officers to check the footage, made no difference. They simply did not care.”

The Claimant stated on his Claim Form that he had brought proceedings so he could “remain safe from the man who has assaulted him (since childhood) and has a history of domestic violence, hate crimes and other disturbances”.

The Claimant refers in his Particulars to the police officers attending the incident as “white” at [13] and says he was treated “with contempt” by them at [14], he accuses them of “racism” at [15] and that the suspect “was treated very leniently by the white officers, when he had his white wife, white mother-in-law , and white baby to arouse false feelings of fraternity” at [17] and “For these officers, race was of more consequence than their duty to the law”. He also argued at[19] that “The Police are always duty bound to pass all crimes which involve domestic violence, hate crime, actual or grievance bodily harm as was true in this case, directly to the Crown Prosecution Service”.