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

The Claimant was keen to emphasise that he had been advised to pursue this claim by a lodger with legal training who considered the claim was meritorious. The Claimant wants to go to trial so the facts can be established, and the police officers concerned with the incident can explain their “laziness” and why they misled him by stating initially that they would prosecute and then change their mind. He says he continues to feel unsafe around his half-brother and has been clear in his submissions to the Court that through this action he was hoping to achieve wider protection for society generally, not just for him.

Having completed the legal analysis of the claim. I do consider it appropriate to recognise that I am left in no doubt that the Claimant has been deeply affected by the unhappy family incident that the police were asked to attend on 24^th November 2020. The Court is in no way seeking to disregard either his trauma, or his wider aims for public good, but this legal action is not the answer to those issues. Despite the Claimant’s deeply held convictions about what he considers to be the unfairness and unlawful nature of the treatment he has received following his 999 call to the police, there is no realistic prospect of success for any of the claims that he has made, and no compelling reason why the case or issues should be disposed of at trial. There is no lesser step that can be directed that would meet the requirements of the overriding objective of the Court when managing cases justly and at proportionate cost. The whole purpose of strike out and summary judgment procedures is to “grasp the nettle” early on in proceedings, wherever possible, to avoid wasted time, costs and resource for all involved.

This Court cannot change public policy making on thresholds for charging suspects.

The Claimant still has the option of mounting a private prosecution if he wishes, which was his intended course of action, he asserted, when making a Subject Access Request for the police file. I agree with the Defendant that he can resubmit his request for the file, if he chooses to do so.