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

This allegation overlaps with the alleged breaches in professional negligence at paragraph 36. No such duty is recognised in English law, as I have set out previously at [61] so the claim is ill-conceived and should be struck out.

The focus of the Claimant’s complaint is that he was not taken to hospital when it was “crucial and critical that victim was assessed”. The Claimant believes that if evidence had been obtained that his nose was broken “it means that William Balmain used such violence and force and the Police’s utter failure to ascertain the fact” has by implication undermined the prosecution.

It is not the Court’s function on a strike out/summary judgment application to conduct a mini-trial. However, I mention again that the factual records do not bear out the history of events complained of; the body worn videos confirm that it was the Claimant who declined to attend the hospital. Insofar as the Claimant says he should have been advised it was crucial to attend in due course to have his injuries documented because it would have strengthened the prosecution evidence, that is yet another attempt to undermine a finding of another court as to the lawfulness of the actions taken and decisions reached by the police concerning this incident. It does not assist the Claimant in avoiding a strike-out.