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

The Claimant’s various claims were summarised at paragraph 28 above. The Claimant characterises a breach of Article 1 as “The victim was treated as if he was the common criminal… this was made much worse by the persistent and consistent manner in which the police have downplayed and tried to make out that this matter is not serious…. It's concerning the police have remained unable to reform themselves to treat those of other races fairly…”

The Defendant asserts that there is no Article 1 under the Human Rights Act and it is impossible to understand what this claim is about, and therefore it should be struck out.

I agree that there is no Article 1 under the Act. In any event the matters complained of relate to the same issues that have been considered by the Administrative Court. This claim should be struck out both as an abuse and because there are no reasonable grounds for bringing it.

The Article 3 breach is described as occurring because the police have contested matters all the way to court to stop the victim from obtaining justice which is “inhuman and degrading”.

The Defendant maintained that this Article was inapplicable to the events described. The threshold for applicability to conduct which is said to be “torture” or “degrading” is nowhere near as low as the events described in this claim. Those events include circumstances where officers responded to a 999 call, arrested a suspect, investigated a complaint and concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge. Unhappiness with the failure to charge does not engage Article 3 rights, the Defendant submitted.

I do not seek to be dismissive of the level of emotional pain which the Claimant says he is suffering as a result of the failure of the police to prosecute. However, applying correct interpretation of the law, Article 3 rights are not engaged in this claim; there has not been the type of “torture” that is envisaged by the Convention, the Administrative Court has already held that the claim is brought substantially outside the one year time limit applicable to the Act and has also stated that in any event the claim is “unarguable”. So for all those reasons the claim must be struck out.

Article 5 refers to the right to liberty and security, and has been pleaded as a failure of the police “to obtain a Restraining Order to stop the thug, William Balmain from visiting the home of the claimant.”

The Defendant says that this claim is incoherent as the purpose of Article 5 is to protect an individual from unreasonable detention, rather than to protect personal safety.

I cannot disagree with the Defendant as to their interpretation of the Article which is that is recognised by the legal system. Plainly the Article does not apply to the facts of this case. Paragraph 46 has to be struck out as it is bound to fail. Furthermore the reasons at paragraph 73 above also apply.