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

The Claimant requested a review of the police decision which was undertaken in January 2021 under the Victim's Right to Review Scheme (“VRR”), by an inspector. He reached the same conclusion as the original investigating police officers.

The VRR decision records that the mobile phone footage was inconclusive and did not show a punch, the recording of the scuffle between the two men being less than one second, but repeated comments by the half-brother to get out of the house were audible. The VRR report concluded that there was ample opportunity for the Claimant to leave before injuries were sustained. The reasoning for the decision to uphold the earlier decision to take no further action in full was :

“Your statement alleges that you were punched three times by Mr William Balmain, your brother, in the hallway. Your brother told the arresting officer that you punched him in the head and that he pushed you out of the property in self-defence but you tried to re-enter. Your brother alleges that any injuries you sustained to your face were as a result of pushing against the door frame as he tried to keep you out. The mobile phone footage from your phone is inconclusive. It doesn't show a punch. There are moments of footage (recorded for less than a single second) which show a scuffle between you and your brother. The phone clearly records your brother repeatedly saying get out. You had ample opportunity to leave but choose not to do so. The resulting scuffle on the doorstep lasts approximately 10 secs. Importantly, the phone footage starts with footage of your brother who has no visible injury to his face. The arresting officers body worn video shows your brothers face with a bloodied scratch to his right forehead. Your brother also complains of scratches to his hand. It seems likely that you both sustained injuries during your scuffle. There are no other direct witnesses. The injuries are low level with no weapon used.

To summarise Both you and your brother grappled with each other on the doorway where you each sustained minor injuries. Given the inconclusive evidence, I agree there is no realistic prospect of conviction against your arrested brother and the decision to no further action the case is upheld.”

A right to request a judicial review of that decision was clearly noted on the VRR response to the Claimant and the correspondence includes a “signpost” alert to take independent legal advice, if desired.