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

CLAIM

ALLEGATION

DEFENCE

Breach of duty

Failure to pass the file to CPS to make a charging decision (31)

The decision was lawfully made pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Guidance on Charging (26 and 27a)

Breach of statutory duty

Wrong exercise of police discretion to drop the case where there is domestic violence, hate crime or grievous bodily harm (32)

The decision was lawfully made pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Guidance on Charging (27b)

Breach of due process

Failure to alert the Claimant of his opportunity to take matters to the Mayor’s office and the time constraints for commencing judicial review proceedings (33)

Information was given as to the right to judicial review and it was suggested the Claimant may like to seek independent legal advice. Denial that any cause of action exists in law for this alleged failure (27c)

Negligent misstatement

The investigating officer stated Mr Balmain was guilty to the Claimant but failed to pursue a prosecution (34)

The conversation is not admitted but even if it did occur it is denied that such a statement could generate a cause of action resulting in damages (27d)

Negligent misrepresentation

False representation to the Claimant that Mr Balmain would be prosecuted (35)

The conversation is not admitted but even if it did occur it is denied that such a statement could generate a cause of action resulting in damages (27d)

Professional negligence

Providing comfort to the perpetrator rather than the victim/Claimant (36)

Denied that the police owe a duty of care regarding investigation of the complaint and the officers are said to have acted lawfully in any event (27e)

Breach of contract

A contract was created between the Claimant and the Defendant when the Defendant advised that a conviction was a certainty and then failed to deliver (37)

Denied there was a contract or ever could be between a member of the public and a police officer investigating a complaint made by that person (27f)

Breach of duty of care

Failure to assess the Claimant as the victim and take him to hospital and loss of opportunity to establish a diagnosis of a broken nose (38)

Denied that there was a legal obligation to take the Claimant to hospital (27 g)

An ambulance was called (6) but a paramedic told the police officer that a hospital attendance should occur when the nasal swelling had reduced (10)

Breach Data Protection Act

Failure to provide the Claimant with the police file without reason when he attended Wembley station to collect it. Furthermore nothing has been received by post (39)

Not properly pleaded by the Claimant (27h)

Malfeasance

Failure to purse matters through the criminal court as promised to the Claimant (41)

Denied for all the reasons stated above (27i)

Misfeasance

Bad faith and lack of accountability in contesting /defending themselves against the Claimant in the complaints process and judicial review proceedings

Denied for all the reasons stated above (27i)

Nonfeasance

Failure to perform the “contract” with the Claimant (43)

This is not a cause of action in English law (27j)

Breach of the Human Rights Act under Articles I, III and V

Failure to act fairly and impartially towards other races (44)

Inhuman and degrading treatment of white police officers towards the victim/Claimant (45)

Failure to obtain a restraining order against William Balmain (46)

Denial that conduct was incompatible with the Claimant’s Convention rights (27k)