KA-2024-000208 - [2025] EWHC 1964 (KB)

This is an appeal by the claimants against the decision of HH Judge Simpkiss on 12 April 2024, dismissing their claim after a 5-day trial in January 2024.

The claimants, a married couple, are both serving police officers with the Metropolitan Police. Their claim for false imprisonment against Surrey Police arose in the following way, as recorded in the Judge’s findings of fact.

The claimants have 3 children who at the relevant time in 2019 were around 6, 14 and 16. The 14-year-old, a boy, is known in these proceedings by the cipher ABD. As the Judge found, he has an unfortunate history of challenging behaviour, with incidents of truanting from school, stealing, lying and making unfounded allegations against his teachers. His mother, the first claimant, discussed these problems with his form tutor at school, who recommended the Focus Youth Centre, where access could be had to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Arrangements were made for ABD to attend the centre.

ABD’s 14^th birthday was approaching and his parents arranged a party on the weekend of 9-10 March 2019. During the previous week he was repeatedly late home from school and on one occasion missed a dental appointment. On 8 March 2019 his mother told him that he was to come straight home after school. However, he did not appear for some 2 hours during which time he did not answer his phone. Upon his return, his mother, who had been very worried, told him that she would cancel the party. He stormed off to his room and kicked things around. His mother says that she gave him a “light smack on the left cheek” which “was not hard and did not cause any injury or leave any mark”. His father, the second claimant, was asleep at the time because he was working night shifts. The first claimant woke him up and asked him to sort the situation out.

On 9 March 2019, ABD’s father took him to the Focus Youth Centre in the afternoon. When he attended to collect ABD a couple of hours later as arranged, a member of staff said ABD was not ready and asked him to wait in his car. Then, a youth worker came out with ABD and told the second claimant that ABD had said something to them as a result of which they were duty bound to call the police and that there would be a further delay and he would have to wait inside.

ABD had told the youth workers that the first claimant had assaulted him at home and the second claimant had done nothing to stop the assault.

The second claimant was waiting in a side room at the centre when PC Robinson and PC Havers arrived. They spoke to youth workers and to the second claimant, and their interview with him was recorded on BWV. PC Havers had a separate conversation with ABD which was not recorded. PC Robinson spoke to his Sergeant by telephone. Both officers returned to the side room and arrested the second claimant. He was taken to Salfords Custody Centre where his detention was authorised at 9pm and he was placed in a cell. After consulting a solicitor, he was interviewed. His mobile telephone was not seized but its battery had run out so he could not make any calls.

ABD remained at the Focus Youth Centre and was later driven by officers to stay with his grandmother (the first claimant’s mother).

Meanwhile, the first claimant was at home, in her sitting room in her pyjamas. At 9.39pm PC Gavin and PC Bell arrived, with DC Hannah and a member of the Emergency Duty Team, Angela Hunt. According to PC Bell’s statement, she and PC Gavin had been “tasked with attending the home address of [the first claimant] to place her under arrest”.

BWV footage of what happened was not available at the trial. The Judge found that the first claimant was arrested almost immediately and was told that ABD had alleged that she had assaulted him and caused a swollen lip. The first claimant changed out of her pyjamas while PC Bell remained in the room. She questioned the need for an arrest and suggested that she should be allowed to come to the police station to be interviewed voluntarily under caution. She was allowed to speak to her supervising officer (now an Inspector in the Metropolitan Police) who also spoke to PC Gavin. She handed her phone to PC Gavin and signed an agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 permitting the local authority to provide the children with alternative accommodation if necessary. She was allowed to contact her mother. The children remained at home and the second claimant’s brother came to look after them. The first claimant was taken to Salfords Custody Centre and her detention was authorised at 10.51pm. Although she asked to be allowed to sit in a room, she was placed in a cell. She asked for the Police Federation to be contacted but no-one was able to attend.

The second claimant was released at 3.09am having been in detention for 7 hours 32 minutes. He was released “under investigation” without any conditions. He then waited in a holding room (but not under arrest) while the first claimant was interviewed.

Between 4.16 and 4.48am the first claimant was interviewed under caution.

At 4.54am the first claimant was released from custody and both claimants were driven home. In her case too she was “under investigation” but with no conditions and she was not bailed. She had been detained for 7 hours 15 minutes.

While the claimants were under arrest, DC Hannah and Angela Hunt spoke to the eldest child but did not wake the youngest child. They concluded that there was no risk of any harm to either of them and that it would be unnecessarily disruptive to remove them. It was therefore agreed that they should be left at home with a grandparent. The younger sibling was spoken to next day by a Detective Constable and a social worker.

ABD was returned to the family home the next day. On 12 March 2019 a Detective Constable visited the family home to tell the claimants that the police would be taking no further action.

Both claimants claimed that their arrest was unlawful because it was not necessary, amounting therefore to false imprisonment, battery and trespass. I return to the details of their claim below.

HH Judge Simpkiss dismissed the claims and ordered the claimants to pay 70% of the defendant’s costs. The claimants appeal on three grounds relating to liability (“the liability appeal”) and one ground relating to costs (“the costs appeal”).