KB-2024-002095 - [2025] EWHC 1925 (KB)

CPR Rule 3.4 (2) sets out the grounds for strike out of a statement of case, as follows

In addition, CPR 16.4(1)(a)states that Particulars of Claim must contain ‘a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies’. There are a number of authorities that have emphasised this requirement, so that the court can understand the cause or causes of action relied upon, and thus deal with the case fairly and efficiently, and in particular so that the defendant understands the case they have to meet, and can respond to the claim appropriately and fairly, with all the necessary information.

I will now deal separately with each of the claims that the Defendant sought to strike out from the Claimant’s statements of case.
Negligence

The Claimant relies on alleged negligence of the Defendant police force in respect of their conduct in relation to the events that occurred from the early hours of 28 December 2023 to 12.27pm on the same date when the Claimant was released from police custody.

The Claimant pleads ‘Negligent and biased investigation’ at paragraphs 73-79 of the APOC.

I accept the Defendant’s submission that it remains good law that police have no liability in negligence to a criminal suspect for the conduct of an investigation. The Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4 at [55]-[57]; [2018] AC 736 did not change the House of Lords’ decision to that effect in Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside [1989] AC 1228, where Lord Bridge said at p 1238:

“It is, I accept, foreseeable that in these situations the suspect may be put to expense, or may conceivably suffer some other economic loss, which might have been avoided had a more careful investigation established his innocence at some earlier stage. However, any suggestion that there should be liability in negligence in such circumstances runs up against the formidable obstacles in the way of liability in negligence for purely economic loss. Where no action for malicious prosecution would lie, it would be strange indeed if an acquitted defendant could recover damages for negligent investigation. Finally, all other considerations apart, it would plainly be contrary to public policy, in my opinion, to prejudice the fearless and efficient discharge by police officers of their vitally important public duty of investigating crime by requiring them to act under the shadow of a potential action for damages for negligence by the suspect.”

As clearly established by Calveley, the police do not owe the suspect of a criminal investigation any duty of care in the law of negligence in respect of the conduct of that investigation. Accordingly, this cause of action falls to be struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.