PI Brief Update

Claimant injured during arrest entitled to pursue personal injury claim - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers

21/06/24. Ward v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: [2024] EWHC 1297 (KB)

This case offers some preliminary food for thought in respect of personal injury claims arising from policing and injuries sustained in the context of criminal activity.

The Claimant sought to bring an action against the police for their alleged misuse of a police dog during his arrest. The dog had bitten the Claimant and he alleged this caused serious injury to his lower leg, including long term nerve damage and chronic pain. He had been evading arrest (first in a car chase and then on foot) before the incident and was later convicted and imprisoned for burglary and dangerous driving.

ISSUES

The Defendant invoked s. 329(1) Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) 2003 which requires Claimants to obtain permission before bringing civil proceedings for trespass to the person arising out of an incident in which the Claimant themself commits an imprisonable offence. The Claimant can obtain permission only if they can show that the Defendant’s act was “grossly disproportionate” (s. 329(1)(3)(b) CJA 2003) or if – in summary – the Defendant’s acts were not justifiable to prevent the commission of offences or the apprehension of the Claimant (as set out at s. 329(1)(3(a) & (5)). There were significant factual disputes in this case – including whether the dog bit the Claimant before the police handler reached him; whether the police handler had issued any warnings to the Claimant or any commands to the dog; and the subjective belief of the police handler at the time.

In respect of the relevant cause of action, notably the Defendant argued (paras 15 &18):

• a trespass to the person must be a deliberate act, negligence does not suffice as per Letang v Cooper [1956] 1 QB 232);
• there would be no real prospect of success on a claim in negligence because there is no duty owed to a fleeing suspect as per Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2001] EWCA Civ 1249.

It was noted that various aspects of s. 329 remained unresolved in the case law (para 24).

JUDGMENT

Master Sullivan granted the Claimant permission to pursue civil proceedings (para 47). He noted his role was circumscribed – he was not to conduct a mini-trial (para 40). He considered there were significant factual disputes that had to be resolved at trial (paras 39-43) but which arguably did amount to grossly disproportionate acts by the police (para 44).

Nor did he fully resolve the legal issues put to him – save to the extent necessary for the permission application as follows:

• he considered the Claimant’s contention that a negligent act can amount to a trespass was likely correct (para 17);
• he did not accept that Vellino established that no duty of care arose where a person is fleeing arrest (para 45).

Watch this space for yet another battle as to the legal bounds of policing. Note also the judge’s comments that whilst s. 329(1) CJA 2003 has only been invoked by the police to date (para 12), this is by no means a statutory constraint.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/titlezpix