Roberts v Jones

Under Part IV of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police detention must comply with the statutory review requirements. Where a required review is not held within time, continued detention is unlawful even if the detainee would probably have remained in custody had the review occurred.

The resulting detention may constitute false imprisonment. Damages are not confined to nominal damages merely because the detainee would otherwise have remained detained. The court assesses the loss caused by the unlawful deprivation of liberty, including awareness of the confinement and its circumstances.

The respondent was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to burgle and detained first at Northwich police station and then at Macclesfield police station. The first statutory review by an inspector took place at 7.45am, although the review was due by 5.25am under section 40 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The Chester County Court awarded £500 for false imprisonment. The appellant, sued as Chief Constable of Cheshire Police, argued that the detention was lawful because grounds for continued detention existed and that, at most, nominal damages were recoverable. The central issues were whether the late review made the detention unlawful and whether compensatory damages were appropriate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The respondent’s detention became unlawful at 5.25am because the first review required by section 40(1)(b) and (3)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had not occurred. Section 34(1) was mandatory: a person could not be kept in police detention except in accordance with Part IV.
2. The existence of grounds which would have justified continued detention, or the likelihood that a timely review would have authorised detention, did not preserve lawfulness. The statutory scheme required the review itself. Until an event made the detention lawful, continued detention was without lawful excuse and amounted to false imprisonment.
3. The court preferred the reasoning in the supplement to Clerk and Lindsell on Tort concerning expiry of statutory detention authority. It also relied on the strict construction required for statutory safeguards protecting individual liberty, as explained by Purchas LJ in Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1990] 1 WLR 946.
4. The relevant wrong was the continued detention, rather than merely the failure to conduct a review. The respondent was therefore entitled in principle to compensation for the period from 5.25am to 7.45am, when he was detained without lawful authority. False imprisonment was actionable per se, although the circumstances could affect the amount of damages.
5. The court rejected the submission that only nominal damages were recoverable because the respondent would probably have remained in custody. Applying the reasoning concerning awareness and the assessment of damages in Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692, and the passage from Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44, the respondent’s awareness of confinement supported compensatory damages.
6. The £500 award was upheld. The court did not determine whether detention after the late review was automatically lawful, whether re-arrest was required, or the effect of the later 35-minute delay, because those issues were unnecessary to the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal with costs and ordered legal aid taxation of the respondent’s costs.
• Chester County Court: His Honour Judge G O Edwards QC awarded £500 damages for false imprisonment.