Balchin v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary

In a false imprisonment claim arising from an arrest, the police bear the burden of justifying the arrest. The judge must decide objectively whether a reasonable person, knowing the law and possessing the information held by the arresting officer, would have believed that reasonable and probable cause existed.

Where evidence about the material events conflicts, the jury must first determine the relevant facts. The judge decides which factual findings are necessary and whether the evidence raises a real issue for the jury. A judge trying the action with a jury has no jurisdiction to resolve disputed factual or credibility issues personally before ruling upon the lawfulness of the arrest.

The claimant was arrested following a reported domestic disturbance and was injured during the ensuing struggle. He sued the Chief Constable for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, trespass to the person and negligence.

After a trial before Miss Recorder Miskin and a jury in Portsmouth County Court, the recorder held that the arrest was unlawful and awarded £8,000 damages. The Chief Constable appealed. The central issue was whether the recorder had impermissibly resolved disputed factual and credibility questions which, in a false imprisonment action tried with a jury, had to be determined by the jury before the judge could decide whether reasonable and probable cause existed.

1. Appeal allowed. Henry LJ delivered the judgment of the court. The recorder's finding that the arrest was unlawful was set aside, and the proceedings were remitted to Portsmouth County Court for retrial before a different judge and jury.

2. Under Section 66(3)(c) of the County Courts Act 1984, the claimant was entitled to have his false imprisonment claim tried with a jury. Applying Dallison v Caffery [1964] 2 AER 610, the police bore the burden of justifying the arrest. The judge had to decide objectively whether a reasonable person, knowing the law and possessing the arresting officer's information, would have believed that reasonable and probable cause existed.

3. That legal question could be decided only upon agreed facts, uncontradicted evidence or explicit jury findings resolving conflicts in the evidence. The judge was responsible for identifying which facts were relevant or necessary and whether the evidence raised a real factual issue. The jury alone could resolve any such issue.

4. The recorder drew adverse inferences from disputed evidence concerning the officers' conduct and the claimant's behaviour. She also rejected the arresting officer's stated reason for arrest, although the agreed facts recorded his honest belief that a breach of the peace had occurred and that a further breach was likely. Having identified credibility and factual disputes, she lacked jurisdiction to decide them herself and should have left them to the jury.

5. The Chief Constable was not entitled to judgment merely upon the agreed facts. The recorder had identified material factual gaps which required jury findings, and the Court of Appeal could not speculate about how those gaps would have been resolved. As the original jury could not realistically be reassembled nearly a year later, a retrial was necessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Chief Constable's appeal was allowed. The finding that the arrest was unlawful and the order of 5 April 2000 were set aside. The matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge and jury.

2. Portsmouth County Court: Miss Recorder Miskin held that the claimant's arrest was unlawful and awarded him £8,000 damages.