Thames Valley Police v Hepburn

A warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 authorising the search of premises did not, without express inclusion, authorise stopping or searching people found there. Personal liberty and movement may be restricted only by unequivocal statutory or warrant authority. Officers cannot use statutory reasonable-force powers to assist an unlawful detention, and an honest mistake about the legality of detention does not excuse trespass to the person. The reasonableness of an arresting officer's suspicion is assessed objectively in all the circumstances, including relevant matters the officer failed to consider. Damages should reflect the whole loss of liberty, physical injury and indignity caused by unlawful restraint and search.

The claimant sued the Chief Constable after police officers raided a public house under a drugs search warrant. He was prevented from leaving, restrained and searched, and was later arrested after cannabis was found nearby. He claimed damages for assault and false imprisonment.

Following a nine-day trial at Reading County Court, the jury awarded damages for false imprisonment. HH Judge Caitlin ruled that the warrant did not authorise stopping or searching persons, that the officers' force was not actionable on the pleaded case, and that the later arrest lacked reasonable grounds. The appeals concerned the scope of the warrant, the lawfulness of the force and arrest, amendment of the claimant's case, damages and interest.

Disposition. The Chief Constable's appeal was dismissed. The claimant's cross-appeal was allowed, and judgment was entered for £4,100 in substitution for the jury's award.

1. Warrant and detention. Section 23(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 permits a warrant to authorise premises searches and, where stated, searches of persons found there. The warrant in this case authorised only a search of the premises and therefore conferred no power to search or stop persons. There was no implied police power to detain people who were doing nothing wrong. Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 2 All ER 521 concerned asking or directing people to assemble for safety during an army raid and did not justify physical detention here.
2. Assault and use of force. Holding out a baton to prevent a person leaving, in circumstances making clear that force would be used if he proceeded, constituted a technical assault. Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 authorised reasonable force only for preventing crime or effecting or assisting a lawful arrest. It could not justify force used to continue or assist an unlawful detention or search. An honest belief in a non-existent state of affairs did not excuse the trespass in tort. The Chief Constable was liable for the continuation and aggravation of the wrong caused by the second officer's intervention.
3. Arrest. Reasonable suspicion was an objective question assessed in the light of all the circumstances. Relevant matters omitted by the officer could be considered. The initial suspicion rested on the false premise that the claimant was escaping lawful detention, while the discovery of cannabis six to eight feet away after about 40 minutes did not provide reasonable grounds. The arrest and detention were therefore unlawful. The approach in Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey (1996) 160 LGR 241 supported the judge's assessment.
4. Amendment. Lord Justice Brooke, concurring, stressed that very late amendments introducing an alternative case should not be encouraged because they undermine proper preparation and the pre-trial process. The amendment was nevertheless allowed because the alternative case arose from the police evidence and no material prejudice was shown.
5. Damages. The award had to cover the whole episode, including loss of liberty, physical injury, restraint, handcuffing, strip-searching and indignity. Exemplary damages were inappropriate because the wrongdoing involved errors of law and judgment rather than high-handed abuse. General damages were assessed at £4,000, with £100 special damages for clothing. No separate interest award was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Chief Constable's appeal was dismissed. The claimant's cross-appeal was allowed and judgment was entered for £4,100. [2002] EWCA Civ 1841
• Reading County Court: After a nine-day trial before HH Judge Caitlin and a jury, the claimant obtained a verdict for false imprisonment with damages of £600 and £20 interest. The judge ruled that the warrant did not authorise stopping or searching persons, that the force was not actionable on the pleaded case, and that the arrest lacked reasonable grounds.