Wilson v Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis

In a civil claim arising from police action during a riot, liability for deliberate unlawful force requires the evidence taken as a whole to establish clearly that the officer deliberately used force which was unjustified in law. Courts must recognise the difficult and rapidly changing conditions facing riot police and avoid imposing unrealistic standards of care. A forceful collision is not necessarily a lawful act of pushing a bystander aside. Where the claimant was stationary and doing nothing hostile, and the evidence shows a deliberate movement causing heavy contact, a defensive-reaction explanation may be unavailable. Deliberate bodily contact can constitute an assault even where injury was neither intended nor foreseen.

John Michael Wilson, aged 16, claimed damages for serious injuries suffered when an unidentified police officer collided with him during police action to disperse disorder following a football match. The Commissioner accepted the collision and causation but denied that the contact was deliberate or unlawful.

Morland J entered judgment for the claimant after examining eyewitness evidence and video recordings. The Commissioner appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the interpretation of the video evidence and the finding of deliberate unlawful assault. The central issue was whether the evidence clearly established deliberate and unlawful force rather than an accidental collision, a lawful push, or an instinctive defensive reaction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld Morland J’s judgment for the claimant. The appellant was ordered to pay the appeal costs, including the reasonable costs of additional evidence.
2. Morland J adopted the correct approach. In a volatile riot, judges must recognise the danger and pressure confronting police officers and must not impose unrealistic standards of care. The claimant could succeed only if the evidence in its entirety clearly established that the officer had deliberately and unlawfully used force.
3. The trial judge was entitled to rely principally on the traffic video, which he had scrutinised repeatedly. The footage showed a deliberate movement away from the officer’s previous line, bringing him into heavy contact with the claimant and knocking him backwards. The evidence was sufficient to establish that the collision was deliberate rather than accidental.
4. The force could not properly be characterised as merely pushing the claimant aside. The manner in which he was struck and fell justified that conclusion.
5. The claimant was standing still and doing nothing hostile. In the absence of evidence from the officer, the court held that a lawful defensive reaction was not an available explanation on the balance of probabilities. The deliberate force was therefore unlawful.
6. The finding did not mean that the officer intended serious injury, or probably any injury. It meant only that he deliberately made forceful bodily contact in circumstances where that contact was unjustified in law.

• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Morland J gave judgment for the claimant on 6 July 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously.