Martin v Chief Constable of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary

Police may transfer lawfully seized property to an agent for safe custody without committing conversion. The statutory power to retain property may continue while ownership remains genuinely disputed and there are reasonable grounds for believing that it was obtained through an offence. An investigating officer’s view that the claimant probably did not commit the offence does not necessarily establish ownership or end the power. Whether conversion requires a prior demand depends on all the circumstances.

The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his claim for damages for the alleged wrongful retention of a Mercedes motor car. The vehicle had been seized during a criminal investigation and later transferred to a garage for safe custody. After the prosecution was discontinued, competing claims to ownership remained. The police retained the vehicle and commenced interpleader proceedings after the claimant demanded its return.

The county court judge held that the transfer was not conversion and that the statutory power of retention continued until the demand. The claimant challenged the transfer, the continuation of the statutory power, and the conclusion that conversion had not accrued earlier.

1. Appeal dismissed. The police were entitled to transfer the vehicle to Wheelhouse for safe custody. The transfer did not itself amount to conversion. The county court judge had found as a fact that the vehicle was handed over for that purpose, and that finding could not effectively be challenged on appeal.
2. The transfer did not become conversion because it conflicted with the investigating officer’s wishes, because the indemnity did not regulate every possible use of the vehicle, or because the transfer was not made pursuant to a court order. A separate conversion claim based on Wheelhouse’s use of the vehicle had not been pleaded or determined.
3. Section 22 of the Police and Civil Evidence Act 1984 permitted retention while there was a genuine dispute about ownership and reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle had been obtained through an offence. The officer’s conclusion that the claimant was unlikely to have stolen it did not necessarily establish that he owned it or that no offence had occurred. The competing claims, police enquiries, reference to the CPS, and subsequent proceedings justified retention at least until 12 September 1990.
4. The claimant could not withdraw the concession made at trial that retention after 12 September was justified. On the findings, the cause of action accrued only when the demand for return was refused. The alternative question whether earlier unnecessary delay could have constituted conversion was also answered against the claimant on the facts.
5. The court did not determine generally whether a demand is necessary before conversion. Under Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways Co [2002] UKHL 19, whether conduct amounts to conversion and whether demand is necessary depend on all the circumstances.

Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Moreland agreed with Lord Justice Pill.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the Birmingham County Court dismissal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.
• Birmingham County Court: His Honour Judge Nicholl dismissed the claim on 29 May 2002.
• Earlier proceedings: The original action was dismissed after trial before Popplewell J and a jury. An earlier appeal was dismissed on the first four causes of action, while the wrongful-retention issue was remitted to the county court.