Minio-Paluello v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Intentional hostile force constitutes an assault unless the defendant proves legal justification. In assessing a police officer’s use of force, the court must consider whether the force was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, allowing for the urgency and confusion of events but not applying hindsight unrealistically. A protester may commit an offence by wilfully and unreasonably obstructing a busy highway, even where the obstruction is partial or brief. For an arrest under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence may suffice. Force used to remove a person from the ground is unlawful where it involves an obviously dangerous arm-lock and is disproportionate to the circumstances.

The claimant was injured during a pro-Palestinian demonstration near the Israeli Embassy in London. While police officers were arresting another protester, Taimour Lay, the claimant intervened. Police Constable Pelham pulled her from the ground by her internally rotated and locked left arm, causing a fractured humerus and shoulder injury.

She claimed damages for assault or battery, negligence, breach of human rights, and aggravated or exemplary damages. The defendant relied on statutory arrest powers, self-defence, prevention of crime, and reasonable and proportionate force. The central issues were whether Mr Lay’s arrest was lawful and whether the force used against the claimant was justified.

1. Lawfulness of Mr Lay’s arrest. The court accepted that Mr Lay repeatedly entered the carriageway of a busy road after being told to remain on the pavement. Under section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980, the obstruction could be partial and need not be prolonged. There were reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was committing or about to commit an offence within section 24(1)(c) and (d) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. His use of the highway was not reasonable in the circumstances.
2. The arrest was also lawful on the alternative basis of preventing a breach of the peace. Repeatedly entering the carriageway of a busy road at night created a disturbance and a foreseeable risk of harm. The imminence requirement was satisfied because Mr Lay was already in the road. The information given to him, including that he was under arrest for obstruction of the highway, satisfied section 28 of PACE.
3. Use of force. The court accepted that the circumstances were chaotic and that the reasonableness of police action must be judged without weighing the officer’s conduct with excessive precision in the calm atmosphere of a courtroom. That approach did not justify the force used here. The medical evidence established that the claimant’s arm must have been internally rotated behind her back, locked at the shoulder, and subjected to a substantial twisting and lifting force.
4. Pulling the claimant from the ground in that position was an obviously dangerous operation, not a standard police restraint technique, and was neither reasonable nor proportionate. The injury was avoidable. The claimant therefore succeeded in assault and would also have succeeded in negligence. It was unnecessary to decide the scope of section 117 of PACE or section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
5. General damages of £11,500 and special damages of £2,803.49 were awarded. The claims for aggravated and exemplary damages were rejected. The total award was £14,303.49, with interest and costs to be dealt with by agreement or further order.

Not an appellate decision. The judgment itself does not state any prior appellate history.