Alleyne v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Police entry under a search warrant is lawful where the statutory requirements for identification and production of the warrant are met. A constable may use reasonable force where necessary in exercising a lawful power, including on a reasonable but mistaken belief that an occupant is obstructing entry. That does not remove the duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury to an occupant who has been restrained and is exposed to officers making rapid entry. The scope of that duty is shaped by the urgency and danger of the operation, but requires at least minimal protective care. A person is falsely imprisoned only if restrained so that he cannot freely leave; the claimant bears the burden of proving detention.

The claimant sued the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for trespass to premises, trespass to the person, negligence and false imprisonment. Police officers had forcibly entered his flat under a warrant obtained during a murder investigation, restrained and handcuffed him, and taken him to a police station for medical examination. He alleged that the entry was unlawful, that officers deliberately assaulted him, that they negligently caused eye and ankle injuries, and that he was detained for about four hours.

The central issues were whether the warrant-entry requirements had been met, whether the force was lawful, whether the police owed and breached a duty of care, and whether the claimant had been detained.

1. Entry. The court found that the officers announced themselves as police and that the claimant was served with the search warrant and the notice of occupation shortly afterwards. The entry and search were therefore lawful under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 16.
2. Force and battery. The force used to restrain the claimant was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. The officer honestly and reasonably believed, although mistakenly, that the claimant was non-compliant and obstructing the rapid entry. The court applied the approach identified in Ashley v Chief Constable Sussex Police [2008] 1 AC 962. Battery was not established.
3. Negligence. The police owed the claimant a duty to take reasonable steps to protect him from foreseeable injury while he was restrained on the floor and officers passed him in a confined hallway. The duty was not excluded by section 6 of the Constables Protection Act 1750. Although the operation was urgent and dangerous, officers were required to take at least minimal care. The eye and ankle injuries resulted from a failure to meet that standard.
4. False imprisonment. The initial restraint was justified by the officer’s reasonable belief that the claimant was obstructing entry. The claimant failed to prove that he was thereafter prevented from leaving or that he was taken to the station principally for questioning rather than medical examination.
5. The negligence claim succeeded. The claims for unlawful entry, assault and false imprisonment failed. Damages were to be agreed or determined subsequently.