Walker v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (Rev 1)

A police officer who is neither exercising a power of arrest nor relying on another lawful power has no greater right than an ordinary citizen to detain a person for questioning. Total restraint by force, threatened force or confinement constitutes false imprisonment, however brief the restraint may be. Its brevity or technical character affects damages, not liability.

A person subjected to unlawful detention may use only reasonable and proportionate force in response. An arrest also complies with section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 where, viewed in context, the person is told in simple language the essential legal and factual grounds. A broad legal description may suffice when the conduct prompting the arrest is immediate and unmistakable.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Commissioner for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution following a confrontation with police officers. The trial judge rejected the claimant's account, accepted the police evidence and dismissed every claim. He found that an officer had briefly confined the claimant in a doorway while making enquiries, but held that this was a trivial and justified interference rather than false imprisonment.

Limited permission to appeal was granted on three issues: whether the initial confinement was unlawful; whether the claimant's violent response was reasonable self-defence; and whether an ensuing arrest for “public order” complied with section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The claimant was falsely imprisoned during his brief confinement in the doorway. Apart from a lawful arrest or another applicable power, a police officer has no greater right than an ordinary citizen to detain someone for questioning. Confining a person so that he is not free to leave exceeds generally acceptable conduct. Total restraint constitutes imprisonment however short its duration. The trial judge therefore erred by treating the detention's brevity and technical character as reasons why it was lawful.

2. The absence of physical contact did not prevent the confinement from being false imprisonment. Nor was the tort governed by the concept of deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The officer could lawfully postpone arrest while making enquiries, but that choice did not supply a power to detain the claimant in the meantime. The exceptional analysis applicable where an arrest has already commenced did not apply.

3. The court declined to disturb the trial judge's finding that the claimant's response was unreasonable and disproportionate. Although self-defence cannot be judged too finely, the claimant had alternatives to violence. He resorted immediately to threats and a forceful push because he was already angry and aggressive. The later police force was used while overcoming resistance to a lawful arrest.

4. The arrest complied with section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The controlling question was whether, in all the circumstances, the arrested person was told in simple, non-technical language which he could understand of the essential legal and factual grounds. Detailed particulars and a precise statutory label were unnecessary. The claimant had twice been warned to calm down, then threatened and pushed the officer, and was arrested within seconds. In that setting, “public order” adequately conveyed why he was being arrested.

5. Tomlinson LJ added that every citizen may take reasonable steps, including detention short of arrest where appropriate, to prevent an actual or reasonably apprehended imminent breach of the peace. That possible justification was unavailable because the Commissioner's case had never been advanced on that basis. Rimer LJ agreed with both judgments.

6. The claimant received judgment for £5 nominal damages for false imprisonment. The remainder of the appeal was dismissed. There was no order for the costs of the action, and the claimant recovered 25% of his appeal costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2014] EWCA Civ 897, allowed the appeal on the false imprisonment issue, dismissed it on the self-defence and section 28(3) issues, and entered judgment for £5.
2. Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Freeland QC dismissed the claims for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution after rejecting the claimant's evidence and accepting the police evidence. No neutral citation is stated.