Skrzynski & Anor v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

For wrongful arrest, the relevant question is whether officers honestly held reasonable grounds for suspicion at the time, not whether the suspicion later proved correct. Reasonable suspicion may arise from the cumulative effect of a sequence of events, even where some descriptions do not match and the suspect’s conduct has an innocent explanation. Force used to effect an otherwise lawful arrest must remain necessary and reasonable in the circumstances as officers honestly and reasonably perceived them. Excessive or unreasonable force constitutes assault and battery. An appellate court will not reweigh a careful trial assessment of a rapidly unfolding incident without material error.

Two Polish builders were arrested by Metropolitan Police officers on suspicion of a recent distraction burglary. They brought claims for wrongful arrest and, in the case of the second claimant, assault, alleging that the police lacked reasonable grounds and used excessive force. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found that the officers had honestly and reasonably suspected the claimants and that the force used was necessary and reasonable. The claimants appealed, challenging the pleading, the findings concerning a collision between the vehicles, and the finding that the second claimant had not been assaulted. The central issues were whether the judge had determined an unpleaded case and whether his factual and legal conclusions were open to him.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge had correctly directed himself on wrongful arrest. The police could only rely on the belief they had formed at the time, even though that belief later proved to be mistaken. The case did not depend solely on the collision. The officers were entitled to assess the whole course of driving, including the sequence over approximately 380 metres, together with the other circumstances known to them.
2. The reasonable suspicion was founded on a cumulative combination of circumstances. The Polish registration, the occupants’ appearance and clothing, their conduct when the police attempted to stop them, the movement of the Audi and the collision formed a compelling overall picture. The differences between the claimants and the descriptions of the burglars, and the innocent explanations for their conduct, were countervailing factors but did not require the judge to reject the officers’ reasonable belief.
3. It was common ground that force which is excessive or unreasonable in effecting an arrest amounts to assault and battery even if the arrest itself is lawful. The judge was entitled to find that the officers’ use of forceful shock tactics was necessary in the confused circumstances as they honestly and reasonably perceived them. He was also entitled to reject the allegation that the second claimant had been struck with a baton. The bruising could reasonably have been sustained while he was being removed from the vehicle.
4. The pleading that the driver accelerated and drove into the police carrier encompassed an accidental collision as well as a deliberate act. The Commissioner was therefore entitled to contend that the collision was accidental but reasonably perceived by the officers as deliberate. The judge had not created an unpleaded case. The procedural guidance on the need for precision and prompt rulings on pleading objections in Rolled Steel Products Holdings Limited v British Steel Corporation & Others [1986] 1 Ch 246 did not assist the claimants, who had not sought a formal ruling.
5. The judge had seen and heard the witnesses. His factual synthesis was supported by ample evidence. A minor misunderstanding of expert evidence concerning the timing of the impacts did not undermine the conclusion. The Court of Appeal was not entitled to second-guess the judge’s careful assessment. Lord Justice Floyd and Lord Justice Patten agreed with Lord Justice Tomlinson’s judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeal from the Central London County Court was dismissed. The court upheld the findings that the arrests were supported by reasonable suspicion, that the force used was not excessive or unreasonable, and that the second claimant had not proved an assault.
• Central London County Court — His Honour Judge Saggerson, sitting without a jury, heard the claims at trial and rejected the claimants’ challenges to the police conduct.