Mohidin & Anor v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & Ors

A search under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 2 and section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is unlawful unless the statutory information is given before the search begins, subject only to reasonable steps being prevented by the suspect’s conduct. An unlawful search does not prevent reasonable resistance, but excessive force or threats may justify arrest under section 24 of PACE. Police officers must respond proportionately and must not use detention, assault or humiliation to punish perceived disrespect. Aggravated damages may compensate for deliberate, insulting or racist treatment. Exemplary damages remain exceptional and are unnecessary where compensatory damages adequately mark the conduct.

The claims arose from the detention of three young men by officers of a Metropolitan Police Territorial Support Group on Edgware Road in June 2007. Omar Mohidin alleged that he was forcibly taken into the carrier and abused. Ahmed Hegazy alleged an unlawful search, arrest, assault and strip search. Basil Khan alleged unlawful arrest, assault, racist abuse and unjustified detention in the carrier and at the police station.

The Commissioner accepted vicarious liability if wrongdoing were proved and sought contribution or indemnity from the officers. The principal issues were whether the search and arrests were lawful, whether force was justified, and what damages followed.

1. Disposition. The claims of Omar Mohidin and Basil Khan succeeded. Ahmed Hegazy’s claim failed. Mohidin was awarded £2,500 and Khan £11,950. No exemplary damages were awarded.
2. Search and arrest. Under section 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the statutory information is a precondition to a lawful search. The officer had reasonable grounds to suspect Hegazy of possessing controlled drugs, but failed to state his name and station before commencing the search. The search was therefore unlawful. Hegazy nevertheless threatened to draw blood. That was capable of amounting to a threat to commit an offence under sections 18 or 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and justified restraint and arrest under section 24 of PACE. His resistance and the force used to place him in the carrier were consequently lawful.
3. Proportionality and police conduct. Mohidin was forced into the carrier, falsely imprisoned and subjected to threatening and racist abuse. Khan had committed conduct capable of justifying a public-order arrest, but had not threatened to kill or assaulted an officer. His subsequent arrest, blows, racist abuse, neck hold and unnecessary handcuffed kneeling were unlawful. The supervising sergeant was also responsible for permitting the treatment to continue.
4. Damages. Aggravated damages were appropriate where the conduct was deliberately humiliating, insulting and racist. The court applied the guidance in Thompson and Hsu v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police and considered the compensatory character of aggravated damages explained in Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside. The basic and aggravated awards provided just satisfaction under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no appeal or earlier decision in the same proceedings.