Neville & Ors v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Article 2 permits force resulting in death where it is absolutely necessary to defend a person from unlawful violence. The court must assess the force used and whether reasonable steps were taken to minimise the risk to life. In a rapidly developing confrontation, officers are judged on the circumstances as they appeared at the time, while remaining under a duty to provide prompt assistance once a risk to life becomes apparent. A public authority may satisfy the Article 2 framework duty through appropriate training and systems for dealing with acute behavioural disturbance. A tragic outcome does not itself establish a breach. The court also confirmed that a searching and critical examination of the circumstances is required where the force used materially contributes to death.

The claimants, comprising the deceased’s parents and brother and the representative of his estate, claimed damages under sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for alleged breaches of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The deceased, who had taken cocaine and developed acute behavioural disturbance, was seriously injured before police arrived and behaved violently towards the attending officers. He was restrained, briefly handcuffed and placed in the recovery position, but later suffered cardiac arrest and died.

The claim alleged unjustified force, failure to protect life, inadequate training and systems, and inhuman or degrading treatment. The central issues were whether restraint was necessary, whether the force was excessive, whether the operational and framework duties under Article 2 were breached, and whether Article 3 was engaged.

1. Article 2 scrutiny. The court accepted the principles stated by the European Court of Human Rights in Frančiška Štefančič v Slovenia, including the requirement for careful scrutiny of force and strict proportionality to the permitted aim. It was not permissible to assess the incident merely by taking an overarching view of the tragic outcome.
2. Initial use of force. The officers were entitled to approach immediately. They faced a blood-covered man behaving bizarrely, reports of threats to kill, and an urgent need to assess his condition. The deceased’s conduct, including throwing punches and moving threateningly towards an officer, made physical restraint inevitable. The initial force was therefore absolutely necessary in defence of the officers from unlawful violence.
3. Extent of restraint. The deceased was probably held prone for about four minutes, and for no more than six minutes. The handcuffs and leg restraints were applied for a short period while officers attempted to obtain safe control and assess serious injuries. The court found that the restraint was reasonable, proportionate and necessary. Once the deceased began to turn blue and suffer fits, the officers promptly recognised the medical emergency, provided first aid and called an ambulance.
4. Framework and operational duties. The police had appropriate training and systems, including the CARES approach for dealing with mental illness and acute behavioural disturbance. The framework duty was satisfied, and the officers had implemented their training adequately. No breach arose from the officers’ responses to a rapidly developing situation.
5. Outcome. There was no unjustified use of force, no failure to take reasonable steps to protect life, and no breach of Articles 2 or 3. Judgment was entered for the Defendant. The judge stated that, if liability had been established, damages would have been £10,000 for each claimant after reduction for the deceased’s contribution.