Thompson v Greater Manchester Police (Rev 1)

In assessing whether police use of force was negligent, the court must ask whether the officer took such care as was reasonable to avoid injury in the circumstances as they unfolded. A fast-moving incident may require a split-second decision and does not demand perfect decision-making or assessment by hindsight. Where an officer has reasonably begun a safe manoeuvre, a judge may find that continuing immediately was reasonable without separately analysing every possible alternative technique, provided the reasoning addresses the decisive circumstances. For assault and battery, the focus is on the force actually used rather than simply the seriousness of the outcome. Force is not excessive merely because the intended technique failed and serious injury resulted.

The appellant attended a football match at the Etihad Stadium and was arrested after becoming abusive and obstructive towards stewards. During the arrest, a police officer attempted an entangled armlock and take-down. The appellant’s arm straightened during the manoeuvre and he suffered severe fractures when he was taken to the ground.

The High Court dismissed claims for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and negligence. Permission was granted to appeal the dismissal of the assault and battery and negligence claims. The central issues were whether the officer should have abandoned the take-down or used an alternative technique once the arm straightened, and whether the force used was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. Negligence. The trial judge had correctly directed himself that the issue was whether the officer took such care as was reasonable in the circumstances to avoid injuring the appellant. His reasoning addressed the crucial question. He found that the officer had embarked on a safe and appropriate manoeuvre, but that the appellant’s resistance caused the arm to straighten as the take-down began. The incident was rapidly escalating and required a split-second decision.
2. The judge’s question whether the officer should have stopped taking the appellant to the ground was not unreasonably narrow. It necessarily included the question whether he should first have regained control of the arm or used an alternative technique. The judge was not required to make a precise finding about whether the officer immediately appreciated the change in the arm’s position. In a melee, it was unrealistic to expect perfect decision-making or a finely calibrated account of the officer’s thought processes.
3. The assessment had to be made on the judge’s findings of primary fact. The judge was entitled to reject aspects of the officer’s evidence while accepting other evidence and determining the issues to the civil standard. On those findings, continuing the take-down in the heat of the moment was not negligent.
4. Assault and battery. The reasonableness of the force had to be assessed by reference to the force actually used, rather than the seriousness of the injury alone. The judge was entitled to find that the officer had reasonably begun the manoeuvre and that the appellant’s resistance created the circumstances requiring the split-second decision. The conclusions that the force was reasonable and not excessive were neither wrong in law nor irrational.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By judgment dated 22 January 2020, the appeal against dismissal of the assault and battery and negligence claims was dismissed: [2020] EWCA Civ 739.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry: On 4 February 2019, Mr David Allan QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, dismissed the claims for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and negligence.