Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

A police officer may remove and replace a detainee’s contaminated clothing for hygiene, health and dignity reasons. The restrictions in section 54(6C) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 limit seizure following a statutory search under section 54(6A), but do not prohibit non-search welfare measures. Where an intoxicated detainee cannot make an informed choice, consent to removing soiled outer clothing may ordinarily be implied, subject to safety and dignity. Breaches of PACE codes do not automatically establish an Article 8 violation. An interference with privacy may be justified where it is lawful, necessary and directed to protecting health or safety.

The claimant was arrested for being drunk and disorderly after becoming heavily intoxicated, vomiting over herself and behaving aggressively. At the police station, officers removed her soiled outer clothing, supplied clean clothing and monitored her in a cell. She later fell, sustained an injury and was taken to hospital, but the negligence claim was not pursued on appeal.

Recorder Hudson rejected the claimant’s claims in trespass to the person, assault and under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant appealed on the grounds that section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 prohibited removal of her clothing and that the treatment unlawfully invaded her privacy.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder’s findings of fact and inferences were unassailable. The challenge to the necessity of removing the claimant’s clothing therefore failed: [2020] EWCA Civ 144 was applied concerning appellate restraint in reviewing factual findings.
2. Section 54(6C) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 qualifies the power to seize clothing and personal effects following a search under section 54(6A). It does not impose a general prohibition on removing clothing when officers are not exercising the section 54 search powers. The removal here was for hygiene and welfare, not to ascertain whether the claimant possessed an item capable of being used for a purpose specified in section 54(4)(a).
3. Section 39 of PACE required the custody officer to ensure that detainees were treated in accordance with the Act and its applicable code. In the circumstances, removing vomit-soaked clothing was necessary for hygiene and health reasons. Failing to do so would have breached that duty and the relevant code requirement.
4. As an additional observation, where an intoxicated detainee cannot make an informed choice, consent to removal of contaminated outer clothing and its replacement with clean clothing may ordinarily be implied, provided reasonable regard is paid to safety and dignity.
5. The Article 8 claim failed. PACE code breaches do not by themselves establish an Article 8 breach. The approach in Yousif v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 364 was applied: police action taken in good faith and strictly necessary to protect a detainee’s safety may be justified by Article 8(2), including protection of health.
6. The cell monitoring was lawful and necessary after the claimant’s aggressive behaviour and enabled officers to respond promptly when she fell. The presence of four female staff to remove her clothing was justified by the exceptional risk of injury. The monitoring of the clothing removal was proportionate.

The appeal was dismissed.

• Recorder Hudson, Chester: after a three-day hearing, found for the Chief Constable on all issues, including trespass, assault, negligence and the Article 8 claim.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): dismissed the claimant’s appeal and upheld the Recorder’s decision.