Goodenough & Anor v Thames Valley Police

In a civil battery claim arising from the use of force by police officers, the defendant must justify the force relied upon, including by establishing lawful arrest, self-defence or defence of others, and must prove that the force was reasonable in all the circumstances. The court must assess reasonableness realistically, allowing for the rapidly changing and stressful conditions confronting the officers and avoiding hindsight analysis.

An investigation into a death engaging Article 2 must be independent and adequate. Its adequacy requires an overall assessment. A failure to separate officers involved in the incident may create a significant risk of collusion or innocent contamination, but it does not automatically make the investigation ineffective. Serious and significant operational failures may breach Article 2 even without actual collusion.

The claimants, the mother and sister of Robin Goodenough, brought claims against the Chief Constable arising from Mr Goodenough’s death shortly after police officers stopped and restrained him in September 2003.

The hearing concerned liability and causation only. The claimants relied on battery and an alleged breach of the investigative obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR. They alleged that the officers had used unjustified force and that the subsequent investigation was inadequate, particularly because officers had been permitted to confer before giving their individual accounts.

The defendant accepted that the officers had used physical force but relied on lawful arrest, self-defence and defence of others. The central issues were whether the force was justified and reasonable, and whether the investigation was sufficiently independent and adequate for Article 2 purposes.

1. Battery. The physical force used went beyond what would ordinarily be acceptable in everyday life, so the defendant had to establish a specific legal justification. The officers were lawfully acting to arrest Mr Goodenough and were entitled to rely also on self-defence or defence of others.
2. The applicable civil self-defence test required an honest and reasonable belief that there was an imminent attack. The same approach applied to defence of others. Even where force was legally justified, the defendant had to prove that its extent was reasonable in all the circumstances.
3. Reasonableness had to be assessed in the circumstances as they appeared to the officers at the time. The court should avoid frame-by-frame analysis and hindsight. The pursuit, Mr Goodenough’s failure to stop, his continued resistance, the running engine and the officers’ perception of a possible threat reasonably contributed to their decisions. The force, including the use of handcuffs and the blows described as distraction blows, was reasonable and proportionate.
4. Article 2. An investigation into a death involving state agents must be independent and adequate, and must be capable of establishing the circumstances of the death and identifying those responsible. The adequacy of the investigation is assessed overall. Failure to separate officers who used or witnessed force may materially impair adequacy because of the risk of dishonest collusion or innocent contamination, but it is not automatically determinative; the other safeguards and circumstances must be considered.
5. The investigation was seriously operationally inadequate because officers were allowed to confer before making individual accounts and relevant information was disclosed in a collective debriefing. The court found no actual collusion, but there was a material risk of innocent contamination. That defect did not prevent the court from reaching satisfactory conclusions on the battery claim.
6. The battery claim was dismissed. The investigation nevertheless breached Article 2. Any remedy under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was to be considered separately.

First-instance decision. The judgment records an unsuccessful judicial review challenge to the IPCC decision in R. (on the application of Goodenough) v Independent Police Complaints Commission [2009] EWHC 3706 (Admin), but that decision was not under appeal in the present proceedings.