Victoria Clark v The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

In a civil claim tried by a judge and jury, disputed facts ordinarily fall to the jury, but an issue may be withdrawn where the evidence is uncontradicted or no reasonable jury could decide it other than in one way. The judge decides the legal character of established facts, including whether police conduct was reasonable.

Challenges to factual findings on appeal face a high threshold. The appellate court must identify a material error, or conclude that the finding was plainly wrong or rationally insupportable.

Police detention decisions under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are reviewed on public-law grounds. A decision to detain for interview was unlawful where, in light of clear and worsening evidence of serious mental illness, no reasonable inspector could have regarded a sensible interview as realistic. Nominal damages may be appropriate where detention would have continued lawfully on another basis.

The claimant appealed against a judge and jury judgment following a 12-day trial in which her claims against the defendant Chief Constable were dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted on grounds concerning an alleged assault during her detention and the lawfulness of continued detention under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The claimant had been arrested after violent conduct and apparent self-harm. During attempts to place her in a police-cell, a detention officer alleged that the claimant grabbed her ankle and that punches to the claimant’s arm were used to release the grip. The appeal also concerned detention-review decisions made at 02.23 and 09.59 on 13 March 2016, when the claimant displayed serious mental-health difficulties and was later transferred for intensive treatment.

The central issues were whether the ankle-grab issue should have been left to the jury, whether the force was reasonable, and whether the continued detention decisions were lawful.

1. Appeal. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds except ground 11. The claimant was awarded nominal damages of £5 for the unlawful detention decision made at 09.59.
2. Issues for the jury. In a civil action against the police, the judge should ask: (i) whether the pleadings identify a relevant factual issue; (ii) whether the issue remains disputed after the evidence, rather than being agreed or determined by uncontradicted evidence; and (iii) whether there is a real evidential conflict. An issue need not be left to the jury where no reasonable jury could reach any conclusion other than the obvious one. The pleadings impliedly put the defendant to proof of the alleged ankle grab, but the detention officer’s evidence was uncontradicted and supported by the CCTV. The Recorder was therefore entitled to determine the issue himself.
3. Factual findings and force. The Recorder’s findings that the claimant grabbed the officer’s ankle and that punches were used to release the grip were not plainly wrong. Reasonable force must be assessed in the circumstances as they appeared at the time. The court should not measure force by the resulting injury or by an artificial scale of precision. In the circumstances, punches to the grabbing arm were reasonable and proportionate.
4. Detention. The 02.23 decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The inspector could reasonably allow the claimant to rest and calm down before a mental-health assessment and possible interview. The 09.59 decision was different. By then, the claimant remained disconnected from reality, medical evidence confirmed recent recommendations for intensive psychiatric detention, and a mental-health practitioner had determined that admission was required. No reasonable inspector could realistically have expected a sensible interview. Detention for that stated PACE purpose was irrational and unlawful. The defendant withdrew its alternative common-law justification, accepting that the appeal succeeded if the stated reason was unlawful.
5. Remedy. The claimant would have remained detained for her protection and the protection of others, and there was no evidence of additional suffering or any faster lawful transfer. Nominal damages of £5 were therefore proportionate.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): On 16 October 2023, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds save ground 11. The claimant received £5 nominal damages for the unlawful 09.59 detention decision.
• Trial before Recorder Grundy and a jury: After a 12-day trial, the claimant lost on all issues and the claim was dismissed.
• Permission to appeal: Heather Williams J granted permission on 27 October 2022 on grounds 1–3, 9 and 11.