The Chief Constable of Essex v Matthew Carter

Under section 54(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, clothing may be seized where the custody officer actually and honestly believes that the detainee may use it to cause physical injury. The statute does not require reasonable belief. The threshold is deliberately low because urgent protective decisions may be required on limited information.

Where a detainee refuses custody risk-assessment questions and is agitated or violent, the custody officer may adopt a precautionary approach, unless positive information indicates that protective clothing is unnecessary. Under section 117, force may be used where necessary to exercise the statutory power, provided that the amount of force is reasonable.

The Chief Constable appealed against a judgment of Mr Recorder Dagnall dated 15 July 2022, by which Matthew Carter recovered £23,035 following three phases of detention at Southend Police Station.

The Recorder dismissed claims concerning the initial restraint and a later struggle over a latex glove, but found that the forcible removal of Mr Carter’s clothing in cell 28 constituted assault or battery without legal justification. The appeal challenged that finding and the associated awards for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury.

The central issues were whether section 54(4) required a reasonable belief that clothing might be used to cause injury, and whether the force used to remove the clothing was necessary and reasonable under section 117.

1. Appeal allowed. The Recorder had misdirected himself by requiring a reasonable belief under section 54(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The statutory wording requires an actual and honest belief. The omission of an express reasonableness requirement was deliberate and established a low threshold for urgent protective action.
2. The Recorder also erred in evaluating the evidence. Sergeant Bailey’s evidence, together with the custody record referring to anti-self-harm clothing, showed that she had considered the risk that Mr Carter might use his clothing to injure himself or an officer. Her decision was not automatic: it depended on the detainee’s conduct and the information available. A custody officer may take a precautionary approach where a detainee refuses risk-assessment questions, particularly where the detainee is agitated and violent.
3. The right of silence was irrelevant. The questions concerned the safety and welfare of the detainee and others, rather than self-incrimination in relation to the alleged offences. The refusal to answer therefore did not prevent the custody officer from making a protective assessment.
4. Section 117 required two questions: first, whether force was necessary to exercise the statutory power; and secondly, whether the amount of force used was reasonable. In the circumstances, the officers were justified in considering that force was necessary. Mr Carter had refused risk questions, had been drinking, was uncooperative and agitated, had been restrained, and had bitten an officer. The force used was reasonable.
5. Judgment was entered for the Appellant. The quantum appeal did not require determination, although the judge indicated that, had it arisen, he would have regarded the damages award as excessive.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): appeal against the order of Mr Recorder Dagnall dated 15 July 2022 allowed; judgment entered for the Appellant.
• County Court: judgment for Matthew Carter in the sum of £23,035, including damages for injury to feelings, psychiatric injury, aggravated damages and special damages.