Christopher Bell v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

A public authority responsible for preventing child abduction must operate its protective procedures competently where the risk of removal is real and imminent. The police must assess and record the risk, take appropriate preventative measures, and signpost the affected parent to urgent legal and specialist advice. Returning a child’s passport to a parent who has indicated an intention to leave the jurisdiction may breach Article 8 and negligence duties, particularly where the police have undertaken to hold the passport for safekeeping. A claimant’s losses are recoverable where the breach directly enables the abduction and makes subsequent legal expenditure reasonably foreseeable.

The claimant’s former partner removed their three-year-old son to Brazil after Metropolitan Police officers returned the child’s passport to her without conducting the required risk assessment, issuing a port alert, or informing the claimant. The claimant brought claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging breach of Article 8, and in negligence.

The central issues were whether the officers had failed to take necessary preventative steps, whether they could lawfully have retained the passport, whether the defendant owed and breached a duty of care, and whether the claimant’s financial and non-pecuniary losses were caused by those breaches.

1. Adverse inference. The claimant had established a case to answer on the officers’ conduct. The defendant’s blanket decision not to call any of the officers was not credibly explained. Applying Wisniewski and Efobi, an inference could properly be drawn that the absent officers had no answer to the criticism made. It was unnecessary to rely on that inference because the claimant’s case was proved on the available evidence.
2. Passport retention. The police could have retained the passport. The claimant had an equal right to it; returning it would have assisted a suspected criminal purpose, engaging the ex turpi causa principle; safeguarding and crime-prevention duties supported retention; and the criteria in section 19(3) of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were capable of being met. The existence of family-court powers did not exclude parallel police powers.
3. Article 8. The positive obligations under Article 8 were engaged. The risk of abduction was real and imminent because there had been preparatory steps, recent threats, unsupervised access, foreign family connections, and an apparent intention to travel within 24 to 48 hours. The officers failed to operate the defendant’s scheme competently, including by failing to assess and record the risk, seek Reunite’s advice, advise the claimant about urgent family-law remedies, retain or warn about the passport, and issue a port alert.
4. Negligence. The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care by direct or incremental application of Al-Kandari, by reason of the officers’ representations and reliance, and additionally because the officers created the danger and the claimant was detained. The duty included taking reasonable care to retain the passport and informing the claimant if it ceased to be held.
5. Causation and remedy. Returning the passport, failing to issue a port alert, and failing to facilitate urgent court action directly enabled the abduction. The claimant was entitled to a declaration, £28,000 for non-pecuniary loss, £76,399.49 for past pecuniary loss, and £33,600 for further past and future pecuniary loss. Both claims succeeded. Interest and consequential matters were adjourned.

First-instance judgment. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.