Matthew Carter v The Chief Constable of Essex Police

The appeal concerned the power of a custody officer under section 54(4)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to seize clothes and personal effects of a person brought to a police station after arrest. The central legal question was whether the custody officer's relevant belief that the detainee may use the clothing to cause physical injury (or for other specified purposes) must be not only genuine but also based on reasonable grounds.

The Court of Appeal held that the plain language of s.54(4)(a) requires that the custody officer actually hold the relevant belief but does not, as a matter of statutory construction, impose a separate requirement that that belief be reasonable. The omission of the word "reasonable" in s.54(4)(a) was deliberate in context, contrasted with other PACE provisions that do require reasonable grounds. The court accepted that unreasonableness is relevant to the question whether the belief was in fact held but is not an independent statutory threshold.

On the facts, the court concluded the recorder erred in law and in parts of his evaluation. The appellate judge was entitled to conclude that the custody officer held the relevant belief and that the force used to remove clothing and thereafter to retrieve a potentially dangerous glove was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Background and facts:

• The appellant, aged 52, was arrested on 14 December 2017 after an incident at a pub and taken to Southend Police Station. After spending time in a holding cell and being refused access to a toilet he urinated, was brought to the custody desk in soiled clothing, behaved agitatedly and resisted officers when being processed.
• During restraint en route to custody cells the appellant bit an officer. The custody sergeant authorised removal of the appellant’s clothing so he could be put into an anti-self-harm suit. Six officers forcibly removed his clothes in Cell 28; feathers from a cut coat led to his transfer, naked but restrained, to Cell 26. Later, officers used force to retrieve a discarded blue glove which they considered might be swallowed and obstruct the appellant’s airway.

Procedural history:

• County Court at Chelmsford (Recorder Dagnall) tried the claim in February 2022. The recorder held the force used at the custody desk (phase 1) and in Cell 26 (phase 3) lawful but found for the claimant in respect of phase 2 (forcible removal of clothing in Cell 28) and awarded damages totalling £23,035.
• The Chief Constable appealed to the High Court. Martin Spencer J ([2024] EWHC 126 (KB)) reversed the recorder on the interpretation of s.54(4)(a), holding that a genuine belief suffices and that, on the facts, the custody sergeant held the requisite belief and the force used was necessary and reasonable.
• The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, sitting before the Lady Chief Justice Carr, Dame Victoria Sharp and Edis LJ, dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's conclusions.

Issues framed:

• Whether s.54(4)(a) of PACE requires that the custody officer's belief be based on reasonable grounds or whether a genuine belief suffices;
• Whether, as a matter of fact, the custody officer held a belief that the appellant might use clothing to cause physical injury and whether that belief was reasonable;
• Whether the force used to remove clothing in Cell 28 was necessary and proportionate;
• The correctness and quantum of the damages awarded for phase 2.

Court's reasoning and conclusions:

• Statutory interpretation: the court applied ordinary principles and held that the text of s.54(4)(a) requires that the custody officer actually hold the relevant belief; the statute does not import a separate objective "reasonable grounds" requirement for subsection (4)(a). The fact that other provisions of PACE expressly require "reasonable" grounds supported the conclusion that Parliament deliberately omitted the word here.
• Code C and Annex A were considered. Annex A's paragraphs on strip searches (paragraph 10 and 11) concern searches for concealed articles and do not impose a reasonableness requirement into s.54(4)(a); at most paragraph 11's protective provisions apply "so far as the context allows".
• Human Rights Act arguments were considered and rejected as requiring amendment rather than permissible interpretation; the court observed that unreasonableness may be relevant to whether the custody officer actually held the belief but it is not a statutory pre-condition.
• On the facts, after careful consideration of the CCTV and surrounding context, the appellate judge was entitled to conclude the custody sergeant had the relevant belief and that the use of force to remove clothing and to retrieve the glove was necessary and reasonable. The recorder's contrary assessment involved legal error and flawed evaluative reasoning.
• The appellate judge expressed the view that the damages awarded at trial were likely too high, but the Court of Appeal did not determine a revised quantum because the appeal was dismissed on liability grounds.

The appeal is dismissed. The Court held that under section 54(4)(a) PACE a custody officer must actually hold the relevant belief that clothes may be used for the listed purposes, but Parliament did not require that belief to be, as a matter of statutory law, objectively reasonable. On the facts the appellate judge was entitled to conclude the custody sergeant held the requisite belief and that the force used to remove clothing and later to recover a glove was necessary and reasonable; the recorder's contrary findings involved legal error and flawed evaluation.

Trial and judgment on liability and quantum at the County Court at Chelmsford (Recorder Dagnall) in 2022; appeal to the High Court (King's Bench) – Martin Spencer J [2024] EWHC 126 (KB) – which reversed the recorder on the construction of s.54(4)(a) and factual conclusions; further appeal to the Court of Appeal resulting in judgment [2025] EWCA Civ 367 (this judgment).