Hakan Tuyunuklu v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

A criminal suspect cannot bring a negligence claim against the police for the conduct of the investigation. Article 6 ECHR rights concerning a criminal charge are not engaged where the claimant was never charged. A malicious prosecution claim requires a prosecution, favourable termination, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice. Misfeasance in public office requires properly particularised bad faith or reckless indifference. Particulars of claim must provide a concise and logically organised statement of the material facts. Non-compliant pleadings may be struck out, while a litigant in person may be given an opportunity to serve substituted particulars.

The defendant applied to strike out a claim arising from the claimant’s arrest and detention after police attended his flat following a complaint concerning filming of sexual activity. The claimant had not been charged and alleged negligence, breach of Article 6 ECHR, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office, together with other claims.

The claimant did not attend the hearing. The court considered whether the pleaded causes of action disclosed reasonable grounds, whether the proceedings were an abuse or likely to obstruct their just disposal, and whether the statements of case complied with the requirement for concise particulars of fact.

1. Negligence. The police owe a criminal suspect no duty of care in negligence for the conduct of a criminal investigation. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire confirmed that it had not altered the rule in Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside. The negligence claim therefore disclosed no reasonable grounds and was struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) (paras [10]-[11]).
2. Article 6. The claimant was never charged with a criminal offence. His Article 6 rights in relation to a criminal charge were therefore never engaged, and that claim was struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) (para [12]).
3. Malicious prosecution. The claimant had not pleaded that he was charged with or tried for an offence. The essential requirement of a prosecution was absent, as were the other pleaded requirements: favourable termination, lack of reasonable and probable cause, and malice. The claim was struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) (paras [14]-[15]).
4. Misfeasance in public office. The tort requires a public officer, conduct in the exercise of public functions, targeted or untargeted malice, and foreseeable damage. The claimant’s general assertions did not particularise an intention to injure, an ulterior motive, knowledge of lack of power, or reckless indifference. The allegations were consistent with mistake or negligence and the claim was struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) (paras [17]-[21]).
5. Remaining pleadings. The Amended Particulars of Claim and Reply were prolix, illogical and repetitive, contrary to CPR 16.4(1)(a), and were struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) and (b). The claimant was permitted to serve substituted Particulars of Claim within the time allowed by the order. The defendant was awarded the costs of the application (paras [22]-[24]).