Alan Searson & Anor v The Chief Constable of Nottingham Constabulary

Arrest and detention under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 require continuing objective justification. The statutory safeguards governing detention reviews are cumulative. A review that omits the required opportunity for the suspect or an available solicitor to make representations is not a valid review, and detention after that defective review is unlawful.

A solicitor remains available for this purpose merely because the solicitor is engaged in interviewing the suspect. The review must be postponed or the interview interrupted where necessary.

Damages for procedural unlawfulness should reflect whether detention would have been lawful had the statutory procedure been properly followed. A claimant may therefore receive only nominal damages where lawful continued detention would have resulted.

The claimants sued the Chief Constable for false imprisonment, trespass to the person and goods, and, in the Second Claimant’s case, personal injury. The claims arose from their arrest, detention and the search of their home during a police investigation into alleged child cruelty and poisoning offences.

HHJ Jonathan Owen dismissed the claims after a three-day trial in the Nottingham County Court. On appeal, permission was refused on most grounds but granted on whether the Second Claimant’s detention remained lawful after a detention review conducted without consultation with her or her solicitor. The appeal also concerned costs and QOCS protection.

1. Grounds 1–3. Permission to appeal was refused. The trial judge had identified the correct principles, made careful findings on the evidence and was entitled to conclude that the arrests and continued detention were objectively necessary to prevent collusion, protect C and permit a prompt and effective investigation. The proposed grounds merely repeated factual and evaluative arguments advanced at trial.
2. Section 40 review requirements. The first review of detention was delayed for a proper reason under section 40(4)(b)(ii). However, the statutory safeguards are cumulative. The review must comply with the time requirements, be conducted by an appropriately ranked and independent officer, and, subject to the statutory exceptions, include an opportunity for the detainee or an available solicitor to make representations. Failure to comply with any safeguard means that no proper review has occurred and that detention after the defective review lacks lawful authority.
3. Consultation with the solicitor. A solicitor engaged in interviewing the suspect remains available for the purposes of section 40(12). The police cannot avoid the consultation requirement by arranging the interview at the relevant time. The lawful options were to postpone the review under section 40(4)(b)(i), or interrupt the interview briefly to permit consultation.
4. Disposition and damages. The appeal was allowed on Ground 4. The First Claimant was lawfully detained throughout. The Second Claimant was unlawfully detained from 4:15 pm until her release at 6:29 pm, a period of two hours and 14 minutes. The search claims therefore failed because the arrests were lawful. Applying the approach in Parker and the principle in Lumba, damages were assessed at £1 because lawful detention would probably have continued after a valid review.
5. Costs. Permission to appeal on Ground 5 was refused. The First Claimant had no QOCS protection because he made no personal injury claim. The Second Claimant made a mixed claim, and the trial judge was entitled under CPR 44.16 to limit enforcement of costs against her to 50%.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): On appeal from the Nottingham County Court, Ground 4 was allowed. Permission was refused on Grounds 1–3 and 5. The First Claimant’s detention remained lawful; the Second Claimant recovered nominal damages for defective review of detention.
• Nottingham County Court: HHJ Jonathan Owen dismissed the claims after trial between 9 and 11 July 2024.