Brindle v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 October 2001 |
| Date | 15 October 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Court and Reference:Queen's Bench Division, TLQ 001746
: Curtis J
: H Tomlinson (instructed by Magratts & Co) for B; S Freeland and S Leek (instructed by the Metropolitan Police) for the Commissioner.
: Whether police had been negligent in failing to prevent a shooting that they had been warned would happen
: A feud had been in existence between B's family and D's family. This feud had resulted in 7 murders, and members of the public had been shot in the course of the killings. Information was provided to the Garda (and this information was passed on to South-Eastern Regional Crime Squad) that D had recruited 3 men, including one Michael Boyle, to target members of B's family. It became clear that B was the principal target, and that he stood to lose his life. It turned out that the informant was Boyle himself. It was assessed that Boyle was unlikely to be involved in any attack since he was the informer. It was decided, for operational reasons, not to inform B, and a surveillance operation was mounted with the intention of gathering evidence and arresting those involved. On 20 September 1995 Boyle was seen to leave his house and drive to B's home in a van. The van had been modified by replacing the rear window with a perspex and mirror film. The police appreciated that this might have been done to facilitate firing a gun through the back of the van. Boyle parked the van so that it was facing B's home. He then got out of the van and was seen by the officers to be fiddling with something on the offside the van near the offside mirror. In fact, he had been removing the mirror. Boyle then got into the rear of the van. The police thought that it was unlikely that Boyle would shoot from within the van and that his actions were consistent with the surveillance operation it was believed he was carrying out. However, as B left his home, he was shot by Boyle, who was then speedily tackled by armed officers and arrested. He was later charged with and convicted of attempted murder.
B brought an action in negligence.
:
1. This judgment is divided into 5 chapters.
1. General
2. The claimant lived at the times material to this case in 1995 in Woolworth, South-East London. The address was 19 Christopher Close, SE16. The house and the square outside it is shown on the plan at bundle 3/1 and the mock ups. The square has a number of parking bays in it. On the morning of 20 September 1995 the claimant was shot and injured by bullets from a Browning automatic pistol fired by Michael Boyle, now serving a sentence of life imprisonment for attempted murder. He brings this claim in negligence against the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police ("the Police") for not taking all reasonable steps to protect him and/or prevent him being shot by Boyle who was under police surveillance before and at the time of the shooting.
Background
3. The background is only important indirectly in this case since it bears on the reasonableness or otherwise of police appreciations, and actions or omissions in the period, May 1995, to the day of the shooting in September 1995. I would stress nothing else.
4. I do not think the following matters are in meaningful dispute but, if I am wrong in any particular, what follows are my findings of fact in addition to a recitation of agreed matters.
5. A feud has been in existence between the claimant and his family and Peter Daley and his family. The police have had at all material times good reason to suspect that Daley has committed drug trafficking offences and the South-Eastern Regional Crime Squad ("SERCS") began to investigate them in 1995. The feud's obscure origins lie in 1990, but since then there have been no less than 7 murders of the Daley and Brindle "sides", and members of the public shot in the indiscriminate gunfire employed to kill the victim.
6. I am satisfied that in 1995 the police reasonably believed the following facts were true. Steven Dalligan, a Brindle associate, was shot on 26 September 1990 by one Abdullah, a Daley supporter. Second, that Ahmed Abdullah, the man just referred to, was murdered on 11 March 1991 by the claimant and a brother of his. They were acquitted at court in May 1992.
7. David Brindle, the claimant's other brother, was murdered on 3 August 1991, as was an innocent Mr Silk, a member of the public, and that William Rever and James Moody were the killers. James Moody himself was murdered on 1 June 1993 by shooting. William Rever was shot on 20 August 1994 by one of the Brindle "side", but survived. Two members of the public were murdered on the street on 21 August 1994 by one of the Brindle family group in mistake for being Daley family or supporters. Lastly, George Brindle was shot on 15 November 1994 by one or more of the Daley family group in or near Penrose Street, SE17, an address which will recur in the next chapter.
8. The full facts supporting the police beliefs in 1995 are set out in the report "Sequence of Events Re the Brindle Family"; bundle 8, tag 1 p2.
2. The Immediate History May - September 1995
9. On 5 May 1995 the Irish police (Garda) sent a message to the English police which came to the attention of SERCS about 9 May 1995. The effect of this message was as follows:
(A) The Garda had received information that Peter Daley had recruited 3 men in Dublin called Michael Boyle, Dermott Kearney and John Collins to target members of the Brindle family and Daley owned, inter alia, premises later to be found to be 50 Monkton Street, London, SE11 and they had a "quartermaster" called Dave, later identified as David Roads. That man is now dead having been murdered in April 2001.
(B) The information came from an informer.
10. This message resulted in a major change in the direction of SERCS' efforts against the Daleys in that instead of pursuing the drugs allegations, they investigated the Daleys on the basis that they were preparing to commit violent offences, or murder, or attempts thereat. I am satisfied that this information was evaluated and followed up. The police work resulted in close surveillance of Boyle from 6 August 1995 from which date he made 4 visits to this country from Ireland, and also the identification of No 50 Monkton Street, the Daley owned premises, and surveillance on both these "targets".
11. Surveillance on the Daleys seems to have yielded nothing in this period, but an intercepted conversation on 30 June 1995 showed that the Daleys were planning to assault "rival criminals" which the police knew included the Brindles. By 7 July 1995 the police had identified the likely victims of any members of the Brindle group, including Mr Brindle senior and his wife of Penrose Street, SE17 (see background at end of chapter 1), Patrick Brindle and Brindle owned premises.
12. On 8 July 1995 the police detected Boyle's arrival at Monkton Street, and his observation on the claimant's home and its area on 10 June 1995. By 11 June 1995 the appreciation by the police was that the claimant was the main target.
13. On 12 July SERCS' officers visited the Garda to obtain more information. The Garda were unforthcoming about the identity of their informers, but gave SERCS details of Boyle's character and antecedents and his codename "Vincent". The Garda reported to the English Police:
(i) that their "source" had told them he was present at a meeting between Boyle, Kearney and Collins and others in Ireland and "the source" stated that each gunman was responsible for a specific attack and the attacks will take place simultaneously;
(ii) Boyle had been to England between 3 June 1995 and 4 July 1995 and "everything had gone well";
(iii) that they would notify SERCS if any of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial