Michael Alleyne v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Seys-Llewellyn,HHJ Seys-Llelwellyn |
| Judgment Date | 21 September 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3955 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11X02326 |
| Date | 21 September 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3955 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
(handed down at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre)
His Honour Judge Seys-Llewellyn QC
(Sitting as a Judge of High Court)
Case No: HQ11X02326
Helen Law (instructed by Hickman & Rose) for the Claimant
Dijen Basu (instructed by Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 23 rd to 27 th July 2012
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
His Honour Judge Seys-Llewellyn QC
HHJ Seys-Llelwellyn QC:
The Claimant is a man of good character. On 30 th June 2008 at least 14 police officers attended his home a flat at 6 Clock Tower Place. There were 11 Territorial Support Group police officers ("TSG") and 3 homicide officers. In the early hours of the day before a teenager, Ben Kinsella had been stabbed to death by 3 men with knives. By the morning of 30 th June 2008 the police had identified 2 of his murderers, one of whom was Michael Alleyne (the Claimant's son) and the police had obtained search warrants for his home address the flat at 6 Clock Tower Place, and Jade Braithwaite the other young man identified as a murderer. The police operation was called Operation Docena. A large number of officers forced entry into the Claimant's flat shortly before 2.00pm. It is controversial whether they announced themselves as police officers before entering and whether the Claimant voluntarily went to the floor, as he says, or was taken to the floor by the first of the TSG officers to enter. In the course of their entry, the Claimant sustained injury to his right eye and to his right ankle, later confirmed to be a fracture.
In these proceedings the Claimant claims for damages for trespass to premises, contending that the entry and search of his premises was unlawful (whether in itself or because he was assaulted during the course of entry); for trespass to the person, in that he was unlawfully handcuffed and deliberately kicked in the right eye and deliberately struck to the right ankle; alternatively that these injuries were inflicted from a want of proper care for his safety and in breach of a duty of care owed to him by officers entering the flat; and for false imprisonment, "for approximately 4 hours and 14 minutes between 13.55 hours and 18.09 hours".
The respective claims
It is convenient here to identify the burden of proof and principal issues on each claim.
The entry. The Claimant's case is that the entry and search of his property was unlawful because (a) the officers did not properly identify themselves upon entry, contrary to section 16(5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE"); he was not shown any warrant, or provided with a copy of the warrant, as required by section 16(5) PACE; (c) the officers acted beyond the scope of the warrant by assaulting him, therefore rendering the entry and search unlawful ab initio. The Defendant's case is that the entry was lawful pursuant to section 17 PACE in order to arrest the Claimant's son and that the requirements of section 16(5) PACE in relation to the warrant were complied with as soon as possible thereafter. The Defendant further seeks to rely on section 6 Constables Protection Act 1750 to the extent that the officers were acting in obedience with the warrant.
It is conceded that the Defendant's officers entered the Claimant's property. The burden is therefore on the Defendant to establish that there was a lawful basis for that entry. The standard is on the balance of probabilities.
Assault/Battery. The Claimant's case is that he went to the ground himself following the orders of the police officers, and that thereafter intentional force was used on him by the officers to handcuff him, and to assault him whilst he was on the ground, causing him injuries to his right eye and his right ankle.
As a matter of law, the burden is on the Defendant to prove that it was necessary to use force on the Claimant and that the force used was reasonable, in accordance with section 117 PACE and/or section 3(1) Criminal Law Act.
Negligence. It is for the Claimant to prove the elements of the negligence claim on the balance of probabilities. If contributory negligence is in truth here relevant, it is for the Defendant to prove that on the balance of probabilities.
The Detention. The Claimant claims false imprisonment from the time of the entry until he was released from the police station at about 18.09 hours. During the initial part of the entry, he was detained in handcuffs, and claims in respect of that initial period. Thereafter the handcuffs were removed but the case of the Claimant is that he was not free to leave and accordingly still detained including during his transport to and his time at the police station, namely the subsequent period.
In respect of the initial period of detention the Defendant asserts it was lawful because the Claimant was obstructing the officers, or at least the officers believed he was obstructing them, such that they were entitled to use their section 117 PACE powers to prevent him from doing so; of the subsequent period the Defendant asserts that he was not detained and was free to leave at any time.
The burden is on the Claimant to establish that he was detained. If he establishes that it is on the Defendant to establish that the detention was on a lawful basis, on the balance of probabilities.
The trial
I heard opening submissions on 23 rd July 2012; oral evidence on Tuesday 24 th to Thursday 26 th July 2012; and closing submissions on 26 th and 27 th July.
On the Claimant's side, the following witnesses were called:
The Claimant himself; his wife Sandra Alleyne; his daughter Michelle Alleyne,; his daughter Yvette Alleyne; and Mr James Watts a neighbour of the Claimant.
On the Defendant's side, the following witnesses were called:
PC Glen Timmons; PC Gillan; PC Barry; PC Jacqueline Wells; PC Lee Leggett; Sergeant Zeegen-Holt; PC Mark Thomas; DC Susan Aldridge; PC Wright; PC Mayer, DC Quartermaine;, DS Southon; PC Campbell; and PS Maddison.
Of the witnesses called on the Claimant's side, the Claimant alone was in the flat when the police made rapid forced entry. His wife finished work at about 2.30pm and around that time was phoned by her daughter Yvette and told of the police entry; by the time she arrived there was a police cordon, and she was stopped. Yvette Alleyne is the younger daughter of Mr and Mrs Alleyne (then aged 26) and lived in a flat 2 floors above 6 Clock Tower Place; she was home that day and went down when she heard a lot of banging and a dog barking constantly; but she was held outside the police cordon and out of direct sight of the flat; later she saw her father leaving in the company of police officers. Michelle Alleyne is the elder daughter of Mr and Mrs Alleyne; that afternoon her father called her to inform her that the police were at their flat looking for her brother Michael and that he was being taken to the station; after work she went there and saw her father, after 6.00pm, and vehemently protested to the police at the state of his face. Mr Watts is a neighbour who knew the Claimant, had seen the Claimant earlier that day and saw the Claimant as he left the flat flanked by police officers.
I mention, independently of these, and called by the Defendant as a witness, PC Campbell who was a neighbourhood police officer and who knew the Claimant. He was asked to assist the TSG and other officers in executing the warrant. He was then engaged in the cordon after entry, and in trying to keep some of the media away who had been filming close by and were trying to film this entry. He saw the Claimant coming out on the walkway accompanied by 2 plain clothes police officers. He was clear that he did not himself think, and did not tell anyone else, that the Claimant had been arrested. He told me that knowing the Claimant, "he's a decent man, I wouldn't have expected him to be arrested". Asked whether he would expect the Claimant to have obstructed a police officer, he replied "certainly not".
On the Defendant's side, 14 police officers who attended at and/or entered the flat gave evidence: they are named above.
It is clear that the first 4 TSG officers to enter the flat were PC Timmons, PC Gillan, PC Barry and PC Jacqueline Wells, in that order. PC Leggett had forced the door with the "Enforcer" tool; having removed the door, he did not cross the threshold of the flat. PC Mark Thomas and PC Mayer entered the flat after PCs Timmons, Gillan, Barry and Jacqueline Wells. PS Zeegen-Holt was at the rear of the property when entry was made, with a Taser in case any suspect in the property might try to escape to the rear. PS Maddison was outside the front of the flat, but as a supervisor, and was thus not part of the initial entry.
DC Quartermaine, a detective police officer, went into the flat once informed that it was secure, spoke to the Claimant and interviewed him as to the whereabouts and movements of his son. Later in the afternoon, and probably about 4.30pm he accompanied the Claimant to the police station, in order according to him for the Claimant to be examined medically by the Forensic Medical Examiner ("FME") which in the event occurred a little after 6.00pm; on examination the FME said the Claimant should go to hospital, and this officer accompanied him to the hospital. DC Aldridge was present initially at the flat but went back to the police station until later when with DS Southon she returned to the flat to pick up the Claimant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contributory Negligence in the Twenty‐First Century: An Empirical Study of First Instance Decisions
...[2012] EWHC 2197 (QB);(326) Probert vMoore [2012] EWHC 2324 (QB); (327) Alleyne vCommissionerof the Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 3955 (QB); (328) McCarrick vParkResorts Ltd (QBD, 26 October 2012); (329) West Sussex CC vPierce [2013]EWCA Civ 1230; (330) Japp vVirgin Holidays Ltd [201......