Omar Barraq Mohidin (First Claimant) Basil Khan (Second Claimant) Ahmed Hegazy (Third Claimant) v Commissioner of The Police of The Metropolis Mark Jones (Third Party) Steven White (Forth Party) William Wilson (Fifth Party) Neil Brown (Sixth Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Gilbart |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 105 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12X03666 AND HQ12X04814 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 27 January 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 105 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Gilbart
Case No: HQ12X03666 AND HQ12X04814
and
and
Phillippa Kaufmann QC and Raj Desai (instructed by Bhatt Murphy, Solicitors) for the First and Second Claimants
Alison Gerry (instructed by Imran Khan and Partners incorporating Christian Khan Solicitors) for the Third Claimant
John Beggs QC and Cecily White (instructed by Directorate of Legal Services, New Scotland Yard) for the Defendant
John Hardy QC and Stephen Morley (instructed by Slater and Gordon, Solicitors) for the Third to Sixth Parties
With the agreement of the parties, I am dealing with this matter on the basis of substantial and helpful written submissions.
I shall deal with this matter as follows:
(A) Introduction: the main judgment and the orders made since
(B) The claims for indemnity and contribution
(C) The case for the Defendant
(D) The case for the Additional Parties
(E) The responses for the Claimants
(F) Response by Defendant
(G) Discussion and Conclusions
(A) Introduction: the main judgment and the orders made since
On 2nd October 2015 my judgment ("the main judgment") was handed down in respect of the claims made by the three Claimants against the Defendant Commissioner ( Mohidin & Anor v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2015] EWHC 2740 (QB)). I dismissed the claim of the Third Claimant but gave judgment for the First and Second Claimants against the Defendant.
The claims by all three Claimants related to an incident involving officers deployed in a TSG carrier of the Defendant on 1 st June 2007. The Additional Parties were four of the six police officers so deployed. Although three of them (the Third Party Mark Jones, the Fifth Party William Wilson and the Sixth Party Neil Brown) are no longer police officers, I shall where appropriate refer to them by the ranks they then held. As set out at paragraph 4 of my main judgment I set out the nature of the claims, in the order of occurrence:
i) Omar Mohidin alleged that he was taken into the van and there assaulted by the Third Party PC Mark Jones, who also swore at him and abused him verbally;
ii) Ahmed Hegazy alleged that he was unlawfully searched while on the pavement, and then wrongfully arrested by the Sixth Party PC Neil Brown, handcuffed by him and put on the floor of the van by him and by the Fourth and Fifth Parties PC Steven White and Sergeant William Wilson with unreasonable force, where he was further assaulted. He said that at the Police Station he was strip searched unnecessarily. Ahmed Hegazy also asserted that PC Brown swore at him, and that he was racially abused;
iii) Basil Khan alleged that he was wrongfully arrested, whereupon he was handcuffed and then, when placed in the van, was assaulted by both PC Jones and Sergeant Wilson. He was sworn at and abused. He was then forced to the floor, and then made to kneel within the van in handcuffs, both during the journey to the Police Station and then for some 20 minutes while he waited to be taken from the carrier into the custody suite. He was strip searched, which it is alleged was in breach of the relevant PACE code as he was then only 16 years old.
iv) Each of the three claimed damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, for false imprisonment and assault. In addition Ahmed Hegazy claimed damages for direct discrimination under section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and for breaches of Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). All the claims were made against the Defendant Commissioner.
The Defendant had issued claims against the Additional Parties pursuant to section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (" CLCA 1978") and successfully applied to join them as parties pursuant to CPR Part 20.7. They therefore became parties to the two actions by virtue of CPR Part 20.10, but were not sued as Defendants by the Claimants or any of them, nor joined as Defendants to the Claimants' claims or any of them.
In the event, I dismissed the claim of the Third Claimant (Ahmed Hegazy) against the Defendant, but gave judgment for the First and Second Claimants (Omar Mohidin and Basil Khan) against the Defendant. I awarded Omar Mohidin damages of £2500, and Basil Khan damages of £11,950. At paragraph 317 of the main judgment, I set out a summary of my findings on the allegations made:
"i) Omar Mohidin was forced into the van, and thus the subject of a battery, and falsely imprisoned for a few minutes, during which time he was abused verbally by PC Jones, including racist abuse;
ii) While the search of Ahmed Hegazy was unlawful, his violent conduct and threats were such that he was then lawfully arrested. Any injuries he sustained were as a result of his unlawfully resisting arrest. He was not assaulted. He was not falsely imprisoned. Ms Gerry expressly conceded that the claim under the Race Relations Act stood or fell with the claims for assault and false imprisonment. I find in any event that he was not the subject of racist abuse;
iii) Basil Khan was not lawfully arrested, as he had not uttered threats to kill. He did not make any threats to PC Jones, or assault him, but was abused and struck by Sergeant Wilson, and then struck and abused by PC Jones, who also grabbed him round the neck, causing difficulties in breathing. He was then forced by PC Jones to kneel with his hands in handcuffs behind his back, both within the van en route to the Police Station for about 5 minutes, and then thereafter for about 20 minutes without any justification whatever, but for the purposes of humiliation. Sergeant Wilson chose to allow PC Jones to behave as he did in the van, and was also a party to Basil Khan's continued humiliation in having to kneel handcuffed in the van. It follows that he was falsely imprisoned until his release the following day. I find that PC Jones used racist abuse towards him. His being strip searched only came about because PC Jones had given false information about the reasons for his arrest. I accept that the Desk Sergeant genuinely thought that he was old enough to be strip searched."
As set out above, I found that PC Jones was solely responsible for what happened to Omar Mohidin. In the case of Basil Khan, I found that PC Jones was responsible for his wrongful arrest. Thereafter both the Fifth Party Sergeant Wilson and the Third Party PC Jones assaulted him. I also found that what PC Jones did to him in the van was done with the knowledge of Sergeant Wilson, who was also a party to Basil Khan's further humiliation through his being made to kneel on the floor while handcuffed. His further detention at the Police Station flowed from his false arrest, but I also found that PC Jones made false claims to the Desk Sergeant about what Basil Khan was alleged to have done.
The awards of damages made to the successful Claimants are described in the main judgment at paragraphs 360–392, and in particular paragraphs 362–3 (the assessment of damages for their false imprisonment) and 376–378 (damages for the humiliation and distress suffered by Omar Mohidin) and 379–384 (damages for the injury, humiliation and distress suffered by Basil Khan).
Since judgment was given, orders have been made as follows as between the three Claimants and the Defendant. Neither was the subject of dispute. It should be noted that the principal terms were put before the Court by consent. The reservations in Paragraphs 8 and 3 respectively were added by the Court.
i) Actions by First and Second Claimants (Claim HQ12XO3666)
"For the reasons contained in the judgment handed down on 2 October 2015, it is ordered that:
1. Judgment is entered for the Claimants Omar Mohidin and Basil Khan.
2. The First Claimant is awarded the sum of £2,750 (comprising damages in the sum of £2,500 and an additional amount of 10% pursuant to CPR36.17 (4) (d)). The Second Claimant is awarded the sum of £13,145 (comprising damages in the sum of £11,950 and an additional amount of 10% pursuant to CPR 36.17(4) (d)).
3. The Defendant is to pay interest on all damages at the rate of 2% per annum in the period from 25 March 2009 (the date of service of the claim form) until 22 March 2012. The Defendant is to pay interest on all damages in the period thereafter at 10.5% per annum pursuant to CPR 36.17(4) (a).
4. The aforesaid awards and interest to be paid by the Defendant to the Claimants within 14 days of the date of this Order.
5. The Defendant is to pay the Claimants' costs in the period until 22 March 2012 on the standard basis. The Defendant to pay the Claimants' costs thereafter on the indemnity basis together with interest on those costs at the rate of 10.5% per annum pursuant to CPR 36.17(4)(b) and (c).
6. Within 35 days of the date of this Order the Defendant is to pay to the Claimants on account of costs 50% of the costs set out in the "Estimate of First and Second Claimants' Costs" dated 11 May 2015 filed by the Claimants with the listing questionnaire, pursuant to CPR 44.2(8).
7. There be a detailed assessment of the Claimants' costs in accordance with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, the Claimants being persons in receipt of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rod James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...views or interests between different employees or groups of employees. (See, for example, Mohidin v Comr of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWHC 105 (QB) (Gilbart J) [2016] 1 Costs LR 71, para 14) 31 In cases where an employer is alleged to be vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of......