Ryan Isaacs v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Dingemans |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4157 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 23 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | No: TLJ/13/0561 |
[2013] EWHC 4157 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Dingemans
No: TLJ/13/0561
Mr Russell Fortt (Instructed by Plexus Law) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
The Claimant, Mr Isaacs, appeared in person
Approved Judgment
Wednesday, 23 October 2013
Introduction
This is an action by the claimant, Mr Isaacs, who is also known as Kenneth Morgan and Steven James, against the defendants. The first defendant is the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the second defendant is PC Dunn, and the third defendant is PC Carroll.
The action arises in respect of incidents which occurred on 31 December 2011 Abbeville Road, London SW4. The incident took place at about 1.20pm and, as appears from video clips that I have seen, it was light and dry. The police case is that PC Dunn and PC Carroll were driving in a marked police vehicle in the area of Abbeville Road, and Mr Isaacs lives at, we now know, 9A Abbeville Road. 9A Abbeville Road is part of a block of eight flats. Mr Isaacs told me that it was a council block and drew two helpful plans showing the front garden and the side gate. The other showed the location of CCTV cameras that Mr Isaacs had had installed following incidents in which some persons had attempted to shoot him.
PC Dunn and PC Carroll stated that, as they were driving along, PC Dunn saw a male duck down behind a wall. This, they said, made them suspicious about the male, given that this was an area in which burglaries had taken place. They looked for the male and found, after looking at various parts of the buildings, Mr Isaacs who was standing behind a side gate. The officers asked Mr Isaacs for an explanation and Mr Isaacs refused to give one, as is his undoubted legal right.
At some stage PC Dunn decided to search Mr Isaacs pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. PC Dunn says that he had a reasonable suspicion that Mr Isaacs might have prohibited articles on him and reasonably believed that Mr Isaacs did not reside at the property. However, when Mr Isaacs was informed that he was about to be detained and searched, Mr Isaacs produced a key to the flat and opened the door, thus satisfying the officers that Mr Isaacs was lawfully present and no detention according to the police then took place. PC Dunn originally said there was no touching of the claimant, but if there was any touching, it was no more than minimal contact pursuant to a lawful search and therefore lawful.
Mr Isaacs' case is that the police could never have had any reasonable suspicion in order to detain him. He considered that the police had acted in a racist manner simply because he was a black man going to his property and had used racist language to him. Mr Isaacs had asked the police to leave and they had refused to do so. He had various claims for trespass and harassment as well as assault. Both Mr Isaacs on the one hand and PC Dunn and PC Carroll on the other rely on the video clips to support their respective version of events.
Mr Isaacs also says that some of the descriptions about his clothing are so obviously wrong they show that PC Dunn was lying. He was described as wearing big black gloves, but in fact the CCTV evidence shows that that was not the case and he was simply ungloved. There was a suggestion that he was wearing a black under-jumper. That is also disproved by the CCTV. Mr Isaacs says that PC Dunn and PC Carroll have colluded in order to create a false basis for justifying their detention of him.
The Evidence
I heard evidence first from Mr Isaacs. As noted above, he is also known as Mr Morgan and Mr James. Mr Isaacs explained that he was known by different names in order to avoid being targeted by the police who had put false intelligence about him on their systems. It is also right to record that in the past Mr Isaacs has assisted the prevention of crime and indeed featured in a local paper as having chased down a shoplifter who was running away from Sainsbury's. Mr Isaacs produced a witness statement, the contents of which he adopted, and he said he was minding his own lawful business on his private property when he was approached by two police officers. They did not tell him that he was being detained for any police investigation. He had told the police officers that they were making no sense to him and that, as he was not being detained, he asked if he could go. The male police officer had attempted to force him to show identification and Mr Isaacs had not done so because he was not under a legal obligation to do so. He asked whether he was free to go and he then left. At that stage the police officers had set upon him, aggressively taking hold of him by force, attacking him. He accepted that the female police officer had used the word "detained" but had not mentioned under which provision of PACE he had been detained. He said the police had acted wrongly in not telling him that he was free to go and in preventing him from going and in trying to force him to give details of his home address to them.
PC Dunn gave evidence and also adopted his witness statement. He said he was on patrol duties with PC Carroll, who was the driver of the marked police car. They were patrolling the Abbeville Road area of Clapham. He said that has he drove down Abbeville Road he saw the claimant, or a person he now knows to be the claimant, wearing what he thought was a red bandana pulled up on his neck, a green gilet with a black jumper underneath and wearing thick black gloves. His attention was drawn to the claimant and the claimant hid behind a large wall as he approached. He said he saw the claimant duck out of view, and given his behaviour, PC Dunn was immediately suspicious. He directed PC Carroll to look. He, PC Dunn, knew that the area was subject to a high number of burglaries, particularly during the day and over the Christmas and New Year period. He was concerned that there was no good reason for the person to be hiding from the police.
The car pulled up and PC Dunn waited for the claimant to appear again. However, he did not appear and PC Dunn got out of the car. On entering the communal gardens in front of the block of flats, which as we now know includes the claimant's flat, he was surprised, so PC Dunn said, to see that the claimant had disappeared. PC Dunn thought he had disturbed a burglar. PC Dunn checked around the property and front doors and front of the window, finding nothing untoward. He then came to a large side gate. He opened the gate and found the claimant. PC Dunn asked Mr Isaacs if he lived at the property as PC Dunn said he had seen him disappear from the police and then make off. PC Dunn said that Mr Isaacs looked very angry and came towards him shouting and raising his arms, shouting that PC Dunn was being a racist and asked whether it was because he was black did PC Dunn think he was a burglar. PC Dunn replied that he had stopped to talk to him because he believed that the claimant had hidden from the police. PC Dunn said that Mr Isaacs was becoming confrontational and irrational and then tried to get something from his pocket. At that stage PC Dunn said he was joined by PC Carroll. The claimant did remove something from his pocket which was a mobile phone and then began to film the incident. PC Dunn then said that Mr Isaacs was detained for the purpose of a search, but on saying this, Mr Isaacs appeared to relent, went to the back door of the building and produced a set of keys. PC Dunn then realised that the claimant did live at the flat and went back to Streatham Police Station and completed a criminal intelligence report and also notebook entries.
The criminal intelligence report says that on Saturday, 31 September at 1322 hours at 9A Abbeville Road: "a male who was seen hiding from police behind a wall when police stopped and entered the garden, the male was hiding behind a gate. When asked if he lived there, the male became very aggressive very fast and very confrontational. Go-wisely given, but no search carried out as male finally relented and opened the door to the venue proving he lived there. Male filmed the entire incident on his mobile phone and claimed he was stopped by racist police. Male seemed to want to wind police up and get arrested. Name refused and stop and account only". I should just record that it appears from the evidence before me that "Go-wisely" is an acronym to assist officers in remembering the information to be provided when detaining and searching a person, the "G" standing for the grounds for the search, the "O" for the object for the search, and so on.
PC Dunn also produced a photocopy of his notebook on the first day of the trial. He explained his late disclosure by saying he had been provided with the video to watch about giving evidence in court and the importance of checking notebook entries. PC Dunn had then gone back and checked his notebook and found relevant entries which he had disclosed to the solicitors. The entry at 1322 for 9A Abbeville Road said, "Saw male hiding behind wall and then on gate. Male very anti-police. Got very loud and confrontational. Go-wisely given." The name of the male was then given as Steven James. Later on in the notebook it continued, "Male waving arms around. Placed my hand on him at one point as I was concerned he was escalating and may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bianca Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary
...Court at all, since such claims can be brought only in a county court: see section 114 of the Equality Act 2010, and Isaacs v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (judgment of Dingemans J in the Queen's Bench Division, 23 October 2013). This point was not advanced below and was indeed ......