Stewart and Chergui v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice McGowan |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 921 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ15X03650 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 28 April 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 921 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice McGowan
Case No: HQ15X03650
Leslie Thomas QC and Nikolaus Grubeck (instructed by Hodge, Jones & Allen LLP) for the Claimants
Adam Clemens (instructed by Weightmans) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 21 November to 13 December 2016
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.
Introduction
The First Claimant, Joanna Stewart, and the Second Claimant, Hassan Chergui, are mother and son. She is the former litigation friend of her son; he was a child at the material time but is now an adult and pursues these proceedings in his own right. The Defendant is the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; he was responsible for the actions of his officers.
Together the Claimants bring claims against the Defendant arising out of four incidents. The Claimants sought a jury trial in the High Court, that trial lasted three weeks. Following the determinations of the jury it was agreed that they should not decide quantum. Time was given for written submissions to be served. This judgment deals with the issue of damages only. It has not been necessary to deal with the evidence, which was given over many days, in extensive detail in this judgment.
At the time of the incidents the Claimants lived at an address at Granville Road, Cricklewood. The family had moved there in about May 2010. The jury heard evidence about four incidents which were described, in shorthand form as,
i) the "bike incident", on 24 June 2010,
ii) "Yasin arrest", on 9 December 2010,
iii) "1 st search incident", 20 September 2012
iv) "2 nd search incident", 27 March 2013.
History
v) The "bike incident", 24 June 2010
a) The Second Claimant was with a friend in Cedar Road in Cricklewood, he was on a bicycle, his friend was on foot. He alleged that he was pursued by a car, taken hold of through the open window of the moving car and pulled from his bicycle. He said he was then grabbed by his arm, which was twisted up behind his back. He was then pushed up against a wall and forcibly searched. It was not until that point that he had been shown identification by either man in the car. He was not told that he was under arrest although he was accused of stealing the bicycle he had been riding. He was placed in the police car and driven to his home address. Once there he was taken from the car up to his flat, the officer kept a tight grip on his arm, causing him pain and discomfort. The grip was not released until they were inside the flat.
b) The First Claimant and her daughter, Layla, were in the flat. The First Claimant was about 3 months pregnant and her daughter had recently undergone abdominal surgery. It was the Claimants' case that the police, in particular, Police Sergeant Jackson, gave the suspected theft of the bicycle as the reason for the arrest. PS Jackson was alleged to have called the Second Claimant a "stupid boy" and when the First Claimant remonstrated with him, he lost his temper and became aggressive and violent. It was alleged that he grabbed the Second Claimant around the throat and took him forcibly towards the front door of the flat. The First Claimant tried to take hold of her son and PS Jackson then deliberately pushed her in the stomach. She told him she was pregnant and he was alleged to have replied that "it didn't matter" and that what he had done would not cause her any harm. The officer released the grip on the Second Claimant who went back into the lounge, as PS Jackson followed him, he again allegedly made contact with the stomach of the First Claimant, causing her anxiety and discomfort.
c) Layla Chergui, the daughter of the First and sister of the Second Claimant, asked the officers what the problem was and then went into her own bedroom. It was alleged that PS Jackson followed her into her bedroom and closed the door behind him. The First Claimant came into the room because she was concerned at the officer's behaviour.
d) The officers then left the flat but whilst on their way PS Jackson again made contact with the First Claimant's stomach as he pushed past her.
e) The Claimants' case was that at no stage in the street or in the flat was there any mention of cannabis, that if PS Jackson had handed in a wrap of cannabis as an exhibit in this case it must have been taken from elsewhere and dishonestly identified as an exhibit collected from the street where the Second Claimant had thrown it.
f) The Defendant's case was that the Second Claimant was seen by PS Jackson and another police officer. When the two young men noticed them they moved away. The police followed and the Second Claimant was seen to throw something away. One officer detained the Second Claimant and the other went and retrieved a wrap of what looked like a small amount of cannabis in cling film.
g) The police said that the Second Claimant was told why he was being detained and arrested. He was then taken to his home address as the officer thought that was the most efficient way to deal with matters, rather than taking him to the police station, only then to call home and await the arrival of an appropriate adult.
h) PS Jackson gave evidence that no more force than the minimum necessary was used; That the First Claimant and Layla Chergui were aggressive and belligerent; Layla much less so than her mother. He said he told the First Claimant that her son had been detained on suspicion of the possession of drugs. He denied deliberately or recklessly making contact with the First Claimant or making any observations about her being pregnant. He denied the suggestion that he had followed Layla into her bedroom and tried to close the door behind them.
i) He said he had found the wrap of cannabis in the street where the Second Claimant had discarded it and had booked it into the property log at the police station.
j) A member of the civilian staff gave evidence that he had subsequently dealt with the cannabis in the usual manner. As the case had not progressed any further it was disposed of much later as part of a routine and systematic clear out of old exhibits.
vi) "Yasin arrest", 9 December 2010
a) Yasin Chergui is the elder son of the first and brother of the Second Claimant. Yasin was born on 23 October 1993. He has been convicted of criminal offences and is known to police. The Second Claimant was born on 18 August 1995. On 9 December 2010, the police had a warrant for Yasin's arrest. The police went to the Claimants' address to arrest Yasin under the terms of that warrant.
b) Outside the flat they arrested the Second Claimant by mistake. He was taken to the police station and released after I hour and 20 minutes.
c) It was conceded late in the proceedings that this arrest was unlawful.
vii) "1st search", 20 September 2012
a) On 18 September 2012, the police obtained authorisation for and applied to the Magistrates for a search warrant for the address of the Claimants. They had not conducted any proper or sufficient investigation into the grounds for obtaining the warrant.
b) That warrant was executed on 20 September 2012. The search was carried out while the First Claimant, her father, her young daughter and her partner were present. The Second Claimant was not present at the flat at the time.
c) About eight officers attended the property. No warrant was shown to the First Claimant before or during the search. No warrant was left at the premises at the end of the search. A notice giving information to occupiers was left at the premises at the end of the search.
d) No damage was caused to the flat and it was searched in a tidy manner leaving no undue mess.
viii) "2nd search", 27 March 2013
a) On 15 March 2013 police were again authorised to apply for a search warrant for the First Claimant's flat. On 20 March 2013 police applied for and were granted a warrant. They had not conducted any proper investigation into the grounds for obtaining the warrant.
b) The warrant was executed on 27 March 2013. About 14 officers attended, the First Claimant was there with her infant as was the Second Claimant. The property was searched and left in a "total mess".
c) No warrant was shown to the First Claimant, before or during the search, nor was a copy left on the premises. A notice giving information to occupiers was left.
d) During the search the Second Claimant was handcuffed.
e) The First Claimant was obliged to use the lavatory under the supervision of a woman police officer.
Jury decisions
The jury found the following matters proved to the required standard;
i) that the Defendant had proved that the Second Claimant had discarded a wrap of what looked like cannabis in the street,
ii) that the Defendant had not proved that PS Jackson had identified himself by name, said which police station he came from, showed his warrant card and explained the grounds and object of the search before the search,
iii) that the Second Claimant had not proved that he was pulled from his bike, had his arm twisted and was pushed up against a wall to be searched,
iv) that the Defendant had proved that the Second Claimant was told that he was under arrest for the possession of cannabis,
v) that the First Claimant had not proved that PS Jackson deliberately pushed her in the stomach with both hands,
vi) that the Second Claimant had proved that PS Jackson had grabbed him around his collar/neck/lapel area to pull him to his feet from the sofa,
vii) that the Second Claimant had not proved that PS Jackson had grabbed him by the neck/throat and dragged him along the...
To continue reading
Request your trial