Kenyon v The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2019] EWHC 1485 (QB) (13 June 2019)

Kenyon v The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2019] EWHC 1485 (QB) (13 June 2019)

The trial judge's judgment lacked express findings on whether PC Musto only struck the claimant because of an honest belief as required by section 329(5)(a) and (b), and did not expressly address whether intent to injure was considered in the proportionality assessment; these omissions require the case to be remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1485 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Richard Kenyon; Defendant/appellant: The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Case remitted to trial judge for reconsideration and fresh decision in light of appellate judgment.
Legal Topics
Assault by Police, Use of Force, Defences to Trespass to the Person, Interpretation of 'grossly Disproportionate', Section 329 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Tort Law Criminal Law Police Law Assault by Police Use of Force Defences to Trespass to the Person Interpretation of 'grossly Disproportionate' Section 329 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Kenyon

Claimant/respondent

The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider PC Musto's honest belief and lack of intent to injure when assessing if baton strikes were grossly disproportionate under section 329 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test for 'grossly disproportionate'

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's judgment lacked express findings on whether PC Musto only struck the claimant because of an honest belief as required by section 329(5)(a) and (b), and did not expressly address whether intent to injure was considered in the proportionality assessment; these omissions require the case to be remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Case remitted to trial judge for reconsideration and fresh decision in light of appellate judgment.

Orders

  • Remit case to trial judge for reconsideration and fresh decision.