Larrier v Merseyside Police [2004] EWCA Civ 246 (25 February 2004)

Larrier v Merseyside Police [2004] EWCA Civ 246 (25 February 2004)

The trial judge erred in law by failing to leave the central factual issue—whether the claimant was speeding—to the jury, as there was a clear conflict of evidence. The judge's decision to resolve the factual dispute himself was contrary to established legal principles requiring such issues to be determined by the jury in cases of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 246
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Kensley Larrier; Defendant/respondent: Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court Judgment Dismissing Claims for False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of 7th October 2003 set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, Police Powers, Jury Trial, Reasonable and Probable Cause
Tort Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure False Imprisonment Malicious Prosecution Police Powers Jury Trial Reasonable and Probable Cause

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kensley Larrier

Claimant/appellant

Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court Judgment Dismissing Claims for False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by withholding from the jury the issue of whether the claimant was speeding
  2. 2 Whether the police had reasonable and probable cause to stop and prosecute the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by failing to leave the central factual issue—whether the claimant was speeding—to the jury, as there was a clear conflict of evidence. The judge's decision to resolve the factual dispute himself was contrary to established legal principles requiring such issues to be determined by the jury in cases of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of 7th October 2003 set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and below on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Order of 7th October 2003 set aside.