Taylor v Thames Valley Police [2004] EWCA Civ 858 (06 July 2004)

Taylor v Thames Valley Police [2004] EWCA Civ 858 (06 July 2004)

The arresting officer's statement that the claimant was being arrested on suspicion of violent disorder at Hillgrove Farm on 18 April 1998 was sufficient to inform him of the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest under section 28(3) PACE and Article 5(2) ECHR. However, the police failed to justify the lawfulness of the claimant's detention for an excessive period of about one hour, rendering that period unlawful and entitling the claimant to damages for false imprisonment for that hour.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 858
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Daniel Taylor (a child proceeding by his mother and litigation friend CM Taylor); Defendant/appellant: Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; initial arrest held lawful; detention for one hour held unlawful; damages for four hours and for trespass/assault set aside; damages for one hour's unlawful detention to be substituted, quantum to be agreed or determined.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Trespass to the Person, Assault, Lawfulness of Arrest, Detention of Minors, Police Powers, PACE 1984, Article 5 ECHR
Civil Procedure Police Law Human Rights False Imprisonment Trespass to the Person Assault Lawfulness of Arrest Detention of Minors +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Taylor (a child proceeding by his mother and litigation friend CM Taylor)

Claimant/respondent

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was sufficiently informed of the grounds for his arrest under section 28(3) of PACE and Article 5(2) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the period of detention was excessive and unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The arresting officer's statement that the claimant was being arrested on suspicion of violent disorder at Hillgrove Farm on 18 April 1998 was sufficient to inform him of the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest under section 28(3) PACE and Article 5(2) ECHR. However, the police failed to justify the lawfulness of the claimant's detention for an excessive period of about one hour, rendering that period unlawful and entitling the claimant to damages for false imprisonment for that hour.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; initial arrest held lawful; detention for one hour held unlawful; damages for four hours and for trespass/assault set aside; damages for one hour's unlawful detention to be substituted, quantum to be agreed or determined.

Orders

  • Award of £1,500 damages set aside
  • Damages to be awarded for one hour's unlawful detention, quantum to be agreed and approved by the court