Magee & Anor v Derbyshire Police [2020] EWHC 3569 (QB) (23 December 2020)

Magee & Anor v Derbyshire Police [2020] EWHC 3569 (QB) (23 December 2020)

The judge correctly applied the law in leaving the relevant questions to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the arresting officer's suspicion, necessity, and communication of grounds for arrest. The threshold for suspicion and necessity under PACE is low, and the requirements for communication of grounds were met in the circumstances. The appeal is dismissed except as to the limited period of false imprisonment for failure to review detention under s.40 PACE.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3569
Parties
First Claimant/appellant: Thomas Andrew Magee; Second Claimant/appellant: Andrew Daniel Magee; Defendant/respondent: The Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (false Imprisonment, Trespass, Assault and Battery) / Appeal From Jury Verdict and Judge's Rulings in County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to the limited period of false imprisonment for failure to review detention; damages for this period upheld.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, Assault and Battery, Police Powers of Arrest, PACE 1984, Damages
Civil Procedure Police Law Tort Law False Imprisonment Trespass to Land Assault and Battery Police Powers of Arrest PACE 1984 +1 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Andrew Magee

First Claimant/appellant

Andrew Daniel Magee

Second Claimant/appellant

The Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Police

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (false Imprisonment, Trespass, Assault and Battery) / Appeal From Jury Verdict and Judge's Rulings in County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in leaving certain questions to the jury regarding the lawfulness of arrest and detention under PACE 1984
  2. 2 Whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for suspicion and necessity under s.24 PACE
  3. 3 Whether the grounds for arrest were adequately communicated under s.28 PACE

Ratio Decidendi

The judge correctly applied the law in leaving the relevant questions to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the arresting officer's suspicion, necessity, and communication of grounds for arrest. The threshold for suspicion and necessity under PACE is low, and the requirements for communication of grounds were met in the circumstances. The appeal is dismissed except as to the limited period of false imprisonment for failure to review detention under s.40 PACE.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to the limited period of false imprisonment for failure to review detention; damages for this period upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on all grounds except for the period of false imprisonment relating to failure to review detention under s.40 PACE.
  • Damages of £275.00 to each appellant for 1 hour and 24 minutes of false imprisonment upheld.