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 was correct to leave the key questions regarding the lawfulness of arrest, necessity, and communication of grounds to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in favour of the Respondent. The police had reasonable suspicion and necessity for arrest under PACE 1984, and the grounds for arrest were adequately communicated. The Appellants' claims for trespass, false imprisonment (except for a short period), and assault and battery were properly dismissed. The only breach found was a failure to review detention under s.40 PACE, resulting in a modest award of damages.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3569 (QB)
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) / High Court Appeal From County Court Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
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 17 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) / High Court Appeal From County Court Jury Trial

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to leave the key questions regarding the lawfulness of arrest, necessity, and communication of grounds to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in favour of the Respondent. The police had reasonable suspicion and necessity for arrest under PACE 1984, and the grounds for arrest were adequately communicated. The Appellants' claims for trespass, false imprisonment (except for a short period), and assault and battery were properly dismissed. The only breach found was a failure to review detention under s.40 PACE, resulting in a modest award of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.
  • The previous award of £275.00 to each Appellant for 1 hour and 24 minutes' false imprisonment (failure to review detention under s.40 PACE) stands.