Taylor v Thames Valley Police

Taylor v Thames Valley Police

The words used by the arresting officer, informing the claimant he was being arrested on suspicion of violent disorder at a specified time and place, were sufficient to satisfy section 28(3) of PACE and Article 5(2) of the ECHR. However, the police failed to justify the delay in detention between 20.15 and 21.21, rendering that period of detention unlawful.

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 Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; initial arrest held lawful; detention for one hour held unlawful; damages for four hours set aside; damages for one hour to be agreed.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Trespass to the Person, Assault, Lawfulness of Arrest, Police Powers, Detention of Minors
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Tort Law False Imprisonment Trespass to the Person Assault Lawfulness of Arrest Police Powers +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 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 Trial 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) of the ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the period of detention was excessive and unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The words used by the arresting officer, informing the claimant he was being arrested on suspicion of violent disorder at a specified time and place, were sufficient to satisfy section 28(3) of PACE and Article 5(2) of the ECHR. However, the police failed to justify the delay in detention between 20.15 and 21.21, rendering that period of detention unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; initial arrest held lawful; detention for one hour held unlawful; damages for four hours set aside; damages for one hour to be agreed.

Orders

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