Austin & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Austin & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The police containment of the appellants was lawful at common law because it was necessary and proportionate to prevent an imminent breach of the peace, even though the appellants themselves did not appear to be about to commit such a breach. The situation was exceptional, and all other possible steps had been taken. The containment did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR, as it was not arbitrary detention but a necessary response to a dynamic and dangerous situation.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Louis Austin; Claimant/appellant: Geoffrey Saxby; Defendant/respondent: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Police Powers, Breach of the Peace, Necessity Defence, European Convention on Human Rights, Public Order Act 1986, Article 5 ECHR
Constitutional Law Tort Law Human Rights Law Public Order Law False Imprisonment Police Powers Breach of the Peace Necessity Defence +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Austin

Claimant/appellant

Geoffrey Saxby

Claimant/appellant

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police containment of the appellants at Oxford Circus amounted to false imprisonment
  2. 2 Whether the containment breached Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the police actions were lawful under common law and the Public Order Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The police containment of the appellants was lawful at common law because it was necessary and proportionate to prevent an imminent breach of the peace, even though the appellants themselves did not appear to be about to commit such a breach. The situation was exceptional, and all other possible steps had been taken. The containment did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR, as it was not arbitrary detention but a necessary response to a dynamic and dangerous situation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • No aggravated or exemplary damages