Desmond Campbell v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Desmond Campbell v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

The private law claims were unsustainable as they constituted a collateral attack on the forfeiture order, which was lawfully made and impervious to challenge by reference to alleged impropriety in anterior steps. No fresh evidence of fraud was presented to vitiate the forfeiture order. The wrongful arrest claim failed as the arrest for 'money-laundering' was lawfully communicated and based on a statutory offence. The assault claim was time-barred and did not meet the threshold for extension under Article 3 ECHR.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Desmond Campbell; Respondent/defendant: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Strike Out of Claims)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Wrongful Arrest, False Imprisonment, Assault, Misfeasance in Public Office, Fraud on the Court, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Tort Law Criminal Law (proceeds of Crime) Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Wrongful Arrest False Imprisonment Assault +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond Campbell

Appellant/claimant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Strike Out of Claims)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the private law claims (economic and personal) were viable after the public law claims were determined
  2. 2 Whether the claims amounted to a collateral attack on the forfeiture order
  3. 3 Whether there was an arguable case of fraud vitiating the forfeiture order

Ratio Decidendi

The private law claims were unsustainable as they constituted a collateral attack on the forfeiture order, which was lawfully made and impervious to challenge by reference to alleged impropriety in anterior steps. No fresh evidence of fraud was presented to vitiate the forfeiture order. The wrongful arrest claim failed as the arrest for 'money-laundering' was lawfully communicated and based on a statutory offence. The assault claim was time-barred and did not meet the threshold for extension under Article 3 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • No order as to costs