Carr v Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary [2024] EWHC 3120 (KB) (05 December 2024)

Carr v Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary [2024] EWHC 3120 (KB) (05 December 2024)

Permission to appeal is refused on grounds 1-6 as the County Court judge was entitled to allow the late amendment, determine consent as a matter of law, and find lawful grounds for entry, arrest, and detention based on undisputed evidence. No factual disputes required jury determination. Permission is granted on grounds 7-9 regarding the lawfulness and necessity of the Appellant's detention on 4 January 2016, as these grounds are arguable and have a realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3120 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Natasha Carr; Defendant/respondent: Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (permission to Appeal) / Permission to Appeal From County Court Judgment, King's Bench Division, High Court
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part; refused in part.
Legal Topics
Trespass, False Imprisonment, Assault and Battery, Misfeasance in Public Office, Case Management, Jury Directions, Police Powers, PACE 1984
Civil Procedure Police Law Tort Trespass False Imprisonment Assault and Battery Misfeasance in Public Office Case Management +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natasha Carr

Claimant/appellant

Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (permission to Appeal) / Permission to Appeal From County Court Judgment, King's Bench Division, High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the County Court judge erred in allowing a late amendment to plead consent to trespass
  2. 2 Whether factual issues regarding consent and withdrawal of consent should have been left to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the police had lawful grounds for entry, arrest, and detention under PACE 1984 and common law

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused on grounds 1-6 as the County Court judge was entitled to allow the late amendment, determine consent as a matter of law, and find lawful grounds for entry, arrest, and detention based on undisputed evidence. No factual disputes required jury determination. Permission is granted on grounds 7-9 regarding the lawfulness and necessity of the Appellant's detention on 4 January 2016, as these grounds are arguable and have a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part; refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on grounds 1-6.
  • Permission to appeal granted on grounds 7-9 (detention on 4 January 2016).