Wamala v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Another

Wamala v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Another

Permission to rely on expert evidence regarding restraint techniques is refused because the issue of excessive force is to be determined by the general law and is a question of fact for the trial judge; the evidence is at best tangential and the cost disproportionate.

Parties
Claimant: Wamala; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: Another (Second Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (permission to Rely on Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass to the Person, Defamation, Negligent Misstatement, Data Protection, False Imprisonment, Human Rights (articles 3, 5, 8), Use of Force, Expert Evidence, Costs
Tort Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Trespass to the Person Defamation Negligent Misstatement Data Protection False Imprisonment +4 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wamala

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

Another (Second Defendant)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (permission to Rely on Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to rely on expert evidence regarding restraint techniques
  2. 2 Whether the use of force was lawful and, if so, whether it was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to rely on expert evidence regarding restraint techniques is refused because the issue of excessive force is to be determined by the general law and is a question of fact for the trial judge; the evidence is at best tangential and the cost disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to rely on expert evidence of Mr Barkend refused