Chief Constable of Essex v Carter [2024] EWHC 126 (KB) (02 February 2024)

Chief Constable of Essex v Carter [2024] EWHC 126 (KB) (02 February 2024)

The Recorder erred in law by requiring a 'reasonable belief' under s.54(4) PACE; the correct test is whether the custody officer honestly believed removal of clothing was necessary to prevent harm. The police acted within the law in forcibly removing the claimant's clothing, and the damages awarded were excessive.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 126 (KB)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: The Chief Constable of Essex; Claimant/respondent: Matthew Carter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Use of Force by Police, Strip Search, Assault and Battery, Damages for Personal Injury, PACE 1984 S.54, Reasonableness of Police Belief, Proportionality of Police Action
Police Law Civil Liberties Tort Law Use of Force by Police Strip Search Assault and Battery Damages for Personal Injury PACE 1984 S.54 +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Chief Constable of Essex

Defendant/appellant

Matthew Carter

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in law by importing a requirement of 'reasonable belief' into s.54(4) of PACE for removal of clothing by police.
  2. 2 Whether the force used by police in removing the claimant's clothing was lawful and proportionate.
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded for injury to feelings, psychiatric injury, and aggravated damages were excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in law by requiring a 'reasonable belief' under s.54(4) PACE; the correct test is whether the custody officer honestly believed removal of clothing was necessary to prevent harm. The police acted within the law in forcibly removing the claimant's clothing, and the damages awarded were excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Recorder's finding of unlawful removal of clothing and assault in Phase 2 set aside; police action found lawful under s.54(4) PACE.
  • Damages for injury to feelings, psychiatric injury, and aggravated damages reduced to £5,000 in total.