Tomlinson & Anor v Hertfordshire Chief Constable [2001] EWCA Civ 461 (9 March 2001)

Tomlinson & Anor v Hertfordshire Chief Constable [2001] EWCA Civ 461 (9 March 2001)

The trial judge was correct to exclude evidence of alleged post-arrest harassment from the liability stage, as it was only relevant to damages and postdated the events in question. The judge properly determined that there were reasonable grounds for arrest based on undisputed core facts, and there was no real...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 461
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Dean Tomlinson; Claimant/appellant: Sally Beningfield; Defendant/respondent: Chief Constable of Hertfordshire
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment Dismissing Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Wrongful Arrest, Assault, Aggravated Damages, Exemplary Damages, Harassment, Admissibility of Evidence, Reasonable Grounds for Arrest, Case Management
Tort Civil Procedure Wrongful Arrest Assault Aggravated Damages Exemplary Damages Harassment Admissibility of Evidence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Tomlinson

Claimant/appellant

Sally Beningfield

Claimant/appellant

Chief Constable of Hertfordshire

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment Dismissing Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of alleged post-arrest harassment was admissible on liability
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in concluding there were reasonable grounds for arrest without leaving factual disputes to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the judge's explanation to the jury regarding lawfulness of arrest prejudiced the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to exclude evidence of alleged post-arrest harassment from the liability stage, as it was only relevant to damages and postdated the events in question. The judge properly determined that there were reasonable grounds for arrest based on undisputed core facts, and there was no real conflict of evidence requiring jury determination. The judge's explanation to the jury did not prejudice the claimants, as the summing-up was even-handed and the jury was left to decide the assault claim on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs