Overd & Ors v The Chief Constable of Avon And Somerset Constabulary [2021] EWHC 3100 (QB) (19 November 2021)

Overd & Ors v The Chief Constable of Avon And Somerset Constabulary [2021] EWHC 3100 (QB) (19 November 2021)

The judge did not err in law; the police had reasonable grounds for suspicion based on complaints and crowd volatility, and their actions were proportionate and justified under Articles 9 and 10 ECHR given the risk of imminent public disorder. The claimants' rights were qualified and the police response was lawful in the circumstances.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3100
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Michael Overd; Appellant/claimant: Michael Stockwell; Appellant/claimant: Don Karns; Appellant/claimant: Adrian Clark; Respondent/defendant: The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Wrongful Arrest, False Imprisonment, Breach of ECHR, Proportionality, Public Order Offences
Human Rights Criminal Law Public Order Police Powers Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religion Wrongful Arrest False Imprisonment +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 6 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Overd

Appellant/claimant

Michael Stockwell

Appellant/claimant

Don Karns

Appellant/claimant

Adrian Clark

Appellant/claimant

The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrests of the claimants were compatible with Articles 9, 10 and/or 11 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred regarding the reason for Mr Overd's arrest
  3. 3 Whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimants of offences under section 50 Police Reform Act 2002 and section 5 Public Order Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not err in law; the police had reasonable grounds for suspicion based on complaints and crowd volatility, and their actions were proportionate and justified under Articles 9 and 10 ECHR given the risk of imminent public disorder. The claimants' rights were qualified and the police response was lawful in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No retrial ordered; original judgment stands
  • No damages or relief granted to claimants