MICHAEL OVERD v THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF AVON AND SOMERSET CONSTABULARY

MICHAEL OVERD v THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF AVON AND SOMERSET CONSTABULARY

The Judge’s findings of fact regarding the emergency situation, the risk of public disorder, and the limited options available to the police were open to him on the evidence. The police actions in arresting the claimants were proportionate and justified under Articles 9 and 10 ECHR, and there were reasonable grounds for suspicion under the relevant statutory provisions. No error of law occurred in the Judge’s dismissal of the claims.

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
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Police Powers, Public Order Offences, Proportionality, Wrongful Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution
Constitutional Law Human Rights Criminal Law Public Order Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religion Police Powers Public Order Offences +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 8 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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

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 in the manner alleged in Ground 4 in relation to his decision as to the reason for the arrest of Mr Overd
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in finding that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimants of having committed offences under section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge’s findings of fact regarding the emergency situation, the risk of public disorder, and the limited options available to the police were open to him on the evidence. The police actions in arresting the claimants were proportionate and justified under Articles 9 and 10 ECHR, and there were reasonable grounds for suspicion under the relevant statutory provisions. No error of law occurred in the Judge’s dismissal of the claims.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed