26 Oct 2022
The court preferred the police witnesses' evidence and found the Manoeuvre and handcuffing were reasonably necessary and proportionate in the rapidly evolving circumstances; accordingly the defendant established lawful justification for the force and the plaintiff's claims in battery and negligence were dismissed and no damages awarded.
19 Jun 2020
On the evidence, contemporaneous police and TV footage carried decisive weight; the court found arrests lawful (either reasons given or plaintiffs already knew reasons under Christie exception), force used in interception and on the vehicle was no more than reasonably necessary in chaotic circumstances, handcuffing of P2 and P4 was justified as a precaution and removed as soon as practicable, and plaintiffs failed to prove assault or verbal abuse inside the police vehicle; accordingly judgment entered for defendant and plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
19 Jun 2020
On the evidence the court found each arrest lawful either because reasons were given by arresting officers or because the arrestees already knew the general nature of the offence (exception to duty to inform); the force used in interception and during transport did not exceed what was reasonably necessary, handcuffing of P2 and P4 was justified as necessary and proportionate in the circumstances and they were released as soon as practicable; plaintiffs failed to prove assault or verbal abuse inside the police vehicle. Accordingly all tort and constitutional claims failed and judgment entered…
19 Jun 2020
On the totality of evidence (police footage, contemporaneous police records, medical notes and witness credibility), the court found the arrests lawful (P4 and P1 were given reasons; P2 and P3 already knew the nature of the offences), the force used in interception and aboard the vehicle was no more than reasonably necessary, handcuffing of P2 and P4 was a proportionate safety measure and was released when practicable, and the plaintiffs failed to prove assault or verbal abuse aboard the vehicle; judgment entered for defendant in all four actions.
19 Jun 2020
The plaintiffs failed to prove unlawful arrest or that officers used excessive or unlawful force or committed assaults on board the police vehicle; where an arresting officer was not recorded as giving reasons the court found either reasons were in fact given or the arrested person already knew the general nature of the offence (exception to duty to inform), and contemporaneous video footage and medical records supported the police account that P2 and P4 engaged in conduct on the vehicle justifying short‑term handcuffing; accordingly judgment entered for defendant and plaintiffs' claims dismi…
16 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal refused because the law permits handcuffing where reasonably necessary to prevent breach of the peace; the Tribunal’s factual findings that the claimant resisted and that a continuing risk justified retention of handcuffs until arrival at the station were open on the evidence and survive objective review, so no arguable point of law was established.
13 Nov 1986
The bench warrant was valid and the initial arrest and detention until presentation to magistrate were lawful under the Police Force Ordinance and Magistrates' Ordinance; however the decision to handcuff and publicly transport the plaintiff was unjustified because the duty sergeant failed to apply his mind to the relevant circumstances and relied on routine procedure, making the handcuffing an unlawful assault and battery for which damages are recoverable; exemplary damages were not awarded.