Crossey v Police Service Of Northern Ireland [2015] NICA 9 (3 March 2015)

Crossey v Police Service Of Northern Ireland [2015] NICA 9 (3 March 2015)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings on credibility and fact were supported by the evidence, the use of CS spray was justified as reasonable force in the circumstances, there was no basis to extend the limitation period for ECHR claims, and County Court costs were appropriate given the quantum and nature of the successful claim.

Citation
[2015] NICA 9
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Thomas Crossey; Defendant/respondent: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Assault and Battery, Trespass to the Person, Unlawful Detention, Negligence, Unlawful Entry, Use of Force by Police, Costs, Limitation Periods, European Convention on Human Rights (echr)
Tort Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure False Imprisonment Assault and Battery Trespass to the Person Unlawful Detention Negligence +5 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Crossey

Plaintiff/appellant

Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of CS spray by police constituted unlawful trespass to the person and warranted damages
  2. 2 Whether the injuries sustained by the appellant were caused by unlawful police assault or by his own actions
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings on credibility and fact were supported by the evidence, the use of CS spray was justified as reasonable force in the circumstances, there was no basis to extend the limitation period for ECHR claims, and County Court costs were appropriate given the quantum and nature of the successful claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No extension of time for ECHR claims
  • County Court costs awarded