David Dawson against Jonathan Threadgold and others (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDI 38 (25 June 2025)

David Dawson against Jonathan Threadgold and others (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDI 38 (25 June 2025)

The court found that the initial use of force to remove the pursuer from his vehicle, transfer him to the police vehicle, and handcuff him was reasonable and justified by the pursuer's refusal to comply, threats to drive away, and officer safety concerns. However, the subsequent decision by the officers to put the pursuer to the ground, rather than seat him in the police vehicle, and to allow him to fall unsupported, was not in accordance with police policy or reasonable force standards. This amounted to a breach of the duty of care owed to the pursuer, for which the Chief Constable is vicariously liable. The pursuer was entitled to damages for the injury sustained as a result of being...

Citation
[2025] SCEDI 38
Parties
Pursuer: David Dawson; First Defender: Jonathan Threadgold; Second Defender: Philip Dickson; Third Party: Chief Constable, Police Service of Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Reparation / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Pursuer succeeds in part; defenders and third party found liable in damages for breach of duty of care in relation to the manner of placing pursuer on the ground.
Legal Topics
Use of Force by Police, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Reasonable Force, Negligence, Damages
Tort Police Law Personal Injury Use of Force by Police Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Reasonable Force Negligence +1 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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Dawson

Pursuer

Jonathan Threadgold

First Defender

Philip Dickson

Second Defender

Chief Constable, Police Service of Scotland

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Reparation / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the force used by police officers during and after arrest was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the police owed and breached a duty of care to the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the Chief Constable is vicariously liable for the officers' actions

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the initial use of force to remove the pursuer from his vehicle, transfer him to the police vehicle, and handcuff him was reasonable and justified by the pursuer's refusal to comply, threats to drive away, and officer safety concerns. However, the subsequent decision by the officers to put the pursuer to the ground, rather than seat him in the police vehicle, and to allow him to fall unsupported, was not in accordance with police policy or reasonable force standards. This amounted to a breach of the duty of care owed to the pursuer, for which the Chief Constable is vicariously liable. The pursuer was entitled to damages for the injury sustained as a result of being...

Court Disposition

Pursuer succeeds in part; defenders and third party found liable in damages for breach of duty of care in relation to the manner of placing pursuer on the ground.

Orders

  • Defenders and third party to pay the pursuer £1,742.30 in damages inclusive of interest to date of judgment.