The 12th of July 2011, the police officers were called to investigate Alexander Walker, accused to have hit his girlfriend. The claimant was aggressive towards the officer (PC Adams), and officer positioned himself in a way so that he could restrict the movement of Mr. Walker for a few seconds. The officer did not touch Mr.Walker until he was arrested (Section 5 Public Order offence) and stayed for seven hours in the police station until he was released on bail. Two years after, Mr.Walker filed a civil claim against the police for damages of “false imprisonment, assault, and malicious prosecution”. Judge Freeland QC in the County Court dismissed the claim for two main reasons; primarily, even if there was false imprisonment from the police …show more content…
Therefore he was curious why the previous judge had not found it as an unlawful detention. He concluded that the prior judge thought the claimant should not have gone beyond the acceptable standard of conduct concerned with physical contact. The judge examined and tested art5 of ECHR. He found that this idea is not as similar because the tort of false imprisonment could a part of deprivation of liberty without false imprisonment and vice versa examining Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] QB 660 . Therefore he concluded that he was unlawfully detained in a ‘’technical’’ way using Kenlin v Gardiner [1967] 2 QB 510 . Therefore issue two was dismissed but the first was accepted. He awarded 5 pounds. Tomilson LJ said that court’s final outcome should not cause sensible policing. He said that in the anger state that the claimant was found the police could have said that they were breach of peace that they were trying to stop, and an assault to PC Adams, but this had not been argued before. He said that cases like that with false imprisonment are rare. Using Archbord’s quotation he explained that “Every citizen (whether policeman or not) in whose presence a breach of the peace is being, or reasonably appears to be about to be, committed, has the right to take reasonable steps to make the person who is breaking or threatening to break the peace refrain from doing so; and those reasonable steps in appropriate cases will include detaining him against his will short of arresting him” . Rimer LJ agreed with