Introduction
This legal brief addresses the concerns of a Radio Director acquitted on 28th April 2017 of charges of occasioning actual grievous bodily harm and common assault against police officers. The court found that the Radio Director acted in self-defence and noted over-enthusiasm in the police officers’ actions. The client seeks advice on potential remedies for what she describes as “persecution” by the police. This brief, grounded in the law of tort, explores possible claims under trespass to the person, specifically assault, battery, and false imprisonment, as well as the potential for a claim in malicious prosecution. It evaluates the legal basis for such actions, citing relevant case law, and offers a reasoned assessment of the likelihood of success.
Potential Claims in Tort: Trespass to the Person
The law of tort provides remedies for wrongs committed against individuals, including actions by state agents such as police officers. Trespass to the person encompasses assault, battery, and false imprisonment, all of which may be relevant given the court’s findings of police over-enthusiasm. Assault occurs when a person apprehends immediate unlawful force, while battery involves the intentional or reckless application of such force (Collins v Wilcock, 1984). If the police officers’ actions caused the Radio Director to fear imminent harm or resulted in physical contact without lawful justification, these claims could be pursued. Furthermore, false imprisonment arises when a person’s liberty is unlawfully restricted (Murray v Ministry of Defence, 1988). If the arrest or detention process lacked reasonable grounds or exceeded legal authority, this tort may apply.
The court’s ruling that the police were over-enthusiastic strengthens the argument that their conduct may have been unreasonable or disproportionate, potentially negating lawful justification for their actions. However, a critical limitation exists: police officers can claim statutory protection under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 if their actions were in good faith and within their powers. This defence may weaken the client’s position unless clear evidence of malice or gross negligence can be demonstrated.
Malicious Prosecution as a Viable Claim
Another avenue to explore is malicious prosecution, a tort requiring proof that the prosecution was initiated without reasonable and probable cause, with malice, and resulted in damage to the claimant (Willers v Joyce, 2016). Given the acquittal and the court’s criticism of police conduct, there may be grounds to argue a lack of reasonable cause. Malice, however, is harder to establish, as it requires evidence of improper motive beyond mere over-enthusiasm. Additionally, damage—such as reputational harm or emotional distress—must be proven. While the high-profile nature of the case likely caused significant distress, courts are cautious in awarding damages unless tangible loss is evidenced. Therefore, while this claim holds potential, success is not guaranteed.
Practical Considerations and Limitations
Despite the legal avenues available, practical challenges must be acknowledged. Litigation against police forces is resource-intensive and may attract public scrutiny, potentially exacerbating the client’s distress. Moreover, courts often exhibit reluctance to undermine police authority unless misconduct is egregious. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and gathering evidence of malice or unlawful intent could be difficult. Additionally, time limits under the Limitation Act 1980 generally require claims to be brought within six years for most torts, a deadline that has likely passed since the incident in 2017. If the client did not initiate proceedings earlier, this may bar her claims unless an exception applies, such as delayed discovery of harm.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Radio Director may have grounds to pursue claims under trespass to the person (assault, battery, and false imprisonment) and potentially malicious prosecution, supported by the court’s findings of police over-enthusiasm. Relevant case law, such as Collins v Wilcock (1984) and Willers v Joyce (2016), provides a framework for these actions. However, significant hurdles, including the burden of proof, statutory defences for police, and time limitations, reduce the likelihood of success. I advise the client to carefully weigh the emotional and financial costs of litigation against the uncertain outcomes. If she wishes to proceed, gathering detailed evidence of police misconduct and consulting a solicitor for a thorough case review would be the next steps. This case underscores the tension between individual rights and state authority, highlighting the need for robust accountability mechanisms within policing.
References
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172.
- Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692.
- Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 43.
