W v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police
Catherine Dent successfully represented the Appellant in an appeal to the High Court, before Mr Justice Bourne.
The Appellant had his claim for personal injury dismissed in the first instance at a trial before His Honour Judge Owens KC, sitting in the County Court at Derby.
The Facts
The Claimant was part of a group of youths being observed by Police as part of a serious and organised crime operation. Packages were observed being passed between the group and the police decided to intervene. The Claimant cycled away from the scene on his bicycle, on a pavement which was separated by a row of terraced houses and parked cars. The police officer, in a marked police vehicle, drove alongside the Claimant and instructed him to stop. Words were exchanged and the Claimant continued cycling along the pavement. The police officer made the decision to attempt to block the Claimant with his vehicle, by pulling onto the pavement ahead of the Claimant’s direction of travel.
The police officer pulled in front of the last terraced house on the street which had a concreted over front garden with a low brick wall separating it from the pavement. He stopped his vehicle and attempted to exit. As he did so, he neglected to put his car into park or neutral. As a consequence, the car moved forwards and obliquely struck the Claimant, proceeding on his bicycle, dislodging the wall in the process. The Claimant sustained modest injuries.
First Instance Decision
The Judge found that the police officer owed the Claimant a duty of care however, he considered that the police officer’s acts or omissions did not amount to negligence. He was acting in the heat of the moment, in stressful circumstances. The circumstances were considered as “non-trivial.” Reference was made to paragraph 70, 75 and 76 of the Supreme Court authority of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4.
Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant was granted permission to appeal on the papers. The central ground of appeal was that the Judge was wrong in fact and in law to conclude that the actions of the police officer did not amount to negligence.
The Appellant submitted that the Claimant was travelling at “a little bit more than walking speed” as described by the police officer in cross examination. The police officer was highly trained in police pursuit and the action of placing a vehicle in neutral/park was not necessarily a decision-making process, rather something that is expected of every reasonably competent driver.
The Appeal
Allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Bourne concluded that the determination of the Judge could not stand. The officer’s relevant act or omission was not an error of Judgment. It did not involve anything in the nature of decision making, it was a pure omission that any driver might be bound to make. Whilst the first instance Judge was correct to describe the circumstances as “non- trivial,” they were far from extreme. The most revealing piece of evidence was that the Appellant was travelling at no more than a jogging pace. There was ample time for him to stop his car and give chase on foot.
That would be far from imposing unrealistically demanding standards or requiring perfection. Although the Judge’s reference to “difficult circumstances” and “the heat of the moment” was a factually correct explanation as to how the very basic error came about, it was not a significant legal reason to deny liability. It if were, it would suggest that officers attempting an arrest in relatively mundane circumstances could be excused from taking precaution and this would not sit well with Robinson.
Catherine was instructed by Leanne Rowley, Principal Partner at Express Solicitors.
