2004
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v Rosario Rosso | 1 |
| Issue: Whether police officers required a warrant under s135 Mental Health Act 1983 to enter a room in a hotel to take and convey to hospital a person who was the subject of an application for admission under s2 of the 1983 Act | |
| Lewis v UK | 5 |
| Issue: Whether the covert recording of conversations inside a person’s home amounted to a violation of Art 8 of the Convention | |
| DPP v Meaden | 8 |
| Issue: Whether officers had been acting in the execution of their duty when they prevented a person from walking around his own house whilst a search warrant was being executed | |
| Hutt v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 13 |
| Issue: Whether police detention following a refusal of bail was lawful, when the original arrest had been unlawful | |
| O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales | 21 |
| Issue: Whether, in a claim for misfeasance and malicious prosecution, the Judge had been right to give permission to rely on similar fact evidence relating to the way in which police officers had been alleged to have behaved in other criminal investigations | |
| R (South Wales Police Authority) v Medical Referee (Dr David Anton) | 37 |
| Issue: Whether a medical referee, in considering an officer’s entitlement to a pension as a result of an injury that was caused party by work-related factors and partly by non work-related factors, was obliged to apportion the officer’s loss of earning capacity between the two causes, and whether loss of earning capacity refers to present or future capacity | |
| Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire | 49 |
| Issue: Whether a claim for the return of a large sum of money that had been seized by the police should have been struck out, the claimant having taken no step in the litigation for 8 years | |
| Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset | 56 |
| Issue: Whether a chief officer of police held the benefit of a judgment granted in favour of her predecessor | |
| Cumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria | 61 |
| Issue: Whether the arrests of 6 people of good character had been lawful when they (and only they) had the opportunity to commit the offence but where only a maximum of one or two people were likely to have actually been involved in the offence | |
| R (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office | 72 |
| Issue: Whether the disclosure by the SFO to a Government department of material seized during a search was unlawful | |
| Hewitson v Chief Constable of Dorset | 82 |
| Issue: Whether a search of property was lawful when the person concerned had been arrested for the purpose of extradition proceedings and the arrest had been carried out some distance from the premises and 2 hours before the search | |
| McHarg v Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police | 87 |
| Issue: Whether the claimant had a real prospect of success on a malicious prosecution claim where the CPS, having been provided with all relevant material, advised that the claimant should be charged | |
| X v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police | 96 |
| Issue: Whether the disclosure to a potential employer of information relating to X’s acquittal of offences of indecency was unlawful | |
| R (Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset) v Police Appeals Tribunal | 116 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Office Guidance on the test to be applied by a Police Appeals Tribunal was wrong in law | |
| R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire (Admin Ct) | 123 |
| Issue: Whether officers had been entitled to stop coaches of protestors attending a demonstration; whether they had been entitled forcibly to return the coaches under escort to London | |
| Lennon v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 134 |
| Issue: Whether the Commissioner was responsible for pure economic loss sustained by an officer as a result of advice given by a civilian member of staff | |
| Attorney General v Hartwell | 141 |
| Issue: Whether there was vicarious liability for a police officer’s conduct in shooting a person; whether a duty of care was owed to the victim for allowing the officer to have access to a gun | |
| R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority | 148 |
| Issue: Whether a person who makes a complaint against police is entitled to disclosure of the statements obtained in a subsequent investigation | |
| Gough and another v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police | 164 |
| Issue: Whether the police could retain property under s22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when they suspected, but could not prove, that it was stolen | |
| Larrier v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police | 174 |
| Issue: Whether, in a claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution where the credibility of the officers was in issue, a judge had been entitled to dismiss the claim without asking the jury to resolve a central factual issue | |
| Paul v Chief Constable of Humberside | 179 |
| Issue: Whether the Judge had been entitled not to leave questions to the jury in a false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claim | |
| R (Wilkinson) v Police Complaints Authority and Chief Constable of Merseyside Police | 189 |
| Issue: Whether the Police Complaints Authority was entitled to withdraw its decision to grant a dispensation from the requirement to investigate a complaint | |
| Cleveland Police Authority v Medical Referee | 192 |
| Issue: Whether a psychiatric injury was received in the execution of duty, it having been received as a result of adverse press coverage of an officer’s failure to attend as a witness at a criminal trial | |
| Amis v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Police Complaints Authority and CPS | 196 |
| Issue: Whether a claim for breach of Art 6(1) on the basis of delay in investigating a complaint against police officers should be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment | |
| Donachie v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police | 204 |
| Issue: Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that issuing officers with faulty batteries for a tracking device could lead to psychiatric damage when repeated attempts had to be made covertly to fit the device | |
| X and Y v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police | 214 |
| Issue: The appropriate award of damages to a police informer when his identity had been wrongly disclosed | |
| Kennedy v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police | 226 |
| Issue: Whether s6 of the Constables Protection Act 1750 is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether a restriction on a person’s freedom of movement around a house whilst a search warrant was being executed amounted to a false imprisonment | |
| R (Mullen) v Home Secretary | 234 |
| Issue: Whether an award should be made under the scheme for compensating miscarriages of justice where there had been a technical irregularity in the criminal proceedings. | |
| Fleming v Chief Constable of the Sussex Police Force | 251 |
| Issue: Whether a Judge had been entitled, in deciding costs, to have regard to the effect that an order would have on the award of damages, and whether he erred in awarding the claimant all of the costs of the action when the claimant had failed on 2 causes of action | |
| Heath v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 259 |
| Issue: Whether the Commissioner could rely on absolute immunity in respect of a claim for sex discrimination arising out of the conduct of a police disciplinary hearing | |
| R (Marper and another) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and another | 282 |
| Issue: Whether s81 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (which provides that fingerprints and DNA samples may be retained after an acquittal) is incompatible with Arts 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights | |
| O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor | 298 |
| Issue: Whether the Independent Assessor had applied the correct principles when calculating compensation due under s133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 | |
| Wood v UK | 326 |
| Issue: Whether the bugging of a police cell amounted to a breach of Art 8 ECHR and whether an award of damages was appropriate | |
| R (Anderson) v HM Coroner for Inner North Greater London | 331 |
| Issue: Whether an inquest verdict of unlawful killing should be quashed in circumstances where the deceased had been removed by police officers under s136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and restrained for 20 minutes | |
| R (Coghlan and others) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police | 344 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to lift an officer’s suspension, with the result that he was able to resign and avoid disciplinary proceedings, was unlawful | |
| R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire (CA) | 359 |
| Issue: Whether officers had been entitled to stop coaches of protestors attending a demonstration at RAF Fairford, and whether they had been entitled forcibly to return the coaches under escort to London | |
| Al Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police and others | 370 |
| Issue: Whether the arrest of the Claimants had been lawful | |
| R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another | 389 |
| Issue: Whether the use of stop and search powers under ss43-47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was lawful | |
| Richardson v Howie | 400 |
| Issue: Whether a separate award of aggravated damages should be made in a claim for assault in addition to the award of general damages | |
| Settelen v Chakra Productions Ltd and Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 405 |
| Issue: Whether the Commissioner was entitled to retain a copy of a tape that had been seized during one investigation for the purposes of another investigation | |
| Bonner v DPP | 412 |
| Issue: Whether officers conducting a search were acting within the execution of their duty if they had failed to comply with s2 of PACE and Code A, the failure being due to a fear for their personal safety | |
| Holloway v DPP | 416 |
| Issue: Whether a person can be guilty of insulting behaviour contrary to s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 when their conduct has not been seen by anybody | |
| Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v Reynolds | 420 |
| Issue: At what time an order for the detention of cash for 90 days expired, and whether the failure to give 7 days notice of the application to renew the application or to obtain leave for short service rendered the subsequent proceedings a nullity | |
| R (Merseyside Police Authority) v Gidlow | 423 |
| Issue: Whether a psychiatric injury caused by a grievance procedure was received “in the execution of duty” for the purposes of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
