R v (1) Hickinbottom, (2) Wood and (3) Clark |
1 |
Issue: Whether, in bringing a charge of gross negligence manslaughter against police officers, it was necessary for the Crown to adduce evidence of the standard of care to be applied by police officers |
|
|
|
R v United Kingdom |
3 |
Issue: Whether a police warning involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Art 6 ECHR |
|
|
|
Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police |
7 |
Issue: Whether Art 2 ECHR imposed a duty on the police to protect a witness who was being threatened, whether they were in breach of this duty, whether any breach caused the witness’ death, and the appropriate award of compensation |
|
|
|
R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v Chief Constable of West Mercia; and PC Walton (interested party) |
32 |
Issue: Whether disciplinary proceedings against a police officer were an abuse of process because the issue in the disciplinary proceedings had been resolved, in the officer’s favour, at a coroner’s inquest |
|
|
|
Lake v British Transport Police |
40 |
Issue: Whether the police were immune from a claim under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1997 based on the dismissal of an officer by a police discipline panel |
|
|
|
Ramsahai and Others v Netherlands |
46 |
Issue: Whether the circumstances of a fatal shooting by police amounted to a violation of Art 2; whether the words “absolutely necessary” in Art 2(2) indicated a stricter test of necessity than the words “necessary in a democratic society” in Arts 8(2) and 11(2); whether the investigation into the shooting was sufficiently effective and independent |
|
|
|
R (Bennett) v HM Coroner for Inner South London; and Officers A and B, and Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Interested Parties) |
84 |
Issue: Whether the coroner had erred in her direction to the jury as to the training given to police officers that they were only to fire weapons when absolutely necessary; whether an open verdict had truly been left to the jury; the test to be applied by a coroner in considering what verdicts to leave to the jury |
|
|
|
R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v AC Hayman, PC Bell and PC Wakeling |
90 |
Issue: Whether an Assistant Commissioner had been entitled to overturn the findings of a discipline panel, and the ambit of a Chief Constable’s Review under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 |
|
|
|
R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; R (G) v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police |
98 |
Issue: Whether non-criminal matters may be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record certificate; and, if so, whether including non-criminal matters breached Art 8 ECHR on the facts |
|
|
|
R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis |
115 |
Issue: Whether non-criminal matters may be disclosed on an enhanced criminal record certificate and, if so, whether including non-criminal matters amounted, in the circumstances, to a breach of Art 8 ECHR |
|
|
|
R (A and others) v South Yorkshire Police and CPS |
124 |
Issue: Whether a decision to prosecute youths for criminal damage, rather than issue a final warning, was lawful |
|
|
|
Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis |
135 |
Issue: Whether notice under s11 of the Public Order Act 1986 had to be given of a mass cycle ride that was held at the same time and departing from the same location on the last Friday of each month |
|
|
|
Secic v Croatia |
146 |
Issue: Whether a police investigation that failed to identify those involved in a serious assault amounted to a breach of Arts 3, 8 and 14 ECHR |
|
|
|
Kontrova v Slovakia |
154 |
Issue: Whether the failure to deal effectively with allegations of assault by a husband amounted to a breach of Arts 2 and 8 ECHR in the light of the husband’s subsequent murder of the family’s children, and whether there had been consequential breaches of Arts 6 and 13 ECHR |
|
|
|
Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police |
163 |
Issue: Whether a failure to obtain leave in accordance with s139 Mental Health Act 1983 before bringing civil proceedings in respect of acts purportedly done under the Act rendered the proceedings a nullity |
|
|
|
Blum and Others v DPP and Others |
175 |
Issue: Whether convictions relating to unauthorised demonstrations breached Arts 10 and/or 11 ECHR when the demonstrations had not been disorderly |
|
|
|
Austin and Saxby v Commissioner of Police |
182 |
Issue: Whether it was lawful to put a cordon around a group of protestors and others in Oxford Circus and detain them for 7 hours |
|
|
|
R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police |
205 |
Issue: Whether there is discretion to permit a representative of the IPCC to be present at a chief constable’s review conducted under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 |
|
|
|
R (Bolt) v Chief Constable of Merseyside |
212 |
Issue: Whether a chief officer was entitled not to implement the recommendation of another chief officer, following a review carried out under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, that an officer should be reinstated |
|
|
|
Raissi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis |
226 |
Issue: Whether a duty of care was owed by the police to a victim of crime to investigate the crime |
|
|
|
Vicario v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis |
238 |
Issue: Whether a duty of care was owed by the police to a victim of crime to investigate the crime |
|
|
|
Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd |
246 |
Issue: Whether a football club was liable to pay certain of the costs of providing policing for matches that were held |
|
|
|
R (Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) v Croydon Crown Court and Burrell |
294 |
Issue: Whether the Crown Court had erred in not imposing a sexual offences prevention order on a man who had been convicted of 6 very similar indecent assaults over a period of 30 years |
|
|
|