2008
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a claim against the police in negligence for failing to investigate allegations of threats to kill was correctly struck out | |
| R (B) v Home Secretary | 11 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to correct an enhanced criminal record certificate was lawful | |
| R (“C”) v The Chief Constable of “A” Police and “A” Magistrates‘ Court | 23 |
| Issue: Whether a search warrant was valid; whether an arrest was lawful; whether the court should order that an investigation should be ended | |
| Holmes and another v South Yorkshire Police Authority | 36 |
| Issue: Whether police officers who had been provided with police accommodation were secure tenants and whether the police authority was estopped from evicting them | |
| D and B v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others | 41 |
| Issue: Whether it was an abuse of process to continue with a prosecution after the police had erroneously interpreted relevant guidance, and after an indication that a recommendation would be made for final warnings | |
| R (Wheeler) v Assistant Commissioner House | 48 |
| Issue: Whether an Assistant Commissioner was entitled to uphold a decision that an officer had failed adequately to perform his duties on the basis that the officer had line responsibility for more junior officers who were acting deficiently and he could have done more to intervene | |
| R (SL) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 52 |
| Issue: Whether the police had been entitled to include on an enhanced criminal record certificate that the applicant’s partner had been found to be in possession of indecent images of children | |
| McDonagh v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary | 56 |
| Issue: Whether the power in s22(1) PACE to retain property for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances applies to property that is retained under s8(2) PACE pursuant to a warrant | |
| R (Dennis) v Independent Police Complaints Commission | 61 |
| Issue: Whether the IPCC’s decision to uphold (in part) a decision not to bring disciplinary proceedings should be quashed because the caseworker had misunderstood the facts | |
| Carter and others v Chief Constable of the Cumbria Police | 66 |
| Issue: Whether the initiation of a disciplinary investigation and the referral of disciplinary charges to a hearing, where there had been no evidence of misconduct, amounted to misfeasance in public office | |
| R (Reynolds) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and another | 77 |
| Issue: Whether Arts 2 and 3 ECHR obliged the IPCC (rather than the police force concerned) to investigate when a person in custody went into a coma and it was not clear whether the cause was something that happened before or after reception into custody | |
| Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 86 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to obtain the court’s permission under s329 Criminal Justice Act 2003 to bring a claim for assault (in circumstances where the claimant had been convicted of an offence arising out of the same incident) rendered the proceedings a nullity | |
| Wood v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 93 |
| Issue: Whether it was a breach of Arts 8, 10, 11 or 14 ECHR for the police to take photographs and try and establish the identity of a campaigner who, having purchased a share in a company that was linked to the arms trade, attended the AGM of the company | |
| Redknapp and another v Commissioner of the City of London Police and another | 106 |
| Issue: Whether a warrant was unlawfully obtained when (amongst other matters) the Magistrate was not informed of which of the 4 conditions in s8(3) of PACE applied, and a copy of the schedule to the warrant (showing the addresses at which it was to be executed) was not shown to the occupant of the premises, and whether an arrest had been unlawful when the person concerned was prepared to attend a police station and answer questions voluntarily | |
| Khan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 112 |
| Issue: Whether s18 PACE 1984 permits a search of premises that are erroneously believed to be occupied or controlled by an arrested person | |
| The Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 116 |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State had been entitled not to implement a recommendation for police pay made by the Police Negotiating Board | |
| Westcott v Westcott | 132 |
| Issue: Whether a person who makes a complaint to the police can rely on the defence of absolute privilege in a claim in defamation | |
| R (Pinnington) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police | 141 |
| Issue: Whether the Assistant Chief Constable had been entitled to consider allegations of sexual abuse made by autistic men by means of facilitated communication which had not led to criminal charges being brought as sufficiently relevant to be included on an enhanced criminal record certificate | |
| Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police | 151 |
| Issue: Whether police were liable in negligence or under Art 2 ECHR for failing to protect against a threat to life | |
| R (Ebbnie) v Chief Constable of Surrey Police | 175 |
| Issue: Whether in cash forfeiture proceedings in which there had been unreasonable delay in withdrawing the application for forfeiture the Justices were entitled to limit the award of costs to counsel’s attendance | |
| Littlejohn v South Wales Police | 179 |
| Issue: Whether time spent in hospital (following police fears that a detainee had swallowed packaged drugs, and the package might burst causing a medical emergency) counted for the purposes of calculating custody time limits under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 | |
| Cash and Brown v Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary | 182 |
| Issue: Whether a horse had been unlawfully seized and retained by police and, if so, the appropriate award of damages. | |
| R (G) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and DPP | 191 |
| Issue: Whether there is a power to detain pending the receipt of advice from the CPS about charge where the custody officer has already decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge | |
| Reilly v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 199 |
| Issue: Whether a claim against the police in negligence for failing to deal with complaints of harassment should have been struck out on the grounds that it was clear that no duty of care was owed | |
| Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police, PC Sherwood intervening | 203 |
| Issue: Whether, in a claim for damages arising out of the shooting of a man by police, it would be a defence if the officer who shot the deceased had honestly, but unreasonably, considered that it was necessary to use force in self-defence, and whether the claims in battery and misfeasance should be struck out, negligence having been admitted. | |
| Wood v DPP | 227 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to restrain a person for a short period of time whilst officers established whether he was the person that they intended to arrest; whether a conviction for disorderly behaviour for struggling during that period was proper. | |
| R (Hodgson) v South Wales Police Authority | 230 |
| Issue: Whether the Police Authority were entitled to require a police officer to resign in order to achieve efficiency savings, even though there were no concerns about the officer’s personal efficiency | |
| Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable | 240 |
| Issue: Whether liability under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 fell within the ambit of the public liability section of a police authority’s insurance policy | |
| B v DPP | 259 |
| Issue: Whether a search by a plain clothes officer was unlawful because the officer did not provide documentary evidence that he was a police officer | |
| R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v Assistant Commissioner Hayman | 263 |
| Issue: Whether an officer conducting a review of the decision of a disciplinary panel erred in applying the criminal standard of proof; whether the decision should be quashed. | |
| A v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire | 267 |
| Issue: Whether it had been reasonable to instruct a London solicitor to bring a claim against the police for personal injuries sustained as a result of an allegedly wrongful arrest and prosecution that had taken place in Sheffield | |
| R (Ashton) v Police Medical Appeal Board | 273 |
| Issue: Whether “the force” in Reg A12(2) Police Pensions Regulations 1987 means the police service as a whole or the particular police force for the area in which the individual concerned is serving | |
| Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority | 281 |
| Issue: Whether the authority responsible for an immigration detention centre can make a claim under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 against the police in respect of damage to property in the centre caused during a riot by those detained in it | |
| R (Saunders and Tucker) v Independent Police Complaints Commission | 315 |
| Issue: Whether police officers involved in a fatal shooting should have been prevented from conferring with each other before recording their accounts of the incident | |
| Reynolds v (1) Independent Police Complaints Commission (2) Chief Constable of Sussex Police | 339 |
| Issue: Whether Arts 2 and 3 ECHR obliged the IPCC (rather than the police force concerned) to investigate when a person in custody went into a coma and it was not clear whether the cause was something that happened before or after reception into custody | |
| Blackburn and another v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police | 346 |
| Issue: Whether a system of making extra payments to those officers who worked nights (which had a disparate impact on men and women) was justified under the Equal Pay Act 1970 | |
| E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary | 350 |
| Issue: Whether the police were in breach of Art 3 ECHR for failing to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment of Catholic children by loyalists as they walked to and from school in Belfast | |
| Raissi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 365 |
| Issue: Whether an arrest of an individual who was related to a person suspected of involvement in major terrorist attacks in the USA was lawful | |
| R (S) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary | 373 |
| Issue: Whether it had been irrational to include on an enhanced criminal record certificate details of offences which had resulted in acquittals and in respect of which the criminal court had found that the defendant could not have been the offender | |
| R (Faisaltex Ltd and others) v Crown Court at Preston, Chief Constable of Lancashire and HM Revenue and Customs | 384 |
| Issue: Whether search warrants were invalid on the grounds that the test for issue of the warrants was not satisfied, and whether the seizure of material was unlawful because it was not covered by the warrants | |
| S and Marper v UK | 403 |
| Issue: Whether the retention of DNA samples and profiles from 2 men who were not convicted of an offence was a breach of their right to respect for private life under Art 8 ECHR | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
