The claimant was arrested following an altercation in a pub and taken to a police station. When brought before the custody officer to authorise and determine the conditions of his detention, the claimant became agitated and refused to answer the questions which were being put to him in order for the custody officer to assess the risks posed both to the claimant and to other officers. At one point the claimant, whose hands were handcuffed together in front of him, turned quickly towards officers bringing his arms across his body and upwards. Officers construed that movement as a preparatory step to striking out at them and took the claimant to the floor, put his legs in restraints and handcuffed his hands behind his back. In the process of being restrained the claimant was struck and bit an officer’s finger. The custody officer directed that the claimant be taken to a cell, which was interpreted as a command to both carry the claimant to a cell and there to forcibly remove his clothing. The custody record indicated that a strip search pursuant to section 54(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had been authorised on the basis that the claimant was violent and the custody officer had reasonable grounds for believing that to be the only means of changing the claimant into anti-self-harm clothing as he could not be risk assessed. The claimant claimed damages for personal injury including aggravated and exemplary damages arising from that and other phases of his detention. At trial, the judge held that reasonable and proportionate force could be used by an officer in the carrying out of their duties under section 54(6) to remove and seize clothing where a custody officer believed that a detainee might use them to cause injury to themselves or to others within the meaning of section 54(4)(a). However, he held that there had to be a reasonable a reasonable basis for believing that such a step was necessary to prevent the detainee from using their clothing for that purpose and that, on the facts of the present case, where the claimant had by that point been in leg restraints and handcuffs and had not been offered the opportunity to calm down or to change voluntarily, the custody officer had not had reasonable grounds for such a belief.
On appeal by the claimant—
Held, appeal allowed. There was no requirement in section 54(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that the custody officer had to have a reasonable basis for the belief that the removal of clothing was necessary to prevent the clothing being used by the detainee to cause self-harm or to harm others. The omission of such a requirement from section 54(4), when a reasonable basis for belief was explicitly required for decisions or actions taken under certain other provisions of the 1984 Act, had been deliberate in order to set a low threshold. Such an interpretation was consistent with the fact that a custody officer might not have access to sufficient information to make a reasoned judgment but was still required to make quick decisions for the protection of a detainee or others in circumstances where such considerations had proved in the past to raise matters of life and death. Thus, in the present case, when the claimant had refused to answer questions pursuant to a risk assessment which related to his own and others’ safety and was agitated and violent, the custody officer had been entitled to take a precautionary approach and consider that he ought to have his clothing removed and be put in a self-harm suit. Accordingly, in setting a standard of reasonable belief the judge had misdirected himself in law (paras 46–47, 51, 54).
Daniel Wand (instructed by Kesar & Co Solicitors, Bromley) for the claimant.
Paul Stagg (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for the chief constable.