Student number: 1703-480-81

Case Name And Citation:

Walker v The Commissioner of Police of Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 897

Court and judges:

Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Rimer, Tomlinson, Rix LJJ

parties:
Appellant - Alexander Walker
Respondent – The Commissioner of the Police of Metropolis

material facts:
During a dispute between Mr. Walker and PC Adams, Mr.Walker’s movement was obstructed by PC
Adams in the doorway. Mr. Walker responded violently. Subsequently Mr. Walker was detained for 7
hours for affray and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. He was acquitted of his
charges as his initial detention was held to be unlawful. After almost two years Mr.Walker brought a civil
claim against the police officer, PC Adams, for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution.
This claim was dismissed. Mr.Walker then brought an appeal against the dismissal of his claim.

Questions of law:
1) Did Mr.Walker’s brief detention in the doorway amount to false imprisonment?
2) Did Mr.Walker act reasonably and proportionately in self defence in response to the detention?
3) Was the arrest carried out by PC Adams in compliance with Section 28(3) of the Police And Criminal
Evidence (PACE ) Act 1984?

Decision:
Unanimously , (LJ Rix at 44, LJ Tomlinson at 46 and LJ Rimer at 50) allowed Mr.Walker’s appeal on the
first issue, but dismissed it on the second and third issues. Mr.Walker was entitled to £5 for the first
false imprisonment.

Detailed reasoning for the decision:

The reasoning behind the judgments of the Lords is, to a great extent consistent. Lord Rimer chose to
agree with Lord Rix and Lord Tomlinson without further clarification.
Lord Rix at paragraph 17 (onwards) relied upon Lord Goff’s judgment in Collins v. Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR
1172 (Div Ct). Similar to this case, in Collins v Wilcock there was conflict between an ordinary citizen and
a police officer. It was held that a police officer had ‘no greater rights than ordinary citizens’ when
detaining someone unless the police officer was exercising his power of arrest. Lord Rix referred to
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed, 2010, at paragraph 24: “Any total restraint of the liberty of a person,
for however short a time, by the use of threat of force or by confinement, is an imprisonment.” Thus
Lord Rix concluded that PC Adams had detained Mr.Walker unlawfully by ‘confining him within the
narrow area of the doorway’. In subsequent statements, he clarified that the period of time for which
Walker was confined was irrelevant.
Lord Rix at 34-35 referred to the decision in R(on the application of Shah) v. Central Criminal Court
[2013] EWHC 1747 (Admin), and concluded that, Mr.Walker could have chosen another course of
conduct instead of resorting to threats and violence when he did not want to be questioned. The Lords
refused to revisit Judge Freeland QC’s findings and held that Walker’s conduct was neither reasonable
nor a proportionate act in self defence.
Mr.Walker’s attorney, Mr.Metzer argued that PC Adams’ conduct did not ‘amount to an adequate
performance of the requirements of s.28(3) of PACE’. The Lords however, referred to the case of Fox
v.Uk (1991) 13 EHRR 157 at paragraph 40, and held that PC Adams was sufficiently clear in his use of
words, and that, Mr.Walker was obviously aware of the fact that he was being arrested for his conduct.
The Lords concluded that the arrest was indeed in compliance with s.28(3) of PACE.

Ratio Decidendi:
Unlawfully restricting the movement of a person can amount to false imprisonment. The duration of the
detention is immaterial. Hence, Mr.Walker’s brief detention in the doorway amounts to false
imprisonment.
If the defendant is made aware of, or can be reasonably held to understand the reasons for arrest, then
the arrest will be in compliance with s.28(3) of PACE. Mr.Walker’s awareness of why he was being
arrested was lucid and, thus validated the arrest in terms of s.28(3) of PACE.