75-Year-Old HNK Client Successful in a £107,000 Assault and Wrongful Arrest Claim Against The British Transport Police

HNK Solicitors Head of the Actions Against the Police Department, Demi Drury, helped obtain over £107,000 for a client from The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, after he suffered a horrific assault and wrongful arrest at the hands of the British Transport Police officer.

We supported our client at a 5-day trial which resulted in him being awarded £107,750. The defendant has suffered many acts of misconduct by officers, including false arrest and imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, trespass to the person and assault and battery. The ordeal he suffered was unacceptable and it was further exasperated by the Defendant then denying liability and making a number of false claims against our client.

Read on to find out more about this case and how you can claim compensation, too, if you have been victim of police misconduct.  

Background of the case

On 3^rd June 2015, our client R, a 70-year old pensioner, arrived at Bolton train station to travel to Manchester. At the time, the train service was subject to disruption and replacement bus services were operating.

R was not properly directed by train station staff to where the bus replacement services were leaving from, which caused him to miss two replacement buses.

R was informed by one of the train station staff that the last bus had been let go earlier than it should. R went to the customer service office to ask why the last bus had been allowed to go earlier than its allotted time.

R knocked on the door but despite hearing voices, no one answered. After receiving no reply, he went to find employees of the train station elsewhere and was informed by them that he had been given the wrong information by the ticket officer.

The 18:45 train was on the platform and R got on board. He was approached by an officer. This officer did not identify himself and as such, R was not aware at the time that he was a police officer.

The officer told R to get off the train and he refused. R was grabbed by his arm and told to get off the train. The officer walked off the train and a few seconds later, got back on the train, grabbed R’s arm and sprayed him in the face with pepper spray.

R was 70 years old at the time of the incident.

R was pushed off the train and handcuffed. R was sprayed again with pepper spray, whilst he was handcuffed. The officers kicked R in the legs to get him onto the ground. R heard PC make a comment to the other officers that he had “got him good”.

R was arrested for assault and taken to the police station. He was charged and released on unconditional bail.

The civil case for damages

The Claimant instructed HNK Solicitors in March 2017, to represent him against The Chief Constable of British Transport Police.  A Letter of Claim was served on the Defendant, claiming damages for false arrest and imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, trespass to the person and assault and battery.

The Defendant denied liability to the claim. Their response was as follows:

• It was reported to the PC that R had kicked the door to the staff office;
• PC was in full uniform and was identifiable as a police officer and introduced himself to R.
• R was uncooperative and attempted to swing two punches at PC
• Given R attempted to punch PC, he had reasonable grounds to suspect that R committed an offence pursuant to s.24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (“PACE”).
• The arrest was necessary to prevent further injury to himself, members of the public, railway staff and for the prompt and effective investigation.
• The force used against R during the course of the arrest was reasonable in all the circumstances
• It was denied that R was sprayed with captor spray after he had been arrested;
• It was denied that the prosecution was without reasonable or probable cause.

The Defendant failed to engage in settlement negotiations, resulting in court proceedings being issued.

The Claimant pleaded the following:

• The Defendant’s officer did not have honest or reasonable grounds for suspecting the Claimant had committed an offence as required by section 24 (1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”)
• The Defendant‘s officer did not have honest or reasonable grounds for believing the arrest was necessary for any of the reasons set out in section 24 (5) PACE.
• R was not informed of the reason for his arrest as soon as practicable contrary to s.28 PACE.
• The force used against the Claimant was unreasonable and unlawful.
• The Defendant caused the Claimant, without reasonable cause and maliciously, to be prosecuted and/or for the prosecution to be continued for the offence of assault.

The Defendant filed a Defence, denying the claim on the basis that:

• The Defendant’s officer was lawfully arrested pursuant to s.24 PACE as PC had reasonable grounds to suspect that R was guilty of the offence of assault and reasonable grounds to believe the arrest was necessary to prevent him from causing physical harm.
• PC informed R that he was under arrest and provided the grounds for his arrest, as soon as practicable.
• R was lawfully prosecuted for the offence contrary to s.9 of the Police Act 1996 and it was denied that the prosecution was brought without reasonable and probable cause and/or maliciously
• The force used was reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances.

Outcome

The matter went to a 5-day jury trial before HHJ Evans on 27^th September 2021. Many people gave evidence including R, the officer in question, other officers and the Claimant’s criminal solicitor.

R’s criminal solicitor gave evidence to confirm that he spoke with a witness who had a recording that he had taken of the incident. He confirmed that he watched the video that showed R was already in handcuffs, he was pushed in to the corner, surrounded by 3 officers, sprayed in the face whilst being pushed in to the corner and whilst in handcuffs, then kicked to the legs. He confirmed that R was not resisting in any way shape or form.

Following a 5-day trial, the jury found the following:

• The Defendant failed to prove that the officer honestly believed R swung two punches at him;
• The Defendant failed to prove that the officer honestly believed R’s arrest was necessary;
• The Defendant failed to prove that the officer told R that he was under arrest for assault whilst on the platform at Bolton Railway Station;
• R proved that he was sprayed with pepper spray whilst on the platform at Bolton Railway Station;
• R proved that he was kicked in the legs by police officers whilst on the platform at Bolton Railway Station;
• R proved that PC commented “I got him good” in relation to using pepper spray on R.

As a result of the jury’s verdicts, R succeeded in his claim against The Chief Constable of The British Transport Police.  The Claimant also beat his Part 36 offer and he received an uplift on his damages and legal costs.

Judgment was given in favour of the claimant for damages and legal costs in the sum of £107,750.

HNK Solicitors can help you with your action against the police claim

We have a team of expert action against the police solicitors with many years of experience supporting clients in their claims against the police. With a detailed knowledge of the relevant laws and regulations around police powers and police claims, our team can help you to secure the compensation you deserve after suffering misconduct by police.

To find out more about making a civil action against the police claim, read our landing page. If you have been the victim of police misconduct, you can start your claim today. Fill in our online enquiry form, call us on 0151 668 0809 or email our team on enquiries@hnksolicitors.com.