False Imprisonment And Mentally Unwell Detainees

• Published date: 23 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Health & Safety, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations
• Law Firm: Weightmans
• Author: Lewis Hough

Victoria Clark v The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2023] EWHC 2565 (KB)

Summary

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police has successfully defended an appeal to the High Court which followed the dismissal of the claimant's claim for false imprisonment, assault, and a breach of her Article 3 ECHR right brought under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The claimant was suffering with mental illness at the time of her arrest and detention, and the case focused on the decisions made to take the claimant into police custody rather than immediately taking her to a mental health facility, and her subsequent treatment whilst in police custody.

The judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie regarding two distinct issues in the case is likely to be of interest to both police forces and police lawyers alike.

Background

On 12 March 2016 the claimant was arrested following calls to the police indicating that she was attacking her mother. Upon arrival at the address, the attending officers saw the claimant attempting to self-harm. The claimant then attacked the officers who had to physically restrain her. She was arrested at 8.15pm for breach of the peace and assaulting a constable.

Several days prior to the incident on 8 March 2016, the claimant had been certified as in need of detention under the Mental Health Act 2003 by two psychiatrists. Due to a lack of inpatient beds, she was later released. On 12 March 2016 the claimant's mother had informed the attending police officers that she was mentally unwell, but the full details were not known to the officers.

Upon arrival at the police station the claimant's detention was authorised and she was placed on a period of rest and observation due to a concern that she may be intoxicated. She was detained in a cell overnight and released into the detention of the mental healthcare authorities at around 5.24pm in the following day.

During her detention, the claimant attempted to bite a police officer whilst being booked in. After being carried to her cell, the claimant's clothes were then cut off and she was provided with a gown. During this process, the claimant struggled and bit the inner thigh of one of the detention officers ("DON"). The claimant was then struck by DON several times to her face to get her to release the bite. DON asserted that that the claimant also then grabbed her left ankle, causing DON to punch the claimant in the arm to get her to release her grip.

The claimant's detention was reviewed at 2.23am by the Custody Inspector and continued detention was deemed necessary 'in order to secure and preserve evidence'. The Inspector considered and noted on the custody log that the claimant was still in her rest period at this time, that she was potentially intoxicated, and that she would need a mental health assessment after her rest period.

The detention was once again reviewed at 9:59am by a different Custody Inspector who again authorised ongoing detention 'in order to preserve evidence and obtain further evidence by questioning'. It was noted that the claimant was at that stage likely to become violent and that her state of mind was likely to prevent understanding of any face-to-face discussion.

Prior to this later authorisation, the claimant had been examined by a mental health criminal justice liaison practitioner at 8.30am, who had decided that she needed to be admitted to a mental health hospital but did not consider that there was a medical emergency. A second practitioner then arrived at around 3pm and was satisfied that the claimant needed to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, but again found there was no medical emergency. The claimant was eventually transferred to a mental hospital at around 17.24 hours on 13 March 2016.

The claim that was subsequently brought alleged:

• The arrest of the claimant was unlawful as the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to...