A Greek Tragedy in Central London

Francis Churchill v Thames Valley Police and Patrick Churchill v Thames Valley Police, Central London County Court, January 2010

This trial of claims for police misfeasance, which rose from a three-day trial estimate to a seven-day hearing thanks to a combination of snowbound jurors and verbose claimant witnesses, had all the hallmarks of a Greek tragedy as a tale of family discord was played out in the unprepossessing surroundings of Central London County Court.

Background

Francis Churchill, a 41-year-old unemployed man living at home with his elderly parents, was arrested by two police officers in his bedroom on 6 August 2004, following a complaint to them earlier that day by his mother of assault on her three weeks beforehand. His father, Patrick Churchill, aged 85 at the time of the trial, brought his own claim for assault. The two cases were heard together before HHJ Paul Collins, and jury.

Section 33 Success

Mr Churchill Senior's claim was struck out on the first day of trial as statute-barred, the judge having refused to exercise discretion pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to continue. The police officer alleged to have assaulted Patrick Churchill attended court and gave evidence that he could not recollect the incident and the defendant proved prejudice.

The Remaining Claimant's Case

Mr Churchill Junior accepted that the police had reasonable grounds to arrest him. However, he claimed that the failure to tell him the full proper grounds for arrest "for assault occasioning actual bodily harm", and the date and circumstances of the alleged historic assault, made it unlawful. He also alleged that he had been thrown onto his bed, manhandled downstairs, punched on the jaw, handcuffed, dragged barefoot out of his house and thrown across the bonnet of a police car. He alleged that he had been intimidated en route to the police station and that upon arrival a rubber glove was snapped at him in a sinister way before his pockets were searched.

The Defendant's Case

The defendant's defence was simple: her officers had reasonable grounds to arrest the claimant and did so by taking hold of him and telling him that he was under arrest for assault on his mother, which was sufficient. The claimant violently resisted arrest and continued to struggle whilst he was taken downstairs and placed in the police car using reasonable force.

The Evidence

A combination of clearly recounted events by the police witnesses...