Police liability for damage caused by a third party: act or omission?

Written by: Cecily White
Published: 2 March 2020

In Chief Constable of Essex Police v Transport Arendonk Bvba [2020] EWHC 212 (QB), the High Court (Laing J) refused to strike out a claim in negligence, against the police, where the driver of a lorry carrying cargo had been arrested for drink-driving, and the cargo had been stolen during the driver’s detention at the police station. It demonstrates the continued difficulty to identify what is a police “act” or “omission” – and what amounts to the police causing a state of danger, giving rise to liability.

No bright line between private and public tweeting for professional misconduct

Written by: Elliot Gold
Published: 29 February 2020

It is possible for the social media activity of professionals to amount to professional misconduct, even if seemingly made in a personal capacity and where freedom of speech is claimed. The case of Diggins v Bar Standards Board [2020] EWHC 467 (Admin), holds that there is no “bright line” between conduct that falls within the private realm as opposed to that which is sufficiently public to engage a professional disciplinary jurisdiction. It is sometimes argued in police misconduct hearings that private social-media behaviour of officers falls outwith professional misconduct – that might be the case on particular facts but the instant case shows that this is not necessarily so.

Inadequate investigation into complaint of rape a breach of article 3, £16,500 damages

Written by: Elliot Gold
Published: 27 February 2020

The Northern Ireland High Court in C (A Person under a Disability) v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [2020] NIQB 3 has awarded damages of £16,500 for a breach of article 3 in respect of a failure by the police to conduct a proper investigation into the reported rape of a twenty-year-old woman with Asperger’s syndrome.

Short shrift for bias and recusal submissions in police misconduct hearings

Written by: Elizabeth Fox
Published: 26 February 2020

In R (Short) v (1) Police Misconduct Tribunal (2) Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police [2020] EWHC 385 (Admin), Mr Justice Saini delivered a resounding reaffirmation that misconduct hearing panels are well able to put irrelevant and prejudicial matters out of their minds rather than having to recuse themselves and that they are able to determine their own procedures, just like civil courts and tribunals.

Let’s face it: use of automated facial recognition technology by the police

Written by: Dijen Basu KC
Published: 21 February 2020

The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin); [2020] 1 WLR 672 is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Divisional Court in Bridges, this may, depending on the facts of each particular deployment, be lawful.