The purpose behind the Constables Protection Act of 1750 is one which carries the ring of common-sense down the centuries; that Police Officers should not be liable for enforcing an arrest warrant which has been issued by the Court, in circumstances where they are only acting as agents of a judicial direction, rather than making their own decision.
However, the Constables of the 18th century did not also have responsibility for administering that vast databank of personal records known as the Police National Computer (PNC) and nowadays, many times that the Police invoke the “Constables Protection Act” to avoid liability in civil claims they are doing so notwithstanding the fact that it was a Police error involving use of the PNC which caused the warrant to be wrongly issued in the first place. A Constables Protection “Act” indeed, we might say.
Thus do the Police shamelessly hide behind the archaic Act to avoid liability for their very modern mistake: but fortunately, there are ways around this, as Gwent Police found out when I pursued a claim against them on behalf of my client Claudia.
In September 2022, Claudia was involved in a road traffic accident, which was attended by Officers of Gwent Police. Those Officers determined that she should be subject to a roadside breath test to establish whether she was in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. Regrettably, she failed that test.
Claudia was then arrested and escorted to hospital to have a blood sample taken for the further investigation of this offence. After the blood sample was taken, she was de-arrested and allowed to leave.
Upon arrest, a police officer had asked Claudia for her home address, which she provided. The police officer accordingly used this address in paperwork relating to the driving offence.
Following analysis of Claudia’s blood sample, a Postal Charge and Requisition was sent to her in January 2023. The Postal Charge stated that Claudia was required to attend her local Magistrates Court later that month, and that the court might issue a warrant for her arrest if she were not to attend.
Unfortunately, the summons was sent not to Claudia’s current address, despite her having provided this to the Police, but to her old residential address, which appeared on the PNC and had not been updated.
Furthermore, the member of Police staff who prepared the Postal Charge had failed to identify the discrepancy between the address on the Police National Computer and the correct address which appeared on other electronic systems.
Naturally, Claudia did not attend Court as required and accordingly, the Court issued a warrant for her arrest. The fact that the Police had, all along, had Claudia’s correct address was evident from the fact that it was to her current address that the Police came to arrest her one evening in February. Claudia received a phone call advising that the Police wanted to speak to her about the road traffic accident, but the officer she spoke to gave no warning of their true purpose in coming to her house, and thus she suffered the shock and shame of being unexpectedly arrested in front of her 14-year-old daughter and her partner.
Claudia was detained in Police custody for over 14 hours before being taken to the Magistrates Court in handcuffs and further detained in the Court cells. On being brought before the Magistrates, Claudia pleaded guilty to the driving offence, as she would have done in response to the Postal Summons, had she received it. She was already on medication owing to a history of anxiety and depression, and this was considerably inflamed by her traumatic experience of Police arrest as a ‘wanted’ person and the long hours she spent in custody. She felt stigmatised by her experience, became socially withdrawn and suffered from over-eating.
When I first presented a claim on Claudia’s behalf, Gwent Police denied liability and as expected, invoked the Constables Protection Act, arguing that they thereby had immunity against any legal suit for false imprisonment (notwithstanding their undeniable moral culpability for the obvious mistake they had committed). The arrest and detention were “at the behest of the court”, despite the admitted ‘human error’ by Police staff. It was further denied that the Police owed Claudia any duty of care in negligence for their error.
Fortunately, there were other avenues of attack in which I was well versed, and I was able to raise a compelling argument that the Police were liable for Claudia’s loss of liberty as a result of their breaching of the Data Protection Act 2018. Thus, could a defence almost 300 years old be legitimately outflanked by legislation which more accurately reflects the complexities of modern law enforcement.
After I threatened to issue Court proceedings, Gwent Police quickly came to the negotiating table and after initially offering £3,000, ultimately settled Claudia’s claim for £8,000 damages plus legal costs.
‘School-boy’ errors such as using the wrong address should be confined to the classroom, and there is no excuse for them in today’s data-rich modern era, particularly when people’s liberty, privacy, family life and mental health are at stake.
My client’s name has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.