I represented John Kennedy in an action for malicious prosecution against Merseyside Police, arising out of an incident which occurred in June 2017.
In June 2017, Merseyside Police Officers attended at John’s home in order to carry out a welfare check after concerns had been raised by one of John’s friends that he might be at risk of self harm.
John had a history of mental health issues, including episodes of self harm connected with anxiety and depression, but when the Police attended at his home on the day in question John was not in need of any medical attention and simply wanted to be left alone.
However, PC Hughes and PC Price of Merseyside Police forced entry to John’s house contrary to his wishes, and ignored his repeated requests that they leave the property.
The presence of the Officers in John’s home severely aggravated his mental health issues and caused him to consume a small number of Diazepam tablets in front of the Officers.
PC Hughes then, suddenly and without warning, grabbed John by both arms and tripped him up, causing him to lose his balance. John was then thrown face first onto a settee in his living room and pushed down with considerable force into the cushions, which restricted his breathing.
Trapped helplessly on the couch by the Officer, John felt weight pressing down onto his back (which he believes to have been PC Hughes’ knee) and then felt his left arm being twisted behind his back and being pulled upwards away from his body. At the same time John also felt his left arm being bent inwards at the elbow.
John then felt sudden and excruciating pain in his left arm and simultaneously heard a loud ‘popping’ sound.
John was left in a state of shock and agony – which is unsurprising because the Officer’s use of force had caused a fracture to the mid-shaft of John’s left humerus bone (which subsequently required an operation to insert metal work into his arm in order to repair).
Unfortunately, matters did not rest there, because after John was discharged from A&E later that day (pending his operation) he was arrested by Merseyside Police and charged with assaulting PC Price in the execution of his duty contrary to Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996.
A Claim for Malicious Prosecution
The first step in bringing a successful claim for malicious prosecution against the Police is of course, for the accused person to prove their innocence of the charges which have wrongfully been brought against them.
PC Hughes and PC Price produced statements in support of the criminal prosecution of John. In their statements the Officers alleged that John had become ‘aggressive’ in his demeanour and that John had then intentionally injured PC Price by driving his shoulder into PC Price’s chest, in a ‘rugby tackle’ manoeuvre.
John entirely disputed this version of events and on reviewing the evidence I was of the opinion that the charge had in fact been deliberately manufactured by the Officers as a ‘smoke screen’ to deflect attention from PC Hughes’ own unjustified and unlawful assault upon John (which had resulted in John’s broken arm).
In November 2017, following trial at Sefton Magistrates Court, at which both PC Hughes and PC Price gave evidence, John was acquitted of assaulting PC Price.
However, proving John’s innocence was not on its own enough to succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution against Merseyside Police.
In order to do so it was necessary to also prove that –
- The prosecution was brought without reasonable and probable cause; and
- The Police, in initiating the prosecution, acted with malice.
‘Malice’ here means a deliberate disregard for the truth. In other words, the Police cannot be successfully sued under the tort of malicious prosecution if their Officers have made an honest mistake – it is necessary in most cases, as it was here, to prove that it is more likely than not that the Officers who gave the evidence in support of the criminal charges against the accused person (here PC Hughes and PC Price) deliberately falsified or exaggerated their accounts in order to ‘frame’ the accused for an offence which they did not honestly suspected he had committed.
It was of note that both PC Hughes and PC Price had been wearing body cameras but had chosen not to activate them – despite their subsequent accounts of John becoming aggressive and violent towards them. Furthermore, John was (and is) a man of good character with no criminal convictions or indeed any prior adverse interactions with the Police at all.
I also obtained medical evidence demonstrating the extent of the fracture to John’s arm and the level of force and mechanism which would have been required to inflict such a fracture.
I noted that in the statement of PC Hughes he denied that John had at any point asked the Officers to leave his address – despite also describing John becoming angry and aggressive towards the Officers. Likewise, I identified apparent inconsistencies in PC Hughes’ attempted explanation of how John’s arm had come to be broken – which the Officer was in effect attempting to pass off as an accident caused by John struggling against the Officer’s legitimate ‘restraint technique’
John’s claim for malicious prosecution was disputed by Merseyside Police all the way up to and including a 5-day Trial before Judge and Jury at Liverpool County Court in 2022, at the conclusion of which the Jury found that John had not intentionally shoulder barged PC Price – contrary to the evidence which had been given against him by PC Hughes and PC Price both at the Magistrates Court and during the subsequent civil proceedings.
On the basis of that finding, John was entitled to judgment against Merseyside Police in respect of his claim for malicious prosecution; he was also awarded judgment in respect of his claims for assault and battery and wrongful arrest arising out of the same incident.
Many of the numerous malicious prosecution claims which I have successfully brought against Police Forces on behalf of clients over the years, centres around similar facts to those in John Kennedy’s case – namely people being arrested and prosecuted in malicious attempts to ‘justify’ the unlawful force which Officers had used upon them and with Officers deliberately fabricating/elaborating their statements and evidence before the Magistrates Court to portray as aggressive and violent a person who was, in reality, the victim of the Officers’ own aggression and violence.
John was ultimately awarded £50,000 damages and further details of his case can be found in the blog post which I have written here and the Liverpool Echo newspaper report about the case here.
