|
Stop and search - relevant case law |
|
Police can be sued |
The blanket immunity of the police against being sued now appears in
doubt following Osman v United Kingdom [1999], where the ECHR that such an immunity
restricted access to a court in breach of article 6.1 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, and cases against the police ought to go
to trial. |
|
Osman v Ferguson
(1993) CA |
[Tort – negligence - duty
of care – no duty situations - public policy – breach – no duty of police
in certain situations]
D the
police, failed to stop a man shooting and killing C’s husband.
The man a teacher formed
an unhealthy attachment with C’s 14-year-old son and began to harass him
and his family. It was known he might do something criminally
insane.
Held: C had been exposed to a risk over and above that of the
public there was an arguable case that there was a very close degree of
proximity amounting to a special relationship between the C’s family and
the investigating police officers.
However, following
Hill,
it would be against public policy to impose such a duty as it would not
promote the observance of a higher standard of care by the police and
would result in the
significant diversion of police resources from the investigation and
suppression of crime.
C lost
C took the case to
the ECtHR |
|
Osman v UK [1999] ECtHR |
"Another
relevant consideration is the need to ensure that the police exercise
their powers to control and prevent crime in a manner which fully respects
the due process and other guarantees which
legitimately place restraints on the scope of their action to investigate
crime and bring offenders to justice, including the guarantees contained
in Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention." |
|
Lodwick v Sanders [1985] DC |
A
police officer is acting in the execution of his duty if, having stopped a
vehicle pursuant to the above section, he detains it pending further
inquiries having reasonably formed the suspicion that it may have been
stolen. |
|
King v Gardner (1979) DC |
A constable received a radio
message that two males, a female and a dog were loitering in a London
street. They went to investigate at the area in question and saw the
defendant with a girl and a dog. They stopped and detained the defendant
who was carrying a bag. It was held that the radio message could not give
grounds for suspicion.
The question whether the
officer had acted reasonably was not merely a subjective question, i.e.
what was in his mind, but it had to be looked at in a general objective
context, namely, the situation as a whole.
|
|
Shaaban Bin Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] PC
|
Reasonable suspicion is less than prima
facie proof. Per Lord Devlin.
In Malaysia, suspects were detained following a fatal road traffic
accident, and later released for lack of evidence, only part of the
detention was held to be unreasonable. |
|
Dallinson v Caffrey (1965) |
Lord
Diplock when discussing "reasonable grounds" described the test as being
whether "a reasonable man assumed to know the law and possessed of the
information which in fact was possessed by the defendant would believe
that there were reasonable grounds." (IOLIS) |
