GB - Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Copeland

Judgment

Lord Justice Moses:

After an eight day trial before Hickinbottom J on 2 May 2013, the jury answered six questions which the judge had posed to them. As a result of their answers, judgment was given against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in the sum of £25,200 as damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The Commissioner says that the judge misdirected the jury in relation to two of the six questions put to the jury, the first relating to the false imprisonment claim, and the second relating to malicious prosecution. In addition, he says that the jury’s verdict was perverse and against the weight of the evidence.

Before us, Mr Garnham QC, for the Commissioner, has concentrated on the misdirection and has not orally pursued the third ground, contending that the jury’s verdict was perverse.

It is, however, necessary to deal with the unedifying events of this matter so as to place the judge’s directions in their proper context. The trial concerns events which occurred as long ago as 13 December 2007. On that date, Angel Copeland was attending Bromley Police Station to act as an appropriate adult in respect of her teenage son. She was taken by PC Bains to the custody suite at about 7.15 p.m.

Whilst waiting in the custody suite, Ms Copeland’s mobile telephone rang and PC Bains told her to turn it off. She did so. But she had another mobile phone in one of the three bags she was carrying. Whilst she and her son stood in front of the custody desk the Custody Sergeant, Police Sgt. Constable, started to read her son his rights At that moment, Ms Copeland’s other telephone rang. Raising his voice, Police Sgt. Constable told her to turn it off or she would be removed from the custody suite. She responded that she was trying to do so. In the belief that Ms Copeland was refusing to do as she was told, Police Sgt. Constable instructed the officers standing behind her, PC Bains and PC Davenport, to escort her out of the custody suite. In response, PC Davenport took hold of her arm. This, so Ms Copeland contended, was an assault. In response to question 1, the jury found by a majority that the Commissioner had not shown that the force used was reasonable. There is no appeal against that answer to question 1.

At that moment, Ms Copeland’s son put his arms around his mother to try and prevent her from being taken out of the custody area. PC Davenport and another officer, PC Sadhra, then took hold of the boy and PC Bains t

Judgment

Lord Justice Moses:

Before us, Mr Garnham QC, for the Commissioner, has concentrated on the misdirection and has not orally pursued the third ground, contending that the jury’s verdict was perverse.

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Copeland

Areas of Law