0370 270 6000

McGrogan v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police

18 February 2002
The issues

Police – Unlawful detention – Breach of the peace.

The facts

The Claimant was arrested on suspicion of having committed an assault early one afternoon. At the civil trial, the Judge found that the arrest was lawful as was the detention. The further continuing detention was also lawful. The assault victim being questioned by a Police Officer then made it known that she did not intend to make a complaint against the Claimant. The assault had been in the context of a domestic argument. The Officer had previous experience of domestic arguments between the two and took the view that she was frightened. The Officer honestly believed that if the Claimant were let out he would go back to the victim’s home and that a breach of the peace would occur. He had an honest and genuine concern for the victim’s safety. It was decided that an information for breach of the peace would be laid against the Claimant who was then detained overnight. The following day the detention was reviewed and continued, the police taking the view that they had no power to bail conditionally. At the trial the Judge found that at this stage the Police should have merely warned the Claimant and released him. He awarded the Claimant £1,500 for false imprisonment. The Police appealed.

The decision

1. The power to detain to prevent further breach of the peace was limited to circumstances where there was a real and not merely a fanciful apprehension of the likelihood of such a breach if the detainee was released. The Officer making the decision to detain had to have an honest belief that the detention was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace and that decision must be objectively reasonable.

2. The Judge had accepted that there had remained a continuing risk of further domestic violence.

3. The Judge had relied upon the correct test but had not applied it.

4. Had he applied the test properly, he ought to have concluded that the detention was justified until such time as the Claimant could be brought before a Court.

Appeal allowed.


Not a case, but the results of my browsing on the net (!) when I began to work through the Lord Chancellor’s new “money claim on line” site. This is a web-based claim procedure (available at www.moneyclaim.gov.uk) which entitles individuals (and Solicitors and businesses) to commence proceedings for a money claim electronically. The claim can be used for any sum of money up to £99,999.99 and provided you are suing no more than 2 Defendants. Fees are paid by credit card and, once registered, you are given a “unique customer identification and password”. If anything was needed to wake up the dinosaurs or (like me) the merely technologically incompetent, it is the sight of the Lord Chancellor being quite as up to date as this! I recommend you have a look.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.



Employers liability for practical jokes in the workplace

The extent of vicarious liability has been tested by the courts again and this time in relation to employees engaging in horseplay and practical jokes.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up