0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

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

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.


Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.


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