There has been a complaint made by a woman about
a violent incident on 12th July 2008. Appellant’s girlfriend, Ms.
Cadice Lecky claimed, the appellant, Mr. Alexander Walker had hit her.
Therefore, the appellant was arrested by the police and after 7 hours in custody,
he was released on bail.
The appellant was then arrested for assault of a
police officer in execution of his duty. The custody record stated that
appellant was arrested for “affray, assault police officer”.
On 23th of September 2008, appellant was charged
with assault of a police officer in the execution of his duty and 20th
– 21st April 2009, the appellant stood trial at the Camberwell Green
At the trial, the district judge decided that
the police officer concerned the incident, PC Adams, had restricted the
appellant’s movements in a doorway by cornering him, without intending to
arrest him, thereby having detained the appellant unlawfully and that the
appellant’s actions had been reasonable under the given circumstances.
Therefore, after successfully proving of all the
facts, regarding appellant’s initial detention was unlawful at the residence,
the appellant was acquitted of the prosecution case and the case has been
Almost two years later, the appellant sent a
letter to County Court of Central London claiming damages for the trial which
decided in favor of the appellant.
The letter of claim demanded claims for false
imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution.
The hearing for the claim took place In Central
London County Court before His Honor Justice Freeland QC. The judgment was
given on 1st of August 2013 and the Appellant’s claim has failed.
Assault and malicious prosecution was already
disputed at magistrate’s court two years ago and therefore, judge dismissed
them. But the claim was allowed only for false imprisonment. Therefore, the
judge dismissed the letter of civil claim.
The judge has rejected appellant’s evidence and
accepted the police evidence (Respondent) and it was supported by the evidence
of an eye witness. Ms. Buckmaster, a neighbor. The judge found that appellant
as an unreliable and unimpressive witness.
He found that PC Adams had blocked appellant to
prevent the appellant from escaping because he reasonably feared the appellant
would try to escape.
Hence judge decided that the initial detention
in the doorway wasn’t to arrest the appellant, but to pursue further enquiries
about the incident.
However, the judge accepted that there was a detention
which he described as ‘trivial, brief and technical” which lasted for
few seconds. Although it cannot be defined as a deprivation of liberty of the
appellant, it was still an unlawful detention.
Therefore, the appellant was entitled to be
as damages for his first ground, false imprisonment.
The appellant appealed and it was granted with
limitations. The appeal was allowed in part as per the three issues before the
Court of Appeal.
On 21sth of March 2014, Mr.
Walker, the appellant’s appeal to quash Freeland QC J’s decision (Central
London County Court) came before Rimer, Tomlinson LJ and Rix LJ at Court of