Lord accepted by the defense that this behavior
Lord justice Rix judgment was that apart from the
above mentioned facts of the incident had been mentioned in appellants claim.
He went over the evidence before the county court judge. Furthermore, PC Adams
cornering Mr. Walker was unlawful and accepted that appellant is entitled for
damages to the brief and “technical” imprisonment, before his unlawful and
violent behavior before his arrest.
accepted by the defense that this behavior of Mr. Walker resulted in the
detention, appellant argues that on the factors his initial detention before
the arrest was unlawful and made him use considerable force to get him out of
the situation prior to the arrest.
Lord Justice saw that initial detention at the doorway wasn’t to arrest him but
to inquire about the scene at the relevant time. Court accepted that the
appellant’s imprisonment as a technical detention even though it lasted for
issue, was the purported arrest for “public order” a valid arrest within the section
28(3) of PACE? LJ Rix identified that PC Adams had it in mind but could not finish
what he was going to say and also judge identified that Mr. Walker was given
enough reasons for his arrest prior to the actual arrest being performed.
conclusion Lord Justice Rix stated that he would have awarded 1400 for assault
if proven and also 2000 for the imprisonment of 7 hours which followed. Due to
the fact that appellant couldn’t prove his claim he was only awarded with 5 for
Lord Justice Tomlinson agreed and added few points to the
judgement, that Mr. Walkers conduct attracts no sympathy but that is of course
often the way when a fundamental principle is at stake. The previous judge’s
decision of 5 being an appropriate figure was considered generous to the
appellant by him.
LJ Tomlinson stated that The Court would order that appellant should recover
25% of his costs of appeal.
Lord Justice Rimer Agreed with both judgements