Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 10:03 19/02/2001 -0000, David Howe wrote:
>> David,
>> With respect,
>> In several jurisdictions in the US, the cop who stops you for driving can
>> print you and then access through a PDA style device the rap
>> sheets/prints/wanted records of felons and grab you on the spot if you fit
>> the bill. I am not suggesting that known/wanted felons should be able to
>> strowl off on their merry way, but that entries that do not in themselves
>> justify an arrest, or may or may not justify an arrest (based on the
>> reasonableness of the source of the information) should always be open to
>> challenge. Needless to say an officer must often use his/her judgement to
>> effect an arrest and is given fair latitude in doing so- that however is
>not
>> carte blanche and must be open to challenge to avoid spurious grounds,
>> racial judgements, etc. Where, for instance, a wiretap order is granted in
>> many jurisdictions that I am familiar with, the information on which the
>> affidavit grounding the application for the order is made, is open to very
>> tight scrutiny at pre trial motions, which I believe to be the correct
>> process, to avoid over reaching, wishful thinking, plain erroneous
>> information and the like. Checks and balances to ensure that an accused
>can
>> challenge the basis of the information on which he is charged is
>fundamental
>> to the right to make full answer and defence.
>I don't think anyone disputes this - the question the judged faced was
>this - if the information in the computer record is of sufficient
>seriousness to justify in the constable's mind an Armed Response Team, is
>that constable guilty of making a false arrest if the data in the computer
>is wrong?
>IMHO, the constable isn't - but there *was* a false arrest made; who you
>hold responsible for the arrest is really the question - what sounds
>reasonable as "guns don't kill people, people kill people" seems less
>fitting when the agent is a police constable, not a piece of metal - but the
>person directly responsible for the arrest is whoever added the computer
>record not the police officer on the spot.

The problem is this:  if the entry didn't in law justify the arrest, there
was a false imprisonment and an easy remedy; but as it did, then the only
remedy the court seemed to think there might be was a claim for dmages for
negligence in making the entry, which depends on proving the circumstances
of the making of the entry, which might be a much harde claim to justify
litigating.  The court has moved the goalposts for victims of unjustified
suspicion.

Regards

Nicholas Bohm

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop’s Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone	01279 871272	(+44 1279 871272)
Fax	01279 870215	(+44 1279 870215)
Mobile	07715 419728 (+44 7715 419728)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF