Fitzpatrick, Wilkey and TBW solicitors v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Dijen Basu successfully defends claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment and breaches of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights brought against the Metropolitan Police.  

Dijen Basu successfully represented the Defendants in Fitzpatrick, Wilkey and TBW Solicitors v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 12 (Admin). Dijen was led by Ronald Thwaites QC.

The first and second Claimants, (F and W) are solicitors at the third Claimant (a firm).  F and W claimed damages for assault, battery and false imprisonment along with a declaration that their Article 8 rights had been breached by the Defendant. The firm claimed damages for trespass and malicious procurement of a search warrant upon its premises. The Claimants’ claims failed in their entirety and the trial judge, Globe J, gave judgment for the Defendant, with costs.

One of T’s clients, (X) had been convicted of conspiracy to supply drugs and imprisoned. A restraint order was made in respect of his assets. Intelligence gathered by the police officer investigating X’s financial affairs, revealed that X owed money from drug dealing to Y, another client of T’s. It was suspected that X was planning to transfer property, believed to be the proceeds of crime, to Y via creation of power of attorney so as to circumvent the restraint order on his assets.

Further investigation by the officer brought to light intelligence that F may be facilitating the circumvention of the restraining order for the benefit of Y and she was arrested on suspicion of money laundering offences. A search warrant was then executed at the firm’s premises and W was also arrested on suspicion of money laundering offences. Both F and W remained on police bail until June 2009, a period of 20 months, when the CPS decided that no further action would be taken against them.

Dismissing the claims, Globe J agreed with the Defendant’s submissions that for an arrest to be lawful it must be shown that, a) the Constable actually believed that arrest was necessary, and for a reason set out in s.24(5) PACE and b) that objectively that belief was reasonable. This was the two stage test successfully contended for in Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police by Jason Beer QC. The Claimants unsuccessfully argued that there was a third stage whereby they could show that the decision to arrest was vitiated by a public law error. The court disagreed but, in any event, held that the officer’s decision to arrest was not vitiated by any such error.

F and W also complained that the length of time they had spent on bail was inordinate, and that it constituted a disproportionate interference with their Article 8 rights. Although they had indeed been on bail for a considerable amount of time, it was held that this was entirely legitimate due to the complex nature of the investigation. Any interference with F and W’s rights under Article 8 were therefore justified.

In respect of the Firm’s claims, the court held that there was no defect on the face of the search warrant to suggest that the application for the warrant under s.8 PACE had been granted unlawfully. Furthermore, Globe J held that there was no evidence to suggest that any police officer had acted maliciously in obtaining the warrant.

In any event, the learned judge accepted the Defendant’s argument that an officer’s search powers under s.32 PACE, (following an arrest other than at a police station) applied to the search of the firm’s officers upon W’s arrest.

The Judgment also provided valuable guidance on s.50 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, (power of seizure for later sifting) holding that it was appropriate to use the s.50 procedure in a situation where a large quantity of material was to be seized and it was not practicable to determine, on the premises, how much of it the officers were entitled to seize.

Dijen Basu is instructed by a number of police forces and organisations in relation to matters of civil and public law unique to policing. He is described by Chambers UK 2011 as "an all-round performer" and he is recommended by Legal 500 for Professional Disciplinary work and Police Law.