Taylor V. Walker Case Summary

The appellant, appealed after two years the decision of the district judge. Mr Walker issued a civil claim for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against PC Adam. The appeal being heard by Judge Freeland at the Central London Civil Justice Centre.

On 12 July 2008, two police constable attended the claimant and his partner, a complaint had been made by the claimant’s girlfriend that he had hit her. The officer restricted and blocked the claimant’s movements in a doorway, without intend to arrest him, thereby detaining him for a few seconds. The appellant pushed the officer and struggled violently, the claimant is then taken to the police station. He was acquitted on the ground that the officer had restricted

There had been a brief 'technical' imprisonment ascending from the appellant's unlawful detention in the doorway. Furthermore, he would be awarded £5. However, As a result, the appellant's claim for damages was dismissed by Judge Freeland.

The claimant also argued the word public order were insufficient, it was unclear even to reference to the requirement for the grounds for arrest. It should be expressed in simple, non-technical language that he could understand, in reference to Taylor v Thames Valley Police. He claimed the word ‘disorderly conduct’ should have been used instead.

As for the question of the claimant’s initial detention, the judge considered the detention for a few seconds as brief, trivial and technical, subsiding within ‘the acceptable standards of an ordinary citizen’ as debated in the primary authority of Collins v Wilcock. For the lawfulness of the force used by the claimant, Judge Freeland held Mr Walker’s conduct as “gross and disproportionate overreaction” and turning to compliance with section 28(3) PACE, PC Adams uses the words ‘public order’, it was found to be satisfactory and reasonable for the purposes of the statute, as considered in the decision in Taylor v Thames Valley