QBD (Nicol J)
4 June 2020
An application for an interim injunction by serving police officers to prevent the police force from examining data from their mobile phones was refused where the police force had retained the data for the purposes of an investigation into their alleged use of drugs on police premises. An application by the police force for transfer of the proceedings from the Media and Communications list to the Administrative Court was refused: although there was a live investigation and those conducting it were subject to public law duties, it was not a breach of public law duties that was being alleged but the infringement of private law rights.
CA (Civ Div) (McCombe LJ, Holroyde LJ, Phillips LJ)
28 April 2020
Police officers had not breached the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.16(7) when executing a search warrant at college premises. The warrant had been lawfully obtained and there was nothing to undermine the record, on its face, that a copy had been left in a prominent place on the premises as required by s.16(7).
CA (Civ Div) (McCombe LJ, King LJ, Holroyde LJ)
25 March 2020
A judge had not erred when relying on the guidance in C (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure), Re  Fam. 76 in ordering disclosure to the police of documents filed in care proceedings related to severe brain injuries suffered by a nine-week-old child.
QBD (Elisabeth Laing J)
23 January 2020
A recorder had been correct not to strike out a negligence claim against a police force brought by the owner of cargo stolen from a lorry parked in a secluded lay-by at night while the driver was held at a police station on suspicion of drink driving. The possibility of a duty of care owed by the police was not precluded by statute, and there were no authorities that resolved the issue. The matter needed a full trial of the evidence.
QBD (Leeds) (Judge Kramer)
6 December 2019
Where the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) had concluded that there was a case to answer regarding misconduct complaints against a retired police superintendent, its findings were not invalidated by procedural defects in the notice served pursuant to the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 reg.16. However, the IOPC’s decision was quashed for irrationality because it had failed to identify police policies which were said to have been breached by the police’s failure to verify the accuracy of intelligence they had received before making arrests on the basis of it.
QBD (Admin) (Dingemans LJ, Chamberlain J)
6 November 2019
The Extinction Rebellion Autumn Uprising which took place at multiple sites in London between 7 and 19 October 2019 and which involved gatherings of protestors engaging in “disruptive actions” to challenge police resources and pressure the state into responding to their demands for change was not a “public assembly” within the Public Order Act 1986 s.14(1). Accordingly, the senior police officer designated to coordinate the police response to the Uprising had had no power to impose a condition under that provision. The court defined “public assembly” in s.14(1).
DC (Thirlwall LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Dove J)
30 October 2019
The independent adjudicator, to whom disciplinary charges against prisoners were referred, did not have an express or implied power to refer charges to the police. The regime for discipline in prisons was intended to operate separately from the criminal justice system, except where the governor referred charges to the police or where the charges related to very serious offences.
QBD (NI) (Keegan J)
14 October 2019
The court considered whether the policy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to review and retain a disruption notice breached the ECHR art.8. On analysis of the policy documentation, the retention period for the notice was 100 years or until the applicant turned 100, with no possibility of review and that breached the applicant’s Convention rights.
QBD (Admin) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Swift J)
4 September 2019
The current legal regime in the UK was adequate to ensure the appropriate and non-arbitrary use of automated facial recognition technology. A police force’s use of such technology in a pilot scheme was consistent with the requirements of human rights and data protection legislation and the public-sector equality duty.
QBD (Admin) (Flaux LJ, Sir Kenneth Parker)
14 August 2019
When determining whether misconduct proceedings should be brought against a police officer for the use of force, the applicable test for self-defence was the criminal law test, under which the officer only had to have had an honest belief that his life was in danger, and not the civil law test, which required that belief to have been objectively reasonable.