Two married Police officer Who was arrested after one of them, his teenage son has won High court Fighting on claims he was illegally detained.
Officers who serve both Metropolitan PoliceWas arrested by Surrey police In March 2019, the wife gave her son to her son, which she described as a “light smack on the left cheek” after misbehaving.
He sued the Surrey police, as they would not take any other action, claiming that their custody was illegal as it was unnecessary.
The couple, who have three children, rejected their claims after a test last year and appealed against the verdict in the High Court earlier this month.
In a judgment on Monday, Mr. Justice Born overturned the verdict.
He said: “In my judgment, on a proper analysis of evidence in the test, the police did not show that it was a purpose to belief that it was necessary to arrest the claimant.”
The judge said in a 30-pest judgment that at the time of the incident, the couple’s son, was referred to as ABD, “an unfortunate history of challenging behavior” and began participating in a youth center to reach mental health services.
The couple canceled Abd’s birthday party in March 2019, as they misbehaved, going to their room where they “kicked things”.
This inspired his mother to smack her son, while her father was sleeping, which she said “was not difficult and had no injuries or left a mark”.
The next day Abd attended the Youth Center and told the employees that his mother had assaulted him and his father did nothing to stop it.
Despite voluntarily offering an interview, both parents were arrested and detained for more than seven hours.
The next day Abd returned home to the family, the police said that there was no danger of loss to the children and the couple had to tell that they would not take any other action three days after their arrest.
After a five -day test at the Guildford County Court, a judge rejected his legal claims, finding that the police “properly believed” that their arrest was necessary “to save a child or children from the person in question and to enable a quick and effective investigation”.
The judge also ordered the couple to pay 70 percent of the legal costs of the force.
At a hearing in London on July 2, the barristers for the couple told the High Court that the judge discovered that the arrests were “fairly appropriate” as both parents had offered a voluntary interview.
In his judgment, Mr. Justice Born said that he was “unable to agree” with the trial judge to conclude for the authorities that voluntary interviews were not an option.
He said: “In the current case, no reason has been identified which actually explains why voluntary interviews were not a viable option.”
He continued: “It does not mean that police officers are entitled to special treatment when they find themselves suspicious of a crime.
“But the police should assess the circumstances and make a rational decision whether a strong measures are required or not.”
He said: “It was not enough to refer to the need for safety of children and protect the integrity of the investigation and is not enough.
“It is as follows that the arrests were illegal and the claims should have been successful.”
