Yousif v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 June 2009, the Appellant was arrested by officers of the Metropolitan Police and taken to a central London police station. He was detained for just under 12 hours and subsequently bailed. The Appellant later complained about his treatment during detention to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and commenced civil proceedings on 14 June 2010. After a four-day trial, the claim was dismissed in its entirety by the trial judge on 14 November 2013. Leave to appeal was initially refused but later granted.

The civil action involved three complaints: the Appellant's treatment at arrest, treatment at the police station, and alleged loss of property. This appeal concerns only the second complaint relating to treatment at the police station, initially alleging assault, negligence, and breaches of Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), now pursued only in relation to assault and breaches of Articles 3 and 8.

The Appellant, an Iraqi national with a history of mistreatment and torture, suffers from physical injuries and mental health issues including personality disorder, paranoia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He has a history of criminal convictions and multiple arrests, including for common assault. The trial judge found the Appellant to be a volatile and angry individual, deliberately exaggerating vulnerability to manipulate police procedures.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the treatment of the Appellant at the police station constituted assault or unlawful use of force.
2. Whether the treatment amounted to a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
3. Whether the treatment breached Article 8 of the ECHR concerning respect for private life.
4. Whether procedural breaches, including failure to provide an appropriate adult and breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice, affected the legality of the treatment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant challenged the judge's rejection of his evidence but accepted the judge's assessment of his credibility.
• It was argued that the Appellant was vulnerable and should have been provided an appropriate adult during detention.
• The Appellant contended that breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice and associated guidance demonstrated violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
• It was submitted that the judge failed to properly consider breaches of the Code and the possibility that an appropriate adult could have mitigated the need for the strip search and subsequent treatment.
• The Appellant relied on recent European Court of Human Rights case law, particularly Bouyid v Belgium, to argue that the treatment was degrading and violated Article 3.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submitted that the police acted in good faith and with legitimate concern for the Appellant's safety.
• The decision to remove the Appellant's clothing was justified on the basis of risk assessment and was strictly necessary to prevent self-harm.
• The Respondent contended that breaches of the Code and guidance were not deliberate and did not invalidate the lawfulness of the police actions.
• It was argued that the Appellant's disruptive and deliberate behaviour justified the use of minimal force and the conditions of detention.
• The Respondent relied on the trial judge's credibility findings and detailed analysis of the evidence, including CCTV footage, to support the conclusion that there was no breach of Articles 3 or 8.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed factual review, relying heavily on the trial judge's credibility findings and assessment of the CCTV evidence. It accepted that the Appellant deliberately misbehaved to create an impression of vulnerability and to complicate police procedures. The court found the custody sergeant's decision to conduct a strip search and remove clothing was justified and necessary to prevent self-harm, given the Appellant's refusal to provide details about previous self-harm and his disruptive behaviour.

The court acknowledged breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice and associated guidance, including failure to call an appropriate adult and procedural irregularities during the strip search. However, these breaches were not deliberate and did not invalidate the police's good faith actions taken for safety reasons.

The court applied the principles from the European Court of Human Rights, particularly the threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3, emphasizing the necessity and proportionality of police actions. It distinguished the present case from Bouyid v Belgium, noting that unlike in Bouyid, the force used here was strictly necessary and not an unjustified abuse of power. The court accepted that the humiliation suffered was a consequence of the Appellant's own conduct and refusal to cooperate.

Regarding Article 8, the court found the interference with the Appellant's privacy was justified by the legitimate aim of protecting his health and safety in custody. The assault claim failed on the basis that the minimal force used to move the Appellant between cells was necessary and proportionate given his behaviour.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY.

The decision confirms that police actions taken in good faith to prevent self-harm in custody, including strip searches and use of minimal force, will not constitute breaches of Articles 3 or 8 of the ECHR if strictly necessary and proportionate. Procedural breaches of Codes of Practice, while relevant to the factual matrix, do not automatically establish unlawful treatment absent bad faith or disproportionality. This ruling reinforces the deference appellate courts must give to trial judges' credibility assessments and factual findings in cases involving complex detainee behaviour and police custody procedures. No new precedent was established beyond affirming established principles regarding the necessity and proportionality of police conduct in custody settings.