Thompson v Greater Manchester Police

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a supporter of a football club in The City, attended a match at the Etihad Stadium on 25 November 2014. Following an incident with match stewards, he was arrested by police officers on duty. During the arrest, he sustained a severe fracture to his left arm. The Appellant brought claims against the Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and negligence. The claims were tried in the High Court in Manchester over five days. By a reserved judgment dated 4 February 2019, a Deputy High Court judge dismissed all claims. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal against the dismissal of the assault and battery and negligence claims.

The trial judge made clear and thorough primary findings based on CCTV footage and witness evidence, which are not challenged on appeal. The incident began when the Appellant was asked by a steward to stop smoking an e-cigarette, contrary to club rules. He refused and behaved abusively, influenced by alcohol. Stewards decided to eject him, and police officers asked him to accompany them to another part of the stadium.

In the concourse, the Appellant learned he was to be ejected and likely banned from attending future matches. He became very angry. Two police officers, believing he might attack a steward, decided to arrest him. One officer, PC Wood, used a trained technique called an "entangled armlock and take-down" to immobilise the Appellant. The judge described the technique as involving bending the offender's elbow and bringing the arm behind the back while applying downward pressure to bring the person to the ground, keeping the elbow bent throughout.

During the arrest, the Appellant’s left arm straightened unexpectedly as PC Wood attempted the take-down, resulting in the arm being forced to the ground while hyperextended, causing severe fractures. The judge found that the injury resulted from the Appellant’s own resistance and movements during the arrest.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether PC Wood used reasonable and non-excessive force in effecting the arrest, relevant to the assault and battery claim.
2. Whether PC Wood breached a duty of care owed to the Appellant by failing to use an approved technique or by holding the Appellant’s arm in an extended position during the take-down, relevant to the negligence claim.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in law or gave inadequate reasons in dismissing the negligence and assault and battery claims.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge failed to properly apply the test for breach of duty of care and/or applied an incorrect test in dismissing the negligence claim.
• The judge failed to give adequate reasons for concluding that the Defendant was not negligent.
• The judge’s conclusion that there was no breach of duty was irrational and wrong in law based on his own findings of fact.
• In the alternative, the judge erred in dismissing the assault and battery claim, finding the force used reasonable despite the facts.
• The key issue was whether it was unreasonable for PC Wood not to abandon the take-down attempt or to adopt an alternative method (such as an arm strike) once the Appellant’s arm straightened.
• The judge did not expressly address whether continuing the take-down without adjusting technique was negligent.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the trial judge’s findings and reasoning. The judge had found that PC Wood initially applied reasonable force using a trained entangled armlock technique, with the Appellant’s arm bent as required. The Appellant’s arm straightened during the arrest due to his resistance and movement, causing the injury.

The court noted that the judge specifically considered whether PC Wood should have ceased the take-down attempt once the arm straightened or adopted an alternative technique. The judge concluded that, given the rapid escalation and split-second nature of the incident, it was not negligent for PC Wood to continue the take-down despite the arm’s position.

The court rejected the Appellant’s submission that the judge failed to address the critical question of whether continuing without an alternative technique was negligent. The court held that the judge’s question encompassed the reasonableness of continuing with the take-down and that the judge’s reasoning justified his conclusion. The judge’s assessment that perfect decision-making could not be expected in a fast-moving melee was endorsed.

The court also addressed the absence of findings on PC Wood’s awareness of the arm’s position at the crucial moment, concluding it was unrealistic to expect detailed findings of thought processes in such circumstances. The court found no error in the judge’s application of legal principles or his factual findings.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of the trial judge’s dismissal of the claims of assault and battery and negligence against the Chief Constable. The court expressed sympathy for the Appellant’s injury but emphasised that the injury was a consequence of his own conduct during the arrest. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.