Matthew Holdcroft, acting for the Cleveland police, successfully defends claims of false imprisonment and assault following the arrest of a suspected serial armed robber.

Matthew Holdcroft successfully defended the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police at Teesside County Court in the case of Accra v (1) Chief Constable of Cleveland Police (2) Chief Constable of Merseyside Police. The case illustrates good practice in information-sharing and briefing arresting officers where one force arrests a suspect based on intelligence provided by another force.

The Claimant’s arrest followed a spate of armed robberies targeting staff refilling supermarket ATMs across northern England. The investigation focused on the Merseyside area as vehicles used for the robberies were stolen there and discarded ATM cashboxes were found in the vicinity. The Claimant was identified as a suspect due to intelligence supplied by Merseyside Police, linking him to a local robbery with a similar target, as well as Efits and descriptions of the robbers. Merseyside Police arrested the Claimant based on a briefing by Cleveland Police officers. He was interviewed but released on bail without charge. The Claimant brought an action alleging there were insufficient grounds for arrest, that he was not informed of reasons for the arrest and that his restraint in handcuffs amounted to an assault.

The court found that the intelligence collected was sufficient to surmount the low threshold for reasonable suspicion with the greatest of ease. The Claimant’s contention that the Merseyside officers were merely complying with the instructions of Cleveland officers while carrying out the arrest was flatly rejected, as the briefing provided sufficient information for the arresting officers to form their reasonable suspicion independently. The judge further found that conveying the nature of the robberies, their dates and locations to the Claimant satisfied the requirements for a valid arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The judge rejected the Claimant’s contention that the use of handcuffs during his arrest and subsequent transportation from Liverpool to Teesside was not justified. The robberies involved the discharge of a firearm which rendered any suspect an extremely dangerous person.

The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendants’ costs to be assessed.

Matthew Holdcroft has extensive experience in civil claims alleging unlawful arrest, assault, malicious prosecution and misfeasance.