Judgment clarifies police duties on warnings and custody procedures
Ben Forster, 26, has secured substantial damages after successfully bringing claims against Hampshire Police following an incident in 2020 when he was bitten by a police dog.
What happened to Ben?
In 2020, Ben was mistakenly identified as the driver of a vehicle that was believed to be stolen and involved in fleeing petrol stations without paying. During this interaction, he was bitten by a police dog.
Following the incident, Ben was arrested and detained at Southampton Central Police Station for approximately 11 hours.
He suffered significant physical injuries for which he received medical treatment at hospital, permanent scarring to his leg, and he was later diagnosed with PTSD.
How did the trial progress?
Ben turned to Irwin Mitchell to seek justice for what he had been through and to make sure others did not face the same experience. He was represented by Senior Associate Andrew Arthur, alongside Paralegal Lawrence Jellicoe-Smith and Solicitor Camilla Burton.
As part of our investigation, we obtained psychiatric evidence from two experts, prepared witness statements, reviewed body worn video and police interview transcripts, prepared maps of the area showing distances between the police officers and police dog handler, and the claimants and witnesses at the time of the incident
The matter proceeded to an 8-day trial before His Honour Judge Glen in Winchester County Court. Ben pursued claims in the tort of negligence, assault, breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998, breach of the Animals Act 1971, and false imprisonment.
The key issues before the court included whether Ben matched the description of the suspect, whether his detention had been lawfully reviewed and whether he had been released promptly once the decision to release him had been made. One central issue surrounded whether the police dog handler had given a sufficiently clear warning that a police dog would be deployed and that there was a risk of injury.
Witnesses gave evidence on behalf of both parties. During the trial, the police officer responsible for the dog demonstrated the warning he said had been given to Ben before the dog was released. The jury were specifically asked whether that warning was clear and adequate to alert Ben to the risk of being bitten.
The jury returned a unanimous verdict on the issue of the dog bite and so he succeeded in his claims under the Animals Act, negligence and assault.
Ben was awarded £50,000 at trial.
Client comment
Reflecting on his experience with Irwin Mitchell, Ben commented,
"Andrew, Lawrence and the team made the experience as stress free as possible and were with me every step of the way. They also made my family feel comfortable and reassured throughout the whole process and I couldn't have asked for more from any of them.
Exceptional legal team who helped me get the outcome I was hoping for."
Importance of the judgment for police dog handlers
The judgment provides important guidance on the deployment of police dogs.
The court made it clear that police dog handlers must provide a clear and audible warning that a suspect risks being bitten or injured if they do not comply. In often fast-moving and confusing circumstances, a person cannot reasonably be expected to know whether a police dog has been trained to simply locate and bark at the suspect or to bite and detain them. A clear warning is therefore essential.
This approach is consistent with Hampshire Police's own ACPO Police Dog Manual Guidance, which states:
"Police dogs can cause serious injury and officers must be aware of the duty of care that they have to any person to whom their dog has caused injury."
The manual also notes that dogs with a history linked to sporting and gun dog breeds tend to display the characteristics required for operational policing.
The guidance further recognises the police's positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, whereby it states that:
"It is recognised from the European Convention on Human Rights that the responsibilities of the police extend not only to taking positive action to protect those rights and freedoms but also includes a failure to act or take steps to protect them."
Authorisation and review of detention by custody officers
The case also highlights the importance of strict compliance with detention review requirements under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. Although his claim for false imprisonment arising from alleged unlawful arrest was not successful, he did succeed in false imprisonment for periods the court identified from breaches of PACE 1984.
Firstly, the court found that one of the periods of his detention amounted to false imprisonment because the required detention review was not carried out on time, a point which was conceded by the Defendant. HHJ Glen noted that:
"Any period of detention without a review as required by legislation amounts to a false imprisonment, and it is not correct to argue that because at some later stage the detention was authorised that the false imprisonment is allowed."
Secondly, once the decision had been made to take no further action and release Ben, he remained in custody longer than was necessary, which amounted to a further false imprisonment.
Contact Us
We are here to help you understand your rights and the support you need. Complete our enquiry form and one of our experts will contact you by the next working day.
Alternatively, you can call us now
Our opening hours are Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm (Excluding Public Holidays).
Call us free on 0370 1500 100
