Carter (Appellant) v Chief Constable of Essex Police (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0098

Parties

Appellant(s)

Matthew Carter

Respondent(s)

Chief Constable of Essex Police

Issue

Section 54(4)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) states that “clothes and personal effects may only be seized if the custody officer … believes that the person from whom they are seized may use them” to, among other things, cause physical injury to himself or another person. Does this provision require that the belief held by the custody officer is based on reasonable grounds?

Facts

On 14 December 2017, the Appellant was arrested after reports that he had assaulted two women at a pub. He denied the allegations, maintaining that he had been the victim of racial abuse. The prosecution decided not to proceed with the charges against him. This appeal concerns the Appellant’s treatment as a detainee in police custody. The Appellant was conveyed to Southend Police Station and placed in a holding cell. He was refused access to a toilet and urinated in his clothes. Twenty minutes later, he was brought to the custody desk in this state. He did not answer the pro forma risk assessment questions put to him by the custody officer, but sought to protest his innocence and his concern about missing his partner’s funeral the next day. As the Appellant was agitated and shouting, the police officers pushed him face down onto the custody desk. At one point, the Appellant stood and turned to his right, causing the police officers to believe that they were at risk of assault. Seven police officers forced him to the floor, struck him several times and restrained him with handcuffs and leg restraints. The Appellant bit the finger of one of the officers in the process. The custody officer, unable to risk assess him, authorised a strip search under section 54(4)(a) of PACE to change the Appellant into an anti-self-harm suit. The Appellant was taken to a cell in order for six police officers forcibly to remove all his clothes. He was restrained face down while his clothes were cut off him. He was left in a different cell with the anti-self-harm suit on the bench. There was a further altercation when the officers tried to make him release a glove which they inadvertently left in the cell. The Appellant remained in custody until the next evening. The Appellant brought proceedings against the Respondent, claiming assault and battery in respect of the various uses of force against him. At first instance, the Recorder held that the police officers had subjected him to a battery in respect of the forcible removal of his clothes only. The High Court allowed the Respondent’s appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. The Appellant now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of the proper interpretation of section 54(4)(a) of PACE.

Date of issue

13 June 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top