Legal System And Skills For Metropolitan Police: Laporte V The Commissioner Of The Police Of The Metropolis [2014] EWHC 3574

Facts and Legal Arguments in ‘Laporte v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 3574’

Describe about the Legal System and Skills for Metropolitan Police?

Cecily White and George Thomas represented the Metropolitan Police on 31 October 2014 in the famous case of  Laporte v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 3574. Justice Turner made the circumstances clear in which the police officials can support a body or an organization conducting a public meeting to restrict people from disturbing the meeting. In the case of Laporte v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2007], an interesting set of applications was introduced relating to breach of peace. The claimant was same, but this time, he was not successful[1].

The plaintiffs, in this case, were protestors. They protested against the reduction in the provision of local services. The plaintiffs entered the Haringey Civic Centre to attend a meeting; it was to be decided at this meeting about the budget of the local authority and the reasons that led to the reduction of the services in the local authority. The claimants stayed in the private area of the building where the meeting was being conducted. The claimants, along with ten other people gained access to the private area of the building[2]. They protested staying in the private area of the building. The Metropolitan Police, however, removed the protestors by force. The Police officials believed that the protestors breached peace while the meeting was going on. The Police Officials arrested the claimants for assaulting the police officials. According to the Police force, when they restricted the protestors from protesting, they assaulted them. However, it was held by the District Judge that the prosecution failed to prove breach of peace that happened at the time when the meeting was going on[3].

The claimants, on the other hand, filed a case against the Police officials on the following grounds:

Assault

False Imprisonment

Malicious Prosecution

Breach of freedom of expression

Violation of freedom to form assembly or associations

The claimants held that their rights were violated under Articles 10 and 11, of the European Council of Human Rights (ECHR). According to the protestors, the police had no lawful rights for physically removing them from the building[4].

The legal arguments presented in favor of the Police Officials are that the police officials acted in the execution of their duty. It was the duty of the Police Officials to protect the Haringey Council. Justice Turner held that they exercised their reasonable power as a police authority to prevent any nuisance happening at the time when the meeting was conducted. Additionally, it was also held that those people who attend meetings have the power to decide who shall be the attendees of the meeting. If the attendees do not behave in a prescribed manner, then they may be given the authority to remove the nuisance makers from the meeting. This power is enumerated in the Local Government Act, 1972, section 100. According to the given section, a person who holds disorderly conduct at a meeting can be excluded from the meeting by other attendees of the meeting. It is not necessary that there has to be an actual breach of peace, a trespasser can also be held liable for failure to fulfil peace[5]. 

Background Information

Turner J held that there was breach of peace in this case, and the breach continued even when the officials arrived at the area to curb the breach. However, it was also held by the same Judge that the Court might pass an order for intervention for the police officials when the violation takes place, rather in the case of Laporte, where the breach had not yet taken place. The claimants were merely part of the violation of peace but had not done anything illegal per se, while they held the intention to revolt. The behavior of the claimants gave enough power to the police officials to arrest them. It was further held that none of the claimants was subjected to perverse force while they were detained. Therefore, the protestors’ right to freedom of expression or freedom of form an assembly has not been violated[6].

To determine whether there was ongoing breach of peace or not, at the time when the police officials arrived at the Haringey Civic Center is to be identified in the light of a number of factors.  The event that happened at the time when the meeting was taking place was confusing. The building was crowded and to make proper assessment of the witnesses was difficult. There were differences in the witnesses that were produced. The local people were in favor of the claimants while the police witnesses were inclined towards justifying the actions of the police authorities. The police witnesses were overstating the seriousness of the condition that prevailed at the Civic Centre.  Emotions overruled the witnesses of both the parties than objectivity.  This made the profession of the Judge difficult[7].

The incident took place in the year 2011, and the claims reached the Court in the year 2014. By the time the allegations reached the court, it is expected that the witnesses will be more untrustworthy and unreliable due to the passage of time. The Court, however, invested a lot of time in cross-examining both the sides. The purpose of a trustworthy cross-examination was to establish a more reliable and trustworthy set of recollection of the incident. The Court finally concluded that the police authorities who acted in a resilient way were to protect them from disrupting the meeting. It was clear from the CCTV footage that the police authorities used more force than required to overcome the confrontation of the protestors. Mr. King was one of the protestors who attacked the corridor of the building[8]. According to Mr. King, the reason he invaded the building was to protect his fellow protestors against the police officers, who used unreasonable force to protect us from protesting. Esther, his daughter was also present at the time when the meeting was held. She also held a similar view like her father. Mr. Over, another protestor also held that he did not consider the use of force by the police reasonable.

Police officials and protestors

The people, who protested, demonstrated their witness in a way that seemed to be affected by emotions than objectivity. A situation like this is likely to contaminate the balance of a good decision.  On the other hand, the people who represented the police authorities were overstating the seriousness of the incident as compared to the protestors who understated it. 

The Court, however, held that the rights of freedom of the protestors had not been violated. It was significant in a democratic society to protect the equipment of local government from being brought to languish state by a disruptive conduct of the protestors[9].

Turner J referred to the decision that was made by the Court of Appeal in the in Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, in which the Court held that certain factors are to be considered when examining a refusal to connect in “Alternate Dispute Resolution” (ADR) were not justified. Lord Dyson in the mentioned case observed that if a party has refused to act reasonably in involving ADR must be warranted by the circumstances of the case. The following circumstances can be reviewed when a refusal to engage an ADR is questioned:

Nature of the dispute

The merits of the case

The attempts made by other settlement methods

The approximate cost of the ADR

The amount of time that ADR shall take to dispose of the case

The prospect of accomplishment[10].

Turner also referred to the case of PGF II SA v. OMFS Co, 2014. In this case, Justice Briggs held that it is unreasonable to refuse an invitation to participate in the Alternate Dispute Resolution. Another reference was made to the case of Dunnett v. Railtrack, in which the Court of Appeal made it clear that those people who refuse to accept mediation would be penalized with costs. The Court of Appeal, in the cases mentioned above, stated that if any person refuses to accept invitation to solve a matter through the “alternate dispute resolution,” then he or she has to justify his refusal in the light of the existing circumstances in the case[11].

Justice Turner applied the Halsey, PGF and Dunnett factors to the facts of the case:

Nature of the dispute:

Justice Turner refused to entertain the defendant’s arguments because ADR will not be able to address the legal point of action. The protestors would still have been successful in receiving damages even if they had lost in the law part.

Legal arguments presented

Merits of the Case:

The defendant, at first, agreed to engage in mediation “with an open mind”. However, on 2013 October, they refused to respond to a formal letter issued by the Court. In January 2014, they again agreed to meet the claimant in the mediation process “in an attempt to narrow the issues for tria[12]”

The attempts made for other settlement:

It was clear from Laporte case that the defendant did not attempt for other settlement methods.

The approximate cost of the ADR:

The defendant accepted that although the cost of the mediation would not have been high, however, the ultimate settlement of the matter would incur a significant amount of liability as far as the costs were concerned.

The amount of time that ADR shall take to dispose of the case: In the case of Halsey, a lot of time was spent on deciding the case. The first offer of mediation was made nearly a year ago.

The prospect of accomplishment:

The defendants, in this case, believed that they would not be ready to accept the financial offer of the claimants. Since they would refuse to accept the financial offer, ADR was not an appropriate way out. However, the Jude held that there was scope for success in mediation. The claim made by the defendant was not justified.

Justice Turner held that “the defendant’s failure fully and adequately to engage in the ADR process should be reflected in the costs order to make.” He prohibited one third of the costs after examination, knowing that they had been successful on all substantive matter.

Justice Turner faced many difficulties in deciding the Laporte case. While the witnesses on the side of the protestors were driven more by emotions than objectivity, the police officials were overstating the facts relating to the use of force. The incident took place about three and a half years ago before the Court made the claims. Therefore, it is expected out of the people that their recollection of the incident will fade with time. The claimant’s argument was not part of the earlier statements. If the statements were recorded in the year 2011 itself, then there were fewer chances of the declarations to be articulated. Therefore, with the passage of time the memories related to the incident have faded. Justice Turner noticed that much of the police officials who acted, as witnesses were not guided by their recollection of facts, they were dependent on other people’s opinion[13]. Their views were contaminated by the information received from other people[14].

Decisions reached

Additionally, other difficulties faced by Justice Turner was the assessment of the individual witness, assessment of the witness of the police officials, the evaluation of the conduct of the people who used force, assessment of the argument related to the use of unreasonable force and evaluation of other witnesses[15].

Reference List:

Bingham, Terry, and Susan Majka. Legal Writing for Legal Professionals. Prentice Hall, 2016.

Channing, Iain. The Police and the Expansion of Public Order Law in Britain, 1829-2014. Routledge, 2015.

Edwards, Linda H. Legal Writing: Process, Analysis, and Organization. Aspen Law & Bus., 2014.

Garner, Bryan A. Legal Writing in Plain English: A text with exercises. University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Herring, David J., and Collin Lynch. “Teaching Skills of Legal Analysis: Does the Emperor Have Any Clothes?.” (2013).

Keene, Sherri Lee. “One Small Step for Legal Writing, One Giant Leap for Legal Education: Making the Case for More Writing Opportunities in the’Practice-Ready’Law School Curriculum.” Mercer Law Review 65 (2014): 467.

Kruse, Katherine R. “Legal Education and Professional Skills: Myths and Misconceptions About Theory and Practice.” McGeorge Law Review 45 (2013): 7.

Lamparello, Adam, and Charles E. MacLean. “Proposal to the ABA: Integrating Legal Writing and Experimental Learning into a Required Six-Semester Curriculem That Trains Students in Core Competencies, Soft Skills, and Real-World Judgment, A.” Cap. UL Rev. 43 (2015): 59.

Lebovits, Gerald. “Legal Writing in the Practice-Ready Law School.” Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Legal Writing in the Practice-Ready Law School85 (2013).

Mika, Karin. “A Third Semester of LRW: Why Teaching Transactional Skills and Problems is Now Essential to the Legal Writing Curriculum.” The Second Draft The Official Magazine of the Legal Writing Institute 27.2 (2013): 8-9.

Payne, Sue, et al. “Skills is Not a Dirty Word: Identifying and Teaching Transactional Law Competencies.” Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law 15.3 (2014): 7.

Rankin, Sara K., Lisa Brodoff, and Mary Nicol Bowman. “We Have a Dream: Integrating Skills Courses and Public Interest Work in the First Year of Law School (and Beyond).” Chap. L. Rev. 17 (2013): 89.

Schultz, Nancy. “Integrated Curriculum of the Future: Integrating First-Year Legal Writing with Other Lawyering Skills, The.” Elon L. Rev. 7 (2015): 405.

Thomson, David IC. “Skills & Values, Lawyering Process: Legal Writing and Advocacy.” Skills & Values, Lawyering Process: Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy by David IC Thomson, LexisNexis, Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., and Matthew Bender & Company, Inc (2013): 13-32.

Turner, Tracy L. “Diversifying the First-Year Skills Coverage by Creating Three Separate Tracks for 1Ls.” Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing 22.2 (2014).

Subsequent cost hearing

Vorenberg, Amy. “Preparing for Practice: Legal Analysis and Writing in Law School’s First Year.” (2015).

[1] Channing, Iain. The Police and the Expansion of Public Order Law in Britain, 1829-2014. Routledge, 2015.

[2] Herring, David J., and Collin Lynch. “Teaching Skills of Legal Analysis: Does the Emperor Have Any Clothes?.” (2013).

[3] Edwards, Linda H. Legal Writing: Process, Analysis, and Organization. Aspen Law & Bus., 2014.

[4] Kruse, Katherine R. “Legal Education and Professional Skills: Myths and Misconceptions About Theory and Practice.” McGeorge Law Review 45 (2013): 7.

[5] Keene, Sherri Lee. “One Small Step for Legal Writing, One Giant Leap for Legal Education: Making the Case for More Writing Opportunities in the’Practice-Ready’Law School Curriculum.” Mercer Law Review 65 (2014): 467.

[6] Thomson, David IC. “Skills & Values, Lawyering Process: Legal Writing and Advocacy.” Skills & Values, Lawyering Process: Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy by David IC Thomson, LexisNexis, Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., and Matthew Bender & Company, Inc (2013): 13-32.

[7] Bingham, Terry, and Susan Majka. Legal Writing for Legal Professionals. Prentice Hall, 2016.

[8] Rankin, Sara K., Lisa Brodoff, and Mary Nicol Bowman. “We Have a Dream: Integrating Skills Courses and Public Interest Work in the First Year of Law School (and Beyond).” Chap. L. Rev. 17 (2013): 89.

[9] Lamparello, Adam, and Charles E. MacLean. “Proposal to the ABA: Integrating Legal Writing and Experimental Learning into a Required Six-Semester Curriculem That Trains Students in Core Competencies, Soft Skills, and Real-World Judgment, A.” Cap. UL Rev. 43 (2015): 59.

[10] Mika, Karin. “A Third Semester of LRW: Why Teaching Transactional Skills and Problems is Now Essential to the Legal Writing Curriculum.” The Second Draft The Official Magazine of the Legal Writing Institute 27.2 (2013): 8-9.

[11] Mika, Karin. “A Third Semester of LRW: Why Teaching Transactional Skills and Problems is Now Essential to the Legal Writing Curriculum.” The Second Draft The Official Magazine of the Legal Writing Institute 27.2 (2013): 8-9.

[12] Payne, Sue, et al. “Skills is Not a Dirty Word: Identifying and Teaching Transactional Law Competencies.” Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law 15.3 (2014): 7.

[13] Turner, Tracy L. “Diversifying the First-Year Skills Coverage by Creating Three Separate Tracks for 1Ls.” Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing 22.2 (2014).

[14] Mika, Karin. “A Third Semester of LRW: Why Teaching Transactional Skills and Problems is Now Essential to the Legal Writing Curriculum.” The Second Draft The Official Magazine of the Legal Writing Institute 27.2 (2013): 8-9.

[15] Herring, David J., and Collin Lynch. “Teaching Skills of Legal Analysis: Does the Emperor Have Any Clothes?.” (2013).