Topic Davidson V Chief Constable of North Wales [1994]

Student’s Name 1. Muhammad Zaffrinizam Bin M.Norizam (213049)

2. Muhammad Najib Bin Badrul Hisham (212867)
3. Mohammad Hafizuddin Bin Mohammad Rozi (211948)

Course Code LSC0144

Lecturer’s Madam Humaiyah

Name

Section 309
1. CITATION OF THE CASE

The citation of this case is Davidson V Chief Constable of North Wales [1994] 2 All ER

597; [1994] CLY 4280

2. LEGAL ISSUE(S) AND ARE OF LAW

The very first point for the court was whether the store detective, Mrs. Yates, is

responsible in law for what the police did, namely arresting and detaining the plaintiffs.

Secondly, Whether there was information properly to be considered by the jury as to

which is what Mrs. Yates did went beyond laying information before police officers for

them to take such action as they thought fit and amounted to some direction, or procuring,

or direct request, or direct encouragement that they should act by way of arresting the

defendants. The area of law involved in this case is trespass to person under false

imprisonment where the legal issue that occurs in this case is whether the act of informing

a third party, foreseeing that they might detain the claimant amounts to false

imprisonment.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

H, the plaintiff's companion, went to a store and bought a cassette, then returned to the

cassette counter where the plaintiff was waiting. Before leaving the store, they stood there

chatting. After observing them standing at the cassette counter, a store detective assumed
 they had left without paying for the cassette and called the police. When the two cops

arrived, the store detective informed them that the plaintiff had taken the cassette without

paying for it and pointed them out. The plaintiff and H were detained by the cops on

suspicion of shoplifting. H denied stealing anything and supplied the cassette, but he

couldn't produce the receipt since he had thrown it away. The plaintiff stayed deafeningly

silent during the proceedings. The plaintiff and H were arrested and taken to the police

station, but were released two hours later after the police got a message from the store

clerk who had treated H confirming that he had purchased the cassette. The plaintiff sued

the store detective's employers for false imprisonment, among other things. The police

officers testified at the hearing of the case that they used their own judgment in detaining

the plaintiff and H based on information obtained from the shop detective. The court

dismissed the case from the jury, claiming that the police officers were protected by

section 24(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 since they had reasonable

grounds to make the arrest and had acted independently of the store detective. The

plaintiff made an application for a reversal of the decision.

4. DECISION MADE BY THE COURT

The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendants. The security guard had merely

given the police information, which the police acted on using their own initiative. This

was not an act of detention by the store detective. the exercise of the officer’s own

discretion means that the defendant’s act of supplying the information would lack the

necessary directness. To be liable the person, in line with general principles, would need

to have been an instigator,

promoter or active inciter of the act leading to the confinement to the extent that the police

exercised no

discretion on the matter and thus were merely the agents of the informant.

5. 4 LEGAL TERMINOLOGIES

● False Imprisonment : the act of restraining a person against his/her will in a

bounded area without any justification.

● Solicitor : a lawyer who gives legal advice, prepares legal documents and cases,

and represents clients in the lower courts of law.

● Pertinent : relevant Evidence is called “pertinent” when it is directed to the issue

or matters in dispute, aud legitimately tends to prove the allegations of the party

offering it.

● Bona Fide : this refers to an individual's position under the law that is based in

good faith without notice of fraud with regards to a particular transaction or with

regards to the authenticity of a particular document.