Facts
- Ashley was shot dead while in bed during an armed police raid on his house
- The Chief Constable admitted negligence in the shooting
- The son and father of the deceased bought claims for negligence, assault and battery
Issues
- Whether the requirements for self defence should be the same in tort law are they are in criminal law
- Whether the assault and battery claims could proceed to trial (vindicatory damages) on their own
Decision
- The requirements for self defence in tort are different to those in criminal law; in civil law, the belief of imminent danger need not be reasonably held, and may allow a pre-emptive attack
- There was no reason why the claims for assault and battery should not proceed
Reasoning
- Every person has the right not to be subjected to physical harm, this takes precedence over the reasonableness of that person’s belief of imminent danger
- An appeal may succeed just for the purpose of vindicating rights
- Lord Neuberger dissented on the second issue, suggesting that a public apology, 2 internal inquiries and acceptance of liability for damages was enough to outweigh the factors which would allow the claims to proceed
Citation
[2008] UKHL 25
