Stewart & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The final issue in this case is costs. The parties have provided detailed written submissions seeking all their costs or, in the alternative making small concessions.

After a trial lasting three weeks the jury’s findings were mixed in relation to each incident. Picking through each event to determine costs on the findings would achieve an imprecise result and take an enormous amount of time. All parties are publicly funded and any further minute analysis of every aspect of the case cannot be justified at the public’s expense.

The Claimants’ sought that the case be tried by a jury in the High Court on the issue, amongst others, of policing policy, that was not pursued. It was pleaded but never put to any witness that the Police had engaged in a campaign of harassment. It was not established that the search warrants had been obtained maliciously. Nor was it proved that the original incident was based on the dishonesty of an officer who lied about the reasons given for an arrest and dishonestly, alone or with others, attributed a wrap of cannabis taken from somewhere else to the second Claimant. The first Claimant failed in her claim for psychological damage and loss of earnings.

The Claimants succeeded on a number of points and these included a significant act of misconduct in the use of excessive force against a young man. Further, it was demonstrated that the system for the checking of material upon which the applications for search warrants was made was flawed. The concession that the arrest of the second Defendant in the mistaken but genuine belief that he was his elder brother was made late in the course of the hearing.

Each party has won and lost points on all incidents. The Claimants have failed to prove any degree of malice in the conduct of an individual officer or the Police Service. They have not proved the basis for the substantial sums sought for psychological damage.

The most efficient way in which to deal with the issue of costs and to avoid any greater use of public money is to take an approach based on proportion. That requires a balancing exercise. It will not be absolutely precise but it will attempt to meet the overriding objective.

The Defendant is to pay 35% of the Claimants’ costs following detailed assessment pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Community Legal Service (Funding) Order 2007, if not agreed. The Claimants are to pay 65% of the Defendant’s costs following detailed assessment, if not agreed. Interest at the rate of 2% on both awards is appropriate in the exercise of my discretion. I cannot see, on the facts of this case, that an interim order is required. The awards should be paid by 23^rd June 2017. The order should be drafted to reflect the sums of interest to be paid.