PC injured by man on the run from police awarded damages for control room reporting error

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC EDIN 81
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Iain W Nicol

Mark Card sought reparations against the Chief Constable of Police Scotland on the basis of the negligent actions of two employees of the defender, a PC in the area control room in Dundee and the on-duty firearms commander, and a failure to provide a safe system of work. Quantum was agreed at £350,000 subject to findings in respect of liability and contributory negligence.

The case was heard by Sheriff Iain Nicol in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court at Edinburgh. Middleton KC and Brownlee, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Hastie, advocate, for the defender.

Repeatedly punched

On 4 May 2019, the pursuer was a serving police constable and attended at an address where an individual who had escaped police custody earlier, C, was said to be present with a knife. The pursuer and other PCs, including a canine unit, took up position in order to enter the property and were informed that C was upstairs in a bedroom. The pursuer went upstairs first and entered the bedroom where C was sitting with an unidentified object in his hands.

When the pursuer shouted for C to show his hands C got up and threw the object he was holding towards him. C then landed on him and repeatedly punched him on the head and body. C was eventually arrested after the police dog bit him on the leg, at which point he was able to be handcuffed and arrested. At the point when C escaped police custody, it was erroneously recorded in the STORM log by PC Allan Irvine, who worked at the time in the Area Control Room in Dundee, that C was in handcuffs.

After making the entry in the STORM log, PC Irvine tagged the incident for consideration by the duty officer, CI Wilson, who also performed the role of Initial Tactical Firearms Commander. Based largely on the erroneous information that C was in handcuffs, she opted not to deploy AFOs. She confirmed in evidence that if she had been aware that C was not in handcuffs, further enquiries would have been made.

In respect of contributory negligence, the pursuer’s conduct was criticised on a number of fronts. These included that he had failed to advise PC Irvine in the control room that he and the other officers were going into the property and that he was entering an enclosed space with C. In addition, he did not act in accordance with the “stay safe” guidance previously issued to officers and did not contain the locus and await the arrival of other officers to assist.

If he had stopped and thought

In his decision, Sheriff Nicol said of the decision not to deploy AFOs: “The court has to answer this based on what CI Wilson is likely to have done as opposed to what a ‘reasonable’ ITFC would have done. The question requires to be answered based on what she ought to have known. It is clear to me that CI Wilson placed great emphasis on the fact she believed C to be handcuffed. She argued that other factors played a part in her decision not to deploy and whilst the overall picture, based on the information available at 23:07, justified a decision not to deploy, I cannot accept her position that would have remained the case.”

He added: “CI Wilson was not provided with the information which she required because of the failures on the part of PC Irvine as previously outlined. Throughout, she was under the impression, through no fault of her own, that C remained handcuffed. She therefore cannot be criticised. However, the failures on the part of PC Irvine have had a direct effect on the ITFC’s decision making and have led to the wrong decision being made with regard to deployment of AFOs.”

Considering contributory negligence, Sheriff Nicol said: “Throughout the proof, it was argued that the threat level was high. He knew or ought to have known that. The pursuer did not give adequate consideration to options other than getting into the property to arrest C then and there. He could and should have contained the property by remaining outside. He could and should have attempted dialogue with C to establish if he was going to ‘come quietly’. He could and should have updated control and asked for further instructions on how to proceed. There was no pressing need to depart from his training.”

He concluded: “This is not a case of carelessness or momentary inadvertence. The pursuer had an aim and that was to ‘remove C from society so he would no longer pose a threat.’ However, he went about it by ignoring well established practice and procedure. I stop short from holding that he was guilty of the most wanton disregard for his own safety, but if he had simply stopped and thought about his training and drew on his vast experience he would have known he should be communicating with control and remaining outside the property. In my opinion a just and equitable deduction for contributory negligence is 40%.”

The sheriff therefore granted decree against the defender for payment to the pursuer in the sum of £210,000, reduced by 40 per cent from the agreed quantum.