Sheriff Appeal Court finds sheriff correct to award chief constable expenses of failed personal injury claim for handcuff over-tightening

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SAC (Civ) 32
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal Andrew Miller

Dr Martin Jones had sought damages of £5,000 for minor bruising to his wrists allegedly caused by an officer over-tightening his handcuffs when he was arrested at Aberdeen Airport in May 2022. The sheriff granted decree of absolvitor in November 2025, which the pursuer did not challenge. The appeal was made against the sheriff’s decision that he had acted unreasonably during proceedings and therefore qualified one-way cost shifting was to be disapplied.

The appeal was heard in the Sheriff Appeal Court by Sheriff Principal Andrew Miller, with the appellant representing himself and the respondent represented by Cartney, solicitor.

Threatening and abusive behaviour

The circumstances of the appellant’s arrest were that on the evening of 16 May 2022, two uniformed offers based at Aberdeen Airport found a number of cars, including the appellant’s, parked within a restricted area within the grounds, apparently in breach of the airport’s byelaws. As the airport was subject to a heightened level of security at the time, the officers signalled to the drivers to leave the car park, which all of them did except the appellant, who was there waiting for his son. One of the officers, PC Duthie, approached the appellant’s car and asked him to leave the car park. However, he did not do so, instead stopping at a point close to the exit.

There then followed an interaction between the appellant and PC Duthie, during which the sheriff found that Dr Jones was obstructive and confrontational, arguing with the officer about whether the byelaws applied to the car park and refusing to provide his details, as he was obliged to do. PC Duthie reached into his car and removed the keys to prevent him from driving off before his identity could be confirmed, after which the appellant grabbed his arm and refused to let go. During this period, Dr Jones’ son arrived and began shouting at the officers and filming the incident. PC Duthie arrested the appellant for behaving in a threatening and abusive manner and handcuffed him. He was later released without charge.

In his statement of claim, the appellant narrated a number of allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the officers and asserted that PC Duthie’s actions had no legal basis as the byelaws did not apply to the car park. He also relied on a statement from the airport’s head of security which in fact confirmed that the byelaws did apply. The sheriff was satisfied that the only aggressive behaviour during the incident came from Dr Jones and his son and that PC Duthie was justified in arresting him for threatening and abusive behaviour. The sheriff also considered that the video images that he chose to play in support of his case in fact completely undermined it, and his minor bruising did not amount to an actionable injury. In the circumstances, she considered that QOCS could be disapplied.

The appellant submitted that he had decided to pursue the case without legal representation because he regarded it as a simple personal injury claim, and the sole argument he had wanted to make was not that the police officers behaved unlawfully but that the handcuffs had been applied too tightly. He was not able to explain why his written statement of claim had included wider allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the police officers which had ultimately not formed any part of his evidence at proof, other than to describe them as matters of context.

Risked adverse award

In his decision, Sheriff Principal Miller first noted the high bar of the manifestly unreasonable test, and then said: “It is clear from the sheriff’s judgment and stated case that she considered that the allegations made by Dr Jones against the police officers in his written statement of claim were wholly unfounded, and that she was able to reach her decision with regard to the merits of his claim not because she preferred the evidence of PC Duthie (which she did), but on the basis of Dr Jones’s own evidence. This included the video images recorded by Dr Jones’s son and Dr Jones’s confirmation that he accepted the truth of passages from a statement given by PC Duthie, all of which completely undermined his case.”

He added: “Apparent deficiencies in Dr Jones’s case had been identified to him by Ms Cartney and by a sheriff well in advance of the proof. A sheriff had warned him during a hearing on 20 December 2024 that he risked an adverse award of expenses (a warning recorded in a note to the interlocutor). The same issue had apparently been raised with him by Ms Cartney during the procedure prior to proof. However, although he was fully entitled to present his own case without legal representation, he had taken no steps to address the deficiencies in his case, whether by seeking legal advice or otherwise.”

Considering the nature of the appellant’s case the Sheriff Principal said: “The mere fact that Dr Jones’s case rested on allegations against police officers in the course of their duties does not of itself engage any particular issues in the context of QOCS protection, but in my view it was legitimate for the sheriff to consider this factor as part of her assessment of the relevant issues, having regard to the impact which allegations of that nature can have on the officers concerned and the fact that the sheriff found Dr Jones’s allegations against the officers to be unsupported even by his own evidence. The sheriff heard evidence from PC Duthie about the stress which Dr Jones’s allegations had caused him over a prolonged period.”

He concluded on the expenses of the appeal itself: “In the particular circumstances of this case, having regard to the clear and compelling reasons given by the sheriff for her decision to remove QOCS protection, the absence of any challenge from Dr Jones to the factors identified by the sheriff as a basis for her decision and the absence of any arguable basis for Dr Jones’s appeal against that decision, there is nothing about the circumstances of the appeal, or the arguments presented in support of it, which would require this court to view the appeal in a different light from the first instance proceedings, so far as the issue of QOCS protection is concerned.”

The appeal was therefore refused, with the appellant liable to the chief constable for the expenses of the appeal in addition to the earlier proceedings.