Police officers detained after son smacked win appeal over arrests

Two married police officers who were arrested after one of them smacked their teenage son have won a High Court battle over claims they were unlawfully detained.

The officers, who both serve with the Metropolitan Police, were arrested by Surrey Police in March 2019 after the wife gave her son what she described as a “light smack on the left cheek” after he misbehaved.

They sued Surrey Police after being told they would face no further action, claiming their detention was unlawful as it was unnecessary.

The couple, who have three children, had their claims dismissed following a trial last year and appealed against the decision at the High Court earlier this month.

In a ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Bourne overturned the decision.

He said: “In my judgment, on a proper analysis of the evidence at trial, the police did not show that there was an objective basis for the belief that it was necessary to arrest either claimant.”

The judge said in a 30-page ruling that at the time of the incident, the couple’s son, referred to as ABD, had “an unfortunate history of challenging behaviour” and had begun attending a youth centre to access mental health services.

The couple cancelled ABD’s birthday party in March 2019 after he misbehaved, causing him to go to his room, where he “kicked things around”.

This led his mother to smack her son while his father was asleep, which she said “was not hard and did not cause any injury or leave any mark”.

ABD attended a youth centre the following day and told staff that he had been assaulted by his mother and that his father had done nothing to stop it.

Despite offering to be interviewed voluntarily, both parents were arrested and detained for more than seven hours.

ABD returned to the family home the following day, with police deeming that the children were not at risk of harm and telling the couple that they would face no further action three days after their arrest.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Bourne said he was “unable to agree” with the trial judge’s finding that there was a “rational basis” for officers to conclude that voluntary interviews were not an option.

He said: “In the present case, no reason has been identified which actually explains why voluntary interviews were not a viable alternative.

“It follows that the arrests were unlawful and the claims should have succeeded.”

Additional reporting by PA Media.