Kesar & Co Solicitors represents Mr Carter in a significant legal challenge concerning police powers and brutality in Carter v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2025] EWCA Civ 367 (UKSC/2025/0098).

In essence, the case turns on the proper interpretation of s54(4)(a) of PACE 1984, and whether objectively reasonable grounds to suspect clothing is going to be used for self-harm or harm of another are required before a custody officer can direct the forcible removal of such clothes from a detainee in a police station. Mr Carter was subjected to an irrevocably traumatic course of events – on the facts, he was taken to the ground, stripped naked and had his clothing, including a feather filled outer jacket, cut off him. The feathers impeded his breathing. 

Referring to the key statutory provisions, S. 54(4) provides:

“(4) Clothes and personal effects may only be seized if the custody officer

    a) believes that the person from whom they are seized may use them –

    i) to cause physical injury to himself or any other person;

    ii) to damage property;

    iii) to interfere with evidence; or

    iv) to assist him to escape; or

    b) has reasonable grounds for believing that they may be evidence relating to an offence.”

By s. 54(6) a non-intimate search may be carried out if the custody officer considers it necessary to enable them to carry out their duty under s. 54(1) and to the extent that the custody officer considers necessary for that purpose.

The central question of law on the appeal in the Court of Appeal was whether the custody officer’s relevant belief for the purpose of s.54(4)(a) must be not only genuine but also based on reasonable grounds.

Following trial in 2022, Recorder Dagnall (the recorder) held that to be the case. However, on appeal in 2024 in the High Court, Martin Spencer J (the appellate judge) disagreed, holding that genuine (relevant) belief on the part of the custody officer, whether reasonable or not, is all that is required. That conclusion was the subject of the first ground of appeal in the Court of Appeal.

There were also challenges to: i) the appellate judge’s reversal of the recorder’s findings, a) that the custody officer did not hold a reasonable belief that the person from whom the clothes were being seized might use them to cause physical injury to himself or any other person (ground 2) and b) that it was not necessary for police officers to have used the force that they did (ground 3);  ii) the appellate judge’s conclusion that the recorder’s assessment of damages was “too high” (ground 4).

The case was heard in the Court of Appeal with judgment handed down on 9 April 2025. The wider significance of the case and critical issues raised has led to our preparation of Mr Carter’s appeal to the Supreme Court (with the application for permission recently issued as UKSC/2025/0098), and adds to our firm’s ever-growing portfolio of significant CAPA work.

Mr Carter is represented by Counsel, Maya Sikand (KC) of Doughty Street Chambers, and Daniel Wand of 4 King’s Bench Walk.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0098