Weightmans were recently successful in securing a win at trial against a so called “police auditor” following his interaction with Metropolitan Police officers on 21 September 2021. Adam Clemens of 7 Bedford Row was instructed on behalf of the defendant.
Background
The claimant pursued a civil claim for false imprisonment, trespass to the person and property arising out of his stop and search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act on 21 September 2021. A call was made to the police by staff working for MI6 regarding a suspicious individual, who it transpired was the claimant, seen filming the entrance and exit points of an MI6 building in Vauxhall. The CAD was further updated stating that the male had since made several attempts to get through the gaps in the entrance gates. Two diplomatic protection group officers also arrived on the scene and told officers that the same male had been acting suspiciously and filming half an hour earlier outside the US Embassy.
Officers engaged with the claimant, who was evasive upon questioning, and detained him for a search under section 43 as they considered he was conducting hostile reconnaissance. Officers viewed the content of his phone as part of the search and believed the covert videos contained within would provide assistance to a person committing or preparing for an act of terrorism. As such the devices were seized and officers liaised with SO15 whilst at the scene. The claimant was released from the scene and on 23 September 2021 was telephoned to alert him that his property could be returned to him. The claimant, seemingly covertly, recorded this telephone conversation with an officer and posted it to his YouTube Channel.
The claimant averred that his detention for 19 minutes was unlawful as officers lacked the requisite, genuinely held reasonable suspicion that the claimant “was a terrorist”.
Differentiating this case from a number of other claims pursued by police auditors, this matter centered around covert filming, in the context of attempting to get through a gate into a prohibited area. The claimant was behaving in a very suspicious manner and was dressed in a way that concealed his identity. We noted that the informant working for MI6 was sufficiently concerned about the behaviour to call police and SO15 were sufficiently concerned to ask that his devices be seized. In addition, the national terror threat level at the time was “severe” with a terror attack “highly likely”.
Strategies deployed pre-trial
One of the strongest points of evidence we had on this case was that the incident took place very early in the police auditor phenomenon. Both officers gave good evidence in interview that they did not know what a police auditor was or did, at the time, in order to have an alternate suspicion that this is what he was doing instead of hostile reconnaissance. We were able to produce strong witness evidence on this basis about their reasonable suspicion.
We ensured that the defence was carefully pleaded to include a novel point of law that should the defendant have been unsuccessful on liability, the claimant’s damages should be restricted to nominal damages only on the basis that he deliberately engineers these encounters with police for financial gain through monetised social media content.
To support this point, Part 18 questions and specific disclosure requests were made to establish the claimant’s specific earnings for the videos arising out of the incident.
Given that no personal injury claim was pursued there was no QOCS protection was in place. This was another reason why robustly contesting the personal injury claim was worthwhile in claims of this nature. The hope was that if we could win at trial a costs order, that the claimant would be responsible for personally, and would act as a deterrent in bringing future claims against the defendant and indeed any police force.
Trial outcome
The trial proceeded on the 8 to 10 September 2025 despite being listed for four days.
The jury were asked two questions:
- Has the Commissioner satisfied you that it is more likely than not that at time of the detention [the detaining officer] honestly suspected the claimant as being a terrorist?
- Has the Commissioner satisfied you that it is more likely than not at the time of the seizure of the devices [the officer seizing goods] honestly suspected that the devices seized may contain evidence that the claimant was a terrorist?
The jury answered “yes” to both of these questions before counsel for the defendant sought judgment on whether the suspicion held was reasonable. HHJ Clarke held the suspicion was reasonably held meaning that the claimant’s claim was dismissed in full.
The court ordered that the claimant pay £28,000.00 on account of the defendant’s costs within 14 days with the remainder to be subject to detailed assessment.
Strategies post-trial and beyond
The claimant confirmed during cross examination that he earned around £150,000.00 a year from his videos on social media platforms around the time of this incident. Given his following had increased since then it may well be he is making even more money now. It is worth noting any concessions made in cross examination for the more prolific police auditors with such high viewer figures as it inevitably will impact the viability of costs recoveries.
Given the claimant’s case was dismissed outright there was no opportunity to test the novel point of law that might have arisen had the claim succeeded regarding nominal damages. We remain firmly of the view that this point should be pursued in all auditor cases. Should any further police auditor matters be run to trial this is an argument that should be raised in the defence and pursued to hopefully be tested at trial for a favourable judgment.
These cases are very fact specific and will depend on the strength of the cumulative factors building into suspicion for each individual detaining officer. However, we hope that this successful outcome will be known throughout the community and will act as a deterrent in future for the claimant and the police auditor community. Until such time as the growing trend of these claims has reduced, the above strategies can be deployed in order to best protect a defendant police force’s position.
Should you wish to discuss this case or any other issues that arise from police auditor cases please get in touch with your police contact within the police claims team at Weightmans LLP.
For guidance on any aspects of police auditor cases, please contact our expert emergency services solicitors.