Small claims - against the police?

JustAnotherSaver

Probably wont get anywhere since it's against the police.

I'm asking for someone who's a bit stumped as to how they go about this & don't really know where to begin to look for advice on how.

Basically they were out for a drive & had a passenger who had some marijuana on them. He wasn't smoking it in the car, he just had it on him. Not enough to be classified a dealer - just for personal use.

For the record - "he should learn to associate with different people" etc etc etc isn't really a helpful response. Nobody is more against drugs & smoking than myself, trust me.

But anyway...

Story a little shorter, they were approached by the police. My friends mate fessed up immediately. Said it was his, was nothing to do with my friend (the driver), he didn't have any, he doesn't even use the stuff himself & it was all his.

Police weren't interested. Arrested them both, powdered down the car & had the dogs inside it & had them both in overnight.

Not like you see from Pat & Carl talking about dealing with it at the roadside then :rotfl:

My friend had his phone taken from him to search for evidence of dealing. He co-operated fully - gave them the passcode etc as he had nothing to hide.

The case was after a few months, dropped against my friend as there was zero evidence against him.

Yet he had to wait for his phone. Constantly they didn't have it, couldn't release it, so on & so on.

Eventually they did & he had it picked up by a relative living near.

Gets his phone (iPhone - so sealed unit pretty much) & it doesn't turn on, wont charge, something rattles inside, the rear is cracked, the front has cracks on it, the screws have had their heads rounded off (so clearly they've opened up the phone).

He spoke with his solicitor who said it's a small claims court situation, but that they don't deal with that.

Serious replies please - how does he go about trying to claim for damages to his phone?

JustAnotherSaver

And if i picked the correct numbers on a Saturday i'd never have to work again.

And if the bloke in the papers recently crossed at a crossing instead of a few yards up, maybe he wouldn't have been hit by a car & ended up dead. Oh well, that'll teach him i guess?

If If If.............

Anyone care to reply with something actually helpful instead of pointing out the obvious?!



Oh & i couldn't find a more suitable forum really, that's why i put it in this section.

daytona0

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Anyone care to reply with something actually helpful instead of pointing out the obvious?!

Yes I've got one

Read this:

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

"You may be charged with possessing an illegal substance if you’re caught with drugs, whether they’re yours or not."

So that boxes off the 'the driver is innocent' line of reasoning....

As you've said this friend of yours gave them enough cause of concern as to investigate the possibility of drugs being dealt. This is also something they are entitled to do:

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

Sadly, a mobile phone is a good place to stash a small quantity of drugs and this is one of the places that they will check.

Ok so the bottom line is that this friend broke the law and got caught, had a lawful search carried out and sadly had the phone taken apart to check for a stash of drugs. So that's the bottom line for the court.

Where in that part did the police act negligently? Do you believe that the situation could have been avoided by not carrying weed? These are the questions a court may ask.

I don't fancy your chances in court.

On the bright side, the £90 fine they seemed to have dodged may well cover the cost to repair the phone

ThumbRemote

This site suggests you cant: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06627
(although talking about damage when entering a house, I would guess the same principle applies):
"statutory guidance states that compensation for such damage is “unlikely to be appropriate if the search was lawful, and the force used can be shown to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary to effect entry.” "

However these people may know more: http://www.beesleysolicitors.co.uk/civil-actions-against-police.htm
See under point 4, "damage caused to goods" is listed.

daytona0

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

And if i picked the correct numbers on a Saturday i'd never have to work again.

Haha how does that compare to a completely random lottery draw? Oh yea, I spin my 'weed wheel' every morning to decide whether or not I'm going to drive with a bag of weed into work.

And if the bloke in the papers recently crossed at a crossing instead of a few yards up, maybe he wouldn't have been hit by a car & ended up dead.


Oh well, that'll teach him i guess?

It is insanely more likely for you to get caught by the police with a bag of weed in the car than it is to die when next crossing the road. So what's your point?

If If If.............

If you spent less money on weed, you'd be healthier and a much less paranoid person (and maybe more money!). If you didn't carry weed in your car the police wouldn't take apart your phone. If If If......

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

Total rubbish

Have you even read the post? Do you even understand what you're posting?

The party in question was not caught with drugs. Which renders the whole of the rest of your post irrelevant.

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Have you even read the post? Do you even understand what you're posting?

The party in question was not caught with drugs. Which renders the whole of the rest of your post irrelevant.

Then what have I missed from:

OP wrote:

Basically they were out for a drive & had a passenger who had some marijuana on them. He wasn't smoking it in the car, he just had it on him. Not enough to be classified a dealer - just for personal use.

?

JustAnotherSaver

Well thanks for actually doing better than the previous poster.

To reply to a few things...

I probably should've just said "police took phone, police opened phone, phone wont work" because we seem to somehow be sticking on the non-fact that >i said< the driver is innocent.

I'll post you £10 if you can find where >i said< that the driver is innocent.

If however you just assumed that >i said< the driver was innocent ... well that's totally different.

The fact here is, people seem to have jumped to conclusions. Nobody here knows my stance on it yet people seem to be preaching to me? Have you any idea what i said to my friend over this? Unless you somehow know me, then no, you wont. But based on what's being put my way i'd say that surely it would surprise you, it would have to based on what is being put my way.


On a final note, i don't think £90 would cover repair of the screen, let alone the phone itself

JustAnotherSaver

daytona0 wrote: »

Haha how does that compare to a completely random lottery draw? Oh yea, I spin my 'weed wheel' every morning to decide whether or not I'm going to drive with a bag of weed into work.



It is insanely more likely for you to get caught by the police with a bag of weed in the car than it is to die when next crossing the road. So what's your point?



If you spent less money on weed, you'd be healthier and a much less paranoid person (and maybe more money!). If you didn't carry weed in your car the police wouldn't take apart your phone. If If If......

Hello....

do you have a problem reading??

You appear to.

Care for me to tell you why or have you sussed it yet?

marliepanda

Did the relative take photos as soon as he received the phone?

If not, good luck proving that it wasnt broken by the relative and was broken by the police.

Johnnytwostep

the driver is not innocent so you are wrong on that one. and on a final note he is a very naughty boy